020795 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1995
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p.m.
*4.2
5.1
5.2
7.2
7.3
10.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CONSENT ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case 95-01 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Commercial
Recreation Facility (Karate School) at Winnetka Center, 4441
Winnetka Avenue North, Winnetka Associates/Samuel Morris d/b/a
Taekwondo USA, Petitioners.
Case 95-02
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Convenience
Food/Gourmet Coffee Shop/Deli at Midland Shopping Center, 2737
Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Richard
Forpahl, Petitioners.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report of Design and Review Committee
Report of Codes and Standards Committee
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
Review of Planning Commission Minutes of January 3, 1995.
Review of City Council Minutes of December 12, 1994, and January 9, 1995.
Review of EDA Minutes of December 12, 1994, and January 9, 1995.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
* Petitioners are requested to be in attendance.
-il: ~
FEBRUARY
PLANNING
CASES
PC 95-01
4441 Winnetka
PC 95-02
2737 Winnetka
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
95-01
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Commercial Recreational
Facility (Karate School) at Winnetka Center
4441 Winnetka Avenue North
PID No:
18-118-21-11-0018
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
B-4, Community Business
Winnetka Associates/Samuel Morris d/b/a Taekwondo USA
February 1, 1995
February 7, 1995
BACKGROUND
The petitioners are requesting a conditional use permit to allow a cOmmercial recreational
facility (karate school) at Winnetka Center, pursuant to Section 4.134(6) of the New Hope
Zoning Code.
The petitioner is proposing to open a Taekwondo USA/Karate For Kids school at Winnetka
Shopping Center. The petitioner states on the application that the purpose of the school is to
teach karate to children and adults in the New Hope area.
The school would be located in the vacant tenant space addressed as 4441 Winnetka Avenue
North, which is four spaces south of the Winnetka Super Value Store. The space is 100 feet
deep and 19 feet wide and contains 1900 square feet.
The shopping center is zoned as a B-4, Community Business, Zoning District. Surrounding
land uses and zoning include R-1 single family homes and R-4 apartments across Winnetka
Avenue to the east; B-4, Community Business, District (New Hope Mall) to the south; B-4,
Community Business, District (K-Mart) and R-5 senior and disability housing to the west; and
R-4 apartments and ponding area to the north.
In the 1978 Comprehensive Plan, this area was included in Planning District #17 and referred
to as the City Center District. Much has been stated and recommended for upgrades and focus
on this entire City Center area and some changes have occurred with significant redevelopment
on a good portion of the properties included in this Planning District. This particular portion
of the City Center was termed the "retail and financial center" in the Comprehensive Plan, while
the southeastern portion was called the "entertainment and recreation center". Commercial
recreation has been expanding on various properties, including this retail and financial center
where the US Swim and Fitness is located, and other inquiries have been made including this
request for a karate-type school. The proposed use is consistent with New Hope's
Comprehensive Plan language.
Planning Case Report 95-01
2 February 7, 1995
o
The zoning history for the site is as follows:
1956: Zoned residential.
1961: All but the northern half of the site was zoned retail/business.
1966: The entire property was zoned retail business. That term was changed in our
1979 codification to B-4 Community Business District, which it remains
today.
7. The shopping center use was approved as a PUD and parking was based on a variety of tenant
uses. The center has ample parking spaces and exceeds the ordinance criteria for the site.
8. The topography of the site is flat and the plantings are minimal.
9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no
comments on this request.
ANALYSIS
The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally
permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the
general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the
conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or
buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises
or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any
adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for
consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and
safety.
2. Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a
conditional use permit include:
A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific
policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official
Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City.
B. Compatibility_. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses.
C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance
standards contained in the Code.
D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the
area in which it is proposed.
E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP
meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts:
In Business Districts (B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4):
a. Traffic. The proposed use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
b. Nearby Residences. Adjacent residentially zoned land will not be
adversely affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or other
nuisance characteristics.
Planning Case Report 95-01
3 February 7, 1995
Co
Effect on Other Businesses. Existing businesses nearby will not be
adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought
about by intrusion of unduly heavy non-shopping traffic or general
unsightliness.
The City Code defines "commercial recreation" as a "bowling alley, golf, pool hall, dance hall,
skating, trampoline and similar uses" and the City Attorney and staff have determined that a
karate school is a use similar to those described in the definition.
As you are aware, in November, 1994, the City Council approved a six-month moratorium on
the location of any pool or billiard center or any other commercial recreational facility with more
than two pool/billiard tables. The moratorium is not applicable to the type of commercial
recreational facility being requested in this application.
Commercial recreational facilities are allowed by conditional use in the B-4 Zoning District,
provided that the following conditions are met:
A. Access. The site of the proposed use has direct access to an arterial street as defined in the
City Code, without utilizing public streets of a lower traffic handling classification to reach
the arterial street.
B. Proximity to Residential. The outside perimeter of the site, as legally described, is 150
feet or more from the boundary of a residential zoning classification.
C. Compatibility. The primary recreational facilities are enclosed such that the architectural
appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the
existing buildings or areas as to cause impairment to property values or constitute a blighting
influence.
D. Screening from Residential. Parking areas shall be screened from view of residential
districts and shall be curbed with continuous concrete curbs not less than six inches high
above the parking lot or driveway grade, at the curb line.
E. Access. Vehicular access points shall be limited and designed and constructed to create a
minimum of conflict with through traffic movement.
F. Lighting Shielded. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not
visible from the right-of-way or from a residential zone or use.
G. Surfacing. The entire area other than that occupied by buildings, structures or plantings
shall be surfaced with bituminous or concrete material which will control dust and drainage.
The material and grading shall be subject to the approval of the City.
Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided and the type of planting material and the
number and size of plants shall be subject to the approval of the City.
Staff f'mds that all of the above requirements are met. This property meets all access
requirements, as it is located on one arterial and one collector level street. The outside perimeter
of the shopping center site is not located 150 feet from the boundary of a residential zoning
district, but the facility is enclosed and the architectural appearance of the building will not be
affected by this interior use and no problems are anticipated. The parking lot is surfaced and the
lighting is consistent with ordinance standards. Screening and landscaping could be improved
Planning Case Report 95-01
4 February 7, 1995
and the City is currently coordinating with the property owner on this subject as part of the 42nd
Avenue/Winnetlm Avenue Landscape/Maintenance Improvement Project.
7. Staff considers this a routine request and the Design & Review Committee did not meet with the
petitioner, per staff's recommendation, due to the simple nature of the request.
o
Per the petitioner's letter, the primary purpose of the business is to teach the technique and
philosophy of Taekwondo. The American Taekwondo Association defines Taekwondo as a
martial art that teaches people both physically and mentally. The Karate For Kids program is
designed to teach children ages 3 - 15, and they are split into groups according to age and belt
rank. The student/instructor ratio is 20:1. Class times will be from 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon on Saturday. Classes for young ages are
30 minutes in length and classes for high belt level students and adults last 45 minutes. The
petitioner will instruct all classes.
The petitioner indicated that Taekwondo USA is a national franchise and that he currently
operates a similar facility in St. Paul with 80 students. He anticipates 240 students in the New
Hope area.
10.
The plans that were submitted are not very detailed but indicate one large workout space in the
front 75 feet of the existing vacant store and two changing rooms, an office and an existing
restroom in the rear portion of the space. The restroom would be accessible to both employees
and customers. The 10-foot wide area near the stores entrance would be a tiled floor and would
accommodate parents watching or waiting to pick up children from classes. The large workout
space would be carpeted and contain gym mats. New walls would be constructed to create the
office and dressing rooms and the entire interior would be repainted. No changes would be made
to the mechanical or electrical systems.
11.
No signage plans 'were submitted with the application except the plans state that the front wall
sign will be replaced. Staff recommends that a condition of approval be that any signage erected
comply with the Winnetlm Shopping Center Comprehensive Sign Plan and the New Hope Sign
Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow a commercial
recreational facility at Winnetlm Shopping Center, subject to the following conditions:
1. All signage to comply with the Winnetka Shopping Center Comprehensive Sign Plan and the
New Hope Sign Code.
2. Annual review.
Attachments:
Zoning/Section/Topo Maps
Shopping Center Site Plan
PetitiOner's Letter
Floor Plans.
ATHI. ETIC
FIELD
R.4
I 1
COOPER
HIGH SCHOOL
H 0ME'V~,RO
NEW I.~
F-I. EMETARY
CIVIC
CENTER
Crl'Y
H~LL
FOOL
FIRE
R.4
C:EIJETERY
I-*1
NOm'HWOO0
PARK
./
45 ~ AVENU~ ~
winnetka shopping ..center
45' avenue north · winnetka avenue'
J location map J
LEASING PLAN
new hope . minnesota
'L
o
I
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
95 -02
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Convenience Food/Gourmet
Coffee Shop/Deli at Midland Shopping Center
2737 Winnetka Avenue North
19-118-21-44-0066
B-4, Community Business
Engelsma Limited Partnership/Richard Forpahl
February 1, 1995
February 7, 1995
BACKGROUND
The petitioners are requesting a conditional use permit to allow a convenience food/gourmet
coffee shop/deli at Midland Shopping Center, pursuant to Sections 4.134(1) and 4.124(3) of the
New Hope Zoning Code.
The petitioner is proposing to open a moderate priced espresso and tea shop with assorted
ready-to-eat foods to dine in or carry-out at Midland Shopping Center. The petitioner states
on the application that New Hope does not currently have an establishment offering these
popular products and services.
The proposed coffee shop/deli would be located in tenant space #4 at the shopping center,
which is located three spaces south of Cinema 'N' Drafthouse. The space is 80 feet in length
and 18 feet in width and contains 1440 square feet.
o
This property is zoned as B-4, Community Business, Zoning District. Surrounding land uses
and zoning include R-2 duplexes to the north; R-O, Residential/Office, B-1 and B-3,
Business/Auto and R-4 (apartment) zoning to the east across Winnetka Avenue; R-O zoning
(Ambassador Nursing Home) to the west; and Golden Valley/residential across Medicine Lake
Road to the south.
o
In the 1978 Comprehensive Plan, this area was included in Planning District #28. Since the
District was totally developed no changes were anticipated or recommended except traffic
circulation and access improvements to commercial and office uses along Winnetka. Recent
upgrades to both County Roads (Winnetka and Medicine Lake) have eliminated most concerns
and improved pedestrian access. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
o
The zoning history for the site is as follows:
1956: The southern 25% of the property was zoned commercial and the northern portion
,1960:
1961:
1979:
was unzoned or residential.
The entire site was zoned commercial.
Zoning was changed to retail busineSs.
That term was dropped for B-4 Community Business District, which it is today.
Planning Case Report 95-02 2 February 1, 1995
The shopping center use was approved as a PUD and parking was based on a variety of tenant
uses. The center has 250 spaces available and this is ample space and meets ordinance
requirements.
8. The topography of the site is flat, with little landscaping, with a steep hill ascending at the
northwest comer.
9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received several
favorable comments from the public on this request.
ANALYSIS
The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally
permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the
general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the
conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or
buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises
or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any
adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for
consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and
safety.
.Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a
conditional use permit include:
C.
D.
E.
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the
specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the
official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City.
Compatibili~. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses.
Performance Standards.' The proposed use conforms with all applicable
performance standards contained in the Code.
No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate
the area in which it is proposed.
Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed
CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts:
In Business Districts (B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4):
a. Traffic. The proposed use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
b. Nearby Residences. Adjacent residentially zoned land will not be
adversely affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or other
nuisance characteristics.
c. Effect on Other Businesses. Existing businesses nearby will not be
adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought
about by intrusion of unduly heavy non-shopping traffic or general
unsightliness.
Planning Case Report 95-02
3 February 1, 1995
The City Code defines "convenience food establishment" as "an establishment which serves
food in or on disposable containers in individual services for consumption on or off the
premises. Customers are generally served at a pick-up station by clerks rather than served at
tables, booths or eating counters by waiters or waitresses".
4. Convenience food establishments are allowed in the B-4 Zoning District as a conditional use
provided that the following conditions are met:
mo
Compatibility. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site
shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in
property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot.
B. Green Strip. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five feet
shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Section 4.033(3).
C. Lighting. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped
or covered.
D. Curbing. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curbs not less than
six inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade.
E. Vehicle Access. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of
conflict with through traffic movements.
F. Draina_~e. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval
of the City.
Go
Surfacing. The entire area other than occupied by buildings or structures or plantings
shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust and drainage and which is subject
to the approval of the City.
H. Loading Berth. Adequate space shall be provided on the site for a loading berth to
accommodate the parking and maneuvering of semi-tractor trailers.
Refuse Storage. All refuse shall be stored in containers as specified by City Code. Said
containers are to be screened and enclosed by a fence or similar structure.
Staff finds that all of the above requirements are met. In regards to refuse storage, internal
refuse containers are shown on the plan and will be provided by the tenant. Exterior refuse
storage and screening could be improved and the property owner is attempting to find a long-
term solution to this issue.
o
Staff considers this a routine request, as many other similar conditional use permits have been
approved on other properties in both the B-3 and B-4 Zones. The Design & Review Committee
did not meet with the petitioner, per staff's recommendation, due to the routine nature of the
request.
Planning Case Report 95-02
4
February 1, 1995
7. The proposed hours of operation are as follows:
Monday - Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Legal Holidays
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
6:30 a.m. - 9:30 p.m.
9:30 a.m. - 9:30 p.m.
Closed
Closed
Trash containers will be located in the restaurant near the entrance/exit and will be maintained
by the tenant. The petitioner states that an additional container will be placed on the walk near
the front of the store if business warrants and will also be maintained by the tenant. There are
currently containers on the sidewalk along the front of Midland Center which are maintained
by the Center management.
9. Staffing of the business will consist of operation by the owner with the addition of one
employee (spouse) or an additional employee if business warrants.
10.
The rear portion of the tenant space will contain the food preparation area with counters,
shelving, food prep tables and sinks. The petitioner should clarify if any preparation or
cooking will occur at the site or if previously cooked foods will just be warmed and
served.
11. The front portion of the tenant space will contain customer seating: 5 tables (24" x 42"), 24
chairs and stools, a 10' x 2' counter and 3' x 3' condiment counter.
12.
The petitioner has made the single restroom handicapped accessible, however, the current plans
show that it would not be directly accessible to the public. Although it may or may not be a
direct requirement under the State Building Code, the City feels that access to a restroom
should be provided if patrons will be consuming food on the premises. Therefore, one of the
recommended conditions of approval will be that the petitioner alter the plans to provide
direct restroom access for the public.
13.
A menu was submitted in conjunctiOn with the application and is attached for informational
purposes. The types of foods served will include soups, salads, sandwiches, desserts, snacks,
breakfast rolls, beverages and a variety of types of espresso.
14.
No signage plans were submitted with the application and staff recommends that a condition
of approval be that any signage erected comply with the Midland Center Comprehensive Sign
Plan and the New Hope Sign Code.
15. This application does not include a request for outdoor dining and a separate conditional use
permit will need to be obtained if outdoor dining/seating is desired in the future.
16.. Staff is very supportive of the CUP request and feels that the new coffee shop/deli will be a
good addition to the shopping center.
Planning Case Report 95-02
5
RECOMMENDATION
February 1, 1995
Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow a convenience food
establishment at Midland Shopping Center, subject to the following conditions:
1. Plans be altered to provide access to the restroom for the public.
2. All signage to comply with the Midland Center Comprehensive Sign Plan and the New Hope
Sign Code.
3. Annual review.
Attachments:
Zoning/Topo/Section Maps
Site Plans - Midland Center
Floor Plans
Petitioner Correspondence
Menu
C&?NO~.JC
B-4 ~ R-~-
1'2
VAL~.EY
R.4
LEGEND '
tTIAL
-Y RESIDENTIAL
DENTIAL
NTIAL
R-I
R-2
R-$
R-4
R-5
ZONING DISTRICT MAP
CITY of NEW HOPE
AVE
WISCONSIN
H
AV
30 TH
3OT~
AVE
AV
N.
. vIEWCREST
LANE
TERRA LmNDA
920.8
923 5
NOETH
9i
911.4
'2
9~2.
911.6~
· ,
911.8
919.4
911.1
9I
I, 061,
906.7 X
9O5. $ X
N
EXHIBIT A
;e ool'l CO
OlC
2749
27.~5
27~1
27~.
273,,-~
2729
2725
2717'
2713
2709
2705
2703
MIDLAND SHOPPING CENTER
ADDRESSES
January, ~ 95
JAN 2 31995
Development · Le~inf · M-n~_~Muent
523 South 8th Street, MinneapoUs, MN 55404-1078
(612) 332-1241 Fmr (612) 332-8940
JAN 2 3 199,5
ot~oo
| I1-1
DOO~ SAI~TAD - L,~S/96 ·
CA~F~ t~.SP - NIDLA~ID SHOPPING
~ PO~IN~ INACTION IS
YOU IN ~IN~ A ~~ FOR ~ P~NING ~ING. IF Y~ ~ ~ SPECIFIC
~TION5 ~~ OR ~I~
~N~. ~K Y~.
RICK ~~L
544-7561
· HOUR~ OP OPERATIOtl
tdONDAY ~ THURSDAY 6:30 AH TO 6:30 Pi~, FRIDAY 6:30 AI~ TO 9:30 Pt~,
SATUIiDAY 9:30 AI~ TO 9:30 PM, CLOSED SUNDAYS AND LI~GAL HOLIDAYS.
TRASH CONTAItqERS
TRASH CONTAINE8 WILL BE LOCATSD IN TH~ RESTAb1~tNT N~A~ THE Bt~FItqNCII/EXIT.
THIS OOHTAINER WILL TO ttqlNTAINED BY CAFFE t~SP. AN ADDITIONAL CONTAINER WILL
BE PLACZ ON TH~ WALK lq~AR TH~ PRONT OF TH~ STOBE IF B~JSTN]~SS WAI~ltqNTS AND.
WILL BE ttqlNTAINED BY CAFF~ MSP. THKR]IAR~ ALF~O CONTAIN]IRS ON TH~ SIDBWA~
A ~ IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR P. SVI~.
CHAN(I~ AS ttqRS]IT DEtIAND WARRANTS.
PRICING AND CONTENT IS I~T~JECT TO
· tt~,RKETINGCONCI~PT
Ci~Ir~ANDOPERATEDCAI~/DELI IrlLq~NG ~PI~Z,~O DRINK~, CLASSIC
~ICAIq AND IPJiqOP~ STYI~ SOUPS, SALADS, SANDWICH~S AND DEZSIIRT5 IN A
CAZ'dAL SETTING. DiNI~-IN OR~-OUT...CATI~ItINGTO011~
· 5TAlrtrl N(]
OWNER OPERATED WITH ~ ADDITION OF 1 I~PLOY~ (5POUSZ) OR AN ADDTIONAL
HI'IPLOY~ Ilr I~JSII~S~
POC-8~-'8~ 44:80 T-R FORPAHL 6125447561 .010-02
EURO-S~ BRSAKFAST !. 99
LrRENCH HARD ROLLS, ASSORTED C~SE$, FI~UIT PI~ESEV];S, BUTTER, AND COlr~wgS.
WITH FRESH FRUIT CUP + .99
WITH ESPRSSSO DRINKS + .99
SKEET ROLLS . 99 ~JFI~INS . 99
SCONES .99 Ci~OI SSANTS
FEENCH HARD ROLLS .99 PAL~IERS
SERVED WITH BUTTER, CR~ ~SE AND FRUIT pRESERVES
.99 i
· 99
LUNCH/DINNER *************************************************************
***SOUPS & STE~S***
SOUP OF THE DAY .99
ORION ROOHWI~PRICE SOUP 1.49
STE~OR CHILI OF THE DAY 2.49
***HAIN COURSE SALADS,**
CLASSIC CAESAR 2.99
W/GRILLED CHICKEN 3.99
W/BAY SHRIHP 3.99
CASHE~CHZCKENW/FRESH F1UJIT 3,99
ITALIAN PASTA &V~GI~TAB~ 8.49
GAI~D]~I FRSSHHIXSDGREEN 2.99
SEI6~D WITH YOUR CHOICE 0F EUI~PEAH STYLE BREADS.
***SANDWICHES***
HUI~U.~A
ROUND ITALIAN BREAD FILIW, D WITH A SAVORY HIXTURE OF OLIVES, CHEEESES,
HAP, NZNATI~D VEG~AE~S AND ITALIA~ HEATS.
2.99
CASHEW CHICI~F~ SALAD CROISSANT 2.99
FRENCH GI%OIS~ SPREAD WITH CRHAH CHEESE ARD FIr,r.wn WITH OUR FRESHLY
PRI~P~ CA~:~ICEEN SALAD,
PANINI I~JSTICI- 2.99
AN ITALIAN COUNTI~Z SANDWICH PREPAI~.D WITH ~I, P~I~, ~~~,
P~ ~D ~L~ ~Z~.~ ~8~ ON SPLIT IT~I~ ~I~.
BAY SHRI[4P ~ALAD CROISSANT
FRENCH CI~OISSANT SPREAD WI~ DIJON & ~ C~ ~SE ~D ~I~ WI~
O~'~~Y P~~ ~y ~I~ SA~.
2.99
ASSO~ PETIT PAIN 1.29
FRBSHLYBAKEDPRENCHHARDROLLSWITHA· VARIETY OF SAVORY HEATS, II'~IK)RTED
AND DOHESTIC CHESSES, OR SALADS. SELECTION VARIES DALLY.
POC-SI-'SI 44:8~ T-R FORPAHL 61254475~1 ~10-~
T~X~ RRDSKIN POTATO SALAD
RAINBON PASTA ~
O~ FA~I0~ ~
AS~ORTBD SODA POP
2S HILK, SKI~l ~ILX
~~ ~IT
H~
AS~~ IT~I~ ~DAS
~ AU ~IT
~~ ~S H~ OR I C~
~~ ~~ H~ OR I C~
BSPRBSSO ABBRICANO
]~rI~ZSO CON PANNA
CAPPDCCINO
CAFF~ MOCHA
~'TRA SHOT OF
FLAVORED SYmJP
.99
.99
.99
· 99
.99
.69
.99
.69
· 69
1.19
· 69
2.49
· 69
.89
.99
1.49
· 69
1.49
· 99
.99
.99
1.49
1.49
1.79
1.79
1.79
.29
· 29
.99
1.79
.69
.99
1.79
1.79
l. 79
2.09
2.09
2.09
.29
.29
1.19
2.09
· 99
1.19
2.09
2.09
2.09
2.39
2.39
.29
CITY OF NEW HOPE
M MO VM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 3, 1995
Planning Commission Members
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Community Development Coordinator
Miscellaneous Issues
1. January 9th Council/EDA Meeting - At the January 9th Council/EDA meeting, the Council/EDA took
the following action on planning cases and other related issues:
Planning Commission Chair Resignation - A resolution accepting the resignation of Robert
Cameron from the New Hope Planning Commission was approved and appreciation was extended
for his many years of service. A letter and the resolution with the official City seal was mailed to
Bob and he will be formally recognized with a presentation at an upcoming City Council meeting.
A copy of the letter and resolution are enclosed for your information.
Bo
Remodeling Fair Agreements - The five CO-OP Northwest Cities will again be sponsoring the
Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair on March 25th at the Crystal Community Center from 10:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and the Council approved two agreements for booth rental and a consultant to
coordinate workshops and door prizes. I would encourage you to attend the Fair if you are free
that Saturday. I will be providing more information to on the Fair prior to the event.
Planning Case 94-34, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Marky Addition, 5009 Winnetka
Avenue North, City of New Hope, Petitioner. The plat was approved subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The lot lines have been revised to provide for a 68-
foot wide lot on the east and a 60-foot wide lot on the west to provide a greater setback distance
from Winnetka Avenue. The Final Plat will be presented to the Council on February 13th.
Do
Resolution Accepting En~neering Feasibility Report, Approving Hans and Specifications and
Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Cooper High School Street Project - The Council approved
the plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bids for the Cooper Street project.
Bids will be opened for the project on February 13th.
Resolution Accepting Feasibility Report for 1995 Street Improvement Project and Directin?
City Manager to Conduct Informational Meeting - I have enclosed a map which identifies the
areas proposed to be included in the 1995 Street Improvement Project. An informational meeting
was conducted on January 30th.
F°
Progress Report on Transportation Plan Update - An update was presented on the Transportation
Plan Update (see attached information). An open forum to receive public comments was held on
Saturday, January 28th, with five residents in attendance.
Approval of Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Construction
of Handicapped Accessible Twin Home at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North - The EDA approved
the plans and specifications for the handicapped accessible home at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North
and authorized advertisement for bids. Bids are currently being sought and will be opened on
February 23rd.
2. January 23rd Council Meeting - At the second Council meeting in January, the Council took the
following action on planning cases and other matters:
A. Set Date for Public Hearing on 1995 Street Improvement Project - Hearing to be conducted'on
February 27th.
B. Set Date for Public Hearing on Cooper Street Improvement Project - Hearing to be conducted
on February 13th.
Co
Approval of Submittal of Minnesota Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Fund Application
for 42nd/Nevada Avenues Clean-Up of Gasoline Impacted Soils - Approved the submittal of an
addendum to the original application. All work on this City-owned property is essentially
completed.
D. Approval of Request to MPCA for Site Closure and Issuance of "No Further Action" Letter
for 42nd/Nevada Avenues Site - Approved a request to the MPCA to seek site closure on this
property.
o
36th Avenue Railroad Bridge Reconstruction Project Bulletin - The City recently sent out a project
bulletin on the upcoming 36th Avenue street/utility improvements between Winnetka and Louisiana
Avenues and the reconstruction of the 36th Avenue Railroad Bridge, and I am enclosing a copy for your
information.
4. Quarterly Reports - The fourth quarter 1994 reports for planning and development, engineering and
housing and redevelopment are attached for your information.
5. A.C. Carlson Correspondence from City Attorney - Attached for your information is additional
information from the City Attorney on the A.C. Carlson rezoning issue.
Land Use Planning Workshops for Planning Commissioners - Government Training Service is again
providing their annual Land Use Planning Workshops for Planning Commissioners. The workshops are
designed for those new to land use planning and zoning or those who are interested in a review of the
fundamentals. Cost is $80 per person or $70 per person for 3 or more people from the same
jurisdiction. The 1995 Planning Budget includes expenses for training of staff and Planning
Commissioners and the City encourages new Commissioners, in particular, to attend. Please
review the attached information and contact Pam (531-5110) or myself (531-5119) if you are interested
in attending and we will coordinate your registration.
Pool Hall Study - The Planning Consultant has completed his initial report on Pool Halls in the B-4
Zoning District and the Codes & Standards Committee will be meeting on February 9th to begin
discussion on this issue.
Attachments:
Letter to Cameron
1995 Street Improvement Project Map
Transportation Plan Update
36th Avenue Railroad Bridge Reconstruction Project Bulletin
4th Quarter Reports
City Attorney A.C. Carlson Memo
Land Use Planning Workshops
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898
Telephone: 612-531-5100
TDD Line: 612-531-5109
City Hall Fax: #612-531-513,
Police Fax: #612-531-517.
Public Works Fax: #612-533-765~
January 18, 1995
Mr. Robert Cameron
9117 34-1/2 Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55427
Subject: Resignation from New Hope Planning Commission
Dear Bob:
I am writing to inform you that at the City Council meeting on January 9th, the City Council
formally accepted your resignation from the New Hope Planning Commission, as requested in
your letter of December 12th. The CoUncil passed a resolution formally accepting your
resignation and extending appreciation for your years of service to the community, and I have
enclosed a copy of the resolution.
The City Council, City Manager and staff are very grateful for your 23 years of service on the
Planning Commission, 20 years of which you served as chairman. You have personally guided
the Commission and the City in the review of hundreds of commercial, industrial and housing
projects that have impacted the 'physical development of the City. It is rare to find one
individual that has made such a significant contribution to their community.
The City Council desires to formally honor your service to the City in a presentation at an
upcoming City Council meeting and we will be contacting you regarding your schedule/
availability in the near future. You will also be honored with a plaque of appreciation at this
summer's appreciation picnic which will be held in July. You will be receiving an invitation
prior to this event.
Thank you again for your outstanding contributions to the City of New Hope. ! have enjoyed
working with you and wish you well in your upcoming retirement.
,,~m, cerely, ~
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
Enclosure: Resolution
cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager
City Council
Planning Commission Members
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Family Styled City ~1'1'~,,~. ~1~ For Family Living
"~V~ V~W"
4401 Xylon Avenue North Telephone: 612-531-5100
New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 TDD Line: 612-531-5109
CITY OF NEW HOPE
RESOLUTION NO. 95-01
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF
ROBERT CAMERON
FROM THE NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND EXTENDING APPRECIATION FOR HIS SERVICE
City Haft Fax: #61~-531-513~
Police Fax: #612-53 I-517,
Public Works Fax: #612-533-765(
WHEREAS,
Robert Cameron was appointed and served on the New Hope Planning
Commission from 1971 to 1994, and for 20 of those 23 years he served as
Chairman of the Commission; and
WHEREAS, Cameron has submitted his resignation due to Upcoming plans for retirement; and
WHEREAS,
Cameron has guided the Commission in the review of hundreds of commercial,
industrial and housing projects that have impacted the physical development of the
City and has played an important role in shaping the City's Comprehensive Plan;
and
WHEREAS,
the City of New Hope accepts Cameron's resignation with regrets and desires to
thank him for his many years of dedicated service and contributions to the
community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of New Hope
hereby accepts the resignation of Robert Cameron and extends their appreciation
for his 23 years of dedicated service to and interest in the City of New Hope.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 9th
day of January, 1995.
' M~yor /'
Attest: Y~~~{~
City Clerk
Family Styled City '~~ Foe' Family Living
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
I
!
!
!
!
!
LOCATION PLAN
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
'1995 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CITY PROJECT No. 521
34.155F01 .DWG DECEMBER 1994.
, D
FIGURE 1 ~
COMM. 34155
0 600
Scale in feet
Bonestroo
Flosene
Anderlik &&
Associates
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~l~ent Approved for Agenda ,,, Patenda Section
~everopment
City Manager & Planning
Kirk McDonald '~ 1-9-95 Item No.
By: Management Assistant By:.~/ 8.4
PROGRESS REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
526)
The purpose .°f this agenda item is to p__r_es~l~t..__a brief progress __rep°rt on the New ~_~op~_ Transportation Plan
Update that ~s currently underway. At the October 24th Council meeting the C1/y~ a~ a
pr~-0~sal by Bonestroo and Associates (City Engineer) to update the existing Transportation Plan, including
public input meetings, for an estimated cost of $13,900. The plan update is being funded out of the Road
and Bridge Fund and MSA (Municipal State Aid) funding. The existing Transportation Plan was prepared
in 1974. The plan update utilizes the 1974 plan as a base document and reviews the present conditions
and sets guidelines for the future. The scope of work includes data collection, mapping, identification of
existing transportation problems, transportation plan elements analysis, and preparation of draft and final
plans. Data to be collected includes physical characteristics (street widths, traffic control, parking), traffic
volumes, transit service, land use, bicycle routes, accident data, roadway improvements plans/programs,
and plans from adjacent cities. The identification of existing transpo~on problems is being
accomplished through field reconnaissance, staff interviews and public input meetings.
The attached memo outlines the anticipated project schedule, which includes activities completed or to be
completed on the following dates:
November 16th: Project initiation meeting held with City staff.
December 19th: Traffic Engineer met with Citizen Advisory Commi.ssion.
November/December/January: Data collection and mapping.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
Improvement Project No. 526
January 9, 1995
Saturday, January 28th:
Open House/Public Input Meeting at City Hall from 10:00
a.m. to 2:00 p.m. with Traffic Engineer, Citizen Advisory
Commission members and City Staff. (This is being
advertised in the January City Newsletter, on cable TV and
on the City readerboard sign).
February 15th:
Draft Plan submitted to City staff for review.
February 21 st:
Draft Plan submitted to Citizen Advisory Commission for
review/comment.
March 20th:
Final Plan presented to Citizen Advisory Commission.
March 27th:
Final Plan presented to City Council.
City staff are currently in the process of reviewing and providing feedback on the draft transportation goals
for the City as listed below:
1. Provision of a ~nation system that serves the access and mobility needs of the City.
2. Provide a safe and efficient transportation system that is cost effective.
To ensure that the transportation system, in the Lmplementafion phases, is as environmentally
sensitive as possible.
To provide a coordinated transportation system with respect to regional and adjoining
municipalities plans.
Provision of a transportation system that supports a multi-modal transportation whenever and
wherever feasible and advantageous.
6. Provide a transporU~on system that reflects the values and goals of the residents of New Hope.
Provide ami suPlXnX a transportation system that enhances quality economic development within
the City.
Staff would welcome input and comments from the Council on the proposed schedule or goals for the
Transportation Plan Update.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
December 14, 1994
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Shaft French, Director of Parks & Recreation
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Community Development Coordinator
Pro~sed Schedule for Trnn.mortnrion Plan Uudnt--
At the October 24th City Council meeting, the City Council approved a proposal by Bonestroo
& Associates to prepare a Transportation Plan Update for the City of New Hope.. The City
Council requested tbat the Citizen Advisory Commi.~ion be involve[ in d~tn gathering and the
plan review process. The purpose of rhi.~ memo is to establish a proposed schedule of activities
over the next several months related to the Transportation Plan Update and to identify which
committees/staff will be involved in which activity. ~ outline/schedule described below has
been discussed with' Sheldon $olmson from Bonestroo, Transportation Group Leader, and Mark
Hanson, City Engineer and Project Mamger.
The scope of work outlined in the Bonesu'oo proposal includes the following activities:
Proi~__ Inmnti~.. A meeting will be beld with appropriate City staff in order to refine
the work scope so that all "bases" are toucH. At this meeting, issu~ and needs as well
as project deliverables will be discussed. This wna compared on November 16th.
Dnm Colkq:tinn - This work task consists of the collection of munerous relevant data
with regard to tbe street and tnnspomtion system within the City of New Hope.
A. Phvsic~ ~.~fi,~ l~, Data regarding existing physical characteristics of
tl~ roadway syslmn (collector, aftra'iai) will be collected, including the following:
· Street widths
Right-of-way widths
· Sidewalks
Traf~ Vo_im~ l)s~s - AH available u-af~ volmne dam will be compiled. Data
will be coUecu~d from tbe City, County of Hennepin and the Minnesota
Departtnent of Tramportation (Mn/DOT).
~ - Existing transit route and service bead~ys will be obtained
from the MetropoUtan Council Transit Operatiom division.
Do
Land Use. A City land use 'map will be provided by the City of New Hope
including location of parks and major traffic generators.
E. Bicycle Route~ - Existing bicycle route and bikeway locations will be identified.
Fo
Accident Dar8 - Following the identification of existing traffic problem areas,
accident data will be obtained from Mn/DOT for 1992, 1993 and whatever 1994
data is recorded.
Roadway Imvrovemcnts plam/Prom'am.~ - All appropriate governmental units will
be contacted in order to determine roadway plans/programs that may affect the
City system.
Ho
Adjacent Cities p!artq - Transportation plans of adjacem cities will be collected
so that functional classification of roadways can be consistent.
Thi~q work is currently in process. Sheldon Johnqn will be appearing at the
December 19th. Citizen Advisory Commission meeting to explain the scope of work
and process for the Transportation Plan Update and to answer questions.
~ - Existing conditions data will'be placed on an appropriate City base
map. Such data is the basis upon which analysis and recommendations are built. This
work will be in proe~ss duri~ Ik~-mba-/Janusry.
Identification of l~isflna Tr~n~~ Prob_h,m,, - The identification of existing
transportation problems/concerns will be accomplished in two different fashions.
Field Regonmi~nnee_/Staff I~_e_rviews - Identification of potential existing
problems will require field reconmissame and interviews with selected City staff.
The field recommssame will allow for identification of everyday congestion and
safety cone. ems. TI~ intm'views with selected City staff, who are out in the
community each day and are tim 'ear" of the citizem, will identify problems that
~ analysis in. a transportation plan.
Pablle lnnut M~-tln~ - Afire' collection and mapping of the data (Tasks 1 and 2),
pubik: meetings wffi be held for purposes of solicitation of tramportation
Inublmm by c~ of New Hope. The attendees .would be asked to
~ tl~ir comems with regard to tra~t,~ortation issues in the City. It is
sug~es~d that a Saturday meeting, simihr to an open house, be u 'ulized. Ail
comments that am appropriate for a transportation plan element will be tabulated
and amlyml in subsequent phases of the plan preparation.
We are pFopoeing that m ~ be publM~ in the January City Report (scheduled
for delivery to residents on January 20th) inviting residents to share their views on
transportation problesns on Saturday, January 2~th. This would be an informal,
-2-
open-house type of event to be held at the City Hall from 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.~.
and residents could stop in anytime and express their viewpoints. Representatives
from Bonestroo and City staff would be present and Citizen Advisory Commi~ion
members would be invited, but not requited, to attend to listen to the comments
from Fesidents. The newsletter article will also encourqe residents who cannot
attend the tneetinf to either marl in their comments or call in a messqe on the
"comment line".
Tr~n,uor~flon_ Plon ~lewmmR An21v~i, - The various elements that comprise the
transportation plan, including th~ following, will be amlyz~t in this work ~ask:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Street System Functional Classification
Traffic Control F.l~n~nts in l~lation to Functional Classification
Traffic Safer3'
Area-wide On-meet Parking
Transit Service
Bicycle Planning
Multi-modal Aspects of the Plan
Consistency with Adjacent Cities' Classificatiom
Analysis of these elements will be done in concert with publi~ and staff comments
concerning wam~on needs and issues. This will be accomplished after the public
input meeting at the end d January.
Prennrnflnn of th. Draft [qn.. - The draft transportation plan will be prepared
addressing aH appropriate elements of a mum tramportation plan. The draft plan will
include and conform to guide~ provided by the Meuopolitan Council in order that
regional comism~ in planning is upheld. The draft plan will be submitted for review
to ~ City. Followin~ review by staff, a meeting may be ~ to discuss the
enfi~e pan. TI~ ~i would be to subadt the draft ldm to the City st&fi' for
comnmm in mid-February amim m ttto t~ Cittm~ Advisory ~ at
~ af ,h.. l~___-~_ 1~,'"- - All appropriate and agreed upon revisiom to the draft
plan will be madt A tirol plan will be mbmitmd m the City for discussion with the
-3-
~ - Presentation of the transportation plan to elected and/or appointed City
governing bodies will be provided as necessary. For purposed of the project cost
estimate, two presentations are assumed.
In summary, the involvement of the Citizen Advisory Commission with the Transportation
Plan Update would be as follows:
December 19th - Presentation rode re: purpose of update and scope of work
January 28th - (Optional). Attend open house soliciting comments from public
February 21st - ??? - Review draft platt
March 20th - (Optional) - Review f'mal plan
Please let me know if these activities and timeline are acceptable to you and the Citizen
Advisory Commi.~ion. I have tried to structure the activities so that the CAC can have as
little or as much inlet into the plan as they want.
CC:
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
Sheldon Johnson, Traffic Engineer
Improvement Project File No. 526
,4-
PROJECT NO. 437 &
PROJECT NO. 486
BULLETIN NO. 1
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PROJECT BULLETIN
36TH AVENUE STREET/UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
BETWEEN WINNETKA AND LOUISIANA AVENUES
AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF 36TH AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE
Overview
The City of New Hope is proceeding with Phase I of the 36th Avenue street/utility
improvements and with the reconstruction of the 36th Avenue Railroad Bridge. The existing
railroad bridge over 36th Avenue was constructed in 1925 and is in need of major repair.
However, the major deficiency is the safety hazard posed by the inadequate roadway width
between the concrete piers (less than 38 feet). The traffic counts on 36th Avenue warrant
a 4-lane roadway, which cannot be accomplished based on the existing width between the
piers. The City of Crystal recently upgraded 36th Avenue between Highway 100 and
Louisiana Avenue to provide a 4-lane roadway, therefore the only restriction for a 4-lane
roadway between Highway 100 and Winnetka Avenue is beneath the existing railroad bridge.
The existing vertical clearance between the bridge deck and the top of the roadway also does
not comply with current standards, therefore this project will lower the roadway beneath the
new bridge approximately one foot.
Phase I of the improvements will take place in 1995, and will include construction of a new
railroad bridge and street/utility work approximately 250 feet either side of the bridge (not
including the final bituminous surface). The span between the new concrete bridge abutments
will be 70 feet and will accommodate a 48 foot wide roadway, a 5 foot wide sidewalk on
each side and a 6 foot wide boulevard..It is anticipated that Phase II of the improvements will
probably be constructed in 1996 in cooperation with the City of Crystal and Hennepin County.
These improvements will include street/utility work on 36th Avenue between Winnetka and
Louisiana Avenues (excluding the area under the bridge), the addition of left turn lanes on
36th Avenue east and west of Winnetka Avenue, storm water improvements between
Louisiana and Hampshire Avenues in the existing open channel in Crystal, and final bituminous
surface on the entire roadway. More specific details on the proposed Phase II improvements
planned for 1996 will be provided at a later date.
Project
The New ~ City Council awarded the contract for Phase I of the street/utility
improvement~ and the.railroad bridge reconstruction to Johnson Brothers Corporation (Iow
bidder) in the amount of $1.3 million at the December 12th Council meeting. A pre-
construction meeting was conducted on January 1 2th with all appropriate utility companies
and construction personnel.
The contractor plans to start construction of the project at the end of March or early April.
The first phase will involve removal of existing bridge abutments and construction of new
abutments and 36th Avenue will remain open during this time. The abutment construction
will be completed at the end of July, at which time 36th Avenue will be closed to through
1/30/95
traffic to erect the steel for the bridge and perform the street and utility work. Estimated
project completion is the end of September, at which time the road will be re-opened. It is
difficult to be more specific about the schedule for the road closing due to the number of
utilities to be constructed. It is possible that t~e rOad may have to be closed earlier or remain
closed later than the dates stated above. The City will be sending~out additional bulletins
regarding the project schedule as the project proceeds.
Access
Although the road will be closed under the bridge, 36th Avenue will continue to be open to
local traffic up to/within 250 feet either side of the bridge. Therefore, access to the shopping
center and the apartments located west of the railroad tracks will be available at all times from
Winnetka Avenue via 36th Avenue. Access to Rainbow, Inc., Creamettes, All American
Storage and residential properties on Maryland and Louisiana Avenues located east of the
railroad tracks will be available at all times from Louisiana and Nevada Avenues via 36th
Avenue.
Detour Route
During the course of the project when 36th Avenue will be closed, traffic traveling east on
36th Avenue will be detoured south on Winnetka to 32nd Avenue, then east to Nevada
Avenue, then north back to 38th Avenue. Traffic traveling west will be detoured along the
same route. A map of the detour route is attached to this bulletin for your information.
Contact Persons
If you have questions or concerns during the street and bridge construction projects, please
direct your calls to the following persons, who represent the City Engineer:
Dave Sanock: Beeper #580-3614 (punch your number in and he will return your call)
Jerry Pertzsch: 636-2168, ext. 260
If you desire to speak with someone at City Hall, please contact Kirk McDonald, 531-5119.
The City of New Hope has been working with the Soo Line Railroad and the Minnesota
Department of Transportation since 1990 to determine the most efficient manner to
reconstruct the bridge and to obtain funding. The City appreciates the cooperation of all the
businesses and residents in the area impacted by the construction during this project. The
completion of the project will result in much safer traffic conditions on 36th Avenue for both
motor vehicles and pedestrians. Thank you for your cooperation.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Phone: 531-5119
--I I
,1MN M N
il
II
]1
'I'EA~IC CONTROL LEGEND
!16-313-10
DETOUR ROUTE'
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Fourth Quarter 1994 Report
City Council Synopsis
Undoubtedly, the most important planning/zoning matter considered during the fourth quarter
continued to be the construction of an athletic field comp/ex et Cooper High School. The
City Council approved the conditional use permit and revised/compromise plans at the October
lOth meeting and City staff/engineer continued coordination with the School District to modify
and fine tune the plans. The City and School District are working cooperatively on their
respective plans and it is anticipated that the final CUP Agreement will be executed once bids
have been received.
Another planning/zoning issue that demanded a great deal of time during the fourth quarter was
an application by On Cue Billiards/Kraus-Anderson for a conditionel uae permit to allow a
commercial recreational facility (billiard room) at Midland Shopping Center. The Po/ice
Department conducted extensive surveys of similar establishments in the metro area in an effort
to provide the Council and residents with accurate information. Due to an outpouring of
neighborhood opposition, the request was eventually withdrawn and the Council passed a
moratorium ordinance and directed that a study of commercial recreational facilities be
conducted.
Probably the two most important development projects during the quarter were the continued
construction/expansion work on the Versa Die Cast building at 3920 Quebec Avenue North and
continued negotiations with Conductive Containers, /nc. to facilitate their move to New Hope
to rehabilitate the vacant industrial building at 4400 Quebec Avenue. Both of these projects will
move forward and be completed in 199'5.
The platting of City properties was another important objective accomplished in the fourth
quarter. The City Center Addition Plat was completed on 42nd Avenue, which combined
adjacent commercial parcels for marketing purposes. Two plats for housing and redevelopment
purposes were also completed. Camerons 2nd Addition Plat was approved at the northeast
comer of the City to facilitate the sale of the rehabilitated home at 7109 62nd Avenue. Also,
the subdivision of City-owned property at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North (Marky Addition) was
initiated in preparation for the construction of a handicapped accessible twin home on the site
in conjunction with the CO-OP Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation.
Lastly, the fourth quarter brought significant personnel changes to the New Hope Planning
Commission. Three new members were sworn in at the October 4th meeting (Landy, Oelkers,
Stulberg), bringing the Commission up to a total of 10 members. In December, however, three
other members resigned. Doug Watschke and Mary Zak, who had both served six years each
on the Commission, left due to other commitments. Robert Cameron, a member of the
Commission for 23 years and chairman for 20 of those years, resigned due to upcoming
retirement.
~,~pe, ctfully submitted,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Fourth Quarter 1994 Report
The Planning Commission reviewed the following cases during the fourth quarter:
No. of Cases Notices Sent TOTAL CASES TOTAL NOTICES
October 5 120 1994 1993 1994 1993
November 2 36 35 39 847 961
December 3 47
Month Type of Request Number Approved Denied Withdrawn Tabled
October
November
Final Plat
Variance,Rear Yard Setback
SBPR
CUP - Billiard Room
Text Amend.
SBPR (Hoyt)
CUP - Outdoor Stg. (Hoy0
CUP - Home Occ/LP Back-up
Text Amend. - Outdoor Stg.
December 2
1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
I 1
1
TOTALS 11 9
YEAR TO DATE TOTALS APPROVED DENIED WITHDRAWN
CUP-Parking 1
Rezone Property 1 2
Text Amend.-Off-Street Parking 1
CUP-Outdoor Storage 1
Site/Bldg Review 7
Preliminary Plat 6
Text Amend.-Gas Canopy 1
Text Amend.-Gas Can. Signage 1
Zone Dist. Uses Study 1
Final Plat 5
Variance-Setback 5
PUD 1
CUP-Conv. Store w/Gas 1
Text Amend.-PUD Area 1
CUP Amemlment 2
Concept ~' 1
PUD Devel. Stage 1
CUP - Tower 2
CUP - Billiard Room 1
Text Amendment- I-1 Parking 1
CUP - Outdoor Storage
CUP - Home Occupation 1
CUP - LP Backup System 1
Text Amendment - Outdoor Storage 1
TOTALS 44 2
2
TABLED
1
2
2
2
PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
1. ~iii~iiii~~ii~i!~!i iiii~i~ - The City requested Preliminary Plat
approval of City Center Addition to consolidate several parcels into one lot to facilitate the sale
of the property at 7300 42nd Avenue North. The Preliminary Plat was approved in September
by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Final Plat was approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council on October 4th and 10th, respectively. Also, at the November 14th
Council meeting, the Council passed a resolution transferring a portion of 7400-7412 42nd Avenue
North from the City to the HRA to resolve title problems on the plat.
o
~~iiii!~i!i~~iii~iiii~ii~~??i~i.i.~- The EDA authorized staff to
acquire the property at 6073 Louisiana Avenue North for the City's scattered site housing
program. This is the rear portion of the Carol James property and the intent is to combine it with
the rear portion of the adjacent City-owned property at 7109 62nd Avenue to create a new
residential buildable parcel. The City requested Preliminary Plat approval to combine part of
7109 62nd Avenue North and the parcel of property acquired from Carol James into one parcel
for development. The Preliminary Plat was approved in September by the Planning Commission
and City Council. The City Council passed a resolution setting October 10th as the public hearing
date to vacate an unnecessary utility/drainage easement on the property and said vacation was
approved. The Final Plat was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council on
October 4th and 10th, respectively.
~~ii~~ii~ - At the October 4th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
approved the request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval for the addition of office/warehouse/
machine space along with additional parking spaces, subject to review by City Engineer and
Watershed District. The City Council concurred with this recommendation at their October 10th
meeting.
........ ~;?~:::::~iiiii~::ii~i~i~i~ - The Planning Commission approved a 6' rear yard
setback variance to allow a garage addition at 4052 Cavell Avenue North at their October 4th
meeting. The City Council concurred with this recommendation at their October 10th meeting.
~!i~ - The Planning Commission approved a request for a conditional use permit for
a commercial recreational facility to allow a billiard room at Midland Shopping Center at their
October 4th meeting on a 5/2/1 vote. After much discussion at the following two City Council
meetings and a neighborhood informational meeting, the petitioner withdrew the application due
to the fact that there was so much neighborhood opposition.
Commissio~ members were officially sworn in at the October 4th Planning Commission meeting.
Roger Landy,
William Oelkers,
Richard Stulberg
~~ii~iii~4~i~ - The City Council, City Manager and staff attended the
October 5th "State of the North Metro Area" meeting sponsored by the North Metro Mayors
Association.
o
~ii~ - On october 25th the City Manager made a presentation on planning/
development activities in New Hope at the TwinWest "Good Morning New Hope" presentation,
with several Council members and Department Heads in attendance.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
~~i!!i!~iii~iiii~ - The Final Plat of Northwest Church was filed with Hermepin
County in October and an agreement was reached on the landscaping plan and landscaping was
installed on the site. '
~iiiii~iiii~ili~ii~!il~- During the third and fourth quarter a considerable
amount of staff time was devoted to the analysis of the Cooper High School Athletic Field
Complex and a number of meetings were held with District 281 officials. At the July 12th
Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended denial of this request. Staff
received a request from the School District prior to the July 25th City Council meeting to table
this request until August 8th so the District could be better prepared to make their presentation
to the Council. After a lengthy discussion between the Council and the School District on August
8th, the Council voted to table this matter for 60 days. On September 12th at the City Council
meeting, this case was removed from table for an update from the City Manager, and at the
September 26th meeting a revised plan was discussed and public input was heard. The City
Council approved the CUP and revised plans at the October 10th meeting. The City Manager and
School District are continuing to work together to finalize all plans
~iii~ii~iii~~ii~ - Upon recommendation by the City Council, the
Codes & Standards Committee studied the off-street parking in the Industrial Zoning Districts.
With the recommendation from the Committee and the Planning Commission, the City Council
approved the changes in the I-1 District regulating off-street parking requirements at their
November 14th meeting.
~ili~iiiii!~i!ii~iiiii~i!i~i!ii~!iii~ - At the November 1st
Planning Commission me~ting, the Commission tabled a request for a site/building plan review
to allow construction of a 40,000 square foot office/warehouse (paper transfer) facility and a CUP
to allow the outside storage of 20 semi-trailers at 7300 49th Avenue due to lack of detailed plans.
This request was later withdrawn, as Waldorf decided to construct the facility in Maple Grove.
~!~ii~iii~~iii~ii~~i!i~~ - In November the City received
an executed Development Agreement and bond for the OneComm tower at 5008 Hillsboro Avenue
and the tower is under construction. The City Council also passed a resolution accepting an
easement for ponding and drainage purposes at the site at the November 28th Council meeting.
~iii~!i~ii~ii~ii~ - In November the City also received
an executed Development Agreement and bond for the U.S. West tower at Victory Park and the
tower is under construction. The City also received an executed lease agreement along with
payment for the fa-st year's lease of the City property.
~i!i~ - During November City staff completed a one-week
course presented by the National Development Council on Multi-Family Housing Finance.
~iii~!ii~ - At the November 28th City Council meeting, the Council approved an
Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Pool or Billiard Centers Within the City and a Resolution
Authorizing a Planning Study to Consider Amended Regulations for Commercial Recreational
Facilities, due to the neighborhood opposition regarding the Midland Shopping Center proposal.
The Planning Consultant started preparation of a study on this issue in December and the City
staff, Codes & Standards Committee and Planning Commission will be studying this issue during
the fa-st quarter of 1995.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
~ii~iiE~!i~ - At the December 6th Planning. Commission meeting, the Commission
: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: :~:
approved the request for a conditional use permit allowing the installation of an LP back-up
system and the City Council approved the request on December 12th.
~i?iiii~~- The Planning Commission approved a request from Teresa Snell, 4801
Zealand Avenue North, for a home occupation (mailing service) at their December 6th meeting
and the City Council approved the request on December 12th.
Codes & Standards Committee and Planning Commission have been studying the outdoor storage
issue for several months and made a recommendation to the City Council amending the New Hope
Zoning Code regulating the open outdoor storage as a permitted accessory use and conditional use
within the Industrial Zoning Districts. The Council approved this recommendation at the
December 12th meeting.
~ii!i~ii~i~ii~ - At the August 22nd
Council meeting a resident who raises pheasants in his back yard requested that the Council
consider amending the existing ordinance which prohibits this activity unless there is a minimum
lot size of 54,450 square feet. The Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for
study and the Commission referred the matter to the Codes & Standards Committee. At the
December 12th City Council meeting, the Council approved an Ordinance amending the New
Hope Zoning Code regulating the keeping of animals within the City, as recommended by the
Planning Commission at their December 6th meeting.
~ii~~~ili?iii~ - City staff received letters of resignation from three
members of the Planning Commission effective December 31, 1994: Robert Cameron, Mary Zak,
Doug Watschke. The City Council passed resolutions accepting the resignations and thanking the
members for their service. Cameron had served on the Commission for 23 years; 20 years as
chairman.
~ - On November 14th the EDA requested an update from staff and Autohaus regarding
the site improvements that were to be made to the property, including the retaining wall location
issue and the lease agreement with Colour Lab. The EDA directed staff to meet with Autohaus
again to clarify these issues and bring this issue back to the EDA for discussion during the first
quarter of 1995.
~ii~ - During the fourth quarter, staff continued to participate in the
Business Retention Program. The surveying of New Hope businesses was completed with 112
businesses being surveyed. Most of the businesses surveyed were small professional service
providers. There were 12 red flags during the fourth quarter.
Staff continued to update the list of available vacant land and buildings in the City. The purpose
of maintaining a current vacant land/building listing is to provide more accurate information to
businesses/industries wanting to locate in New Hope.
Now that the surveys of New Hope businesses have been completed, the cities involved in the
program are looking at Phase II, which consist of four general areas: 1) survey new businesses
as they move into the area; 2) establish a summer youth program; 3) develop a clearing house
between participating cities; and 4) establish improved training programs at local colleges and
vo-techs.
24.
25.
~ilili~i~iill ii~- At the October 24th EDA
meeting, there was discussion regarding the vacant property at 4400 Quebec, which has been
identified as a possible future ponding site in the City's preliminary Surface Water Management
Plan. Conductive Containers is interested in purchasing the property to the north but needs
additional land for truck maneuvering. The EDA discussed the possible purchase of this vacant
parcel and in turn deeding a portion of the property to Conductive Containers and leaving the
balance of the property for the City's storm water needs. At the December 12th Council meeting,
the City Council passed a resolution establishing public purpose to acquire the property by right
of eminent domain and authorizing condemnation proceeding to take the property. At the end of
December a Letter of Agreement was executed between the Cie,,, and CCI, stating that the City
would acquire the vacant property and CCI would purchase the vacant industrial building. The
City continued to negotiate with the property owner to see if acquisition could take place without
implementing the condemnation action.
~iiii~iiii~iii~ - During the fourth quarter, the Codes & Standards Committee
studied zoning options for the vacant A.C. Carlson property at 8901 Bass Lake Road. The
Planning Commission did not reach a consensus on this issue, as some members favored a
rezoning and others felt that the CUP process was a more appropriate course of action. City staff
continues to have discussions with the property owner about this parcel and the options available.
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
ENGINEERING
Fourth Quarter 1994 Report
City Council Synopsis
A variety of important engineering projects continued throughout the City during the months of
October/November/December. Two major projects that the Council and staff have worked on for
the past several years, that moved forward were the City. Wide Retaining Wall Project and the
36th Avenue Railroad Bridge and Street Reconstruction Project. The majodty of the work on
the reconstruction of 28 retaining walls in the City was completed this fall and clean-up work,
including grading, sodding and sidewalk restoration, will be completed in the spring. Also, the
agreements with the Soo Line and Twin City & Western Railroads were finally approved, the State
Transportation Grant was approved, and the contract was awarded for the reconstruction of the
36th Ave. Railroad Bridge and Phase I of the 36th Avenue street/storm sewer improvements. The
retaining wall project will be concluding just as the railroad bridge reconstruction gets underway.
The Phase II City Hall Remodeling Project continued on schedule during the fourth quarter,
under the direction of the Director of Finance and Administration, with weekly update meetings
being conducted. This project should be finalized in February and staff are looking forward to
moving back into the remodeled offices.
One new project that was undertaken in the fourth quarter was a Transportation Plan Update
for the City. Informational meetings were conducted with City staff and the Citizen Advisory
Commission and data gathering and mapping was initiated. A public forum to receive input from
residents is scheduled for January and this project is on schedule and should be completed in
March.
During the fourth quarter the City initiated work on two upcoming street projects. The City Council
accepted the Preliminary Report on the Street Surface Evaluation for the '1995 Street
Improvement Program and ordered the preparation of a Feasibility Report. The report will be
presented to the Council in January and an informational meeting will be held with residents. A
great deal of staff time was also spent on the Cooper High School Street Improvement Project,
with an informational meeting being held with residents in October and several meetings with the
School District to define the project scope and timeline. This led to the authorization for the City
Engineer to prepare a Feasibility Report and plans and specifications for the project, which will
be considered in January. The City is committed to working cooperatively with the School District
to accomplish these improvements.
Lastly, water-related projects received a lot of staff and Council attention during the fourth quarter.
The 3-City Joint Water Commission Water System Analysis was presented to/accepted by the
Council in December, which calls for the construction of a new one million gallon water tower at
47th & Aquila to replace the existing 500,000 gallon tower. An update on the Surface Water
Management Plan was presented to the Council and major projects/financing options were
discussed. Staff presented recommendations to the Council for 1995 Backyard Drainage
Improvements. All of these items will continue to be discussed in 1995, with several moving into
the implementation stage.
These projects kept staff busy in the engineering area during the fourth quarter, with a number of
engineering goals/objectives being reel
Resp_ectfully submitted,
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
ENGINEERING PROJECTS
Fourth Quarter 1994 Report
Progress took place on the following major engineering projects during October, November and December,
1994:
~iii~:i:i~~.}..' - At the November 14th City Council meeting, the Council ~p~)~i'"tfie
agreements with Soo Line Railroad and Twin City & Western Railroad regarding the reconstruction
of the bridge over 36th Avenue. At the same meeting the Council agreed to table the award of the
contract for Phase I of the 36th Avenue Street and Storm Sewer improvements, due to concerns
regarding costs related to the railroad's portion of the work. At the December 12th meeting, the
Council approved the terms and conditions of State Transportation Fund Grant for the construction of
Bridge No. 27A04 over 36th Avenue North. The contract for the construction of street and storm
sewer improvements was also awarded to Johnson Brothers Corporation in the amount of
$1,299,936.25, the low bidder on the project. Construction will start in March, 1995.
~iii - City staff met with Northern
Environmental representatives in September regarding the clean-up status of the City-owned property
at 42nd and Nevada Avenues. Northern Environmental indicated that the groundwater samples
indicated only mhnimal amounts of gasoline contamination and recommended that the City formally
apply to the MPCA for an "all clear" letter on the property. During the fourth quarter Northern
Environmental prepared the request which will be submitted to the Council in January. The City will
also be submitting an addendum to the original Petro Fund request so that the City can be reimbursed
for the work that has taken place at the site in 1994.
~!i~i ~ii~ii~ - The majority of the work on the retaining wall project
was completed this fall and remaining items, such as grading, sodding and some sidewalk
reconstruction work, will be completed in the Spring of 1995.
~i~ii~iii~i!~il~ii~iii~ii!~ - At the October 10th City Council
meeting, the Council passed a motion approving a quote from Aid Electric Service, Inc. in the amount
of $4,250 to make modifications to the generator to operate the conveyor belt system for the salt
storage building. At the November 14th City Council meeting, the Council approved Change Order
No. 3 for a $535 deduction, which brings the total of the contract to $346,118.22. The site
improvements have been completed and the salt storage building is in operation.
sent to the citi~' of Plymouth and Crystal requesting thetr partlclpaUon m tlus project, but no formal
response has been received to date.
~ii~ili~~i~~!~ - An update on the Surface Water Management Plan
was presented to the Council at the December 12th meeting. Staff presented the following six storm
water projects for consideration, including Hoyt Development, 49th & Quebec Avenue ($50,000),
Cooper/Brandell Pond, 47th & Flag Avenue ($400,000), 4400/4500 Quebec Avenue ($100,000),
Gethsemane Cemetery, 40th & Boone ($150,000), Northwood Lake/36th Avenue ($900,000), and
Jaycee Park ($100,000), for a total of $1,700,000. Options for trmaneing storm water improvements
were outlined and these options will be discussed further at a future work session.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
~J.'.~ii!~i~iii~iii~!i~i~i!~?ii~~!i~i~i~ - At the October 10th Council meeting, the
Council passed a resolution establishing a budget for Phase II City Hall Remodeling in the amount of
$560,000 and transferring funds from variOuS bond funds to cover project costs. Change Order No.
1 in the mount of $18,975 was approved at the November 14th City Council meeting. This project
proceeded on schedule during the fourth quarter and should be completed in February, 1995.
~ - Work continued on this project during the fourth quarter
on 42nd Avenue being constructed. The old sign will be removed this spring. Staff also prepared a
sign agreement for the 45th and Winnetka intersection at the shopping center, but the owners have not
yet executed the agreement. The clock tower and school sign at the intersection of 42nd and Winnetka
also still needs to be completed.
~j.'.~iiii~iiii!~iii~ii~iiii~iiiii~~iii~~ - The final pay request to Bituminous
Consulting & Contracting was approved in the amount of $1,000 at the October 10th City Council
meeting and this project is now completed.
~ii~i~iii~ii~ - At the April 25th City Council meeting,
the Council approved a resolution awarding contract to Aero Asphalt for basketball court
improvements in the amount of $58,750. The majority of this work was completed during the third
quarter and punch list items were finished in the fourth quarter. Pending receipt of the proper
paperwork, the project will be fmaled out. The project included remodeling/resurfacing five basketball
courts and color coating seven courts.
December 12th City Council meeting, the f'mal report of the 3-City Joint Water Commission Water
System Analysis was presented and accepted. The results of the study indicated the system is in good
shape, however, certain upgrades are necessary. One recommended improvement would be to replace
the north water tower located at 47th & Aquila with a new one million gallon water tower. The City's
share (1/3) is estimated at $330,000 for the new water tower.
~iiii~iiii~!i~!ii~illii~- At the November 14th City Council meeting,
the Council approved a resolution accepting the Preliminary Report on the 1995 Street Surface
Evaluation and ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for resurfacing/reconstmcting the streets
in the study area.
~~i:~!'"~i~i!~ - The City Council approved plans and specifications
and authorized advertisement for bids for new play area equipment at Jaycee Park at the July 25th
meeting. Tbe City Council awarded the contract for play area equipment at Jaycee Park to Sunram
Landscaping for $43,313 at the August 8th meeting. The installation of the equipment was completed
during the fourth quarter and final site work will be completed in the Spring of 1995.
~iii~i!!i~i~!~ii~- At the September 12th Council meeting, the City
Council approved plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bids for the installation
of a traffic signal at the intersection of 36th and Boone Avenues. Several residents residing close to
the intersection raised concerns about the signal installation at the September 26th Council meeting.
An informational meeting to gain residents input was conducted on October 6th and staff presented
,four options for the Council to consider at the October 24th Council meeting: 1) do nothing; 2)
improve existing conditions (lower stop signs, install "All Way" signs below stop sign, place advance
warning sign for stop sign and pedestrian crossing, make red flasher operational 24 hours, and install
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
larger stop signs with highest reflective sheeting); 3) install traffic signal; and 4) install traffic signal
and improve the grade in Boone Avenue north of 36th Avenue. After much discussion between staff
and residents, a decision was made to form a Committee to study the options (option 2) for the
present. Signage improvements were made to the intersection at the end of October by the Public
Works Department.
~i~ili~!ii~~ii~i~ - At the October 24th City Council meeting, the Council
approved a proposal by Bonestroo & Associates for a Transportation Plan Update. It was determined
that public input would be sought to locate trouble spots, as well as involving the CAC in the data
gathering and review process. The most recent plan for the City is dated 1974. On November 16th
a project initiation meeting was held with City staff and on December 19th the Traffic Engineer met
to discuss the plan/process with the Citizen Advisory Commission. Data collection and mapping
proceeded during November/December/January and an open forum for citizen input will be conducted
in January.
approved a resolution authorizing the City Engineer to prepare a Feasibility Report and plans and
specifications for the Cooper High School Street Project. The City Manager also updated the Council
regarding the athletic stadium agreement and the timeline for the project.
~i~iii~i!~ii~!i~ - The City Council reviewed staff's recommendations
for five backyard drainage improvement projects for 1995, proposed to be funded out of the Storm
Water Utility Fund: 1) 5960 Independence Avenue (overland drainage), 2) 4808 Decatur Avenue
(storm sewer construction), 3) 8101-8201 47th Avenue (overland drainage or storm sewer
construction), 4) 4709 Utah Avenue (storm sewer construction), and 5) 4649 Rhode Island Avenue
(storm sewer construction). Staff was seeking approval to prepare plans and specifications for the
projects, however the Council determined that it would defer discussion on these projects until a work
session is held, at which time all storm water management projects and funding mechanisms can be
discussed. These projects will be brought back to Council no later than March 13th.
~!i~.i.~i.~ii~ - During the fourth quarter the Parks & Recreation staff
met with the City Engineer and the baseball coach from Armstrong High School to discuss needed
improvements to the field. Grading, irrigation and lighting improvements are programmed for 1995.
~ii~iiii!~i~ii~iii~- At the November 14th Council meeting,
the Council discussed a request to alter the playground equipment at Northwood Park. The Council
determined to refer the matter to the Citizen Advisory Commission and two meetings with the
manufacturer of the equipment were scheduled/conducted with neighbors and CAC. The CAC made
a recommendation at their December meeting that Northwood Park be named the site for new play
equipment in 1995 and this recommendation will be considered by the Council in January.
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Fourth Quarter Report -- City Council Synopsis
During the fourth quarter the City continued work on a number of scattered site housing and
redevelopment activities. The house located at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North was cleared in
July, and the site is ready to be developed. During the fourth quarter staff advertised for
architectural services and chose Equal Access Homes as the designer for the project. A
preliminary design was approved by the City Council at the December 12, meeting. In addition,
interested buyers have been interviewed and sent to Marquette Bank New Hope for pre-
approval of a mortgage loan. The house located at 7109 62nd Avenue North has been
rehabilitated and was put up for sale in October for $59,900. Applications were accepted from
first-time home buyers interested in purchasing the property and a lottery was conducted in
November to determine the buyer. The closing is scheduled for January 1995. The property
at 6073 Louisiana Avenue North, which adjoins 7109 62nd Avenue North at the southern
property line, will probably be developed sometime in 1995. Staff is also looking at other
properties throughout New Hope that are good candidates for purchase, rehabilitation, or new
construction in 1995.
A variety of other housing-related projects were also continued or initiated during the fourth
quarter. The management of the Section 8 Program continued and the City initiated an
application for the Minnesota NAHRO Educational Scholarship Program. Work continued
on the New Hope Apartments Rehabilitation Project, with a majority of the rehab work being
completed and an additional loan being approved for unanticipated expenses. Staff also
initiated the 1995 5-City Remodeling Fair, in conjunction with the City of Crystal, and sent
registration forms out to over 600 businesses. This event, which is scheduled for March 25th,
has been highly successful in previous years.
Staff also continued to actively participate in a number of CO-OP Northwest housing activities.
The selection of new staff for the CHODO is in process, with input from the 5 participating
cities. Staff continues to work on the federally funded HOME projects in the City and is
preparing projects to be considered for 1995 consideration. New Hope may be selected to
participate in the Enhanced Housing Initiative Program, being sponsored by Northwest
Hennepin Human Services, to provide additional services to apartment residents at Park Ridge
Way Apartments. Lastly, preliminary planning has started for a Renters Rights &
Responsibilities Workshop to be conducted in May.
The fourth quarter, concluded what has been a busy and successful year for the City of New
Hope in housing and redevelopment activities.
Respectfully submitted,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
Sarah Bellefu~t
Administrative Analyst
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Fourth Quarter 1994 Report
The New Hope HRA continues to be busy with the management of housing programs and redevelopment
activities in the City.
Section 8 Rental Assistance Pro_re'am
Currently, the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program is providing assistance to 258 New Hope low income
families. This is up slightly from the 253 families that were being served in September. During this
same time period in 1993, New Hope was providing assistance to 255 families, so overall the program
is serving the about same number of families in 1994 as in 1993.
The breakdown is as follows:
Certificates Vouchers Total
October 181 70 251
November 179 71 250
December 176 72 258
The number of housing inspections has decreased compared to the same time period in 1993. During the
fourth quarter of 1994 a total of 99 inspections were completed, as compared to 167 for the same time
period in 1993. A total of 386 inspections had been completed at the end of the third quarter.
A breakdown of housing unit inspections for the fourth quarter is contained in the following table:
Initial Reinspect Total Year to Date
Section 8 65 34 99 485
The most significant activity that took place during the fourth quarter regarding the Section 8 Housing
Program was implementing a new Contract for Administrative Services between the Metropolitan Council
and the City. The EDA approved the new contract in August. The two major changes in the contract
were that the administration fee available to the City increased from $16.56 per mt/month to $21.00 per
unit/month for basic administrative services and the City will only be required to submit quarterly
invoices/reports instead of monthly reports. City staff supported the new contract and the increased
administrative fee, and welcomes the decrease in monthly reporting requirements.
Minnesota NAHRO Education Scholarship Pro.am
In December, tl~ City initiated participation in the 1995 Minnesota NAHRO Education Scholarship
Award. The M~ Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials has
established an education scholarship to assist lower income individuals with post-secondary educational
expenses. To qualify, the applicant must be a resident of a housing unit or be a participant in a rent
assistance program. The applicant's annual household income must be at or below 50% of the area
median income as determined by HUD. Individual scholarship awards of $500 per year for two years
are available. The City has primary responsibility for promoting the program, taking/verifying
applications, and sponsoring an applicant. The City has solicited applications from persons the City feels
would be good candidates for the program and will be reviewing/submitting applications during the first
quarter. This will be the second year the City has participated in the program.
Cor/nnunit¥ Development Block Grant Program
Housing Rehabilitation- Hennepin County manages the Housing Rehabilitation program for the City
and maintains a waiting list. The funds assist low income persons in making basic repairs to homes that
they own. Currently there are two residential households in the process of being assisted, one being
rehabilitated and two on the waiting list. At this time all 1992/93 funds have been expended.
Approximately $27,527 in funds has been expended or committed for 1993/94 and $26,400 has been
reserved in 1994/95.
Scattered Site Housing Program - During the fourth quarter the City continued to pursue several
projects that will be funded in part by previous years CDBG moneys for scattered site housing programs.
Projects that used scattered site housing funds include the following:
5009 Winnetka Avenue North - In October 1994 staff interviewed architecture and design firms that
specialize in accessible housing. Research consisted of interviewing architects and designers and
visiting accessible homes. Staff sought bids for architectural services and at the November 14th EDA
meeting, the EDA approved a Letter of Agreement with Equal Access Homes to provide design
services, for $1,870.00. The services provided by Equal Access Homes included a design,
construction plans, specs, site visits during construction, and meetings with buyers and staff.
A representative from Equal Access Homes and staff met on several occasions in November to discuss
the floor plan and exterior design of the site. During these discussions, it was decided the twin homes
should be slab on grade design, have two bedrooms, one bathroom, a kitchen, dining room, living
room, utility room, and over sized garage. In addition, Tom Schuster, the City Forester, completed
a preliminary landscaping design for the property. The City Council approved the preliminary design
on December 12, 1994, and final plans and specs will be presented to the City Council on January
9, 1995.
During the fourth quarter staff also continued work on site preparation and subdivision of the parcel.
At the October 24th Council meeting, a quote from Kevitt Excavating was approved in the amount
of $4,350 for tree removal and grading and the work was completed the first part of November. At
the November 14th Council meeting, the Council passed a resolution transferring the property from
the City to the EDA, as the EDA oversees housing development. In November, staff began the
process to plat and subdivide the site. Staff sought bids for platting, and at the December 12th
Council meeting, the Council approved a quote from Hy-Land Surveying in the amount of $950.00
to prepare the preliminary and final plats. Preliminary plat approval will be brought to the Planning
Commission on January 3, 1995.
During the past three months, the City has also been working with Thompson Associates on the sale
of the twin homes to individuals with disabilities. During the third quarter, staff advertised for buyers
in numerous publications. In November interested persons were sent an application form. Thompson
Associates reviewed the applications, interviewed interested parties, and completed a preliminary
income eligibility report. In December, three individuals were determined to be eligible for the
property and are interested in purchasing one of the twin homes. In late December, they were
referred to Marquette Bank New Hope for pre-approval for a mortgage. Since there are three
interested parties and only two homes available a lottery will be conducted.
2. 7109 62nd Avenue North - The City received a $60,000 grant from the MI-IFA for this project.
Rehabilitation and landscaping of this property was completed in October, 1994. At the November
14th City Council meeting, the City Council approved the final pay request to Flag Buildei's in the
amount of $31,660 for the rehab work. The City purchased the property for $36,263 using MHFA
grant funds. The total cost of rehabilitation was $31,660 and was paid for through CDBG Scattered
Site Housing Funds. In late September the house was appraised at $57,900 and a sales price was set
at $59,900. The difference between the sales price and the cost of purchasing and rehabilitating the
home is also being paid for through MHFA grant funds. The house was put up for sale during the
third week of October. There was also an Open House on October 30th, for people interested in
touring the home. Persons interested in purchasing the property were given an application form.
After the City received completed application forms, a lottery was held on November 18th. The
winner of the lottery was first-time home buyer Daren Mattson, a long time resident of New Hope.
After winning the lottery Mr. Mattson was referred to Marquette Bank New Hope to be approved for
the loan. At the November 28th EDA meeting, the EDA passed a resolution authorizing staff to
publish a notice and conduct a public hearing on the sale. At the December 12th meeting, the EDA
held a public hearing and passed a resolution authorizing the sale of the property. Mr. Mattson also
signed a purchase agreement for the property in November 1994. The closing is scheduled for
completion in January 1995. The proceeds from the sale of the home will be used to fund other
scattered site housing projects.
6073 Louisiana Avenue North - The property at 6073 Louisiana Avenue North and 7109 62nd
Avenue North was replatted as the Cameron 2nd Addition in December. Replatting the property
increased the size of 6073 Louisiana Avenue to 16,542 feet and decreased the size of 7109 62nd
Avenue North to 9,500 square feet. Staff is currently working on a budget for the construction of
either a single family handicap accessible home or a handicap accessible twin home for the property.
This project would be funded through similar sources as the 5009 Winnetka Avenue project including,
HOME, CDBG, and EDA funds. In addition, the City will be applying for a number of MHFA and
Metro Council grants in the first quarter of 1995.
Boone Avenue North - The New Hope EDA acquired 5501 Boone Avenue North and the northern
75 feet of 5425 Boone Avenue North through eminent domain/condemnation process, to facilitate the
construction of the Care Break Adult Day Care Center to be operated by Senior Outreach Services.
At the present time the New Hope EDA owns a portion of 5425 Boone Avenue North and is
proceeding in an ongoing condemnation action for 5501 Boone Avenue North.
Because Care Break has shown interest in purchasing the Homeward Bound site at 4741 Zealand
Avenue North, the City has put this project on hold. The City has designated $100,000
(approximately $33,000 per year for three years) in CDBG funds for a future Care Break facility.
MHFA Minnesota City Participation Pro,ram
The MCPP is a program through the MHFA in which the Mtt~A sells mortgage revenue bonds on behalf
of participating cities to meet locally identified housing needs. The proceeds from the bonds provide
below-market interest rate mortgage loans for low and moderate income first-time home buyers. The
MCPP is a six month program that began on July 7, 1994, and ran for six months. During the first four
months, participating cities have exclusive use of their individual allotment. During the final two months,
the individual allotments go into a statewide pool that is available to all MCPP participating cities. In
1994 the City received $849,000 with an interest rate of 7.3%. In November 1994 any funds remaining
from the City's allotment were rolled into a State wide pool. This pool was available to all cities
participating in the Minnesota City Participation Program.
The 'City plans to participate in the program again in 1995. It is possible that the program will not be
continued in 1995, therefore staff will review and apply fOr similar programs as they become available.
CO-OP Northwest
HOME Grant - During the fall of 1993, staff was notified that Hennepin County had approved a
$274,100 5-City grant application for Federal HOME funds. New Hope will utilize $40,000 worth of
HOME funds, in conjunction with other grant moneys, to acquire and build a handicap accessible twin
home at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North.
During the first quarter of 1995, the City will present the CHODO with a variety of
purchase/rehabilitation and new construction projects that will utilize additional HOME funds.
5-City Multi-Jurisdictional Housing/Human Services Group - Staff continues to participate in these
groups that seek out programs to integrate human services with multi-family housing complexes. Seven
action groups have been formed and staff served as Co-chair for Housing and Family Services Action
Group until October of 1994. Besides serving on this Action Group and reporting to/attending Executive
Committee meetings, staff also continues to serve on the Planners Sub-Group and the Housing and Human
Services Group. These groups meet on an informal basis to coordinate housing programs, the annual
remodeling fair, and other new initiatives.
Habitat for Humani~
The City is interested in having Habitat for Humanity construct a home or homes in New Hope. In July
1994, the City presented three vacant, tax forfeited properties located at 4003-4015 Oregon to Habitat
for Humanity for their inspection. Habitat for Humanity reviewed these lots, but decided not to initiate
any construction activities in the Northwest suburbs in either 1994 or 1995.
Broadway Village Apartments Community Center and Lighting Improvements Project
This project continued throughout the fourth quarter, with a majority of the work being completed and
several pay requests being processed after review of the work by the Inspections Department.
1995 Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair
Staff geared up for the 1995 Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair during the fourth quarter in
cooperation with the other CO-OP Northwest Cities. The Fair will be conducted on March 25th at the
Crystal Community Center and this will be the third year of the event. New Hope is again coordinating
the registration process and the disbursements for all expenses. This activity will require a lot of staff
attention during the first quarter of 1995.
Multi-Family Housing Financial Assistance Policies
In September 1994, the EDA approved a Multi-Family Housing Financial Assistance Policy to address
requests for funding assistance for building rehabilitation/renovation work from owners of multi-family
dwellings in the City. In February 1994, a loan proposal was approved for New Hope Apartments (four
12-unit buildings) for $200,000 in rehab work. The closing on the loan was completed in June and the
renovation work was started in July. A substantial amount of work was completed during the third and
fourth quarters and several payment requests have been approved, subject to recommendations from the
Inspections Department. At the November 14th EDA meeting, the EDA approved an additional'S20,000
loan to cover additional unanticipated expenses including a new fire alarm system. Staff has been pleased
with the cooperation of the owners and the overall execution of the rehabilitation project. This project
should be completed in the spring of 1995 and staff is interested in undertaking a similar project at
another multi-family housing complex in 1995.
Enhanced Housing Initiative Program
The Enhanced Housing Initiative, sponsored by CO-OP Northwest and supported by a grant from the
McKnight Foundation, is a collaborative effort committed to improving the lives of lower income
apartment residents in the Northwest suburban area. The program strives to increase resident stability,
enhance the sense of community among residents, promote long-term residency and connect residents to
community and resources. Community organizers work with residents to identify/address common needs
and concerns. The Enhanced Housing Initiative worked with Ridgebrook Apartments in Brooklyn Park
for the past 1 1/2 years and coordinated after-school tutoring and recreational activities and helped link
residents to resources. One of the major objectives of the program is to increase apartment residents
communication and interaction with social service agencies, apartment management and local officials and
to improve their ability to work with these groups to address their social service and livability needs.
In 1995, the Enhanced Housing Initiative plans to replicate the program in another northwest suburban
community. During the fourth quarter, staff wrote letters to encourage the management at Park Ridge
Way to consider the program for their residents. Meetings between CO-OP Northwest, the management
for the apartment, and City representatives are scheduled in January.
Respectfully submitted,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
/
Sarah Bellefuil \ '"'-
Administrative Analyst
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT
CORRICK & SONDRALL, P.A.
ATro~¥s Ar L^w
Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza
8525 Edinbrook Crossing
Suite #203
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443
TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671
FAX (612) 425-5867
SHARON D. DERBY
January 9, 1995
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Bass Lake Road and County 169 Rezoning
(A.C. Carlson Property)
Our File No: 99.49414
Dear Kirk:
This letter is meant to clarify concerns regarding illegal "spot
zoning" claims if the A.C. Carlson property at Bass Lake Road and
169 is rezoned to a commercial classification. Such a rezoning
would not be illegal "spot zoning"
"Spot zoning'" was defined by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the
case of State, by Rochester Ass'n, etc. vs. City of Rochester, 268
N.W.2d 885 (1978) as follow:
'"Spot zoning is a label applied to certain zoning
amendments invalidated as legislative acts unsupported by
any rational basis related to promoting public welfare.
The term applies to zoning changes, typically limited to
small plots of land, which establish a use classification
inconsistent with surrounding uses and create an island
of non-conforming use within a larger zoned district, and
which dramatically reduce the value for uses specified in
the zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or
abutting property."
Certainly, the A.C. Carlson property is a small parcel of land,
however, the rezoning of a small parcel of land in and of itself
does not constitute "spot zoning" Specifically, "spot zoning"
occurs when property is reclassified out of harmony with the
surrounding area granting discriminatory benefit to one or two
property owners without regard to the public welfare or good
regardless of the lot size. 8 McOuillan, Municipal ~orporations,
§§25.83-84.
Mr. Kirk McDonald
January 9, 1995
Page 2
Applying these principals to the subject property, one could argue
the current industrial zoning classification is more out of harmony
with the surrounding area than would be a commercial rezoning.
Industrial rezoning is a more intensive use than commercial and is
]ess compatible with other zoning districts. The subject property
is bordered by resi'dential/office to the north, a park to the
south, and high density residential to the east and southeast. The
industrial classification of the subject property is probably more
detrimental to the land values of the adjacent residential
properties than if said property was zoned commercial. Certainly,
the industrial classification of this property is equally if not
more out of harmony with the surrounding area than if it was
rezoned commercial. Therefore, despite the fact the property owner
may benefit from a commercial rezoning we would be hard pressed to
show the public welfare or good would be better promoted by the
existing industrial zoning and worsened by a commercial rezoning.
This is especially true in light of other commercial property in
close proximity to the subject at Bass Lake Road and Winnetka
Avenue.
It is my opinion that commercially rezoning the subject property,
even if it is limited to the A.O. Carlson parcel, is lawful and
could not be attacked as "spot zoning" as that term is defined by
the herein cited case. The commercial rezoning would likely be
more consistent with the surrounding residential and park uses than
the existing industrial zoning. Also, property values would not be
dramatically reduced, if reduced at all, by commercial rezoning.
Finally, there is nothing to suggest the public welfare and good
would suffer a detriment by commercial rezoning. On the contrary,
potential permitted uses in an I-1 zoning district such as a radio
and television antenna farm, warehouses or a commercial garage
permitting major auto repair, would be more detrimental to the
public welfare and good of the surrounding area than rezoning to
permit a furniture and appliance store. Further, if we are
concerned about an appearance of impropriety by granting
preferenti&l treatment to a single property owner, I do not see the
difference between amending the conditional use permit provisions
of the industrial zoning district to allow a furniture store rs.
rezoning the property to permit the same thing.
Mr. Kirk McDonald
January 9, 1995
Page 3
I hope this letter clarifies any confusion over what constitutes
spot zoning. Contact me if you have any further questions.
Very ~t£~jly yours,
Steven A. Sondral
slm3
Enclosure
CC:
Daniel J. Donahue (w/enc)
A1Brixius (w/enc)
)ur
aw
STATE, BY ROCHESTER ASS'N, ETC. v. CITY OF ROCHESTER
Cite ks 268 N.W.2d 885
STATE of Min'ne[$ota, By the ROCHES-
TER ASSOCIATION OF NEIGitBOR-
HOODS, et al., Appellants,
¥.
CITY OF ROCHESTER, Respondent,
Rodney Younge, Respondent,
Northwestern National Bank of Minneap-
olis and Mr. Judson Gooding, as trustees
of the trust established under the will of
A. C. Gooding, Respondents.
No. 48166.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
May 5, 1978.
Action was brought challenging validi-
ty of rezoning ordinance and seeking de-
claratory judgment and injunction. The
District Court, Olmsted County, O. Russell
Olson, J., denied thc requested relief, and
plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court,
Rogosheske, J., held that: (1) in rezoning a
single 1.18 acre tract of land from single
family and low-density residential to high-
density residential, city council acted in its
legislative capacity and the rezoning classi-
fication had to be upheld where the oppo-
nents failed to prove that the classification
was unsupported by any rational basis re-
lated to promoting the public health, safety,
morals, or general welfare, or that the clas-
sification amounted to a taking without
compensation; (2) the rezoning amendment
was not invalid on ground that it was incon-
sistent with city's comprehensive land use
plan prior to subsequent conforming
amendment of land use plan, and (3) rezon-
lng did not constitute illegal "spot zoning."
Affirmed.
Kelly, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
1. Zoning ~=,2, 683, 684
When municipality adopts or amends
zoning ordinance, it acts in a legislative
capacity under its delegated police powers,
and its zoning or rezoning classification
must be upheht unless opponents prove that
Minn. 885
thc classification is unsupported by any ra-
tional basis related to promoting public
health, safety, morals, or general welfare,
or that the classification amounts to a tak-
ing without compensation, and this rule ap-
plies regardless of the size of thc tract of
land involved.
2. Zoning ,~==,27, 157, 378
In passing zoning or rezoning ordi-
nance, city council is required to make a
legislative judgment that a certain zoning
classification will promote the public health,
safety, morals and general welfare, while in
granting or denying a special use permit,
city council is not altering the legislative
judgment as to the zoning classification,
but has adjudicative function of applying
specific use standards set by the zoning
ordinance to a particular individual use, and
must be held strictly to those standards.
M.S.A. § 462.357, suhd. 1.
3. Zoning ~=386, 502
Proposed high-density residential use
of land which had been zoned for Iow-densi-
ty residential use could not have been ac-
complished through special use permit, nor
could it have been permitted through a
variance since variances are available only
with respect to requirements of zoning ordi-
nance other than use. M.S.A. § 462.357,
subds. 1, 6.
4. Zoning
City council's amendment of zoning or-
dinance with respect to a single 1.18 acre
tract of land involved a legislative judg-
ment, and thus was subject to review under
the narrow scope of judicial review applica-
ble to action in legislative capacity, despite
contention that such rezoning should be
subject to close judicial scrutiny as an ad-
ministrative or quasi-judicial act.
5. Zoning ~:~131, 191
Statute required only that land-use
plan be adopted before initial zoning ordi-
nance was adopted, and did not require that
zoning ordinance conform exactly to city's
land-use plan or that the plan be amended
before zoning ordinance was amended.
M.S.A. § 462.357, subd.
886 Minn. 268 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
6. Zoning ~=604 .
City council's adoption of zoning
amendment inconsistent with city's compre-
hensive land-use plan, prior to a subsequent
conforming amendment 'of the land-use
plan and contrary to recommendation of
planning commission, did not provide
grounds for invalidation of the zoning
amendment under statute. M.S.A. §§ 462.-
357, 462.357, subds. 3, 4.
7. Zoning ~=~171
City council's legislative decision to re-
zone 1.18 acre tract from single family and
Iow-density residential use to high-density
residential use to permit building of a six-
story, 49-unit condominium apartment
building on the land was not arbitrary and
capricious and was not shown to be without
reasonable relation to the promotion of the
public health, safety, morals and general
welfare, where thc property was located
within three blocks of the central business
district and was already adjoined on two
sides by high-density residential anti institu-
tional uses, though bounded on one side by
single-family residences.
8. Zoning ~=39, 165
Generalized claim of neighboring prop-
erty owners that their property may decline
in value, absent some evidence of actual
decline sufficient to prove a taking of prop-
erty without compensation, does not form a
basis for invalidating a zoning ordinance or
amendment.
9. Zoning ~::,162
"Spot zoning" is a label applied to cer-
tain zoning amendments invalidated as leg-
islative acts unsupported by any rational
basis relating to promoting public welfare,
and applies to zoning changes, typically lim-
ited to small plots of land, which establish a
use clarification inconsistent with sur-
rounding uses and create an island of non-
conforming use within a larger zoned dis-
trict and which dramatically reduce the va1-
ue for uses specified in the zoning ordinance
of either the rezoned plot or abutting prop-
erty.
See publication Words and Phrases
for other judicial constructions and
definitions.
I0. Zoning ~=~675, 684
Burden of demonstrating that a partic-
ular zoning amendment is spot zoning rests
with the litigant attacking the ordinance,
and the usual presumption of validity at-
taching to zoning amendments as legislative
acts applies.
11. Zoning ~::,171
Rezoning of single 1.18 acre tract of
land from single family and low-density
residential to high-density residential was
not shown to be illegal spot zoning, where
owners of neighboring single-family resi-
dences proved no substantial diminution in
their property value due to rezoning, prop-
erty on two sides of the subject tract was
already zoned high-density residential, and
record showed sufficient justification for
the rezoning as proper exercise of legisla-
tive power for the public welfare.
Syllabus by the Court
1. In adopting an ordinance rezoning
a single 1.18-acre tract of land, the city
council acted in a legislative capacity under
its delegated police powers. Upon the rec-
ord presented, it has not been established
that the new classification is unsupported
by any rational basis related to promoting
public health, safety, morals, or general
welfare, or that the classification amounts
to a taking of property without compensa-
tion.
2. A city council's adoption of a zon-
ing amendment inconsistent with the city's
comprehensive land-use plan prior to a sub-
sequent conforming amendment of the
land-use plan does not provide ground~ for
invalidation of the zoning amendment un-
der Minn. St. 462.357.
3. The rezoning of the subject tract
does not constitute illegal "spot zoning."
Dayton, Herman & Graham and Philip
W. Getts, Minneapolis, for appellants.
Gerald H. Swanson, City Atty., Roches-
ter, for City of Rochester.
Patterson & Restovich, Rochester, for
Rodney Younge.
pattie-
rests
lnance,
ity at-
islative
tact of
density
iai was
. where
ly resi-
~tion in
~, prop-
act was
ial, and
ion for
legisla-
'ezoning
the city
.y under
the rec-
ablished
~ pported
'omoting
general
amounts
,mpensa-
,f a zon-
~he city's
to a sub-
of the
,unds for
~aent un-
ect tract
zoning."
ad Philip
, Roches-
~ster, for
STATE, BY ROCHESTER ASS'N, ETC. v. CITY OF ROCHESTER
Cite as 268 N.W.2d/~q5
Schacht & Kerr, Rochester, for North-
western Nat. Bank of Minneapolis.
Heard before ROGOSHESKE, PETER-
SON and TODD, JJ., and considered and
decided by the court en bane.
ROGOSHESKE, Justice.
The Rochester Association of Neighbor-
hoods and individual plaintiffs apical from
an order of the trial court denying declara-
tory judgment and injunctive relief in their
action challenging the validity of a zoning
ordinance amendment enacted by the Roch-
ester City Council which rezoned a 1.18-acre
tract of land from single-family residential
use (R-l) and low-density residential use
(R-2) to high-density residential use (R-4) to
permit the building of a 6-story, 49-unit,
condominium apartment buihling on the
land. Plaintiffs contcml (1) that this rezon-
lng of a single tract was presumptively
invalid as a "quasi-judicial act" by the coun-
cil not supported with written findings of
fact upon substantial evidence; (2) that
even if it was a legislative act, the rezoning
was arbitrary and capricious because it was
inconsistent with the city's land-u~ plan
and without reasonable relation to the
health, safety, and welfare of the communi-
ty; and (3) that the ordinance was invalid
"spot zoning." We affirm the decision of
the trial court and hold that the promulga-
tion of the Rochester ordinance was a valid
exercise of the municipality's delegated leg-
islative power and, upon the record present-
ed, was neither proven to be without rea-
sortable relation to the public health, safety,
and welfare, nor to be invalid as "spot
zoning."
The 1.18-acre tract rezoned is owned by
the A. C. Gooding Trust and is situated
three blocks away from the central business
district in the city of Rochester. Before the
rezoning challenged in this suit, the eastern
two-thirds of the subject property was
zoned R-2 and the western one-third was
zoned R-I. The land is bounded on the
west and southwest by an R-1 district of
single-family houses known as the Edison
Park Neighborhood. On thc south is an R-2
district of Iow-density, multiple-family
Minn. 887
dwellings. Across thc street to the east is
an R-4 district with a 24-unit apartment
building. Across thc street to the north is
an R-4 district with a 35-unit condominium.
Diagonally across the street to the north-
east is a vacant lot zoned "institutional"
and owned by the Mayo Clinic. Visible
from the rczoned tract are Mayo Clinic
Complex buildings located one block north
and one block east and another high-rise
condominium two blocks away.
Trustees of the A. C. Gooding Trust en-
tered into a purchase agreement to convey
the 1.18-acre tract to defendant Rodney
Younge contingent upon the rezoning of
the property to R-4 by September 1, 1977.
On Decemt~r 23, 1976, the trustees and
defendant Younge applied, to have the prop-
erty rezoned to R-4. Younge submitted a
"project description" proposing to develop a
60-unit, luxury condominium, later amend-
ed to propose a 49-unit condominium build-
ing, on the site. The application was re-
ferred to the Rochester Planning and Zon-
ing Commission, which held a public hear-
ing on January 12, 1977. The Rochester
Consolidated Planning Department recom-
mended to the planning commission that
the rezoning be tabled to permit a study to
determine whether the city's land-use plan
should be amended. The planning commis-
sion recommended to the city council that
the rezoning application be denied as iqeon-
sistent with the city's land-use plan, which
called for Iow-density residential use on the
Gooding property. On February 7, 1977,
the council rejected the planning commis-
sion's recommendation and on March 7,
1977, passed an ordinance rezoning the sub-
ject property to R-4. The council gave no
written reasons or findings supporting the
rezoning. Minutes of thc council meetings
on February 7 and February 23, 1977, how-
ever, show that the council members be-
lieved the proposed condominium was need-
ed to serve the city's expanded housing
requirements. Council members stated
that the Goeding property would be an
ideal site since it was located within three
blocks of the central business district and
since high-density residential uses already
888 Minn. 268 NORTH WESTERN
acro~ two streets from the pr(q~erly would
be compatible wiLh the [~rol~osed condomini-
um and made dev.elQpment of the subject
property for any other use unlikely. On
July 5, 1977, the council amended its land-
use plan to conform to the rezoning.
Plaintiffs, individual owners of residences
abutting the subject property and their in-
corporated Association of Neighborhoods,
appeared at the January 12, 1977, public
hearing and were heard in protest at a
February 23, 1977, m6eting of the council.
On April 8, 1977, plaintiffs filed this suit
challenging the validity of the March 7,
1977, rezoning ordinance and sceking de-
claratory judgment and injunction. The
trial court denied the requested relief.
[1] 1. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that
the council's action in rezoning a single
1.18-acre tract should be subject to close
judicial scrutiny as an administrative or
quasi-judicial act. This standard of review
would place upon the municipality the bur-
den of supporting the ordinance as a valid
exercise of thc police power by fim!ings of
fact based upon substantial evidence. Ab-
sent such findings, the ordinance would be
presumed invalid. Plaintiffs rely upon Fa-
sano v. Board of County Commrs. of Wash-
ington County, 264 Or. 574, 507 P.2d 23
(1973), and Fleming v. City of Tacoma, 81
Wash.2d 292, 502 P.2d 327 (1972), in which
the Oregon and Washington courts charac-
terized the rezoning of a single tract of land
as a quasi-judicial act affecting the rights
of a few individuals moro than the public
generally. Those courts placed the burden
of justifying the zoning change as reasona-
ble upon the proponents, including the
adopting city council.
We decline to follow the rule applied in
thom jurisdictions, for we have consistently
held that "when a municipality adopts or
amend~ a zoning ordinance, it acts in a
legislative capacity under ils delegated po-
lice powers." Beck v. City of St. Paul, 304
Minn. 438, 448, 231 N.W.2d 919, 925 (1975).
See, also, Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New
Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 333, 220 N.W.2d 256,
261 ('1974); Alexander v. City of Minneapo-
lis, 267 Minn. 155, 125 N.W.2d 58't (1963).
REPORTER, 2d SERIES
As a legislative act, a zoning or rezoning
classification must be upheld unless oppo-
nents prove that the classification is unsup-
ported by any rational basis related Lo pro-
moting the public health, safety, morals, or
general welfare, or that the classification
amounts to a taking without compensation.
This rule applies regardless of the size of
the tract of land involved. See, e. g., Sun
Oil Co. v. Village o£ New Hope, supra (1
acre); Beck v. City of St. Paul, supra (33V~
acres). Our narrow scope of review reflects
a policy decision that a legislative body can
best determine which zoning classifications
best serve the public welfare. In Beck v.
City of St. Paul, 304 Minn. 438, 448, 231
N.W.2d 919, 925, and Sun Oil Co. v. Village
of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 334, 220
N.W.2d 256, 261, we said:
"Even where the reasonableness of a
zoning ordinance is debatable, or where
there are conflicting opinions as to the
desirability of the restrictions it impeses
* * *, it is not the function of the
courts to interfere with the legislative
discretion on such issues."
[2] Plaintiffs note that we have not ac-
corded the same presumption of validity to
city council action denying special-use per-
mits as we have to adoption or amendment
of zoning ordinances. In Zylka v. City o£
Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 167 N.W.2d 45
(1969), we adopted the rule that where a
special use which conforms with the zoning
ordinance is requested, a city council's deni-
al of a special-use permit to a single land-
owner is proved prima facie arbitrary and
unreasonable if it is shown that the council
failed to support its action by written find-
ings of substantial evidence showing the
use impermissible under the permit stan-
dards of the ordinance. See, also, Holasek
v. Village o£ Medina, 303 Minn. 240, 226
N.W.2d 900 (1975); Metro 500, Inc. v. City
o£ Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294, 211
N.W.2d 358 (1973); Inland Construction Co.
v. City o£ Bloomington, 292 Minn. 874, 195
N.W.2d 558 (1972). Plaintiffs ask that zon-
ing amendments be reviewed under a like
standard and suggest that the only distinc-
tion between special-use permits and the
'zomng
oppo-
unsup-
Lo pro-
raJ$, or
}cation
sation.
~ize of
'.'., Sun
:, (33%
cf leers
Iv can
'ations
,.'ok v.
~, ~1
"illage
~, 220
of a
,vhere
the
q)OSCS
the
}afire
~t ac-
~ty to
per-
mcnt
l:y of
d 45
:re a
ming
deni-
land-
and
uncil
find-
the
;tan-
'asek
226
211
Co.
195
~;on-
t!ike
Lhc
STATE, iIY ROCIIESTER ASS'N, ETC. v. CITY OF ROCIIESTER
(:lie as 26~ N.W.2d 8~,15
rezoning in this case is thc label "rczoning"
chosen by thc council to describe its action.
We do not agree. While an amora{merit of
the zoning ordinance can permit particular
property to be used in a manner formerly
forbidden by the ordinance, "a special use
provision permits property, within the dis-
cretion of the governing body, to be used in
a manner expressly authorized by the ordi-
nance.'' Zylka v. City of Crystal, 2~3 Minnl
192, 195, 167 N.W.2d 45, 49. In passing a
zoning or rezoning ordinance, a city council
is required to make a legislative judgment
that a certain zoning classification will pro-
mote the "public health, safety, morals and
general welfare." Minn. St. 462.357, subd.
1. In granting or denying a special-use
permit, a city council is not altering the
legislative judgment as to the zoning classi-
fication. Rather, it has the function, adju-
dicative in nature, of applying specific use
standards set by the zoning ordinance to a
particular individual use and must be held
strictly to those standards.
[3,4} Thc proposed high-~lensity usc of
thc subject land was not in conformity with
existing zoning classifications and therefore
could not have been accgmplishcd through a
special-use permit.' Thc use could be per-
mitred only through amendment of the zon-
ing ordinance. This was not a case where
thc council was enabled to obtain a lesser
standard of judicial scrutiny than would
otherwise be applied simply by choosing to
label its action "rezoning." An amendment
of the zoning ordinance was required and
one was passed. No other label could have
applied to the council's action. The court-
cil's amendment of the ordinance, under our
previous holdings, involved a legislative
judgment and as such must be reviewed
under the narrow scope of judicial review
stated.
2. Assuming, as we hold, that thc rezon-
lng was a legislative act, plaintiffs ask us to
invalidate the ordinance as arbitrary and
capricious and without reasonable relation
i. The proposed nonconforming use also could
not have been permitted through a variance.
Under Minn. SI. 462,357. subd. 6, a variance
may not be granted to permit any use that is
Minn. 889
Lo promoting put,lic health, safety, morals,
and general welfare. They emphasize that
the ordinance, when adopted against the
planning commission's recommendation,
was inconsistent with Rochester's land-use
plan, which was thereafter amended to eon-
form ko the zoning change. Plaintiffs ask
that the rezoning be invalidated on this
basis.
Other states have required that a city's
zoning ordinances conform exactly to its
land-use {)lan when adopted or have held
that the presuml)tion of validity accompa-
nying a legislative act is lifted when a
rezoning ordinance is adopted despite city
planners' recommendations that it will not
be consistent with the comprehensive land-
use plan at the time. See, Baker v. City o£
Milwaukie, 271 Or. 500, 533 P.2d 772 (1975);
Udell v. Haas, 21 N.Y.Yal 463, 288 N.Y.S.2d
888, 235 NE.2xt 897 (196S;); I Anderson,
American Law of Zoning (2 ed.) § 3.15. We
find no such req,irement nor any such
shifting presuml)tion in our law.
[5,6] Minn. St. 462.351 to 462.364, Min-
nesota's municipal planning act, provides
for the adoption of a comprehensive land-
use plan to guide future developments in a
municipality, and § 462.857 grants the mu-
nicipality power to effectuate its land-use
plan through zoning. Section 462.857, subd.
2, provides:
"At any time after the adoption of a
land use plan for the municipality, the
planning agency, for the purpose of
carrying out the policies and goals of the
land use plan, may prepare a-proposed
zoning ordinance and submit it to the
governing body with its recommendations
for adoption. Subject to the require-
ments of subdivisions 3, 4 and 5, the
governing body may adopt and amend a
zoning ordinance by a two-thirds vote of
all its members."
Plaintiffs interpret this provision as requir-
ing that the city's land-use plan be amended
before a zoning ordinance is amended. We
not permitted under the zoning ordinance.
Variances are available only with respect to
other requirements of the ordinance, such as
setback requirements and similar provisions.
890 Minn. 26a NORTI! WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
read the statute to require only that a
land-use plan be adopt, ed. before the initial
zoning ordinance is adopted. The statute in
fact does not require even that thc ?~ning
ordinance conform exactly to the city's
land-use plan. While it may seem desirable
as a matter of municipal planning to amend
the land-use plan before adopting an incon-
sistent zoning ordinance, such a require-
ment is properly a matter for the legisla-
ture, not for this court, to consider. This
court has frequently noted consistency be-
tween a city's land-use plan or planning
commission's recommendation and the zon-
ing ordinance as a factor supporting the
reasonableness of the city's legislative judg-
ment in passing the zoning ordinance. See,
e. g., Olsen v. City o£ Hopkins, 276 Minn.
163, 149 N.W.2d 394 (1967); Beck v. City o£
St. Paul, 304 Minn. 438, 231 N.W.2d 919;
Sun Oil Co. v. Village o£ New Hope, 300
Minn. 326, 220 N.W.2d 256. But we have
never held, nor could we hold under the
language of § 462.357, that a procedure
such as Rochester's of amending the land-
use plan after amending the zoning classifi-
cation could conclusively invalidate the zon-
ing ordinance. The city strictly followed
the procedures of § 462.357, sums. 3 and 4,
requiring that a proposed amendment to
the zoning ordinance first be submitted to
the planning agency for a recommendation
and that a public hearing be held. There is
nothing in § 462.357 Which makes the rec-
ommendation of the planning commission
binding upon the city council or governing
body. Plaintiffs appeared and were heard
at a public hearing on January 12, 1977,
before adoption of the ordinance, and their
attorney was heard in protest proceedings
before the February 23, 1977, council meet-
ing aftra, the council had rejected the plan-
ning commission's recommendations on
February 7, 1977.
[7] Upon the record presented, we hold
that the council's legislative decision to re-
zone the 1.18-aere Goeding property to R-4
high-density was not arbitrary and capri-
cious and was not shown to be without
reasonable relation to promotion of the pub-
lie health, safety, morals, and general wel-
fare. There was evidence of the need for
more high-density housing in the city of
Rochester. Locating the proposed condo-
minium on the subject property complied
with the standards for location of R4 uses
set by the Rochester Code of Ordinances,
§ 66.206, which provides:
"R4 HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT:
This district is intended to create, pre-
serve, and enhance areas for multi-family
use at high densities for beth permanent
and transient families. It is typically ap-
propriate only in areas of good accessibili-
ty to thoroughfares, to public transporta-
tion, public community centers, libraries,
and major shopping centers and shall be
limited to the general area of the central
business district."
The evidence established that thc Gooding
land is within two blocks of two primary
thoroughfares; is within two blocks of city
bus lines; is near public community centers,
a child care center, and a city library; and
is within three blocks of the central busi-
ness district and major shopping area.
There was a rational basis for concluding
that a six-story condominium would be
compatible with existing uses in the neigh-
berhood of the subject property. The prop-
erty was already surrounded on two sides
by high-density R-4 and institutional uses
and on one side by R-2 duplexes and smaller
apartment buildings; it was bounded only
to the west and southwest by plaintiffs'
single-family residences. Already aeresa
two streets from the property were PA-unit
and 35-unit high-rises, and another high-
rise and Mayo Clinic buildings were within
two blocks and visible from the pro~rty.
Within these surroundings, it was reasona-
ble for council members to conclude that
development of this property for further
Iow-density or single-family use would have
been economically unlikely. Further, there
was evidence, and the trial court found,
that R-4 zoning of the Gooding land would
increase tax revenues for the city; would
create no traffic problem for the area; and
(as stipulated by the parties) could be ac-
commodated by presently adequate tim, po-
lice, sewer, water, and electrical services.
Based upon ali of these facts and circum-
star
was
as [
sin~
COrl{
traf
inte
bori
also
the
cod,:
USC
valt.
ly u
rea.~
deb,
vie~
cOUl
tire
par'
tha'
abs,
suf!
wit
for
am~
[:
to
"S[)~
app
vali
an3,
lie
Zor
zon
plo'
eat.
ant
wit
dra
ifie
z.
vi
d~
a~
3.
4.
of
lo-
cd
CS,
'T:
lily
tnt
~ili-
'ta-
ies,
be
ing
ary
:ity
~ nd
-ca.
ing
be
gh-
,des
ISCS
~ frs'
~'OSS
~anit
igh-
chin
,rty.
tlher
~ave
icrc
il'id,
ould
,~uld
and
iCeS.
STATE. BY ROCHESTER ASS'N, ETC. v. CITY OF ROCltESTER
Cite as 268 N.W.2d 885
stances, we cannot find that thc rczoning
was without rational basis.
[8] Plaintiffs point to other factors such
as the apparent stability of thc Edison Park
single-family neighborhood; the expressed
concerns of neighbors that increasod noise,
traffic, people, and less open space would
interfere with the character of that neigh-
borhood; the fact that the Gooding land is
also suited for lesser~Jensity R-2 use under
the definitions of the Rochester zoning
code; a and the possibility that high-density
use of the Gooding land would decrease
values of adjacent property for single-fami-
ly use. All of these factors may make the
reasonableness of thc zoning change fairly
debatable, but under our standard of re-
view, that is not enough to justify the
court's interfering with the council's legisla-
tive judgment in passing the ordinance. In
particular, plaintiffs' generalized claims
that their property may decline in value,
absent some evidence of an actual decline
sufficient to preve a taking of property
without compensation, do not form a basis
for invalidating a zoning ordinance or
amendment,a
[9] 3. Finally, plaintiffs urge the court
to invalidate the rezoning ordinance as
"spot zoning." "Spot zoning" is a label
applied to certain zoning amendments in-
validated as legislative acts unsupported by
any rational basis related to premoting pub-
lic welfare. 1 Anderson, American Law of
Zoning (2 ed.) § 5.08. The term applies to
zoning changes, typically limited to small
plots of land, which establish a use classifi-
cation inconsistent with surrounding uses
and create an island of nonconforming use
within a larger zoned district, and which
dramatically reduce the value for uses spec-
ified in the zoning ordinance of either the
2. Rochester Code of Ordinances. § 66.204, pro-
vides: "R-2 LOW DENSITY DISTRICT: This
district is intended 1) to create Iow density
areas of mixed residential use and 2) to pre-
serve and enhance residential areas undergoing
conversion of single-family dwellings to multi-
family uses." (Italics supplied.)
3. in Beck v. City of St. Paul, 304 Minn. 438,
449. 231 N.W.2d 919. 925 (1975), this court
said: "* * * The simple fact that certain
Min.. 891
rezoned plot or abutting property. See,
Alexamter w. City of Minneapolis, 267 Minn;
155, 12~5 N.W.2d 58,3 (1963); Magnin v. Zon-
ing Comm. of Town o£ Madison, 145 Conn.
26, 138 A.2d 522 (1958); Langer v. Planning
& Zoning Comm., 163 Conn. 453, 313 A.2d
44 (1972); Hein v. Daly City, 165 Cal.
App.2d 401, 832 P.?A 120 (1958); Hermann
v. City o£ Des Moines, 250 Iowa 1281, 97
N.W.2d 893 (1959). See, generally, Annota-
tion, 51 A.L.R.2d 263; 1 Anderson, Ameri-
can Law of Zoning (2 ed.) §§ 5.09, 5.12, 5.17;
1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Plan-
ning, e. 26.
In Hermann v. City o£ Des Moines, supra,
principally relied upon by plaintiffs, the city
of Des Moines rezoned a single city lot
located in the middle of an R-2 district to
R-3. After rezoning, the spot-zoned lot was
surrounded by lots of different classifica-
tion. In Alexander v. City o£ Minneapolis,
supra, we characterized spot-zoning amend-
merits as those which "result in total de-
struction or substantial diminution of value
of property affected thereby." 267 Minn.
155, 160, 125 N.W.2d 588, 586.
[10] The burden of demonstrating that
a particular zoning amendment is spot zon-
ing rests with the litigant attacking the
ordinance, and the usual presumption of
validity attaching to zoning amendments as
legislative acts applies. See, Raffia v. Zon-
ing Board o£ Appeals o£ Town o£ En£ield,
151 Conn. 484, 199 A.2d 333 (1964); Crall v.
Leominster, 362 Mass. 95, 284 N.E.2d 610
(1972); 1 Anderson, American Law of Zon-
ing (2 ed.) § 5.08, p. 290.
[11] Here, plaintiffs have proved no
substantial diminution in their property val-
ue due to the rezoning, nor have they
shown that the rezoning would create an
property values may decline is not of itself a
sufficient reason to invalidate a proposed re-
zoning. Values are not, in and of themselves,
the test of validity of a zoning regulation.
They are factors for a city council to take into
consideration in arriving at /ts conclusions on
the total merits in the interest of the communi-
ty. The general welfare of the public is para-
mount in importance to the pecuniary stake of
the individual."
892 Minn. 268 NORTH WESTERN
island of nonconforming use as the court
found in Hermann. The property to the
east and north of the subject tract was
already zoned high-density residential. The
record presented shows sufficient justifica-
tion for this rczoning as a proper exercise
of legislative power for the public welfare,
and we find no basis fqr invalidation of the
ordinance under the "spot zoning" label.
Affirmed.
KELLY, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would have this
court in this casc adopt thc standard of
review placing upon the municipality the
burden of supporting the ordinance as a
valid exercise of the police power by find-
ings of fact based upon substantial evi-
dence. I am persuaded by the rationale of
Fasano v. Board of County Commrs. o£
Washington County, 264 Or. 574, 507 P.2d
23 (1973), and Fleming v. City of 7~coma,
81 Wash.2d 292, 502 P.2d 327 (1972), cited in
the majority opinion. I would overrule our
cases to the contrary.
Furthermore, I think it is illogical to re-
quire municipalities to live up to a stricter
standard of review in granting or denying a
special-use permit than in rezoning a parcel
of land. I am not persuaded that charac-
terizing 0n~ as legislative and the other as
adjudicative in nature is an acceptable an-
swer. Those landowners who buy or im-
prove their lands in reliance on zoning un-
doubtedly place greater reliance on the zon-
ing of lots as residential than they would on
the prospects of getting a special-use per-
mit.
Thus the standard of review should be a
higher one for rezoning or at least the same
as for securing a special-use permit.
OTIS, J., took no part in the considera-
tion or decision of this case.
REPORTER, 2d SERIES
Vernon E. BIGHAM, Respondent,
Vo
J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, defendant
and third party plaintiff, Appellant,
V.
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPA.
NY, third party defendant, Appellant.
Nos. 47526, 47527.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
May 26, 1978.
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1978.
Electric company lineman brought ac-
tion against clothes seller to recover for
burns allegedly aggravated by "melt and
cling" effect of clothes purchased from sell-
er. The District Court, Blue Earth County,
Milton Mason, J., entered judgment award-
lng lineman $25,000 for medical and hospi-
tal damages and $310,000 general damages,
and ordered electric company to contribute
to payment of damages, and appeal was
taken. The Supreme Court, Scott, J., held
that: (1) action of trial court in dcnying
instruction on assumption of the risk, in
light of facts that clothes purchased from
seller and worn by lineman at time of inju-
ry bore no warning tags with respect to
flammability, was correct; (2) permitting
cross-examination of plaintiff's fellow line-
man by electric company, if error, was
harmless; (3) refusal of trial court to re-
duce general damages award of $310,000
was not abuse of discretion, and (4) in light
of finding that lineman assumed risk of
injury resulting from electric arc flashover,
question of electric company's negligence
should not have been submitted to jury at
all, and electric company should have been
granted directed verdict.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded with instructions.
1. Negligence .~=~ 105
Element of assumption of the risk is
that plaintiff must have known of danger
3NS
~ NE
right,
t 187
tdoor
polls,
2 Ind
g this
7 A2d
clude
~0 Fla
:', 145
~cean
d 364.
~ty of
~lW2d
Point
O, 528
water-
z fair
police
Curti~
~6 NJ
o re~i-
d con-
ionally
lilding
ting of
hie for
jity of'
zoNING
§25.83
Delafield, 117 Wis 2d 2'3, 343 NW2d
816 (Ct App).
~gFlorida. Miami Beach v. Ocean
& Inland Co., 147 Fla 480, 3 So 2d 364.
~0United States. Dennis v. Vii-
lage of Tonka Bay, 156 F2d 672, affg 64
F Supp 214.
2~Ohio. Steudel v. Troberg, 76
Ohio App 136, 63 NE2d 241.
§25.83. --"Island,' "spot," and haphazard zoning.
Although not denounced by any hard and fast rule) zoning in
a haphazard manner is-not favored and, on the contrary, zoning
should proceed in accordance with a definite and reasonable pol-
icy.2 Thus, a zoning ordinance or an amendment of a zoning
ordinance to permit piecemeal or haphazard zoning is void,a and
so-called "spot zoning,"4 where it is without a reasonable basis, is
invalid,s The legislative intention in authorizing comprehensive
zoning is reasonable uniformity within districts having in fact the
same general characteristics and not the marking off, for peculiar
uses or restrictions of small districts essentially similar to the gen-
eral area in which they are situated.$ Accordingly, an ordinance
cannot create an "island" of more or less restricted use within a
district zoned for a different use or uses, where there are no differ-
entiating relevant factors between the "island" and the district.?
The following factors have been considered in determining whether
a zoning classification is spot zonin~ (a) the use is very different
from the prevailing use in the area; (b) the area involved is small;
and (c) the classification is not for the benefit of the community
but only to provide a specific advantage to a particular landowner.8
Ordinarily, the term "spot zoning" is used to denote an
amendment to the municipal zoning law reclassifying one or more
lots or parcels of land for a use out of harmony with the compre-
hensive plan or the classification of the surrounding areas, granting
a discriminatory benefit to the parcel owner, and without regard to.
public welfare.g Spot zoning, by singling out a small area within a
large area and specially zoning it for a use different and inconsis-
tent with the surrounding areas, is not in accord with the compre-
hensive plan.lO In fact, spot zoning has been defined as the
"antithesis of planned zoning." ll
While the term "spot zoning" may not necessarily be confined
to small are~ or lots, the cases in which the courts have struck
down rezoning ordinances as spot zoning have involved single lots
or small areas? Thus, singling out of one lot or a small area for
different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land
307
§25.83
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit of
the owner of that lot or to his economic detriment, is invalid "spot"
zoning,ia Where the spot zone grants a discriminatory benefit to
one or a group of owners to the detriment of their neighbors or the
community at large without adequate public advantage or justifica-
tion the rezoning will be overturned? It should be noted that
when the issue of illegal spot zoning is raised, an important inquiry
is whether the zoning action bears a substantial relationship to the
general welfare of the affected community,is
Thus, selecting one lot or small parcel within a district and
imposing on it restrictions that are greater or less than restrictions
upon remaining portions of What is really the same zoning district
is void? Some courts, however, have emphasized the number of
separate landowners to be benefited by the zoning change, rather
than the actual size of the area benefited.~? The true issue, then, is
one of preferential treatment for one or two persons as against the
general public, regardless of the size of the tract involved?
Where the use of adjacent property renders certain land
entirely unsuited to or unusable for the only purpose permitted by
an ordinance, or where a small parcel is restricted and given fewer
rights than the surrounding property, as where a lot in the center of
a commercial district is limited to use for residential purposes,
thereby creating an "island" in the middle of a larger area devoted
to other uses, the zoning of such land is unreasonable and void?
There is authority which provides that the state constitution does
not empower a city to dedicate property which is located in a
business district to residential uses?
Certainly, "spot" or "island" zoning is void where it is unrea-
sonable,2~ arbitrary? discriminatory,2a or without substantial
relation to the public safety, health, morals, welfare or other object
within the police power? or where it is in violation of the scheme
and terms of the zoning statute or ordinance?
In sum, the factors to be considered in determining whether
rezoning of property is illegal spot zoning include the physical
aspect and character of the land, the effect on the public health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, and the rela-
tionship of the rezoning to the applicable comprehensive plan?
However, a special exceptionz7 granted in conformity with the
express terms of zoning regulations is not illegal as spot zoning?
The following have been ruled to constitute unreasonable and
void "spot" or "island" zoning:zs zoning changes which are
ZONIN~
designe
regulat:
reclassi
residen
;~ of an is
cation
district
and ad~
icehous
residen
or a 8~
prope~
'~ mercial
great f(
small r,
isolatec
half a r
block;a~
an ind,:
tial "A
industr
land lo~
comme
,~ T~
the pro
until e:
plan, z,
If
plan, s
garded
zoned,
in cha
somew
zoning
~" ;g~ who c,
advets(
particu
P~y e
~Se
SW2d 7
3O8
zONING § 25.83
i of
f
! ~at
~nd
:i
',t 'ict
e' of
d ~er
t the
~e'ver
:e' of
O-
,'c ted
~ Des
n!
in :iai
,bect
h~ me
et
vscal
, nia-
lar,~0
h :he
2 ~ lid
designed to relieve a property owner from the burden of general
regulation and which do not further a comprehensive plan;~°
reclassification of a small tract within a notably larger single family
residential zone to permit multiple family living units;z~ creation
of an isolated commercial zone consisting of a single lot;z2 classifi-
cation or reclassification of a lot in the midst of a residential
district to permit an undertaking establishment or an alteration
and addition to an undertaking establishment~ or to allow an
icehouse~ or an industrial use? or other business use in a
residential district;~ restriction to residential purposes of one lot
or a small parcel within a business district;z? classification of
property as residential where the property is surrounded by com-
mercia] properties and the value of the property is many times as
great for commercial as for residential uses;~ establishment of a
small residential district between business sections;zs adding of an
isolated lot surrounded by a residential zone to a business district
half a mile away;~° an ordinance creating a residential district of a
block?~ zoning as "A" residential a small tract within the midst of
an industrial neighborhood and not within a mile of other residen-
tia] "A" property?2 increasing restrictions on a small tract in an
industrial district;az and zoning as residential a triangular tract of
land located in a well-established industrial neighborhood~ or in a
commercial district?
The fact that a building permit is issued in contravention of
the provisions of a comprehensive plan is not "spot" zoning since,
until enactment of regulatory zoning measures pursuant to the
plan, zoning has not yet occurred?
If a change of zone is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan, a complaint of illegal spot zoning ordinarily will be disre-
garded.° Thus, if a zoning ordinance covering a town or other
zoned area is in general in accordance with statute and reasonable
in character, it is not to be overthrown in its entirety because
somewhere within it can be discovered an instance or two of "spot"
zoning, which might perhaps be successfully attacked by a person
who could show that his or her particular interests had been
adversely affected by it.# The burden of demonstrating that a
particular zoning amendment is illegal "spot zoning" rests with the
party attac]eAng the ordinance.#
~See § 25.84.
lKentucky. Fritts v. Ashland, 348
SW2d 712 (Ky).
New York. Utica v. Hanna, 202
AD 610, 195 NYS 225; Nappi v. L~
Guardia, 184 Misc 775, 55 NYS2d 80.
309
iAVOOJ. Mq.LSIO~t~ 'noX Joj eJ,e sdoqsNJoM eseq.L
N a^~ uol~X [0~
PleUOGOW
/-Cl.C 'ON l!u. ued
NPi 'lned '~,S
alVd
~gViSOd 's'n
llYPl SSV~O iSal-~
LO [cjcj eioseuu!lAI 'lned lu!es
LO~ el!ns ~
leeJ1S mPeO 08~
eol~ueS 6u!u!eJ.L luemuJe^O~)
LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS
FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS
FEBRUARY ---
APRIL 1995
INCLUDES:
· ANNUAL PLANNING
INSTITUTES
· BEYOND THE BASICS
Sponsored by: ~ GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE
GENERAL INFORMATION
We are pleased to once again offer workshops
designed especially for citizen planners.
Participants will enhance their knowledge of
various areas of planning and, as a result,
become better equipped to make recommen-
dations and decisions about the communities
in which they live.
Program Features Include:
· An accomplished faculty with extensive
backgrounds in both planning and
instruction
· Presentations focusing on current issues
and timely information
· Handy reference materials designed to
make your job easier
If you would like to make your contribution to
solving land use problems as informed and
effective as possible... REGISTER TODAY!
THESE PROGRAMS ARE FOR YOU.
WHO SHOULD ATTEND?
Members of planning commissions, boards of
adjustment/appeals and governing bodies in
Minnesota cities, counties and townships. Also
valuable for members of other advisory com-
missions, housing and redevelopment authori-
ties, staff (especially those without degrees in
planning), real estate professionals, and others
working in areas related to specialized work-
shop topics.
REAL ESTATE CREDITS
Participants of "Annual Planning Institutes" and
"Beyond the Basics" can earn Continuing Real
Estate Education Credits.
REGISTRATION/CANCELLATION
Register at least 7 days prior to the workshop
date using the forms in this brochure. Fill out
one form for each workshop; duplicate forms if
needed. Fees will be refunded less a $15
service fee if the registration is cancelled 3
working days before the program.
Substitutions for registered participants may be
made at any time. Should inclement weather
(or other circumstances beyond our control)
necessitate program cancellation or postpone-
ment, registrants will be notified via announce-
ments on WCCO radio and other local radio sta-
tions.
FEES
Registration fees for all workshops include a
meal, refreshment breaks and handout materi-
als. See inside for details about group dis-
counts for three or more participants attending
"Annual Planning !nstitute."
IMPORTANT: To qualify for the group discount,
registrations must be mailed in the same enve-
lope!
CO-SPONSORS
· Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
· Association of Minnesota Counties
· Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
· League of Minnesota Cities
· Minnesota Association of Townships
· Minnesota Chapter, American Planning
Association
· Minnesota Planning Association
· Minnesota Planning
FURTHER INFORMATION
Contact Sharon Washick (Registration) or
Vivian Hart (Program) at Government Training
Service, (612) 222-7409 or Minnesota Toll Free
(800) 652-9719.
About Government Training Se~ (G-rS): ·
Recipient of Organizational' 'Support
for Excellence in Training Award
(American Societ~ for Training and
Development~,, i :~
GTS is a public organization whose..mission, is'to.
provide innovative, com~ practiCat train-
ing and consull~g to addres,s the changing..mam '
agement and leadership needs of policymakers;
staff and'appointed officis~ i~ publicly funded orga-
nizations in Minnesota through educational ser-
vices designed to-enhance indi-~..com43etency
and through organizationM-services ~designed to
strengthen group effectivenes&
Printed on recycled paper.
ANNUAL PLANNING INSTITUTE:
THE BASICS
Thursday, February 23 or Saturday, April 1, 1995
9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
For those new to land use planning and zoning or interested
in a review of fundamentals
INTRODUCTION TO PLANNING
· Why plan?
· Players in the planning process
· Understanding the planning process
· Elements of a comprehensive plan
BASIC PLANNING TOOLS -- PART I:
ZONING, VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Definitions, Rationale, Uses, Myths/Misconceptions, How
to's, Non-conforming Uses.
ZONING CASE STUDIES:
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM SOLVING
Participants are placed into small groups in which they
work on rural or urban zoning issues.
YOUR LEGAL LIMITS:
YOUR ROLE AS A DECISION MAKER
· The changing environment in land use
· Legal limits
· Procedures to keep from being sued
· When something goes wrong, who's liable?
· Conflict of interest
· How your attorney can help
· Video presentation: 'Rudehaven"
HOT ISSUES -- PART I:
ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS (Faculty Panel)
BASIC PLANNING TOOLS -- PART I1:
SUBDIVISION REGULATION
Definition, Rationale, Uses,-Content, Procedures, Design
Standards, Financial Guaranties, Special Provisions.
EVALUATION OF A SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL:
A SIMULATION
Participants work in small groups to evaluate a develop-
er's subdivision plan using standard planning tools -- the
comprehensive plan, ordinances, and maps.
HOT ISSUES -- PART I1:
ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS (Faculty Panel)
lAN TRAQUAIR BALL, Planner and Attorney,
Rasmussen & Ball
WILLIAM GRIFFITH, Attorney, Larkin, Hoffman,
Daly & Lindgren
ROBERT LOCKYEAR, Director of Planning and
Public Affairs, Washington County
LOCATIONS
Thursday, February 23, 1995
North Hennepin Community College
Room 132
7411 85th Ave. North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55445
(612) 424-0880
FEE
Saturday, Apdl 1, 1995
Earle Brown Center
U of M St. Paul Campus
1890 Buford Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55108
(612) 624-3275
$80 per person or $70 per person for 3 or more
people from same jurisdiction. This course has
been approved for six hours of Continuing Real
Estate Education Credit.
BEYOND THE BASICS
Thursday, April 6 or Saturday, April 29, 1995
9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Learn about preparing and using planning tools to
deal with a wide variety of development problems,
plus an in-depth review of the planning process --
from proper legal notice to development of sophisti-
cated findings of fact.
PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT
(Of Any Size)
· Some definitions and background
· How tools relate to each other
· Subdivision exactions and dedications
· Role of comprehensive plan; standards
· Public and private sector perspectives
· Implementation strategies
· Legal issues
· Pitfalls/words to the wise
· Adoption requirements
BASIC LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
· Open Meeting Law
· Conflict of interest
· Making findings of fact that support your land-use
decisions
RECENT CASELAW UPDATE
"WHAT'S HOT, WHAT'S NOT"
· Summary of recent land use cases
· Any proposed new legislation
SURVIVAL SKILLS:
COPING WITH THE REALITIES OF THE PLANNING
PROCESS
· How to (and how not to) conduct public hearings
· Legal guidelines
· Practical tips from a local elected official
ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREA-WIDE REVIEW
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS (Faculty Panel)
BRUCE MALKERSON, Attorney, Popham, Haik,
Schobrich and Kaufman
JOHN SHARDLOW, President, Dahlgren,
Shardlow and Uban, Inc.; planning consultant
ELECTED OFFICIAL from a local community
LOCATIONS
Thursday, April 6, 1995
North Hennepin Community College
Room 132
7411 85th Ave. North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55445
(612) 424-0880
Saturday, Apd129, 1995
So. Central Tech College
Conference Ctr., Room A
1920 Lee Boulevard
North Mankato, MN 56001
(507) 625-3441
FEE
$90 per person. This course has been approved for 6.5
hours of continuing Real Estate Education Credit.
HAVE WORKSHOP -- WILL
TRAVEL!
Government Training Service can customize the
workshops in this brochure and other planning topics,
especially for your community!
You choose the topics, date, location, and supply the
participants. We'll provide the faculty and materials.
Some possible in-house planning workshop topics
include, but are not limited to:
· Updating Your Comprehensive Plan
· Planned Unit Development
· Environmental Issues
· Housing & Economic Development Tools
· The Art of the Deal
· Visionary Leadership
· Hanging Tough in Tough Times
More and more cities and counties are taking
advange of this convenient, cost-effective way to
make such educational opportunities available to
those involved in local planning.
OTHER BENEFITS:
· The content can focus on your current issues.
· The program can be presented for a diverse group
-- advisory commission members, elected officials,
staff, interested citizens.
· Costs can be shared by two or more jurisdictions.
Call Vivian Hart (612) 222-7409 to explore the possi-
bilities.
CONSIDERING A GOAL-SETTING
OR TEAM BUILDING SESSION'
FOR YOUR GOVERNING BODY
OR AN ADVISORY COMMISSION?
GTS can provide trained facilitators
who have extensive experience
working with local governments like
yours! We can also facilitate a
process designed to gather citizen
input, to .guide problem solving, to
help re-allocate scarce resources
and make budget decisions, or to
help strengthen existing teams.
Using professional, objective assis-
tance can be even more beneficial
when you are faced with these
times of reduced resources and
tough decisions.
mi imm m m m mm mm mmm m mm mm mi m m mm mi mi im mmm