030293 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MF~F~TING OF MARCH 2, 1993
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNF~OTA
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 Case 93-04 Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval to Allow a 4' x 10' Sign,
2720 Nevada Avenue North, K.C. Development Co., Petitioner
3.2 Case 93-05 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Occupation Jewelry
Business, 8132 46-1/2 Avenue North, Merlin Holtz, Petitioner
3.3 Case 92-11 Request for Text Amendment Regarding Apartment Conversions: An
Ordinance Amending the New Hope Code By Amending Performance
Standards Regulating Alterations, Open Space, and Unit Type for Multiple
Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee
4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee
5. OLD BUSINESS
5.1 Miscellaneous Issues
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of February 2, 1993
6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of February 8, and February 22, 1993
6.3 EDA Minutes and EDA Executive Session Minutes of February 8, and February 22, 1993
7. ANNOUNCEMF~NTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 93-04
Request: Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval
Location: 2720 Nevada Avenue North
PID No: 20-118-21-34-0017
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: K.C. Development Co.
Report Date: February 26, 1993
Meeting Date: March 2, 1993
UPDATE
The petitioner is requesting approval of a comprehensive 'sign plan pursuant to Section 3.467 of the
New Hope Code. Comprehensive sign plan review/approval is required for all commercial and
industrial properties with multiple tenants. The petitioner was not present at the public hearing in
February, thus the Commission tabled this request. The petitioner has been notified to be present at
the March meeting. Please refer to the attached February Planning Commission Report.
4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521
F~brUal'y
Mr. I. T. Kubinski
K.C. Development Co.
6401 Welcome Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55429
Subject: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR 2720 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH
IN NEW HOPE, PLANNING CASE 93-04
Dear Mr. Kubinski:
I am writing to inform you that the New Hope Planning Commission tabled your request for
approval of a comprehensive sign plan for the building located at 2720 Nevada Avenue North
in New Hope at their February 2nd meeting due to the fact the applicant or a representative was
not present at the meeting. Your request will be placed on the March 2nd Planning Commission
agenda and I would request that either you or a representative be present to answer any questions
the Commission may have. You will receive a mailed copy of the March agenda prior to the
next meeting.
Please contact me at 531-5119 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
KM/lb
cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager
Doug Sandstad, BuiMing Official
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Planning Case File 93-04
Family Styled City'~~ For Family Living
CITY OF NEW HOPE
~· PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 93-04
Request: Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval to Allow a 4'-x 10' Sign
Location: 2720 Nevada Avenue North
PID No: 20-118-21-34-0017
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: K.C. Development Co.
Report Date: January 29, 1993
Meeting Date: February 2, 1993
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan pursuant to Section 3.467
of the New Hope Code.
2. Comprehensive sign plan review/approval is required for all commercial and industrial
properties with multiple tenants.
3. K.C. Development, owner of the property, is requesting approval for a total of 34 square feet
,of'signage. The signage would consist of four (4) face panels, with two (2) panels being nine
(9) square feet each (3' x 3') and two (2) panels being eight (8) square feet each (4' x 2'). The
four panels would indicate the names of the tenant busineSses located in the building: Richway,
Odor Management, Pipe Fabricators, and U.P.A.
4. The site is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial and is located on the Nevada Avenue cul-de-sac
approximately 300 feet north of Medicine Lake Road. The site is surrounded on all sides by
I-1 zoned properties.
5. The building is a typical "spec" office/warehouse built in 1979, with four (4) "bays" facing
south towards the side yard. All of the proposed signs are on the south side wall, as permitted
by ordinance when the entrance doors are on the side. The front west wall is blank.
6. The primary function of the signs is not advertising, but rather business name identification.
7. The petitioner states on the application that the new signs will enhance the appearance of the
signage on the building.
8. No public hearing notices are required or mailed to surrounding property owners for
comprehensive sign plan reviews/approval.
ANALYSIS
1. City Code states that "when a single principal building is devoted to two (2) or more business
or industrial uses, a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building shall be submitted and shall
include...specific information to permit a determination as to whether or not the plan is
consistent with the ordinance requirements". No permit shall be issued for an individual use
except upon a determination that it is consistent with a previously or concurrently approved
comprehensive sign plan.
Planning Case Report 93-04
February 2, 1993 ,---~
Page -2- ~
2. The Code further states that "the effect of said comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require
the owner of multiple occupancy structures to determine the specific individual sign
requirements for the tenants of his building. As sign locations and size, etc. may be of some
significant importance in lease arrangements between owner and tenant, it is the City's intention
to establish general requirements for the overall building only, thus providing a building owner
with both the flexibility and responsibility to deal with his individual tenants on their specific
sign needs".
3. City Code would allow up to 100 square feet of signage per tenant (4) with separate entrances
or up to a total of 125 square feet for all four tenants. This proposal is for 34 square feet and
staff considers it routine, as the plan meets all sign code criteria.
4. The four adjacent panel signs would be constructed of w°od and plastic, with a white
background and colored lettering, without any illumination. The sign panels would be oriented
centrally on the south wall, above the main set of exterior doors.
5. The Building Official has indicated that several of the signs have already been installed and this
is a result of one tenant wanting to install new signage, but the building owner being unaware
of the requirement for comprehensive sign plan approval. After the Building Official
communicated the code requirements to the owner of the building, several of the older tenant
signs were removed and a plan developed that coordinated all tenant signage.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive sign plan for 2720 Nevada Avenue as proposed.
Attachments: Section/Zoning/Topo Maps
Sign Elevations/Dimensions
Staff Photos
7108
30 T~ AVE #
o
vIEWCRF.$T LANE
&7~
R-4
1'2
I.~ r
RICT MAP
N HOPE
~ 9~?.~
X 9~. 5
X 9~5
947.2
X
945.0
X
94:].2
927.6 ~,
6
924.7
925 1
4.9 X 917.4
o
A&B_-9sf
four panels C &D -_ 8 sf
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 93-05
Request: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Occupation
Location: 8132 46-1/2 Avenue North
PID No: 07-118-2144-0065
Zoning: R- 1 (Single Family Residential)
Petitioner: Merlin Holtz
Report Date: February 26, 1993
Meeting Date: March 2, 1993
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a home occupation pursuant to
Section 4.038 of the New Hope Code.
2. The petitioner is proposing to continue operation of a jewelry business out of his home and
this application was filed as a result of a complaint received by the General Inspector. An
order was issued to discontinue the business or complete a "Home Occupation Affidavit" to
determine if a conditional use permit was required. Staff determined that a CUP was required
because of traffic and "sales on premises", thus this filing.
3. The petitioner indicates in his letter that he has operated the business out of the home for the
past 13 years, since October, 1980. Prior to that time the business was operated out of rented
office space in a commercial building. The business was moved to the home due to financial
considerations. The petitioner states he was unaware the he was in violation of any ordinance.
4. The petitioner operates a jewelry business and clients come to the home to view samples and
catalogs, place their order, and return to pick up their merchandise. The work is by appoint-
ment on an individual basis with one client at a time and an average of 3-5 clients per week.
5. The petitioner states that he does not feel that the flow of traffic significantly impacts the
neighborhood, as clients park in the driveway and are at the home for a maximum period of
20-40 minutes. There are no truck or van deliveries to the home, it is all done through either
UPS or the regular mail.
6. There is no business signage on the property and the petitioner states that there is no
advertisement through newspapers, etc. He also indicates that the neighbors are aware of the
business and have no problems with it.
7. The property is located 4 lots east of New Hope Elementary School and is surrounded by "R-
i'' single family homes.
8. The parcel contains 9,600 square feet and the existing home conforms to all setback
requirements. The home was constructed in 1971, with several miscellaneous permits issued
since that time for foundation repair and deck. In 1992, a permit was issued for a bedroom
and garage addition.
9. The topography of the property shows that the lot is high at the rear (north) and slopes down
to the street with a front walkout-style home.
10. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no
comments on the request. (The original notice mailed out was in error, as it stated the hearing
would be conducted on March 3rd, however a corrected notice for March 2nd was mailed
prior to the hearing.)
Planning Case Report 93-05
March 2, 1993
Page -2
ANALYSIS
1. The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to insure that the
occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use md that
compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained.
2. For purposes of the City Code, home occupations are defined to distinguish between
"permitted home occupations" and "conditionally permitted home occupations~. All home
occupations which satisfy the "permitted home occupation" criteria shall be considered as a
permitted accessory use in all residential zoning districts. Home occupations which fall to
satisfy the permitted home occupation criteria, shall require a conditional use permit and
may be located in any residential zoning district based upon conditions set forth in the
approved conditional use permit.
3. Permitted Home Occupations. Home occupations which meet the following criteria:
A. Structural Changes. Businesses which require no interior or exterior changes
necessary to conduct the business; which are conducted within a principal building; and
which require no mechanical or electrical equipment not customarily found in a home.
B. TraffiC. Businesses which do not significantly alter the traffic pattern of the
neighborhood.
C. Employees. Businesses which do not require employees other than those living on the
premises.
D. Area Permitted. Businesses which require no more than twenty percent of the gross
floor area of a dwelling, not to exceed three hundred square feet including accessory
building.
E. Sales on Premises. Businesses which are not involved in direct sales on the
premises except as may be conducted through the use of the U.S. mail or by
taking and ordering delivery of orders by telephone.
4. Conditional Use Permit. Conditionally permitted home occupations shall consist of those
home occupations which do not meet all of the provisions of//3 above. Said home occupation
may be granted a conditional use permit provided that:
A. Adver~ Effect on Ne[ahborhood. The City Council shall find that all business related
activity occurring on the premises shall not cause nay adverse changes to the residential
character of the neighborhood.
B. Scre~nln_~ of Exterior Changes. The City Council shall find that any exterior changes
necessary to conduct the business are sufficiently screened, properly designed, or
separated by distance so as to be consistent with existing adjacent residential uses and
compatible with the residential occupancy.
C. Interior Chan~es. The City Council shall f'md that any interior changes necessary to
cOnduct the business comply with all building, electrical, mechanical and fire codes
governing the use of the residential occupancy.
D. Traffic. The City Council shall find that the traffic generated by the business involves
only vehicles of the type that typically service single family residences and that such
traffic constitutes neither a nuisance nor a safety hazard.
Planning Case Report 93-05
March 2, 1993
Page-3-
5. Staff f'mds that this home occupation is conditionally permitted because provisions 3B and · 3E of Permitted Home Occupations (sales and traffic)' are not met.
6. 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:
1. In Residential Districts (R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-0):
a. Traffic. Non-residential traffic is channeled into thoroughfares or onto
a street abutting business or industrial uses leading directly to
thoroughfares, and not onto minor residential streets.
b. Screening. The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance
or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing
homes will not be materially depreciated in value and there will be no
deterrence to development of vacant land.
c. Compatible Appearance. The structure and site shall have an appearance
that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties.
7. The only major concern that staff has with the request is customer vehicles coming to and from
the premises. The City Code states that the business should not "significantly alter the traffic
pattern of the neighborhood' and staff f'mds that the traffic is minimal, with 3-5 clients per
week. The Commission may want to limit the number of customers per week and direct that
parking be in the driveway. No truck deliveries should also be included as a condition.
8. City Code also states that the area of the business should not exceed 300 square feet of the
gross floor area of the dwelling. The petitioner has submitted an unscaled sketch of the home's
basement floor plan which shows an office area that staff estimates to be about 56 square feet.
The area of the home devoted to the business should be confirmed by the Commission.
9. The Commission will want to confirm that there will be no signage on the property except what
is allowed by City Code.
10. The hours of the business operations have not been discussed and the Commission may want
to inquire as to how early or late in the day clients come to the home.
11. Staff finds that it does not appear that the granting of the CUP for this home occupation would
cause adverse changes to the residential character of the neighborhood or that traffic would
create a nuisance or safety hazard.
Planning Case Report 93-05
March 2, 1993
Page -4-
RECOMMENDATION
Pending input from the neighbors, staff recommends 'approval of the request for a conditional use
permit for a home occupation to continue operation of the jewelry business, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Customers at the home limited to 5 per week, parked in the driveway, with no truck
deliveries.
2. Area of home devoted to business use not to exceed 300 square feet.
3. All signage to comply with City ordinances.
4. Annual inspection by staff.
Attachments: Zoning/Section/Topo Maps
Home Occupation Affidavit
Inspection Report
Petitioner Letter/Sketch
Property Survey
AREN~
COOPER z
HIGH SCHOOl
SUNNYSIDE
NEW HOPE ~ ~ --
ELEMETARY
SCHOOl.
CiViC
CENTER :
.- R.s ~.2 I
NEWCITY FRED
HALL i SIMS ,,
I
PARK i
SWIMMING : R.4 ·
,,ooL 8'4
FIRE
STATION
4;'-~/2 AVE.-
281
AOM.
GETHSEMANE
CEMETEII~f SCHOOL
SCHOOL
HOUSE OF
AVl:. I. UTHER&N--
-; - 4-74~ 47¥1
. CHURCH ' - '-
~ ~ NEW HOPE
~ ~ ELEMENTARy
~ +~t~ SCH~L
IlE4ul ~
NO. 9
OFFICE
x
928.7
X
933.2
~3 ~0 0 o
VIRG A AVENUE
934.9
o
937
0 0
919.4 ~%~''
913.0X0
×
·
015.0
~~ HON~ OCCU~&~ZONA~ZD&VZ~
I, "~f,/;~ ~0/%j , propose to operate a business in
the home that I .occupy at 8/3 L %&~ ~ve ~J . The name
of the business is H. A'.s C,,s ~ 6c~/~ and my description
Complete the following questions, ~ and date this form and mail
or deliver to: Zoning Administrator, City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon
Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428.
A. Is this business regulated by a County, State or Federal
agency? Explain.
Please attach a copy of the appropriate license or
cer~ificate.
B. Will any changes to the building be planned or required?
Explain.
JO.
C. Are there any employees or "helpers" who are not family
me, ers, but may be present? Explain.
D. Will any sales occur on the premises other than by telephone
or mail? Explain.
E. Will any customers or vehicles (including cars and trucks)
come to your home because of this business? Explain.
~3o2 (1/9o)
A
F. How many square feet of floor area will this business take up
in your home? What floor/s are involved?
Is garage or storage building used?
G. ~n~lca=e if it is your desire =o ins=all a sign on the ou=side
of the home.
H.. 'Will this business be visible in any way~ Exglain.
Name: (printed) i'Ve/,',.., /'/~/~. ,, , Date: !/z ~/~'3 .
e~lana~on:
The customers comin~ to your home for purchases/repairs/etc, of ~ewelrz
is inconsistent with ci=y code 4.038(3)b & e. You ~v aDDlv for a CUP
(Condi=ional Use Pe~it) on the at~ached application, re~uirin~ a
Zoni~~ini~. a ~or Da~e
cc: City Manager Manag~en~ Assistant/
Co~ity Developmen~ Coordinator
Prope~y File
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
(612) 531-5127 Date:
Time:
INSPECTION REPORT P O#
Address: c'~/~~L
~ Name:
Type:
Source: [] Construction [~K'~plaint [] Other [] Annual
/' c,~. :/,' . Corrected
Comments:
RETAIL SALES BUSINESS IS NOT PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL-ZONED AF;EAS.
*** IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUE THIS I LLEGALUI]I]E.
IF YOU WISH TO AP. PLY TO THE CITY FOR A SPECIAL USE PEP-~41T
(MAY OR MAY NOT BE GP-ANTE-n) YOU MUST F!PST Cf"~l~l FTF THF "I-I(~MI:
C~,_r,_UPAT!_r~.. AFF!_nAV!T- ENCLOSE_n A~_n ~,l!T~-tl~ ? _nAYe, ~URMIT IT TO,
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORt DOUG SANDSTAD.
', ' ' - ::~ I/25/93 Mailed p~XX
Issued to: .... ~ .... ~ Date:
Re,rester
N~E 7 days to ~ the~ Co~it~ns
Reinsp~tion Date: / /
white' applicant yell~ · ins~or pink · file
February 3 1993.
To the Mayor and City Councillors~
For the past 43 years I have operated my business from an office
in my home. Prior to which I hsd rented office space in a
commercial building, but ~ound due to financial costs I was not
able to maintain this office. I moved my business to my home
in October igBO. I was totally unaware that I had violated a
city lew~ and can only assure the council that I certainly
would not have knowingly or willingly have violated the city
law for a period of 43 years.
The nature of my business is jewelry~ in that~ ! work from
samples and catalogs. Clients come to my home to view and
select what I have to offer, after I have received their
completed order they return to collect their goods. I work by
appointment on an individual basis and only have one client at
a time coming to see me. I have on an average of 3-5 clients a
week.
I feel that this low flow of traffic would not in any way harm
the flow pattern of city traffic. My clients park on my driveway
and are only at my home for a maximum period of 20-40 minutes.
I would also like to inform the council that I do not have any
truck or van deliveries coming to my home, i~ is all done
through either UPS or the regular mail.
I do not advertise in any way either through newspapers,
magazines etc. My entire business has been built up over the
years entirely through word of mouth.
Z have no signs whatsoever on my property. My neighbors have
been the same ever since ~ moved into my home, and have never
hsd any problems or complaints with regard to me having my
clients coming to my home. I have discussed this matter with
them they have all offered me an affidavit to this effect
should I need it.
-2-
I would like to appeal to you to grant me a permit, so as to
allow me to continue operating my business ,, legally" in
order for me to continue to provide for my ~~.
I will be present st the council meeting ~ '
-~'!~'~
should you require any further explsnstions from .me.
Sincerely,
Merlin Holtz.
I~1 OLt~ ~.' N~L~ MllLS~-~I ~'.-
~,~?... ~urvl~ ~Ir: THE BUTLER REALTY' C~. )NC. L/G,' ~
~oq/ · ~ ~.
~ ...... ~ . .... ~o. Qo-y , ....... ..- .~-
. . .
.. ~ /.. . ,.. ..
~[ ,-- '~ . ·
~~. ' ,__,..:_ ,
I
I I .
· ,~c v'~ ~ ~ AVE. NO.
Z hereby certify that this 'iS a true and correct repres~ntat~.°n of "
a survey o~ the bound~i~s'o~-
~t 4, Block 1, ~tght~s First Addition '
And.of_~e location of all buildings~ thereon, and all visible
enc~ac~ents~ if any~ on said land. As s~veyed..by me this 10th-
~~ ~'DEC~TION Land S~veyo=, ~inn. Reg. No. 7979
I CE~ THAT I AM THE PROPER~ ~ , ~ ~ ~~. .--
'HIS P~N ~ COMPLETE AN~ ACCURATE:
-il ~ - / ' ~ It / ~ -- " ' ' ~ '
. -, *' I __ ~ ~ -.~ ..... ~ .... ~.~ .... . ........
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 92-11
'...,~equest: Request for Text Amendment Regarding Apartment Conversions: An Ordinance
Amending the New Hope Code By Amending Performance Standards Regulating
Alterations, Open Space, and Unit Type for Multiple Family Dwellings
Location: City of New Hope
PID No.:
Zoning: R-3, R-4, R-5 (Medium Density, High Density, Senior/Disabled Residential)
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Report Date: February 26, 1993
Meeting Date: March 2, 1993
BACKGRQUND
1. This is a request by the City of New Hope for consideration of a zoning text amendment regarding
apartment conversions. The specific ordinance being considered is Ordinance 93-01, An Ordinance
Amending the New Hope Zoning Code By Amending Performance Standards Regulating Alterations,
Open Space, and Unit Type to Multiple Family Dwellings.
2. In late 1991/early 1992, the City received several requests from owners of apartment complexes to
convert 1 & 2 bedroom units into 3 & 4 bedroom units. The requests were in response to a market
demand for larger units to accommodate larger families. The Building Official indicated that there had
been 19 recent apartment conversions in the City. Eighteen of the conversions took place at the
Wincrest Apartments, 5716 Winnetlm Avenue North (just north of Frank's Nursery). The conversions
involved converting adjacent two bedroom apartments into one and three bedroom apartments.
3. In April, 1992, the staff took this issue to the City Council and indicated that there was a concern about
the number of apartment conversions that were taldng place and recommended that the Council consider
implementing a moratorium on the conversions until the issue could be studied by the Planning
Commission. A resolution was passed by the Council authorizing a plannlng study to consider the
impact of apartment conversions that increase the number of bedrooms per unit and authorizing
an interim moratorinm ordinance, which expires on April 13, 1993. Subsequent to the adoption of
the ordinance implementing the moratorium a housing discrimination complaint was filed against the
City by the owner of the Wincrest Apartments in regards to the moratorium on conversions.
4. The majority of apartment complexes in the City were constructed as one or two bedroom units and
over the past several years there has been an increased demand for 3 or more bedroom dwelling units
primarily due to an increase of single parent families. While the City does not object, and in fact
supports, conversions that would provide good affordable housing within the City for single parent
families, several issues needed to be studied to determine overall impacts on the community, such
as:
1. Apartment conversions could result in the loss of other complex amenities, including swimming
pools, park area or open space, game or party rooms, and parking area.
2. Many apartment complexes were allowed credits for increased density subject to providing
amenities which may be subject to removal to accommodate the conversion for increased
bedrooms per unit.
3. An increase in bedrooms per unit without sufficient amenities could result in an overuse of
property and be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of potential renters, as well as the
City at large.
4. Said converted apartments could detrimentally affect adjacent municipal amenities.
Planning Case Report 92-11
March 2, 1993
Page -2- ~
5. Since the initiation of the moratorium the staff and Planning Consultant have compiled a great deai~6~
data on this issue from other cities, Metropolitan Council and the University of Minnesota. Brooklyn
Center also completed a study on this issue several years ago and their information was of great
assistance. Excerpts of some of the background information is enclosed for your review if you are
interested.
6. The Planning Consultant and City Attorney have prepared a number of repons and draft ordinances on
this issue and the staff has met several times to fine-tune our original recommendations to the Codes
& Standards Committee, which are contained in the City Attorney's January 8th correspondence and
ordinance. Subsequent to the January 19th Codes & Standards meeting the ordinance was modified,
per recommendations from the Committee, and the most recent recommendations from the
Committee are contained in the Attorney's July 25th correspondence. I have enclosed previous
repons from both the Planner and Attorney so that you can ~review some of the earlier
recommendations.
7. The Codes & Standards Committee requested that this issue be placed on the February Planning
Commission agenda for an informal discussion so that the Commissioners would have a general
understanding of the reasons for the proposed ordinance changes. Subsequent to the February
Commission meeting the ordinance was amended to removed the 1,500 square foot maximum open
space requirement, per the request of the Commission, and that is the draft ordinance under
consideration at this public hearing.
8. The Planning Consultant will be present at the public hearing to make a presentation on the proposed
ordinance and the City Attorney will be present to answer technical questions.
9. If adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, the proposed ordinance changes would
become effective upon publication and impact all multiple family dwelling complexes in the City (which
are located in the R-3, R4, and R-5 Medium/High Density/and Senior/Disabled Residential Zoning
Districts). Notice of the public heating has been published and although individual notification is not
required, the City has notified all 77 aPartment complex managers/owners in the City and has
encouraged their attendance at the hearing and their input into the ordinance.
10. Staff desires to have an amended ordinance in place by April 13th so the moratorium does not need to
be extended. The Commission could either adopt the proposed or a revised version of the ordinance
at this meeting or table the matter until the April 6th Commission meeting. If an ordinance
recommendation is approved at this meeting, staff requests that the matter not be sent to the City
Council until March 22nd, due to the fact that the City Manager will not be in attendance at the
March 8th Council meeting.
ANALYSIS
Plannln_~ Consultant Report - Excem_ ts
1. Thc issue of apartment conversions in not new to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Beginning in
1991, the City of Brooklyn Center conducted a highly detailed study of this issue. In large part, the
information obtained and the conclusions drawn in the Brooklyn Center study were used extensively for
the New Hope evaluation.
2. Unit Type Demand - The recently encountered requests for apartment conversions appear to
demonstrate that a demand for three and four bedroom units exists. This "demand" was verified via
a detailed investigation and review of a variety of background information relating to the apartment
conversion issue.
Planning Case Report 92-11
March 2, 1993
Page -3-
A. A 1989 Metropolitan Council study indicates that one of the crucial problem~ for many renter
households with low incomes is f'mding an affordable unit of appropriate size. VeT often
a trade-off exists between overcrowding and excessive rent burden. Between 1980 and 1985 the
number of large renter households in the Twin Cities area increased by 25 percent. Thus, there
appears to be a demonstrated trend toward the need for large rental units in the Metropolitan
Area. The Met Council report is highly comprehensive and substantiates the assumption that
a greater demand for large apartment units (three bedrooms) exists within the Twin Cities area.
Consequently, it appears appropriate that the City of New Hope attempt to address this
change.
B. A 1986 Metropolitan Council study on single parent families states that from 1970 to 1980,
single parent families in the Twin Cities increased by 75 percent and that further increases were
anticipated. Apartment conversions within the City of New Hope could be responsive to this
trend. The report also indicates that for many single parents, housing is too expensive and does
not meet their needs in regard to affordability and amenities for children. One of the ways to
improve housing for single parent families is to provide new multiple family dwellings
specifically designed to meet the needs of the user group. There appears to be a demonstrated
need for larger, rental housing units within the Twin Cities area which would meet the
needs of target user groups.
3. Existing Apartment Characteristics - In addressing the issue of apartment conversions within the City
of New Hope, it is important to examine the characteristics of apartments which currently exist both
in the region and within the City of New Hope. 1990 census data shows that 44 percent of the City
of New Hope's housing units are renter-occupied. This figure is significantly higher than that of
neighboring communities and demonstrates that the City appears to have a sufficient supply of rental
housing. While the conversion of two and three bedroom units to three and four bedroom units will
likely result in a reduction in total rental units, it is not anticipated that the total number of renters
households will decrease.
A. The census data also indicates that the number of persons per dwelllng unit within the City
of New Hope (1.87) is significantly less than that found in neighboring communities and
Hennepin County. This may be construed to mean that the City holds a disproportionate
supply of one and two bedroom rental units. It should be noted, however, that the City of
New Hope does hold a number of elderly rental housing developments which contribute to
the City's relatively low number of persons per unit. These include the St. Therese, North
Ridge, Anthony James, and Chardon Court Apartments. The conversion of one and two
bedroom apartments to three and four bedroom units in New Hope will likely result in an
increase in the number of persons per rental unit.
B. Renter-occupied housing units within the City of New Hope have a mean number of rooms of
3.7 (does not include bathrooms, utility rooms, pullman kitchens). This figure has been found
to be less than the mean number of rooms found both in neighboring communities and
Hennepin County. Again, this figure is likely reflective of the relatively high percentage
of one and two bedroom rental units within the City (in comparison to neighboring
communities).
C. A trend appears to exist in that rental costs tend to escalate as one moves outward from the City
center. Median rent in the City of New Hope is only slightly higher than the County average.
It is assumed that apartment conversions (larger units/updated features) could result in an
escalation in average monthly rents within the City.
Planning Case Report 92-11
March 2, 1993
Page -4-
D. In 1990, the City of New Hope held a vacancy rate of 5.4 percent. While thi~ f'~gurv ,s
considered relatively low, it does represent an increase from past years. The City's rental
vacancy rate verifies that there is a supply of approximately 200 unoccupied/vacant rental
housing within the community.
E. It is also important to identify some of the physical characteristics of the City's apartment stock.
The Planner's Report provides a listing of apartments which exist within the City, their location,
the year they were built and the number of dwelling units which are provided. It can be
concluded that the vast majority of New Hope Apartments were constructed in the 1960's.
F. Building permit records show that almost all f'manclal investments in the City's total 174
apartment buildings have responded to maintenance or repair needs. The City Building
Inspector has indicated that of approximately $1,338,000 dollars spent on apartment buildings
in the last five years (1988-1992) only three percent was devoted to actual facility upgrades
or improvements. The City Building Inspector has estimated that construction dollars spent on
apartments from 1982 to 1988 were even lower than the percentage factor cited in the last five
years. This data indicates that very Httle re-investment in the City's apartment buildings has
occurred in the past ten year period.
4.' User Group Profile - Another issue regarding the proposed conversion of one and two bedroom units
to three and four bedroom units is that of anticipated user groups and community perceptions. Based
on information provided as part of the Brooklyn Center Apartment Conversion Study, it may be
concluded that three and four bedroom apartment units will cater to large families with children.
It must be realized that the requested conversions will allow f'mancial reinvestment in the City's
existing apartment buildings which may not otherwise occur and would respond to a demonstrated
need for affordable alternative honsing.
5. Based on information gathered as part of the Brooklyn Center Study regarding apartment conversions,
it is evident that there is an area demand for affordable rental units which eater to the needs of
large families with children. In addition to fulfilling an alternative housing needs, the conversion
of apartments within the City would provide f'manciai reinvestment in the City's existing
apartment buildings which may otherwise not occur.
Proposed Ordinance
6. Preliminary discussions regarding the apartment conversion issue focused on either controlling
conversions through the conditional use permit process or by amending the existing performance
standards contained in the City Code. Because the City Code already contains performance standards
that govern multiple dwellings, the general consensus of staff and Codes & Standards was that these
standards could be amended to regulate apartments with three bedroom plus units without the need for
a separate Conditional Use Permit for conversions.
Specifically, issues such as off-street parking, open space requirements, minimum lot size and minimum
unit floor area are already dealt with by performance standards. Amendments to the existing
performance standards for three bedroom or more units could be added to the existing standards and
enforced through site and building plan review and issuance of building permits.
7. Another reason that amending the existing performance standards was chosen over the CUP process was
because the City Attorney pointed out the need to deal with potential "equal protection" arguments since
the City would be treating converted buildings differently from new construction. The City definitely
must be sure that it can justify a distinction which treats conversions differently from new construction
to avoid constitutional 'equal' protection" arguments.
Planning Case Report 92-11
March 2, 1993
Page -5-
8. Section One of the proposed ordinance amends Section 4.031 of the City Code to prevent any bedroom
alterations for non-conforming apartment buildings. This provision will effectively prohibit any
apartment conversions if the complex is non-conforming regardless of whether the total number of
bedrooms in the complex remains the same. If a building is non-conforming and the owner desires to
make bedroom alterations, a variance application would be necessary.
9. Section Two(A & B) of the ordinance amends Section 4.035(3) of the City Code by expanding upon
the open space requirements for multiple family dwellings. Open space requirements are based on
bedrooms per dwelling unit. As such, a two bedroom unit would have lesser open space requirements
than would a four bedroom unit which would likely include children. The existing code requires at least
500 square feet of open space for each dwelling unit. The proposed amendment requires 500 square
feet of open space for units with 1-3 bedrooms and 600 square feet of open space for units with
4 bedrooms.
10. Under Section Two a new sub-section "C" has been added regarding recreation areas. This new section
would require each multiple family building or complex of 2 or more buildings containing 8 or more
units to provide a visually defined or fenced active recreation area. The size of the recreation area
would be determined by multiplying the number of dwelling units times 50 square feet - exclusive of
parking/loading areas. This section is not applicable to R-5 Senior Citizen or Physically Handicapped
multiple family dwellings. This requirement is intended to impose design features that will cater to the
needs of children. :
11. Section 3(B) of Section 4.035(7) of the City Code was added and specifies that apartment complexes
with eight or more dwelling units may have up to 40% of said dwelling units as three bedroom
apartments. This requirement is intended to avoid high concentrations of three bedroom units and to
allow the supply for such units to be dispersed evenly throughout the community's multiple family
dwelling stock.
RECOlVIlVIENDATION
Pending public input from apartment complex owners/managers, staff recommends approval of Ordinance 93-01
Amending Performance Standards Regulating Alterations, Open Space, and Unit Type for Multiple Family
Dwellings.
Attachments: February 9, Attorney Correspondence and Proposed Ordinance
Public Hearing Notice
Notice to Apartment Owners/Managers
January 25, 1993 Attorney Correspondence
January 8, 1993 Attorney Correspondence
December 16, 1992 Attorney Correspondence
December 9, 1992 Planning Consultant Report
October 21, 1992 Attorney Correspondence
October 13, 1992 Planning Consultant Report
April 13, 1992 Council Resolution Authorizing Planning Study on Apartment
Conversions
April 13, 1992 Ordinance 92-08 Establishing Moratorium on Apartment Conversions
February 19, 1992 Planner's Report - Apartment Conversion Study
Brooklyn Center Survey of City Zoning Requirements for Three Bedroom Apartments
Building Official Info re: Apartment Conversions in New Hope
Housing Complaint
Playground Dimensions
February 9, 1993
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: Apartment Conversion Ordinance
Our File No: 99.49301
Dear Kirk:
In follow up to our recent conversation please find enclosed
Ordinance No. 93-01 amended by removing the 1,500 square feet
maximum from subsection c. of the open space requirement.
enclosed is a copy of the public hearing notice which we will have
published in the February 17th edition of the Post calling for a
public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 2nd.
As you have requested, I will also attend that meeting of the
Planning Commission. Contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slt
Enclosure
cc: Al Brixius (w/enc)
Va]erie Leone (w/enc)
Doug Sandstad (w/enc)
ORDINANCE NO. 93-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ~-~
ZONING CODE BY AMENDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
REGULATING ALTERATIONS, OPEN SPACE, UNIT TYPE,
AND FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4.031 (11) "Alterations" of the New Hope
City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(11) Alterations. Alterations may be made to a build n9
containing lawful non-conforming residential units when
they will improve the livability thereof, provided they
will not increase the number of dwelling units , or the
number of bedrooms in any dwelling unit, or size or
volume of the building.
Section 2. Section 4.035 (3) "Useable Open Space" of the New
Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(3) Useable Open Space.
a.. Single and Two Family Dwellin.qs. No dwelling may
occupy in excess of twenty percent of the lot area
on single or two-family dwelling sites. Ecch
b~ Multiple Family Dwellings. Every multiple family
dwelling site shall comply with the following open
space requirements for each dwelling unit contained
thereon exclusive of the front yard area:
i..,. 1 - 3 Bedrooms - 500 square feet per unit
ii. 4 or more Bedrooms - 600 square feet per unit
c. Recreation Areas. Each multiple family building or
complex of two or more buildings containing ei.qht
(8) or more dwelling units shall include a visually
defined or fenced active recreation area. The size
of the recreation area shall be determined by
multiplying the number of dwelling units times 50
square feet exclusive of parking or loading areas.
This section shall not apply to R-5 senior citizen
or physically handicapped multiple family
dwel 1 i n~qs.
Section 3. Section 4.035 (7) "Efficiency Apartments" of the
New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(7) Maximum Unit Type.
a. Efficiency Apartments. Except for elderly (senior
citizen or R-5) housing, the number of efficiency
apartments in a multiple dwelling shall not exceed
five percent of the total number of apartments. In
the case of elderly (senior citizen or R-5)
housing, efficiency apartments sha]l not exceed
twenty percent of the total number of apartments.
b. Three (3) or More Bedroom Apartments. The number
of dwelling units containing three (3) or more
bedrooms in a multiple dwelling containing eight
(8) or more units shal] not exceed forty (40)
percent of the total number of apartments within a
single building.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective
upon its passage and publication.
Dated the day of , 1993.
Edw. J. Er~ckson, Mayor
Attest:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day of
· , 1993.)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING COOE
REGULATING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS REGAROING
ALTERATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS ANO OPEN SPACE
City of New Hope,, Minnesota
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the
City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 2nd day of March,
1993, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue
North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to
consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning
Code.
Said ordinance will have the affect of regulating dwelling
unit alterations that change the number of bedrooms in the units
and open space requirements for recreational areas.
All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing
for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code
amendment.
Dated the 11th day of February, 1993.
s/ Valerie J. Leone
Valerie J. Leone
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 17th day
of February, 1993.)
4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX (612) 531-517~
February 18, 1993
Subject: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING
NEW HOPE ZONING CODE REGULATING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR MULTI-FAMILy DWELLINGS REGARDING ALTERATIONS OF
DWELLING UNITS AND OPEN SPACE
Dear Apartment Owner/Manager:
Enclosed please find a notice that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope will
conduct a public hearin~ on Tuesday, March 2, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers at the New Hope City Ilall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, to consider the adoption
of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. The ordinance will have the effect of
regulating dwelling unit alterations that change the number of bedrooms in the units and open
space requirements for recreational areas. A copy of the proPOsed ordinance is enclosed for
your information. All persons interested are invited to appear at the public hearing for the
purpose of being heard with respect to the Zoning Code amendment.
As you may or may not be aware, in late 1991/early 1992, the City received several request
from owners of apartment complexes to convert 1 and 2 bedroom units into larger units. The
requests were in response to a market demand for larger units to accommodate larger families.
While the City does not object to, and in fact supports, conversions that would provide good
affordable housing within the City for larger families, there was a concern about the number of
conversions that were talcing place. On April 13, 1992, the New Hope City Council took two
actions: 1) a resolution was passed authorizing a planning study to consider the impact of
apartment conversions that increase the number of bedrooms per unit; and 2) an interim
ordinance was passed establishing a moratorium on the conversion, renovation, or remodeling
of existing multiple residential housing apartment complexes which would increase the number
of bedrooms ~ unit. The moratorium is effective for one year and expires on April 13, 1993,
unless it is extended.
The proPOsed ordinance amendment on performance standards is a result of the planning study,
and the input and comments of New Hope apartment complex managers and owners is welcome
at the hearing, so please see that this information is directed to the appropriate persons. Based
on the input received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission will be forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council to be considered in March or April.
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
-2-
Please contact the New Hope City Hall (~531-5119) if you have any comments or questions prior
to the hearing. Also, for you information, the City Hall is undergoing remodeling construction
and entry to the building is at the rear of the building by the Police Department.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
KM/lb
Enclosures: Notice of Public Hearing
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant
Planning Commission Members
Planning Case File 92-11
'"New. Hope Garden Realty ,," Robert L. Austin (Valleywood) ~ Northridge Care Center, Inc.
3947 Excelsior Blvd., #102 c/o Cities Mgmt., Inc. 5700 Boone Avenue N.
Minneapolis, MN 55416 6311 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 310 New Hope, MN 55428
St Louis Park, MN 55416 Attn: Ann T. Yungner
('15~-~,sant Park Associates '"'Ross Taormina ,.-"'Peter L. Rocheford
323 Cedar Street #400 6028 42nd Avenue N. Presidential Estates I
St. Paul, MN 55101 Crystal, MN 55422 5009 Excelsior Blvd. #152
Minneapolis, MN 55416-3013
r/Steven Scott Welsh Co. ,/'Gassen Company ..,-Burgundy Apartments
6005 Wayzata Boulevard 4501 Minnetonka Blvd. 1660 S. Highway 100 #322
Minneapolis, MN 55428 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Minneapolis, MN 55416
AT-I'N: Marnie J. Lietz Attn: Catherine Gassen Attn: Bob Levine
'/Steven J. Peters ~"Cambrian Ltd. Partnership ,--'Pleasant Properties
4471 Independence Ave. N. #302 P.O. Box 47656 8925 Minnehaha Circle N.
New Hope, MN 55428 Minneapolis, MN 55447-0656 Minneapolis, MN 55426
Attn: Burton Weisberg
,,.NOR Management Co. ,.,-'Dennis Buhl ,,,-.Towncrest Mgmt. Co.
5353 Wayzata Blvd. ~02 2821 Black Oaks Lane 4820 Minnetonka Blvd. #300
Minneapolis, MN 55416 Plymouth, MN 55447 Minneapolis, MN 55416
Attn: Neil Esterkin Attn: Brad Scott
jeff/Lisa Swanson v-Otto O. Atneosen L.,.Daniel R. Casserly
4530 Washington St. NE 3801 West 114th St. 3624 Maryland Ave N #4
Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Minneapolis,' MN 55431 New Hope, MN 55427
~Vlike Lynskey, Property Mgr. ~--Dr. Irving Herman ,,-Park Ridge Way Apartments
PO Box 421 6414 Douglas Drive 4219 Oregon Ave. N. #501
Stillwater, MN 55082 Brooklyn Pk, MN 55429 New Hope, MN 55428
Attn: Jan Jacobs
Otto/Josephine Ridl ,,.Crystal Tower Program ,..-King's Manor Program
11216 Ewing Ave. S. 5217 Wayzata Blvd., #212 5217 Wayzata Blvd., #212
Minneapolis, MN 55431 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Attn: Ira Sklader Attn: Ira Sklader
~."Edward W. Zappe v-'Steven Scott Management ,..--Delmer D. & Jean Matasovsky
2460 Zealand Ave. N. 6005 Wayzata Blvd. 1620 Sumter Ave. N.
Mpls, MN 55427 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Golden Valley, MN 55427
Attn: Dave Schroeder
~Good Neighbor Properties l~homas Cloutier ~-"/Bernhard Fokken
2177 Youngman Ave. S.,~200 13745 61st Avenue N. 5175 Trenton Lane N.
St. Paul, MN 55116 Plymouth, MN 55446 Plymouth, MN 55442
Attn: Mary Peters
'/Shin-Kan Hu & Ying Ching Niu ~innetka Partners Ltd. "'"~r. David Olson
c/'o Nancy Hudacek 4601 Excelsior Blvd., #650 316 Metro Medical Building 1
1054 Autumn Bay St Louis Park, MN 55416 825 South 8th Street
Woodbury, MN 55125 Minneapolis, MN 55404
/Royal Oaks Properties ~,'~ambridge Apartments, Inc. ,"'Dr. Irvin~ H/erman
1712 Hopkins Crossroads 320 Edgewood Avenue N. 6416 Do, las Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343 Minneapolis, MN 55427 BrookJ~'n Park, MN 55429
~ & R Investments ,.-"Apartment Management Plus "'"Melvin Gregerson
610 Virginia Shores Circle 1800 Garfield St. NE PO Box 16003
Excelsior, MN 55,331 Minneapolis, MN 55418 Minneapolis, MN 55416
"'"Westminster Mgmt. Corp. ,----Volunteers of America ~"Wingate Realty
328 Kellogg Blvd. West 8210 45th Avenue N. #102 c/o Miller Mgmt.
St. Paul, MN 55102 New Hope, MN 55428 3947 Excelsior Blvd. #104
Attn: Douglas Spiotta, Mgr. c/o Dora Moore Minneapolis, MN 55416
,,"Morgan Investment Company ,,'""MAR-JIL Corporation ,--August E. Waage
370 7th Street SE 5500 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 735 1864 N. Albert St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Falcon Heights, MN 55113-6123
Attn: Denise Currie
~L. arry/Patricia MacDonald ~.~RJBJ Properties ~.~Eldorado Court Partnership
8801 62nd Avenue N. 7824 Sierra Parkway c/o Harold Schwimmer
New Hope, MN 55428 Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 13910 58th Avenue N.
Plymouth, MN 55446
'"'PS Properties ~---M & P Properties ,.~Keith P. Collins
11905 27th Avenue N. 5015 Vera Cruz Ave. N. 834 Grand Avenue #4
Plymouth, MN 55441 Minneapolis, MN 55428 St. Paul, MN 55105
Attn: Peter Gutlovics
~John W. Foster ~Flaymond Tollander ~--Robert Engleking
6732 Emerson Avenue N. 4422 Central Ave. NE #4 7405 Hyde Park Drive
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Minneapolis, MN 55439
· -'Boisclair Corporation '"'St. Therese Home, Inc. ~Continental Investment
3005 Ottowa Avenue 8008 Bass Lake Road 4201 46th Avenue N.
St. Louis Park, MN 55426 New Hope, MN 55428 Robbinsdale, MN 55422
Attn: Peter Barthel Attn: Ron Dody
Noah & Sandra Lindsey ~Carol Sorenson ~.--VIP Properties
PO Box 11893 1336 Valley Street 11300 Minnetonka Mills Rd.
Minneapolis, MN 55411 Chaska, MN 55318 Minnetonka, MN 55343-6956
Attn: Jeanne Redlin
,/Hidden Park Condo Assn. ~ Lang-Nelson Associate, Inc. Broadway Lanel Ltd Ptnrshp
689 ~17th Ave. W. 4601 Excelsior Blvd. #650 ? '~ 4601 Excelsior Blvd. #650
New Brighton, MN 55112 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 St. Louis Park, MN 55416
,,,T~--er Tallaksen ~" Royal Oa~<s Properties ,~/'"'Colonial Properties, Ltd.
B~... 889 1712 Hop)~i~S Crossroad c/o Don KJrchoffner
Clear Lake, IA 50428 MinneaPol~, MN 55343 4220 Winnetka Ave N. #103
Attn: Jill/Gilbertson New Hope, MN 55428
r,,"A & R Management .~,-Wincrest Apartments ~S Properties
PO Box 23245 5716 Winnetka Ave. N. #201 2618 Parkview Blvd.
Richfield, MN 55423 New Hope,'MN 55428 Robbinsdale, MN 55422
Attn: Reza Vojoodi Attn: Jean Smith
'~unset Apartments C,/"Kevin & Kara Krause ,..-"Thomas M. & JoAnn S. Hogan
Burgundy Properties 11925 61st Avenue N. 2732 Xylon Avenue N. #4
4550 W. 77th St., #325 Plymouth, MN 55442 New Hope, MN 55427
Edina, MN 55435
'~/Roger/Elaine Settergren j James K. Ross ,'"New Hope Village Apts.
14400 18th Ave. N. 1621 Winnetka Ave. N. 3947 Excelsior Blvd. #104
Plymouth, MN 55447 Golden Valley, MN 55427 Minneapolis, MN 55416
c/o Miller Management
~/f-lillstrom Investments r-..-"Elliot Wolson ----'New Hope Gar..den Realty
4550 W. 77th Street ¢~325 P.O. Box 444 3947 Ex~3~lsi/ef Blvd.
Edina, MN 55435 Hopkins, MN 55343 Minneapol~MN 55416
c/o Mill(~" Ma'nagement
'"'Richard C. Nelson
PO Box 16090
Minneapolis, MN 55416
CORR[CK & SONDRALL
w,.~,~ J. CO.~4C,<LAW o~.~m, ,~ EdL~burgh Executtve Office Plaza
~ ,o,o,~,.,. 8525 Edlnbrook
~n.~ Sutte #203
w,m.,. ~ Brook]~ ~ M~ 5~3
January 25, 1993
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: Performance Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings/Ordinance
No. 93-01
Our File No: 99.49301
Dear Kirk:
In follow up to the Codes and Standards meeting on January 18th,
1993, please find enclosed a new revised Ordinance No. 93-01.
Per our meeting, Section 1 of the Ordinance was amended by
eliminating the word "per" and inserting the words "in any" in
reference to increasing the number of bedrooms in dwelling units.
The reference to play areas in Section 2 was changed to recreation
areas and the reference to children was eliminated.
R-5 zoning elderly apartment complexes were excepted from the
requirement and the minimum size requirement was amended in
accordance with our subsequent telephone conversation as well.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slm
Enclosure
cc: A1Brixius (w/enc)
Valerie Leone (w/eric)
CORRICK & SONDRALL
Edinburgh Execute Office Plaza
8525 Edinbrook Crossing
Suite #203 stem
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443
TELEI~IONE (~12) 425-5~'/I
FAX (~12) 425-E~7
January 8, 1993
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401Xy]on Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: Apartment Conversions/Amendment to Zoning Code Performance
Standards
Our File No, 99.49301
Dear Kirk:
In fo]Iow up to our January 5th, 1993 meeting please find enclosed
a revised version of Ordinance No. 93-01 Regulating Performance
Standards for Apartment Conversions.
Basically, Section One was amended to prevent any bedroom
alterations for non-conforming apartment buildings. This provision
wi]] effectively prohibit any apartment conversions if the comp]ex
is non-conforming regard]ess of whether the total number of
bedrooms in the comp]ex remain the same.
Section Two has been changed to require visually defined active
play areas of at least 400 square feet for apartment complexes with
eight units or more.
Section Three was changed to allow apartment complexes with eight
or more dwelling units to have up to 40~ of said dwelling units as
three bedroom apartments.
Finally, Section Four regarding lighting was completely removed.
Mr. Kirk McDonald
January 8, 1993
Page 2 ~'~
Please let me know the time and date of the Codes and Standards
Committee meeting at which this ordinance w~11 be discussed. You
indicated you wanted my presence at sa~d meeting.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slf2
Enclosure
cc: Dan~el J. Oonahue (w/enc)
Valerie Leone (w/enc)
A1Br~xius (w/eric)
December 16, 1992
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: Performance Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings/Apartment
Conversions
Our File No: 99.49208
Dear Kirk:
I have reviewed the December 9th, 1992 memorandum from the City
Planner in connection with the referenced matter.
! agree with his recommendations with one exception regarding
alterations of non-conforming buildings. Specifically, we are
allowing changes that improve livabi]ity but are preventing an
increase to the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. Basically,
increasing the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit is the
improvement to livability we are attempting to accomplish. I think
that change is intended to mean "the average" number of bedrooms
per dwelling unit which would allow the modification of two two-
bedrooms into a three and one bedroom dwelling unit within a non-
conforming building. Allowing this change would theoretically not
increase the number of inhabitants per dwelling if you assume one
individual to a bedroom.
Please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance incorporating the
recommendation of the Planner with the single change [ indicated
above.
If we decide to adopt this proposed Ordinance, we can then
terminate the apartment conversion moratorium ordinance. As we
have discussed, there would not be a conditional use permit for
apartment conversions. All apartment conversions would be governed
by performance standards applicable to all multiple dwellings
within the City and regulated and controlled by the Site and
Building Plan Review and building permit issuance process.
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Deceml~er 16, lgg2
Page 2 ~
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slw2
Enclosure
cc: Daniel J. Donahue (w/enc)
A1Brixius (w/enc)
Doug Sandstad (w/enc)
Valerie Leone (w/enc)
North. wes. t..A. ssoci.a.t.e Consultants, ,nc.
I~ I% B A P I. N (3 . 0 N · M A I~ K E ? R E $ E & i~ ¢N
~ DEC I 0
19cj2
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius
DATE: 9 December 1992
RE: New Hope - Apar=men= Conversions
~-ILE NO: 131.00 92.01
Following direction received from the 19 November staff mee=ing
which the spar=men= conversion issue was -discussed), we Have
prepared a draft Ordinance amendment which addresses multiple
family dwelling performance standards.
Based on information gathered as part of a Brooklyn Center s=udy
regarding spar=men= conversions and the su~sequen= New Hope
apartmen= conversion study, i= is evident that there is an area
demand for affordable rental units which ca=er to the needs of
large families with children.
While it was =he general consensus of staff =ha= spar=men=
conversions are in need of regulation, i= was de=ermined =ha=
performance standards should be imposed upon multiple family
dwellings rather than conversions exclusively.
The attached amendmen= introduces performance =o various sec=ions
of =he Ordinance. For your reference, specific Ordinance
changes have been highlighted.
The followin~ is a sua~aryof the amendmen= and its ramifications.
This section has been revi~ed =o stipulate chat al=era=ions of
lawful non-conforming residential uni=smay no= increase the number
of bedrooms per dwelling unit. Jus= as the number of dwelling
units may no= increase, it is im~or=ant to regula=e dwelling uni=
bedrooms. Its m/s= be recognized =ha= bedrooms, likeunit numbers,
con=ribu=e to a facili=y's occupancy limi=s.
5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN $541t~. (612) 595-g636'Fax. 595-9837
Section 2 - Usable Open Space
This section has been expanded to stipul&te open space and play
area requirements ~or multiple family dwellings.
To be noted is that open space requirements are based on bedrooms
per dwelling unit. As such, a two bedroom unit would have lesser
open space requirements than would a four bedroom unit which would
likely include children.
The section also stipulates that a designated play area (equipped
for children) for qualifying multiple family dwellings. This
requirement is intended to impose design features =hat will ca=er
=o =he needs of children.
Sea,ton 3
This section specifies that the number of three or more bedroom
units in &multiple dwelling may not exceed 20 percent of the ~ocal
number of apartments within a single building.
This requirement ie intended to avoid high concentrations of three
bedroom unite and to allow the supply for such units to be
dispersed evenly throughout the conmmnity's multiple family
dwelling stock.
Sea,ion 4
This sec=ion provides an assurance that off-stree= parking areas
and ex~:erior walkways' for multiple family dwellings will be
properly illuminated. Such illumination re~uirements strive co
ensure safety and proper security for such facilities.
If you have any questions 'or connents regarding this material,
please advise.
pc: Dan Don a hue
Doug Saudscad
October 21, 1992
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: Proposed Multiple Dwelling Conversions CUP
Our File No: 99.49208
Dear Kirk:
This ~etter is in fo13ow up to the October 13th, 1992 p~anning
report regarding a proposed Conditional Use Permit for apartment
conversions in the R-3, R-4 and R-O Zoning Districts.
The planning consultants recommendation that we meet at a staff
level to discuss this proposed Conditional Use Permit is a good
idea. We already have performance standards that govern multiple
dwellings. These standards could be amended to regulate apartments
with three bedroom plus units without the need for a separate
Conditiona~ Use Permit for conversions.
Specifically, issues such as off street parking, open space
requirements, minimum ~ot size and minimum unit floor area are
already dealt with by performance standards. Amendments to the
existing performance standards for three bedroom or more units
could bm added to the existing standards and enforced through site
and building p~an review and issuance of building permits.
Also,- it appears that a number of the recommendations may be
contrary to the Minnesota State Building Code. Please keep in mind
that any City building or zoning code more stringent than the
Minnesota State Building Code would not be enforceable. As a
result, some of the recommendations need to be reviewed in light of
State Building Code Regulations which may prevent us from imposing
the proposed regulations.
Mr, Kirk McDonald
October 21, 1992
Page 2
Finally, we also need to deal with potential "equal protection"
arguments since we would be treating converted buildings
differently from new construction. We definitely must be sure that
we can justify a distinction which treats conversions differently
from new construction to avoid constitutional "equal protection"
arguments.
These are my preliminary thoughts on the planner's report. I look
forward to the staff meeting to discuss these issues.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slw2
cc: Daniel J. Donahue
Alan Brixius
Doug Sandstad
Nort we ssociat Consultants, Inc.
U RB A I~L NG · DES · MARKET R ES E A RC H
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius
DATE: 13 October 1992
RE: New Hope - Apartment Conversions
FILE NO: 131.00 92.01
Attached please find our preliminary review of the apartment
conversion issue. We recoiLs.end Chat chis material be discussed at
a staff level prior to distribution Co the Planning Commission.
If you have any questions regarding this material~, please do not
hesitate to call.
pc: Dan Donahue
Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
577,5 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837
Nort wes .ss0 i Cons. ultants, !nc.
UReA PLA NG · N ·MARKET R ESE A RC H
PLANNING REPORT - preliminaz7
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius
DATE: 13 October 1992
RE: New Hope - Apartment Conversions
FILE NO: 131.00 92.01
BACKGROUND
The City of New Hope has recently received several requests of
apartment owners wishing to convert one and two bedroom units to
three and four bedroom units. The said requests have apparently
been made in response to a demand for rental units which
accon%~odate larger families. Recognizing .that. the apartment
conversion issue warrants due study, the City has established a
moratorium on such conversions until such time as a planning study
has been prepared.
The issue of apartment conversions is not new to the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area. Beginning in 1991, the City of Brooklyn Center
conducted a highly detailed study of this issue. In large part,
the information obtained and the conclusions drawn in the Brooklyn
Center study will be used extensively in this evaluation.
The following investigation will attempt to identify items of issue
related to apartment conversions and offer Ordinance language which
will appropriately regulate such conversions. Specific items to be
addressed include:
1. Unit Type Demand
2. Existing Apartment Distribution
3. User Group Profile
4. Conversion Needs
5. Formulation/Application of Regulations
5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837
ISSUF ANALYSIS
Unit 'lh~ Dm~and. While the recently encountered requests for
apartment conversions appear to demonstrate that a demand for three
and four bedroom units exists, this "demand" needs to be verified
via a detailed investigation. In investigating this issue, a
variety of background information relating to the apartment
conversion issue (utilized by the City of Brooklyn Center in
previous investigation), have been referenced.
1. Mismatches Between SuDDlv end Demand - Rental Housin~ In the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (Met Council 1989).
This document indicates that one of the crucial problems for
many renter households with low incomes is finding an
affordable unit of appropriate size. Very often a trade-off
exists between overcrowding and excessive rent burden.
In 1980, there were 1.6 households with five or more people
(large household) for each unit with four or more bedrooms
(large unit) in the Metropolitan Area. By 1985, that ratio
had increased to 2.0 households for each unit. During this
time, the number of large renter households increased by 25
percent. Thus, there appears to be a demonstrated trend
toward the need for large rental units in the Metropolitan
Area.
The Met Council report also notes that the generation of baby
boomers born between 1946 and 1965 is followed by a
substantially smaller population group. As such, this will
affect the rental housing market. This means that as baby
boomers move up and buy more expensive homes~'~ they will need
new first time homebuyers to purchase their starter homes.
This may mean that vacancies in high cost rental units will
escalate.
The report also states that as minority cultures with large
families in the Metropolitan Area continue to grow, so will
the need for large affordable housing.
The Me= Council report is highly comprehensive and
subs=a~Ciatee the'assumption that a greater demand for large
apar~me~units (three bedrooms) exists within the TWin Cities
Area. Consequently, it appears appropriate that the City of
New Hope attempt =o address this change.
2
2. Ten Year Housin= Needs in the T~in Cities Metropplitan Area
(Me~ Council 1985).
This Me= Council report forecasts the number of additional
housing units the Twin Cities will need between 1986 and 1995.
Between 1986 and 1995, the report states Chat 11,500 (9.5
percent) additional housing units will be needed within the
inner-ring suburbs of the MeCropolitanArea, of which the City
of New Hope is a par=.
3. Sinole Parent Families in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
(Met Council 1986).
This report is basically a gathering of information on issues
relating to single parent families. The report states Chac
from 1970 Co 1980, single parent families in the Twin Cities
increased by 75 percent and ChaC further increases were
anticipated. Thus, apartment conversions within the City of
New Hope could be responsive Co Chis trend.
The report also indicates Chat for many single parents,
housing is Coo expensive and does not meet their needs in
regard Co affordability and amenities for children. One of
the ways the report suggests co improve housing for single
parent families is Co provide new multiple family dwellings
specifically designed co meeC the needs of the user group.
Based on the preceding text, there appears to be a demonstrated
need for larger, rental housing units within the Twin Cities Area
which would meet the needs of target user groups.
~istin= Apartment C~aracteristias. In addressing the issue of
apartment conversions within the City of New Hope, it is important
Co examine the characteristics of apartments which currently exist
both in the region and within the City of New Hope.
1. Reaional Characteristics
For comparative purposes, an examination of renter-occupied
housing unit characteristics of neighboring con~nunicies has
been conducted. By reviewing regional characteristics of
rental units anunderscandingmay be gained as to how the City
of New Hope rental units relate Co units within the
surrounding macro area.
1990 P. ENTER OCCUPIED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Percent
Renter- of Units/ Persons Mean Rental
Occupied Total Per Number Median Vacancy
City ~_r~. units unit of Rooms Rent Rate
New Hope 3,784 44% 1.87 3.7 $ 498 5.4
8,507
Brooklyn 3,420 30% 2.16 4.0 $ 475 9.6
Center 11,226
Brooklyn Park 6,637 33% 2.18 3.9 $ 447 7.6
20,386
Crystal 2,102 23% 1.95 3.8 $ 478 7.5
9,272
Golden Valley 1,594 19% 1.84 4.1 $ 486 5.6
8,273
Maple Grove 1,281 13% 2.46 4.9 $ 637 8.8
12,531
Minneapolis 80,837 50% 2.08 4.0 $ 578 8.1
160,682
Plymouth 4,842 26% 2.08 4.0 $ 578 13.2
18,361 .... ~.
Robbinsdale 1,622 27% 1.88 3.9 $ 471 3.7
6,008
Hennepin 153,450 37% 1.96 3.8 $ 452 8.3
County 419,060
SOURCE: 1990 U.S. Census
As show~ above, 44 percent of the City of New Hope's housing
units are renter-occupied. This figure is significantly
higher than =ha= o~ neighboring coa~,uni=ies and demonstrates
that the City appears to have a sufficient supply of rental
housing. While the conversion of two and three bedroom units
to three and four bedroom units will likely result in a
reduction in to=al rental units, it is no= anticipated =hat
the total n%unber of renters households will decrease.
The above table also indicates that the number of persons per
dwelling unit within the City of New Hope (1.87) is
significantly less than that found in neighboring co~,=~unities
and Hennepin County. This may be construed to mean that the
City holds a disproportionate supply of one and two bedroom
rental units. It should be noted, however, that the City of
New Hope does hold a number of elderly rental housing
developments which contribute to the City's relatively low
number of persons per unit. These include the St. Teresa,
Northridge, Anthony'James and Charden Court Apartments. The
conversion of one and two bedroom apartments to three and four
bedroom units in New Hope will likely result in an increase in
the number of persons per rental unit.
Renter-occupied housing units within the City of New Hope have
a mean number of rooms of 3.7 (does not include bathrooms,
utility rooms, pullman kitchens). This figure has been found
to be less than the mean number of rooms found both in
neighboring communities and Hennepin County. Again, this
figure is likely reflective of the relatively high percentage
of one and two bedroom rental units within the City (in
comparison to neighboring communities).
In regard to median rent, a trend appears to exist in that
rental costs tend to escalate as one moves outward from the
City center. Median rent in the City of New Hope ($498) is
only slightly higher than the County average. It is assumed
that apartment conversions (larger units/updated features)
could result in an escalation in average monthly rents within
the City.
In 1990, the City of New Hope held a vacancy rate of 5.4
percent. While this figure is considered relatively low, it
does represent an increase from past years. The City's rental
vacancy rat~ verifies that there is a supply of approximately
200 unoccupied/ vacant rental housing within the community.
2. City Character~stics
In addition to evaluating how the City of New Hope's rental
units relate to those found in the region, it is also
important to identify some of the physical characteristics of
its apartment stock. Attached Exhibit A provides a listing of
apartments which exist within the City, their location, the
year they were built andfinally the number of dwelling units
which are provided. From the information provided, it can be
concluded that the vast majority of New Hope Apartments were
constructed in the 1960's.
Building permit records show that almost all financial
investments in the City's total 174 apartment buildings have
responded to maintenance or repair needs. The City Building
5
Inspector has indicatedthat of approximately $1,338,'000
dollars spent on apartment buildings in the last five years
(1988-1922) only three'percent was devoted to actual facility
upgrades or improvements.
The City Building Inspector has estimated that construction
dollars spent on apartments from 1982 to 1988 were even lower
than the percentage factor cited in the last five years. This
inference is based on the following influencing factors:
a. The same apartments were newer and less likely to need
repairs.
b. More favorable economic conditions (lower vacancy rates,
easier loan criteria than in recent years).
c. Fewer buildings were in existence prior to 1988.
As evidenced above, very little re-investment in the City's
apartment buildings has occurred in the past ten year period.
U~er ~rouD Profile. Of immediate issue regarding the proposed
conversion of one and two bedroom units to three and four bedroom
units is that of anticipated user groups and community perceptions.
Based on information provided as part of the Brooklyn Center
Apartment Conversion Study, it may be concluded that three and four
bedroom apartment units will cater to large families with children.
It must be realized that the requested conversions will allow
financial reinvestment in the City's existing apartment buildings
which may not otherwise occur and would respond to a demonstrated
need for affordable alternative housing .......
Conversion Needs. Referenced research has indicated that the
proposed apartment conversions would likely be utilized by large
families with children. As such, the regulation of apartment
conversions should take into account needs of this user group.
The following is a listing of issues which should be addressed in
the City's regulation of apartment conversions:
1. Off-street parking
2. Recreation/open space
3. Lot area per unit (density bonus)
4. Social services (i.e., day care)
5. Sidewalks
6. Storage (bike racks, etc.)
7. Noise control
8. Handicap accessibility
9. Laundry needs
10. Floor area per unit
11. Community rooms
6
12. School busing
13. Fire protection
Application of Re~ulations. The City holds the ability to regulate
apartment conversions and provide assurances that the needs of
anticipated user groups will be met via its Zoning Ordinance. Once
a determination bas been made as to what aspects of apartment
conversions should be regulated, a decision needs to be made as to
the best manner of implementing the regulations via Ordinance
amendment.
In considering this matter, there appears to be two options worthy
of consideration:
1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment General Provisions Sections.
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - R-3, Medium Density Residential,
R-4, High Density Residential District/R-O, Residential Office
District Sections.
It is believed the allowance of multiple family dwelling units as
conditional uses within the City's R-3, R-4 and R-O Zoning
Districts would provide New Hope with a level of control over such
actions and would provide an assurance that proper off-street
parking, open space, and other various amenities are provided. A
draft amendment has been attached for discussion purposes.
cONCLUSION
Based on information gathered as part of a Brookl.yn Center Study
regarding apartment conversions, it is evideh~ that there is an
area demand for affordable rental units which cater to the needs of
large families with children. In addition to fulfilling an
alternative housing need, the conversion of apartments within the
City would provide financial reinvestment in the City's existing
apartment buildings which may otherwise not occur.
pc: Dan Donahue
Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
7
DRAFT - DRAFT DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. 92
CITY OF NEW HOPE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.074 OF THE NEW HOPE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING CONVERSIONS WITHIN THE
R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT, R-4, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT AND R-0, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE DISTRICT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS:
~ Section 4.074 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended to add the following as a conditional use:
(5) Multiple Family Dwelling Conversions. The change or
alteration of existing multiple family dwellings provided
that:
(a) The following off-street parking standards are
upheld:
Parking
~ Re=uirement (Per Unit)
1-3 Bedrooms 2.25 Spaces
4 or More Bedrooms 2.75 Spaces
(b) The following open space requirements are upheld:
Open Space
~ Reouirement (Per Unit)
1-3 Bedrooms 500 Square Feet
4 or More Bedrooms 600 Square Feet
(c) A m/nimumlot area of 3,000 square feet per unit is
provided, as described in Sec=ion 4.035 (2).
(d) All multiple family dwellings have the following
minimum floor areas per uni~:
~ Minimum Floor Area
Efficiency 500 Square Feet
One Bedroom 600 Square Feet
Two Bedroom 750 Square Feet
More than Two Bedrooms An additional 100 feet for
each additional bedroom
(e) The number of units containing three (3) or more
bedrooms in ~multiple dwelling shall not exceed
twenty (20) percent of the total number of
apartments within a single building.
(f) Each multiple family development containing four
(4)' or more dwelling units and which have an
average of more than one (1) bedroom per unit shall
include a designated play area for children. The
play area shall be located so as to be easily
viewed by residents of the building and/or
buildings.
(g) Sidewalks are provided from parking areas/loading
zones to the entrance to the building and/or
buildings.
(h) Room relationships, hallway designs, door and
window placements, plumbing and ventilating
installations are such that they assist in the
control and reduction of sound transmission from
unit to unit.
(i) Ail off-street parking areas and exterior walkways
are illuminated such that the average light
intensity is at least eight-tenths (.8) foot
candles measured at ground level.
(j) In addition to normal closet space, at least two
hundred (200) cubic feet of storage space per unit
is provided convenient to each multiple dwelling
unit. - .... ..
(k) Stud supports for grab bars are installed in the
bathrooms of all dwelling units. Grab bars shall
be installed in the bathrooms of apartment units
containing three (3) or more bedrooms.
(1) Ail multiple family developments containing at
least twenty (20) dwelling units and an average of
at least two (2) bedrooms per unit shall provide an
interior room or rooms for lounge, recreation,
meeting, or other non-con~nercial use by the tenants
of ~he development. The size of such room or rooms
shall be at least two hundred (200) square feet or
ten (10) square feet per dwelling unit, whichever
is greater. Such room or rooms shall not be
located over the sleeping area of a dwelling unit.
2
(m) Dwelling units with more than two (2) bedrooms
shall be loc&ted firs= of all on the ground floor
wi=h dirsc= access to the outside. Units of this
type above the ground floor shall have a balcony of
a= leas= forty (40) square feet.
(n) Buildings shall be designed and arranged such =hat
the activity areas of one dwelling uni= are not
located over the bedroans of a lower unit.
(o) Care shall be taken in the design and construction
of hallways to maximize natural light and minimize
the length of hallways. Hallways serving units
with more than two (2) bedrooms shall not have more
than six (6) units opening onto them and shall not
be more than forty (40) feet in length without
staggering.
(p) Laundr~ facilities shall be provided in all
buildings containing over four (4) dwelling units.
(q) If applicable, the provisions of Sec=ion 4.084 (5)
are considered relating to density bonuses.
(r) The procedures set forth in Section 4.21 are
satisfactorily met.
Seat~on 2. Iffmat~vm D&te. This Ordinance shall be effective
upon its passage and publica=ion.
DATED: , 1992 .......
Edward J. Erickson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on =he day of
, 1992)
I
lAS! IA°DA~E 011301~ LAST LIPI~TE 0~3019Z LAST UPDATE 0il301~2 LAS~ UPtI41E 0gl301~2 LAST UPDAFE
COMPLEX AOOMM UMrS COMPLEX ADO~ESS UM~S COMPLEX ADOM. SS INTS COMPLEX ADMESS COMPLEX AOO~ESS
NAME ~FAmqJGAM~) Wd~ ~f APPL~4BL~) NAME ~FAffUGAWLEt NAME (~FAP~'Lk:Am~) NM~ ~f
· MI M M M 7 ~ i~ -~ YM ~ . ~.3
m
-.--~:~.--,.~..,.__.~--,-,
LAST UPD4YE I~ /
· ~ ~ ~ N. 4
"
., )
COrJNC~
Ot-l~tn~ln~ Depm~znent Approved *or
Cig ~~ ~elopm~
No.
~OL~ON A~O~G P~G S~Y TO CONS~ ~DA~ 0F
~~ CO~ION{ ~C~~O ~ ~~ OF B~E~M~ P~ U~T
~ A~O~O ~ MO~TO~ 0~~ F~O S~Y
conve.i~s ~ ~ ~{ p~ ~ ~e Ci~ ~d is ~mmm~{ ~ ~e Coun~ consider
Com~. ~ mcl~ ~lud~ au~o~ a p~{ s~y ~ ~~ ~ im~ of a~en~
~nve~ons ~ ~ ~ num~ of ~ms ~ u~ ~d au~ ~ in~m mo~num
o~ ~{ ~ ~y.
~ ~ of ~e ~~ ~ ~ Ci~ ~ ~
~~~y~~ ~~~ ~ f~~~m dwelling
~~yd~~~ of~~t ~. ~~~~j~dinfac~
f~, ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ im~ m ~ ~mm~ such as:
1. A~~ ~v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ 0f ~ ~mpl~ ~~, ~cluding
~~ w~ ~y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~v~ forincr~
p~ ~~~ ~~, ~,
79.
Request ~or Action
Ap~tment Conversions
April 13, 1992
Page -2-
Staff feels that it would be prudent to conduct = planning study to determine wha~ impact, it~ ~ny,
apartment conversions increa~in$ the number ofbecL,'ooms per unit would have on adjacent munictp~
a~emti~ and facilities and the impact on the converted property itself from an overuse perspective.
The study would recommend t)uildin$ and use standards for such conversions and staff recommends
that an interim ordinance establishing a mot-atorium on such conversions be adopted while the study
is being conducted.
The enclosed resolution diracts staff to study a~d report on the iml~ct of a~3~rtment conversions, to
make recommendatiofts on building and usa standards tot said conversions, and states that it is
appropriate to adopt an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on ~ apartment conversions
that would increase the numbm' of bedrooms pe~ dwelling unit in complexes with 4, or more dweiling
umts until said study is complete.
If the Council concurs with these recommendations, the action would be to ftrst approve the
resolution and then to adoss the ordinance.
Sta~ t'ecommends a~m)vd of the Resolution Authorizing Planning Study To Consider Impact Of
Apnrtment Conversions [ncl~,~ The Numl~' Of Bedim)ms Pe~ Unit And Authorizing [ntenm
Montorium Ordinance Pending Study.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PLANNING STUDY
TO CONSIDER IMPACT OF APARTMENT
CONVERSIONS INCREASING THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
PER, UNIT AND AUTHORIZING INTERIM MORATORIUM
ORDINANCE PENDING STUDY
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New HoPe as
follows:
WHEREAS, many of the multiple residential apartment complexes
with four or more dwelling units have been constructe~
efficiency, one or two bedroom units, and
WHEREAS, the demand for dwelling units in said complexes
two or less ~edrooms have decreased w~ile there has Oeen
increased demand for three or more bedroom dwelling units
due to an increase of single ~arent families unable to affor~ home
ownership, and
WHEREAS, it is feared that apartment conversions to three or
more bedrooms ~er dwelling unit will result in the loss of ot~er
complex amenities including but not limited to swimming oools,
areas or open space, exercise, game or party rooms and
area, and
WHEREAS, many apartment complexes were allowed credits for
increased density subject, to ~roviding the described amen~tes
which may be subject to ~emoval to accommodate the conversion fcc
increased bedroom~ per unit, and
WHEREAS, it is further feared that an increase in bedrooms ge~
unit without sufficient amenities as described may result ~n an
overuse of property detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of potential renters aa well as the City at large, and
WHEREAS, without sufficient apartment amenities an expec~ec
increase in the number of renters or tenants in said convertec
apartment comOlexe, may detrimentally effect adjacent munic~ca'
amenities such aS ~arks, ~laygrounds, streets and ~ossiD~y
City's municipal Opel, and
WHEREAS, the City Council does not Deject and in fact sup~or~
conversions that would promote good affordable housing within
City fOr single parent families, and
WHEREAS, the City Council further believes it would be
to conduct a planning study to determine what impact, if any,
&p&r~ment conversions increasing ~ne number of ~edrooms ~e~
would nave on adjacent municipal ~men~es and f~c~li~es ~na
~mpact on ~he conver~ed proper~y i~$elf from an aver~e
perspective, and
WHEREAS, the City Council also ~elieves ~a~ ~he
study should ~ecommend ~uilding and use s~andar~s for
conversions and that an interim ordinance estaDlisn~ng a
on such conversion should De adopted w~ile the study is
conducted as permitted Dy Minn. Stat. §452.355, SuOd. ~.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Dy the City Council of =ne
of New Hope as follows:
1. That t~e City Manager and staff are hereOy a~rec:ea
study and report on the impact of multiple residences;
apartment conversions increasing the numOer of
per unit in all existing complexes wi~ four or more
dwelling units on ~e ~ealt~, safety and welfare
potential tenants residing t~eretn as wet1 as ~o ~e C~7
at large.
2. That the described report shall also make pro~osea
recommendations on Duilding and use standards for
conversions.
3. That it is appropriate to adopt an interim ordinance
establishing a moratorium on all apartment conversions.
renovations or remodelings w~ich in effect would ~ncrease
t~e number of bedrooms per dwelling units in acer:men:
complexes with four or more dwelling units un:~l
study is complete and acted upon Dy t~is City Council.
4. That the purpose of t~e study and moratorium ~s
protect the land use and planning process within :ne
to promote and not hinder good affordaele rental hous~n~
within t~e City and especially for single paten:
familtee,
Adopted by the City Council this 13t~ day of AOri1, 1992.
Edw. J. Er~ckson, U~r
Attest:
Valet,s Leone, City C~erk
Apr~l 7, 1992
Mr. Kirk MCOOn&ld
City of New HOPe
4401 Xylon Avenue NOrth
New Hope, MN 55428
on Apartment Conversions
Our ~ile NO, 99.49208
Please find encloIed propoIed Ordinance NO. 92-0B end & Resolu:,~,
Authorizing Planning Study to Coneiaer Impact of APar:men:
¢onvereione Increeeing the NumDer of Bedroome Per Unit a~
Authorizing Interim Moratorium Ordinance Pending Study for
¢oneideration et the Agra1 13th Council meeting.
The Orainan¢e end ~eeolution ere fairly mill-explanatory. Please
contact me if you have Iny queetione.
Very truly youre,
Steven A. $ondrell
~ncloaure
cc: O&ntel d. Oonehae (w/ant)
Al 8rixtue (w/eric)
Ooug Sandetad (w/eric)
Valerie Leone (w/eric)
COUNC~
RF., tTg T FOR ACTION
Ort~tnattr~ Dep~.,-tment ~p~ ~or ~ ~da S~Uon
~ng
Ci~ ~~ ~el~ment
/~13-~ Item. No.
~k Mc~ ~ 8 2
~M~em~t A~t ~
m
RES~E~L HOUS~G APAR~E~ CO~XES ~E PUR~SE FOR ~ICE WOULD
The enclosed interim ordinance establishes a one-year moratorium on the conversion, renovation, or
remodelJ~l of exLitin$ multiple residelltial housin$ a{~ent complexes ~ would increase the
number of bedrooms pe~ unit. Th~ o~ establishes a City-~de ban on the application for ~nd
issuance of bufldin[ pemtits, text cl~n$~s, v~, conditional use permits, and r~g requests
for ~ny constt~on that would chan~e th~ numbe~ of bedrooms ~ unit in tony multiple r~sidenti~l
hou.~l complex or alnnment ~tainins font or m(xe dwetttns units. The moratohum would expire
in one yem', on April 13, 1993, dur~ which time the Plannin$ Commission would study this issue
and ma~ recommmdations for possibk zoninl ~dinanc~ ammdments on this subject.
Staff recommends a motion for apgmv'al ... of An lnm'im Ordinance Establishing Moratorium on the
Conversion, Renov~on, Or Rmnodelinl of Existin$ Multiple Residential l-Iousin~ ^paztment
Complex The ~ For ~ Would Incrmse The Numtm' of Bedroonu Per Unit.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
Review: Admmlstratlon: Finance:
RFA-OO!
ORDINANCE NO. 92-08_
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION, RENOVATION
OR REMODELING OF EXISTING MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
HOUSING APARTMENT COMPLEX THE PURPOSE
FOR WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PER UNIT
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 1.56 "Suspension of Residenti&l Aoartment
Conversions [ncreasinq Bedrooms Per Unit" of the New HoDs City Code
is hereby added to read as follows:
1.56 Suspension of Residential Apartment Conversions
[nqreasin~ Bedrooms Per Unit. Pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§462.355, Subd. 4, a City-wide ban is hereby imposed on
the application for and issuance of building permits
under Chapter 3 of this Code, text changes, variances,
conditional use permits and rezoning requests under
this Code for any conversion, renovation, remodeling or
any construction which would change the number of
bedrooms per unit in any multiple residential housing
complex or apartment containing four or more dwelling
units.
This section sha11 expire, and be of no further force and
effect at Midnight, April 13, 1993.
~_~9.~[_9_~. Effective Date. This Ordinance sha'11 be effective
upon its passage and publication.
Dated the 13th day of Apr11 , 1992./
Edw. Erickson, Mayor
Attest: ~~'~'~~- 1 k
Valerie Leorle, City C er
(Published in the New Hope-Golden valley Sun-Post the 22nd day of
Apr11 ,, 1992.)
TO: Kir~ McDonal~
FIL~ NO: 131.~0 - 92.01
T~e City of New ~c~e 1-,Al =ecen=ly =eceived sere=al =eques=s ~r:n
owners o£ aga~men~ cc~91exe~ ~o conve~ 1-2 ~o~ uni~s i=::
~t~s co acc~ce ~a~er ~~em. ~w ~r~d~ ouc:=~ee
poce~cXaX ef~eccf, ii well as cae l~cigef ud ~sa~ca~es :~
eacA coave~si~nMcb~.
T~e O=dinance d~el hoc =egulace cae comp~sicion of
~uilding~/uniC e~ze. ~e .m~e~ o~ ~:~nco o~
conve~8~ o~ a~nc ~tcn co d~e~enc size
5775 Wayzata ~lvcl.. Suite 55,5 .St. Louis Park. ~l 55416. (612) $g5.9636.t:ax.
(2) Lo~ Area ~er ~nic. The Io~ a~e~ pe~ un~
~c~o~se~, ~l~iple ~ily dwellings and pla~e~
~evelopmem~s s~all ~e calculated on ~he ~asis o~ ~e :::~'
a:ea in ~he p~o~ec~ ind as controlled ~ an individual
Single F~ily 9,~00 s~a:e ~ee~
~o ~ily v,000 a~t~e ffee~
T~ouae ~,000 s~e fleet
· 4,000 s~a:e ~eec in ~ ~-3 disc~icc.
(3) Ue~le ~en S~ace. Mo dwellic~ ~y occupy in excess
~wenc~ pe~cemc ~ ~he loc a~ea on single o~ ~wo-
contain ac lease ~ive h~d~ed s~a~e ~ee~ o~ us~le
space a~ de~in~ My Sec~i~m 4.022 (131) o~ ~his Code
~ ~Ae ~on~ ya:d) ~o~ eacA dwellin~ ~i~ con:a~ned
=~e=eon.
4.03S ~ (b) ~ (c)
(M) ~l~imle ~llin~ ~i~s. ~CIpC ~o~ elderlM h~sing,
~i=s clasei~i~" as ~l=iple d~llings s~ll have
l~ici~ ~ica SOO s~e ~eec
One ~~ Unica ~00 s~:e ~eec
~ I~~ ~ica ?so s~:u ~eec
(C) ll~lv (~im~ Citizen) ~nin~. Livin~ ~t~l
g~fici~ ~i~8 440 s~:m
one ~~ S20 s~:e
COIWEilSZOll 0~0~
There are two ¢lea~ly identifiable methods ~ ¢~ve~in~ ..~
e~di~ ~Ae ~e~aA1 size =~ ~e ~i~. ~is me~od
a¢c=~lis~ed ~y rearr~gim~ the i~te~al !aTO~t 0~ ~e
~eview o~ recen~ New ~ope apar~men~ proposals reveals
s~ill co~ly with ~he City*s min~ ~Ioo~ a~ea s~anda~ds
s~a=e ~eec ~or a t~=ee ~edroom unit and ~SO s~a~e ~eec
iSlull:
add~. O~=en t~o, the ~it ~nities ~or ~i~=hen,
n~e~ of pe~le oc~ing ~Ae ~it. Inc~easing
2. ~e co~ersion o~ t~ ~o~ a~ents ~nto ~Fe
~der ~t~on A ~=creases the oc~~ cancer7
~ts v~tA~t ~~ng cae n~e~ o~ ~ts on ~e s~:e.
~e la.er 2 ~ 4 ~~ apa~nts are ~ntend~ to ca:e:
si~ific~cly dibbers= ~r~ adul=s. ~ese ne~s s~ou!d ~
ad~mfm~ as ~ of CAe aperient conve~mion pl~.
o~ apar~en~s. ~e Cl~y h~ling s~oc~ s~oul~ be responsive
~eeds of irs mesi~en=s. In =~is =~a=~, =he ~ollowing elemen:s
1. I~raased Density, ~e ~=~al n~er of people within
2. In.teased Parkin= D~d. In =he even= ~= =he n~e=
3-~ ~edro~ ~i=s exceeds =he n~er of s~lle= un=:s,
co~ide=~.
3. ~di~im~l ~ni~ie~. ~ increase in ~he m~e: o~ people
in ~Ae c~l~ will re~l~ in ~ increas~ d~d
· e~icee ~ ~ni~ie~ ~:~id~ on .iCe. In addi~io~,
~ec=~ in=~e ~ =~e n~e= o~ c~il~en will re. ire
4. ~I lin~ ~i~ O~ ~t~da~dn. TO ensu:e chac
=o~e=sAo~ p=~ide a well ~c=ioain~ ~ safe living
~o~ ~cw, sc~~ ~o~ d~lling ~%~ dewi~ wAould
co~i4er~. ~=i~lly, ~he CiW ~y vi.~ ~o review
~n~ Mlli~ ~i~ size IC~r~ co e~url che~
su~ici~C.
pc: Da~ DonaAve
l:~mg Sandscad
4
SURVEY OF C~TY ZONIN~ RE~UI~S
REGARDING THREE-BEDROOMAPARTMENTS
SPECIAL REOUIREMENTS FOR THREE-BEDROOM APARTMENT~
Apple Valley 21 units per acre if one bedroom; 20 units per acre if
two bedroom; 15 units per acre if three-bedroom - in
densest district. No limit on number of three-bedroom
units.
Bloomington Three-bedroom units require 18 percent more land area
than two-bedroom which require 46 percent more land
area than one-bedroom units in all districts. No
limit on number of three-bedroom units; 2.2 parking
per unit.
Brooklyn Park One bedroom = 5 x minimum floor area (680 feet) R5
Two bedroom = 6 x minimum floor area (750 feet) R5
Three bedroom ~ 7 x minimum floor area (900 feet) R5
Plus 500 feet for each bedroom over two.
No limit on number of three-bedroom units.
Burnsville No greater land area required. No limit on size of
unit. Require one garage stall per unit. Require 1.5
spaces per unit in one-bedroom, 2.25 spaces per unit
for two- or three-bedroom.
Coon Rapids Require more ~ ~ as more bedrooms are added.
Lot area requirements are greater for all heights
of buildings for three-bedroom units. No limits on
three-bedroom units. Average is 16 dwelling units
per acre. 2.25 parking spaces per unit for all units.
Eden Prairie No greater land area required. No limit on number of
three-bedroom units. No additional parking required
(one inside and one outside parking space per unit).
Fridley No greater land area for three-bedroomunits; no limit
on three-bedroom units. Parking - 1.5 spaces for one
bedroom; two spaces for two bedroom; 2.5 spaces for
three bedroom.
Golden Valley No greater land area required for a three-bedroom
unit.
Maple Grove No greater land area required for three bedroom. No
limit on number of units. Two spaces per unit.
Minnetonka No greater land area for three-bedroom per se. Use
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of .5 in R4; 1.0 in RS.
Setbacks geared to building height. No limit o~
number oft three-bedrooms in complex. Require t~
stalls per unit (one enclosed). F.A.R. will require
more land for a larger unit.
Plymouth ~aximum lot coverage is 20 percent (footprint of
building). In high density district, add 300 feet per
each additional bedroom over two. No limit on three-
bedrooms. Require 1.5 stalls per unit (one must be a
garage).
Robbinsdale 1,500 square feet per unit; no greater land area for
three-bedroom. 1.5 spaces per unit. No limit on
three-bedroom units. Efficiencies cannot exceed ten
percent.
St. Louis Park Minimum floor area with a F.A.R. that then requires
more land area. No limit on three-bedrooms. Two
parking spaces per unit.
Hopkins No greater land area required for three-bedroom; no
limit on three-bedroom units.
Blaine Minimum dwelling sizes; no greater land area required;
No limit on three-bedrooms.
CITY AMENITIES REQUIRED IN MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS
Bloomington (attached)
Brooklyn Park Give credit for more land or under-building
parking in old R5-R6 districts. Planned
Commercial Development District - Amenities
negotiable (2 recent projects). Have asked
for trail system, common grounds for meeting.
Coon Rapids (attached)
Eden Prairie 600 sq. ft. of open space per unit. No
recreation equipment required. Recent
projects haven't provided, no demand to
provide.
Edina Not required by ordinance, but generally
provide tot lots. Amenities are provided as
market forces dictate.
Fridley No special amenities required. Just require
setbacks, parking, etc. If HRA assisted, may
require higher quality.
Maple Grove Require underground garages, meeting rooms,
etc. (attached)
Minnetonka Nothing explicitly required. Tot lot required
in one quad home development as conditions of
approval, not by ordinance.
Plymouth Require garages. Don't require recreation
areas unless part of a PUD. Most apartment
developments provide additional amenities.
Extra facilities require extra parking.
St. Louis Park Minimum of 400 sq. ft. of open space per
dwelling, minimum dimension of 30'. Proposing
that no more than 1/2 of open space be in
front yard.
In elderly housing required 15 sq. ft. of
lounge per unit. Minimum of 25% of open space
be outdoor recreation or garden areas.
Burnsville Storage in garages as matter of practice.
Anything over 9 units requires PUD or C-U-P.
No requirement that recreation facilities be
provided on site. Often proposed unless park
nearby. If no park, City looks for park
dedication requirements or PAC fee. Parking
spaces - 2.25 spaces for 2 or more bedrooms.
CITy SPECIAL REOUIREMENTS FOR MULTI F~MILY PROJECTS
Eagan Require 100 cubic ft. of storage per unit.
PAC fee handles recreation imsrovements.
TO: DAN DOI~IIUE
FRO~f: DOUG SANDSTAD
DATE: APRIL 13, 1992
SUBJECT: RECENT APAR'Df]~T~ CONVERSIONS
I have checked our records and find 19 recent apartmen= conversions
in ~he city. Eighteen have been in the 5700 Winnetka complex, involving
converting 2 ad]acen~ 2 bedroom apts. =o a 1 BR & a 3 BR. The o~her
is a~ 4110 Oregon and changed 2 1 BR ap~s. ~o 1- 2 BR ape.
4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 /=hone: 531-5100 FAX (612) 55~-$' -
October 6, 1992
Northwest Associated Consultants
5775 Wayzata Blvd. Suite #555
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
ATTN: BOB KIRMIS
Dear Bob,
I have researched the two questions you posed last week, regarding
the ages and extent of remodeling/upgrade construction that has occured
in our apartment buildings in the last ten years. Unfortunately, I had
to condense the 10 year analysis to our last four years, because chac
data is on computer and easily accessed. A manual filing system for our
174 apartment buildinss in the previous six years make that cask
extremely time-consuming. I will give you hard data for the 1988-1992
interval and "soft" numbers for the 1982-1988 years based solely upon
my personal involvement with all construction.
Refer to attachment "A" (5 page list of apartments with addresses
and year built). Official building permit records for the June 1988-
June 1992 period reveal a total construction value of $1,338,176.00.
This dose NOT include $900,000. spent converting some apartments
aC North Ridge Cars Center into"intermediate care"nursing beds since
that money is not strictly spent on "apartments". No townhouse, duplex
or nursing home dollars are included. One new apartment building was
built in chis period (Winnetka West-8151 45th Ave.) with a value of
$1,135,000.00, also not factored into the "Apartment remodeling/upgrade
survey". Hy letter codes for the type and dollar value of each building
permit are noted on attachment "A" with the followin$ meanings and
total values: R $ 919,788. 69 Z [Roofin$]
F 206,352 15 I [Fire Repair]
He 37,600 2.8 I [Remodel]
C 19,200 1.4 Z [Apt. Conversions]
B 88 Z [Balcony repairs]
S [Swiw, dn$ pool repairs]
Al Incidental [Assorted Repairs]
D [Drain tile]
T [Underground tanks]
$ 1,338,176 [ALL BUILDING PERMITS* 1988-1992;APARTMENTS]
In s,,~-ry, almost all of the official improvemencs durin$ chis period
respond to maintenance and repair needs, with perhaps 3 X the amount of
"UPGRADE/IHPROVEMENT" dollars. One additional conversion of apartments
was noted ac 4110 Oregon Ave. No. in 1991, bringing to three the number of
properties where such apartment conversions have occured in the last few
conCinued..,
Fami~ S~le~ C~ ~ F~ Fa.~ ~
10-6-92
years that we know of. Ail of them were started and some were completed
prior to city knowledse and approval.
Because of the age of most of our apartments approaching 20-30 years,
the required maintenance costs will continue. ~hile the average works out
to a pittance of $?,?50, if each of the 174 buildings had spent equal
dollars, it tells you how minimal the overall expenditures have been. In
truth, only 65 of our buildings have obtained building permits, or 37~.
The average value for these is about $20,500 ($5,125 x 4[years]).
My estimation of the construction dollars spent on our apartments
in the 1982-1988 interval would be lower than current levels with three
influencing factors: a) the same apartment buildings were newer and less
likely to require maintenance and b) the economic conditions were somewhat
more favorable during that period-lower vacancy rates and easier loan
criteria= recent conditions have resulted in sluggish rent increases
and reduced profits for many apartment owners, and c) fewer buildings
existed ten years ago. Our tough development standards are one reason
we see less investment: An apartment development in this city must be
built with garages and amenities to begin with. Subsequent improvements
are less necessary and likely.
Please call me to discuss.
Douglas C. Smith
Director of Fire & Safety
S~ely,
Dff~W~andst ad
B~ing Official/Zoning Adminstrator
cc: McDonald
Donahue
file
attachments
WINCREST APARTMENTS
5716 Winnetka Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
(612) 533-5041
September 23~ 1992
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Chicago Regional Office, Region V
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507
Attention: Thomas Higginbothan, Director
Office of Fair Housing and
Equal Opportunity
Subject: Wincrest Properties v. City of New Hope,
Doug Sanstead, et al
Complaint/Case Number 05-92-1154-1
Gentlemen:
We have received the Respondent's response dated July 31, 1992,
in connection with the subject complaint and wish to make the
following statements:
1. According to Doug Sanstead, Building Inspector for the
City of New Hope, we are the only apartment complex involved in
remodeling two bedroom apartments into three and one bedroom
units.
2. The City is saying apartment dwellers (who pay five times
~ taxes to value ratio than homeowners) should not use the City's
pool. We are one of very few older complexes that still has a
pool. The City was complaining this summer about the city's pool
losing money because of lack of use.
3. We are not adding bedrooms to the complex. Wincrest was
built with 216 bedrooms and will always have 216 bedrooms.
4. We have not changed any amenities (pool, parks, open areas
or parking areas) other than what the City took for drainage
purposes.
5. The total number of police calls has gone down since we
took ownership and started converting to one and three bedroom units.
6. On two occasions Diane Stone informed us that rental rates
on three bedroom apartments were based on information and recommenda-
tions given by Marlene Isaacson of the City of New Hope.
U.S. Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development
September 23, 1992
Page Two
In conclusion,.the freeze on remodeling has hurt our
development plan and has dampened our rental possibilities.
We also have more vacancies than we would have had we been
able to complete additional conversions. It is rare to
have a one or three bedroom apartment that is not re-rented
before the current resident moves out. Two bedroom units
are harder to rent because of the abundancy of two bedroom
units in New Hope.
Our remodeling is in the best interest of the City of New
Hope and the needs of the community. Therefore we ask for
a Cease and Desist Order to the City of New. Hope as well as
compensation for our losses.
Sincerely,
WINCREST PROPERTIES
Leon R. Fischer
Copy to: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager - New. Hope
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant w'
Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney - New Hope
TO: Alan Brixius
FROM: Regina Cass
DATE: 1 February 1993
RE: New Hope - Apartment Conversions
FILE NO: 131.00 - 92.01
As per your request, a selection ~of typical playground apparatus
and court games is listed below. Dimensions reflect area required
and were compiled using a sample play equipment catalog and The
Timesaver Standards for Landscape Architecture.
Square
Dimensions Feet
Basketball: High School 104' x 70' 7,280
Junior High 74' x 42' 3,108
Half Court 37' x 21' 777
Goal-In 40' diameter
"Free Throw" Line to Basket 15' x 12' 180
Page 83* Slide 16' x 24' 384
Page 81- Swings 18' x 25' (Min) 450
Page 68* Climber 22' x 22' 484
Page 70* Play Apparatus 20' x 22' (Min) 440
Volleyball Court 50' x 80' '4,000
Tennis 60' x 120' 7,200
*Landscape Structures Inc. 1991
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 24, 1993
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Issues
1. Medicine Lake Church
The City Council officially passed a motion at the February 8th Council meeting accepting the
withdrawal of the application by Medicine Lake Church requesting a text amendment to rezone
the Post Publishing property from an I-1 to an R-O Zoning District to allow a church and
school to locate in the existing building.
2. I-1 Green Area Study
The Planning Consultant has indicated that the research/study on the I-1 green area requirement
has just been completed, so Codes & Standards will probably want to schedule a meeting for
March to discuss this issue. Hopefully the Committee will be prepared to make a
recommendation to the full Commission at the April meeting, as the City Council wants to
address this matter along with reconsideration of the Video green area variance request at one
of the April City Council meetings.
3. Senior Outreach Services
The City is proceeding with the necessary steps to acquire the property on Boone Avenue for
the Senior Outreach Adult Day Care Center project - please refer to the February 22nd EDA
minutes for more information.
4. 42nd/Quebec Avenues Redevelopment
The City is close to finalizing acquisition of the Electronic Industries property near the
intersection of 42nd/Quebec Avenues and will have the building demolished this spring/summer
to clean up the polluted site. The City is also in negotiations with Foremost, Inc. regarding
acquisition in the long-term. The long-range goal of the City is to acquire and demolish the
three buildings north of 42nd Avenue between Quebec Avenue and the railroad tracks and
redevelop the site.
5. Rapid Oil
As you are aware, the City is in the process of selling the property at 7305 42nd Avenue North
(next to All Star Sports) to Valvoline Rapid Oil. After environmental audits are complete and
purchase finalized, Rapid Oil will seek development plan approval from the Commission and
Council (probably this spring).
-2-
6. Custom Mold Outlot
The City is in the process of developing concept plans for the outlot acquired from Custom
Mold adjacent to the Public Works Building. The plans include a salt storage facility and
storage yard, which will be surrounded with landscaped berms. The plans will be submitted
to the Planning Commission for review/approval and the property will be platted at the same
time.
7. Car-X Muffler
The vacant Burger King building at Winnetka/Medicine Lake Road has been demolished and
the new Car-X facility is under construction.
8. Lvndale Garden Center
Redevelopment of the former Country Club Foods store on Bass Lake Road by Lyndale Garden
Center is proceeding' rapidly, with the two story glass atrium under construction.
9. City lIall Remodeling_
Work at the City Hall is proceeding, but is about one month behind schedule. The front
entrance must now be completed and opened up for access before the back entrance can be
closed and a conn~tion made between the existing and new second story office space.