Loading...
112320 City Council Meeting Packet NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA November 23, 2020 7:00 p.m. City Hall – Council Chambers 4401 Xylon Avenue North Mayor Kathi Hemken Council Member John Elder Council Member Cedrick Frazier Council Member Andy Hoffe Council Member Jonathan London The City Council wants and encourages citizen participation at Council Meetings. Your input and opinions count and are valuable. You are encouraged to bring forth your comments and issues at the appropriate point on the agenda. A 15-minute maximum Open Forum is held at the beginning of each Council Meeting. At this time any person may address the Council on any subject pertaining to City business not listed on this agenda or scheduled as a future agenda item. The Council requests that you limit your presentation to 3 minutes. Anyone wishing to address the City Council on a particular item should raise their hand and be recognized by the Mayor. Approach the podium and speak into the microphone by first stating your name and address. Also, please record your name on the roster at the table near the door so that your name will be spelled correctly in the minutes. Individuals should not expect the Mayor or Council to respond to their comments tonight; Council may refer the matter to staff for handling or for consideration at a future meeting. You are welcome to contact the city clerk at 763-531-5117 after the council meeting. COUNCIL MEETING BROADCASTS AND STREAMING Government Access channel 16 programming includes live/taped meeting replays Live on-line meetings and past meetings on-demand are available through https://ccxmedia.org/ccx-cities/new-hope/. www.newhopemn.gov New Hope Values and Vision City Mission Strong local government that is proactive in responding to the community needs and issues by delivering quality public service to all city residents, businesses, property owners, and organizations in a prudent and e cient manner. Values Excellence and Quality in the Delivery of Services We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional and cost-e ective manner. Fiscal Responsibility We believe that fi scal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds and city assets is essential if residents are to have confi dence in government. Ethics, Integrity and Professionalism We believe that ethics, integrity, and professionalism are the foundation blocks of public trust and confi dence and that all meaningful relationships are built on these values. Respect for the Individual We believe in the uniqueness of every individual, and welcome, appreciate, and respect diversity and the di ering of opinions. Open, Honest, and Respectful Communication We believe that open, honest, and respectful communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive environment for those interacting with our city. Cooperation and Teamwork We believe that the public is best served when all work cooperatively. Visionary Leadership and Planning We believe that the very essence of leadership is to be responsive to current goals and needs, and visionary in planning for the future. Vision e city is a great place to grow as a family, individual, or business. All within our city are safe and secure. Essential services will be those that promote a safe and healthy environment for all residents. Essential services and programs will be enhanced and streamlined, and will be provided in an economical manner and with measurable results. e city views residents as its greatest asset and seeks their input and participation. e city will meet the communication needs of citizens, elected o cials, and city sta . Strategic Goals e city will maintain and improve its infrastructure (water distribution, storm water, sewer, roads, parks, lighting, and city facilities). e city will use frugal spending and resourceful fi nancial management to maintain its fi scal health. e city will encourage maintenance, redevelopment, and reinvestment of existing properties to improve or enhance its tax base. e city will provide core services with a professional sta who are equipped with the necessary tools and equipment and given necessary direction. e city will facilitate and improve communications to promote e ective intergovernmental cooperation between sta , citizens, and Council. Adopted by the New Hope City Council, August 2006 Reaffirmed by the New Hope City Council, February 2019       CITY COUNCIL MEETING  City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North  Monday, November 23, 2020  7:00 p.m.  Regular Session  1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – November 23, 2020    2. ROLL CALL    3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:   Council Meeting Minutes – October 26, 2020   Canvass Board Minutes – November 13, 2020    4. OPEN FORUM     5. PRESENTATIONS    6. CONSENT BUSINESS        6.2 Approval of financial claims through November 23, 2020  6.4 Resolution designating polling places in the city of New Hope   6.5 Resolution approving transfers, interfund loan payoffs and fund closures  7. PUBLIC HEARING    8. DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING     8.1 Motion to authorize preparation of plans and specifications for roof improvements at the  New Hope Ice Arena (Improvement Project No. 1058)  8.2 Resolution approving the decertification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 08‐1  and Hazardous Substance Subdistrict No. 08‐1A   8.3 Resolution providing 14‐week prorated reduction of on‐sale liquor license fees for 2021  due to business impact of COVID‐19 pandemic   8.4 Resolution providing prorated reduction of business license fees for 2021 due to business  impact of COVID‐19 pandemic  9. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS    10. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS     10.1 Ordinance No. 20‐13, an ordinance amending Section 4‐3(a)(7) of the New Hope City  Code related to nonconforming uses (New Hope Planning Case 20‐13)   10.2 Ordinance No. 20‐14, an ordinance amending Section 4‐3(a)(11) of the New Hope City  Code related to nonconforming structures (New Hope Planning Case 20‐14)  10.3 Ordinance No. 20‐15, an ordinance amending Section 4‐3(c)(6) of the New Hope City  Code related to front yard setback for decks (New Hope Planning Case 20‐12)   10.4 Ordinance No. 20‐16, an ordinance amending Section 4‐3(d)(3) of the New Hope City  Code related to fencing and screening (New Hope Planning Case 20‐09)   10.5 Ordinance No. 20‐17, an ordinance amending Section 3‐25(e) of the New Hope City Code  related to private swimming pools (New Hope Planning Case 20‐10)   10.6 Ordinance No. 20‐18, an ordinance amending Section 4‐3(d)(4) of the New Hope City  Code related to landscaping requirements (New Hope Planning Case 20‐11)  10.7 Resolution  authorizing the purchase of equipment and appropriation of funds in the  amount of $49,364.05 for the purchase of one Ford F‐150 Reserve Officer vehicle and ancillary  equipment  11. UNFINISHED AND ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS    12. OTHER BUSINESS     12.1 Exchange of communication between members of the city council    13. ADJOURNMENT   Memorandum              To:  New Hope City Council  From: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Date: November 19, 2020  Subject: Agenda Items for Monday, November 23, 2020      Open Forum  Staff is not aware of anyone planning to address the Council for the Open Forum.    Consent agenda – the consent agenda is utilized to approve routine or non‐controversial items. These  items may be approved by one blanket motion upon unanimous consent. Any council member may  request that any item be withdrawn for separate consideration.    Item 6.1  There are no new business license requests.    Item 6.2  This item involves routine financial claims.    Item 6.3  There are no new liability claims to report.    Item 6.4  A law was passed during the 2017 legislative session requiring municipalities to adopt a resolution  designating election polling places on an annual basis. The resolution designates the same polling places that  were utilized for the 2018 election cycle. City Clerk Leone and I recommend approval.     Item 6.5  The item relates to transfers and loans made between 2010 and 2016. Council is asked to approve a resolution  to pay off interfund loans and allow fund closures. AEM staff reviewed the proposed actions at the  November 16 work session. The actions have been incorporated into the updated long‐term financial plan  that was also distributed and reviewed with Council at the November 16 work session. I recommend  approval of the resolution.    Item 8.1  This item authorizes preparation of plans and specifications for roof improvements to the south roof at the  New Hope Ice Arena. The roof has reached the end of its useful life and is in need of replacement. The  estimated project cost is $750,000 and it is recommended that Temporary Financing Funds be utilized for the  project and be repaid over a 15‐year period. The proposal was reviewed with Council during the 2021 CIP  and budget discussions. Director Rader and I recommend approval.    Item 8.2  TIF District 08‐1 was created in 2009 for the southeast corners of 42nd and Winnetka avenues. At that time  Ryan Companies was anticipating construction of a Super Target store with ancillary retail shops. The  project never materialized and the city has not entered into any other contracts for redevelopment of the  area. Per state statute, expenditures for qualified TIF costs need to incur within five years of certification of  the district (or by April 9, 2014). The Council is asked to decertify TIF District 08‐1 and the associated  Hazardous Substance Subdistrict No. 08‐1A. The resolution decertifying the district has been drafted by  Ehlers. Director Sargent and I recommend adoption of the resolution.    Item 8.3  At the November 16 work session, Council discussed the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic to local  businesses. The Governor’s order earlier this year required on‐sale liquor licensees to be closed for  approximately 10 weeks. When the businesses were allowed to re‐open, it was at a reduced customer  capacity. At the work session Council supported a reduction in 2021 license fees to assist businesses with the  2020 revenue loss based on pro‐rating fees for 10 weeks. Restaurants were recently ordered to close again  effective November 20 through December 18 (four weeks). A resolution has been prepared by the city  attorney’s office based on prorating fees for 14 weeks which is a rebate of $1,669 per business (or $11,683  total) that would be covered by the CARES fund balance. The City Clerk and I recommend adoption of the  resolution.     Item 8.4  At the November 16 work session, Council discussed the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic to local  businesses. Besides the restaurants, the four other types of city‐issued licenses that were affected by the  COVID‐19 shutdown included the bowling alley, second hand dealer, tattoo, and therapeutic massage  license holders. The fees vary per business type, and the total impact to the city for the 26 businesses would  be $649.98 based on 10‐week pro‐rated amounts. The City Clerk and I recommend adoption of the  resolution.    Items 10.1 through 10.6  The Planning Commission is recommending approval of six text amendments relating to chapters 3 and 4 of  the New Hope City Code:   Ordinance No. 20‐13  specifies new regulations regarding partial destruction and discontinuance of  nonconforming uses.   Ordinance No. 20‐14 specifies new regulations for single‐family nonconforming structures.   Ordinance No. 20‐15 define setbacks for terraces, steps, decks, stoops, or similar features.   Ordinance No. 20‐16 specifies at what height a building permit is needed to construct a fence and  height limits for fences.   Ordinance No. 20‐17 prohibits pools in the front yard, prohibits pools and areas used in conjunction  from being placed within an easement, and reduces setback requirements in rear yards.   Ordinance No. 20‐18 prohibits synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable forms of  landscaping.  The text amendments were drafted by the city attorney and were unanimously supported by the Planning  Commission at its meeting of November 4, 2020. Director Sargent and I recommend approval.    Item 10.7  This item approves the purchase of a Ford F‐150 pickup as a reserve officer vehicle. The vehicle will replace a  2013 Ford Taurus that has high mileage and will be sold at auction. A pickup will be more practical to  transport items typically handled by reserve squads. The vehicle would be purchased through the state  cooperative purchasing program for $49,364 ($34,364.05 purchase price plus approximately $15,000 in set‐up  costs). The replacement fund has $51,663 for the item, so the purchase is $2,229.05 under budget. Chief Hoyt  and I recommend approval.    Item 12.1  Mayor Hemken will review upcoming meetings and events.        If you have any questions regarding items in the agenda packet, please call the city clerk or me  before the meeting so that staff can research any issues and be prepared to respond at the meeting.    New Hope City Council  October 26, 2020  Page 1   City of New Hope  4401 Xylon Avenue North  New Hope, Minnesota 55428    City Council Minutes October 26, 2020  Regular Meeting City Hall, 7:00 p.m.      CALL TO ORDER The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice  thereof; Mayor Hemken called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.    PLEDGE OF  ALLEGIANCE    The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.  ROLL CALL Council present:            Staff present:       Kathi Hemken, Mayor  John Elder, Council Member  Cedrick Frazier, Council Member  Andy Hoffe, Council Member  Jonathan London, Council Member    Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Dan Boyum, City Engineer  Rich Johnson, Director of HR/Admin. Services  Valerie Leone, City Clerk  Bernie Weber, Director of Public Works  Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney    APPROVAL OF  MINUTES  Motion was made by Council Member Hoffe, seconded by Council Member  Frazier, to approve the regular meeting minutes of September 28, 2020. Voted in  favor thereof: Hemken, Elder, Frazier, Hoffe; and the following voted against the  same: None; Abstained: London; Absent: None. Motion carried.    Motion was made by Council Member Frazier, seconded by Council Member  Hoffe, to approve the regular meeting minutes of October 12, 2020. Voted in favor  thereof: Hemken, Elder, Frazier, Hoffe, London; and the following voted against  the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None. Motion carried.    OPEN FORUM    There was no one present desirous of addressing the council.  ROTATING VOTES    Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary on a  rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the mayor’s name first  followed by the council members’ in alphabetical order.    CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hemken introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated  that all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be  removed for discussion. Mr. Kirk McDonald, city manager, reviewed the consent  items.    FINANCIAL CLAIMS  Item 6.2  Approval of financial claims through October 26, 2020.  New Hope City Council  October 26, 2020  Page 2     RSOLUTION 2020‐100  Item 6.4    Resolution electing to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account  Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act.  RESOLUTION 2020‐101  Item 6.5    Resolution approving assessment services agreement with Hennepin County for  years 2021‐2024.  RESOLUTION 2020‐102  Item 6.6    Resolution approving 2021 maintenance agreement with Embedded Systems, Inc.  for tornado/civil defense siren maintenance in the amount of $1,660.32.    RESOLUTION 2020‐103  Item 6.7  Resolution approving final payment to American Liberty Construction, Inc. in the  amount of $5,000.00 for the construction of the outdoor theater and picnic shelter  at Civic Center Park (Improvement Project No. 941).    MOTION  Consent Items  Motion was made by Council Member Elder, seconded by Council Member Hoffe,  to approve the Consent items. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.    2021  INFRASTRUCTURE  PROJECT  (IMPROVEMENT  PROJECT NO. 1054)  Item 7.1    Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Resolution ordering the  construction of and preparation of plans and specifications for the 2021  Infrastructure Project (Improvement Project No. 1054).    Mr. Dan Boyum, city engineer, reviewed the project area and project components.  The project consists of street and utility improvements in the Lions Park  neighborhood and Erickson Drive. The estimated project cost is $1,706,932.89 (base  bid) and could increase to $2,000,082.89 if one of the two storm alternates  associated with the sliplining or open‐cut replacement of the storm sewer line on  Oregon Avenue is awarded. He stated the majority of the project will be funded  by the city’s street infrastructure and enterprise funds. There are two tax‐exempt  properties (Lions Park and The Salvation Army) that will also contribute as a  funding source through special assessments.     Mr. Boyum responded to questions from Council regarding the former use of  petromat for street projects, average street life, and improvements to reduce I&I  (inflow and infiltration).    There was no one present in the audience desirous of addressing the Council for  the public hearing.    CLOSE HEARING   Item 7.1  Motion was made by Council Member Elder, seconded by Council Member  Frazier, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.    RESOLUTION 2020‐104  Item 7.1  Council Member London introduced the following resolution and moved its  adoption: “RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AND  PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2021  INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1054).” The  motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Council  Member Frazier, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor  thereof: Hemken, Elder, Frazier, Hoffe, London; and the following voted against  the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was  New Hope City Council  October 26, 2020  Page 3   declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by  the city clerk.    2020 CITY  CONTRIBUTION FOR  HEALTH BENEFITS  Item 10.1  Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution establishing city’s  monthly contribution for health benefits programs effective January 1, 2021.    Mr. Rich Johnson, director of HR/administrative services, requested approval of an  increase to the city’s contribution for health benefits programs for city employees  effective January 1, 2021. He explained the Council reviewed the item at its October  19 work session. He stated the city’s open enrollment begins soon.     RESOLUTION 2020‐105  Item 10.1  Council Member Elder introduced the following resolution and moved its  adoption: “RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY’S MONTHLY  CONTRIBUTION FOR HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAMS EFFECTIVE  JANUARY 1, 2021.” The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was  seconded by Council Member London, and upon vote being taken thereon, the  following voted in favor thereof: Hemken, Elder, Frazier, Hoffe, London; and the  following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None;  whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the  mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.    PURCHASE OF  EQUIPMENT   Item 10.2  Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution authorizing the  purchase of equipment and appropriation of funds in the amount of $274,956.96 for  the purchase of a 2021 Mack‐Granite 64BR cab, chassis, dump box, asphalt patch  trailer and ancillary equipment to replace the city’s asphalt patch truck and the  purchase of two 2021 Mack‐Granite 64BR cab, chassis, dump box and ancillary  equipment to replace two plow trucks in the amount of $464,415.72, totaling  $739,372.68.    Mr. Bernie Weber, director of public works, requested approval for the purchase of  a 2021 Mack‐Granite 64BR cab, chassis, dump box and asphalt patch trailer for  $275,003.64 to replace the city’s asphalt patch truck. He stated staff also requests  approval of the purchase of two 2021 Mack‐Granite 64BR cab, chassis, dump box and  ancillary equipment to replace two plow trucks in the amount of $464,349.32, for a total  purchase of $739,352.96. One truck is included in the 2020 CIP and two trucks are  included in the 2021 CIP. The vehicle replacement fund has $782,105 dedicated for these  purchases so the purchase is $42,753 under the CIP amount. Staff recommends sending  to auction three dump trucks (1999 Sterling, 2000 Sterling, and 2010 International  models). The advantages of ordering the trucks now include cost savings by getting  2020 vehicle rates, not having to pay until 2021, and the ability to use the equipment for  snow plowing in early 2021.    Mr. Kirk McDonald, city manager, stated the purchase is $42,000 less than the amount  included in the CIP.     RESOLUTION 2020‐106  Item 10.2  Council Member Elder introduced the following resolution and moved its  adoption: “RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT  AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $274,956.96 FOR  THE PURCHASE OF A 2021 MACK‐GRANITE 64BR CAB, CHASSIS, DUMP  BOX, ASPHALT PATCH TRAILER AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT TO  New Hope City Council  October 26, 2020  Page 4   REPLACE THE CITY’S ASPHALT PATCH TRUCK AND THE PURCHASE OF  TWO 2021 MACK‐GRANITE 64BR CAB, CHASSIS, DUMP BOX AND  ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT TO REPLACE TWO PLOW TRUCKS IN THE  AMOUNT OF $464,415.72, TOTALING $739,372.68.” The motion for the adoption  of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Council Member Frazier, and upon  vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Hemken, Elder,  Frazier, Hoffe, London; and the following voted against the same: None;  Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly  passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.    EXCHANGE OF   COMMUNICATION  Item 12.1  Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Exchange of communication  between members of the City Council.    Mayor Hemken reported on upcoming events.    Council Member Frazier reported that Council interviewed commission  candidates prior to the Council Meeting. Council unanimously appointed Mindy  London and Danielle Saima to the Human Rights Commission for two‐year terms.     ADJOURNMENT    Motion was made by Council Member Frazier, seconded by Council Member  Elder, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before  the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City  Council adjourned at 7:36 p.m.  Respectfully submitted,    Valerie Leone, City Clerk     CITY OF NEW HOPE   4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH   NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428    Approved City Council/ November 13, 2020  Canvassing Board Minutes City Hall, 5:00 p.m.      CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council of the City of New  Hope met as the Canvassing Board as a virtual meeting on Friday,  November 13, 2020 at 5:00 p.m.    ROLL CALL Present:  Hemken, Frazier, London  Absent:  Elder, Hoffe  Staff Present:  Leone     The City Clerk distributed the official results summary of the City Council  Election of November 3, 2020, and noted that voter turnout was 83.47%. The  total number of voters was 11,949 and the total voter registration count was  14,316 (including election day and absentee voter registration). The City  Council reviewed the results of the city council election:      Mayor      Kathi Hemken  Jonathan D. London  Write‐ins  5,985  3,891  54      Council Member (two seats)      Andy Hoffe  Michael Isenberg  Ron Stoffel  Austin Berger  Write‐ins  4,736  3,660  2,883  2,770  251       RESOLUTION 20‐110    Council Member Frazier introduced the following resolution and moved its  adoption: “RESOLUTION CERTIFYING RESULTS OF THE CITY  COUNCIL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 3, 2020.” The motion for the  adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Council Member  London, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor  thereof: Hemken, Frazier, London; and the following voted against the same:  None; Abstained: None; Absent: Elder, Hoffe; whereupon the resolution was  declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested  to by the city clerk.    ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Council Member Frazier, seconded by Council Member  London, to adjourn the meeting as there was no further business to come  before the Canvassing Board. All voted in favor. The Canvassing Board  adjourned at 5:05 p.m.     Respectfully submitted,          Valerie Leone     City Clerk  G:\City Manager\AGENDA\6.2 R-Approval of Claims Merge Doc.docx Request for Action November 23, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Title Approval of claims through November 23, 2020 Requested Action Claims for services and commodities purchased through this period are listed on the Check Disbursement Report Attachments x Check Disbursement Report Agenda Section Consent Item Number 6.2 I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\polling place designation\6. 4 Q&R‐polling place designation.docx   Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: City Manager  By: Valerie Leone, City Clerk/Treasurer    Agenda Title  Resolution designating polling places in the city of New Hope  Requested Action  Staff recommends adoption of the resolution designating polling places.  Policy/Past Practice  The city must follow state statutes relative to election law.  Background  M.S.§204B.16 requires each municipality to adopt a resolution annually by December 31 to designate polling  places for each election precinct. If a polling place needs to be changed, all affected households within that  precinct must be notified.    In 2020 the polling place for precinct 6 was changed to City Hall due to COVID‐19. It is anticipated that the city  can resume using the former polling place (North Ridge Health and Rehab) for future elections.     PRECINCT NUMBER    POLLING PLACE POLLING PLACE ADDRESS  2290 NEW HOPE P‐1 Spanish Immersion at Sunny  Hollow   8808 27th Avenue North  2295 NEW HOPE P‐2 Sonnesyn Elementary School 3421 Boone Avenue North  2300 NEW HOPE P‐3 St. Joseph Catholic Church 8701 36th Avenue North  2310 NEW HOPE P‐4 New Hope Learning Center 8301 47th Avenue North  2315 NEW HOPE P‐5 Holy Nativity Church 3900 Winnetka Avenue North  2320 NEW HOPE P‐6 North Ridge Health and Rehab 5500 Boone Avenue North  2330 NEW HOPE P‐7 Meadow Lake Elementary School 8525 62nd Avenue North  2335 NEW HOPE P‐8 House of Hope Lutheran Church 4800 Boone Avenue North    A copy of the adopted resolution will be provided to Hennepin County Elections Division.  Attachments   Resolution   MS §204B.16    Agenda Section Consent Item Number  6.4      City of New Hope    Resolution No. 2020‐    Resolution designating polling places  in the city of New Hope      WHEREAS,  MS.§204B.16 requires each municipality to adopt a resolution annually by  December 31 of each year to designate polling places for each election precinct.     NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the city hereby designates the following polling     places for New Hope elections:    PRECINCT NUMBER    POLLING PLACE POLLING PLACE ADDRESS  2290 NEW HOPE P‐1 Spanish Immersion at Sunny  Hollow   8808 27th Avenue North  2295 NEW HOPE P‐2 Sonnesyn Elementary School 3421 Boone Avenue North  2300 NEW HOPE P‐3 St. Joseph Catholic Church 8701 36th Avenue North  2310 NEW HOPE P‐4 New Hope Learning Center 8301 47th Avenue North  2315 NEW HOPE P‐5 Holy Nativity Church 3900 Winnetka Avenue North  2320 NEW HOPE P‐6 North Ridge Health and Rehab 5500 Boone Avenue North  2330 NEW HOPE P‐7 Meadow Lake Elementary School 8525 62nd Avenue North  2335 NEW HOPE P‐8 House of Hope Lutheran Church 4800 Boone Avenue North    Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 23rd  day of November, 2020.             ____________________________         Mayor     Attest: ______________________________             City Clerk      204B.16 POLLING PLACES;DESIGNATION. Subdivision 1.Authority;location.By December 31 of each year,the governing body of each municipality and of each county with precincts in unorganized territory must designate by ordinance or resolution a polling place for each election precinct.The polling places designated in the ordinance or resolution are the polling places for the following calendar year,unless a change is made: (1)pursuant to section 204B.175; (2)because a polling place has become unavailable;or (3)because a township designates one location for all state and federal elections and one location for all township only elections. Polling places must be designated and ballots must be distributed so that no one is required to go to more than one polling place to vote in a school district and municipal election held on the same day.The polling place for a precinct in a city or in a school district located in whole or in part in the metropolitan area defined by section 200.02,subdivision 24,shall be located within the boundaries of the precinct or within one mile of one of those boundaries unless a single polling place is designated for a city pursuant to section 204B.14, subdivision 2,or a school district pursuant to section 205A.11.The polling place for a precinct in unorganized territory may be located outside the precinct at a place which is convenient to the voters of the precinct.If no suitable place is available within a town or within a school district located outside the metropolitan area defined by section 200.02,subdivision 24,then the polling place for a town or school district may be located outside the town or school district within five miles of one of the boundaries of the town or school district. Subd.1a.Notice to voters.If the location of a polling place has been changed,the governing body establishing the polling place shall send to every affected household with at least one registered voter in the precinct a nonforwardable mailed notice stating the location of the new polling place at least 25 days before the next election.The secretary of state shall prepare a sample of this notice.A notice that is returned as undeliverable must be forwarded immediately to the county auditor.This subdivision does not apply to a polling place location that is changed on election day under section 204B.175. Subd.2.[Repealed,1994 c 607 s 7] Subd.3.Designation effective until changed.The designation of a polling place pursuant to this section shall remain effective until a different polling place is designated for that precinct.No designation of a new or different polling place shall become effective less than 90 days prior to an election,including school district elections or referenda,and no polling place changes may occur during the period between the state primary and the state general election,except that a new polling place may be designated to replace a polling place that has become unavailable for use. Subd.4.Prohibited locations.No polling place shall be designated in any place where intoxicating liquors or nonintoxicating malt beverages are served or in any adjoining room.No polling place shall be designated in any place in which substantial compliance with the requirements of this chapter cannot be attained. Subd.5.Access by elderly and persons with disabilities.Each polling place shall be accessible to and usable by elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities.A polling place is deemed to be accessible and usable if it complies with the standards in paragraphs (a)to (f). (a)At least one set of doors must have a minimum width of 32 inches if the doors must be used to enter or leave the polling place. Copyright ©2017 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. 204B.16MINNESOTASTATUTES20171 (b)Any curb adjacent to the main entrance to a polling place must have curb cuts or temporary ramps. Where the main entrance is not the accessible entrance,any curb adjacent to the accessible entrance must also have curb cuts or temporary ramps. (c)Where the main entrance is not the accessible entrance,a sign shall be posted at the main entrance giving directions to the accessible entrance. (d)At least one set of stairs must have a temporary handrail and ramp if stairs must be used to enter or leave the polling place. (e)No barrier in the polling place may impede the path of persons with disabilities to the voting booth. (f)At least one parking space for persons with disabilities,which may be temporarily so designated by the municipality for the day of the election,must be available near the accessible entrance. The doorway,handrails,ramps,and disabled parking provided pursuant to this subdivision must conform to the standards specified in the State Building Code for accessibility by persons with disabilities. A governing body shall designate as polling places only those places which meet the standards prescribed in this subdivision unless no available place within a precinct is accessible or can be made accessible. Subd.6.Public facilities.Every statutory city,home rule charter city,county,town,school district,and other public agency,including the University of Minnesota and other public colleges and universities,shall make their facilities,including parking,available for the holding of city,county,school district,state,and federal elections,subject to the approval of the local election official.A charge for the use of the facilities may be imposed in an amount that does not exceed the lowest amount charged to any public or private group. Subd.7.Appropriate facilities.The facilities provided in accordance with subdivision 6 shall be sufficient in size to accommodate all election activities and the requirements of subdivision 5.The space must be separated from other activities within the building.The local election official may approve space in two connecting rooms for registration and balloting activities.Except in the event of an emergency making the approved space unusable,the public facility may not move the election from the space approved by the local election official without prior approval.In addition to the requirements of subdivision 5,the public facility must make remaining parking spaces not in use for regularly scheduled activities available for voters. History:1981 c 29 art 4 s 16;1983 c 124 s 4;1984 c 471 s 5;1985 c 307 s 1;1987 c 266 art 1 s 25; 1991 c 227 s 12,13;1991 c 349 s 36,37;1992 c 474 s 1;1993 c 223 s 10;1997 c 147 s 29,30;2000 c 467 s 16;2004 c 293 art 2 s 18;2005 c 56 s 1;2005 c 156 art 6 s 35,36;2008 c 244 art 1 s 11;2017 c 92 art 1 s 14;art 2 s 8 Copyright ©2017 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. 2MINNESOTASTATUTES2017204B.16   I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\interfund\CM 112320\6.5 Q Interfund Loan Payoffs and Fund Closures.docx    Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: City Manager  By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager    Agenda Title  Resolution approving transfers, interfund loan payoffs and fund closures  Requested Action  Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution approving transfers, interfund loan payoffs and  fund closures. The City Council discussed this matter at the November 16 council work session and was  supportive.  Policy/Past Practice  The Council has approved interfund transfers in the past to assist with infrastructure and other projects and  when adequate funds are available the transfers are repaid to the originating funding source.  Background  Per the attached memo from AEM, staff is recommending that a resolution be approved implementing the  transfers, loan payoffs and fund closures outlined below. These actions have been incorporated into the  updated long‐term financial plan.     1. Water Fund Payback to Temporary Financing Fund  In 2014, the temporary financing fund provided an interfund loan to finance the emergency water  projects done in conjunction with the Joint Water Commission. The water fund has available resources  to repay this interfund loan at the end of 2020. AEM has incorporated this repayment of $582,686 into  our long‐term plan document.    2. Sewer Fund Payback to Temporary Financing Fund  In 2016, the temporary financing fund provided an interfund loan to finance the 2016 street  improvement project utility costs for the sewer fund. The sewer fund has available resources to repay  this interfund loan at the end of 2020. AEM has incorporated this repayment of $892,500 into our   long‐term plan document.    3. Street Infrastructure Fund Transfer to 2016 Northwood North Street Improvement Construction Fund  AEM is recommending that a one‐time transfer of $10,588.40 from the street infrastructure fund to the  2016 street improvement construction fund be approved to close out the temporary construction fund.  The transfer is needed to off‐set expenses that were charged to the project after it was completed, such  as preparation of “as built” drawings.    4. Transfer from Fire Trucks Debt Service Fund to Fire Capital Fund  In 2010 the city funded its portion of the purchase of four new engines for the West Metro Fire‐Rescue  District with equipment certificates and implemented a tax levy for the annual debt service payment.  Agenda Section Consent Item Number  6.5    Request for Action, Page 2      The final bond payment was made in 2020 and the tax levy was eliminated. The debt service fund has  a residual cash balance of $ 69,287. It is recommended that the cash balance be transferred to the fire  capital fund to assist with future fire equipment needs.  The attached resolution approves the transactions outlined above and staff recommends approval of the  resolution.   Attachments   Resolution   November 10, 2020 AEM Memo        City of New Hope    Resolution No. 2020 ‐     Resolution approving transfers, interfund loan payoffs and fund closures      WHEREAS,  Debt Service Fund 9145 was established for the repayment of the 2010B General  Obligation Equipment Certificates which were paid in full during 2020 and a residual  cash balance of $69,287.69 remains in the fund; and    WHEREAS,  the Sewer Fund 9300 received an interfund loan from the Temporary Financing Fund 9242  in 2016 to finance certain capital improvements and it has been determined that adequate  resources are available to repay this interfund loan prior to year‐end (estimated  repayment is $892,500); and    WHEREAS,  the Water Fund 9301 received an interfund loan from the Temporary Financing Fund 9242  in 2014 to finance certain capital improvements and it has been determined that adequate  resources are available to repay this interfund loan prior to year‐end (estimated  repayment is $582,686); and    WHEREAS, the Street Improvement Project 2016 Fund 9250 has a residual cash balance of negative  $10,588.40 due to final entries to close out the project and a one‐time transfer from the  Street Infrastructure Fund 9203 is necessary to close out this construction fund;     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New Hope City Council herby approves the following:    1. A one‐time transfer from 2010B GO Debt Service Fund 9145 to Fire Capital Fund 9010  in the amount of $69,287.69 and the closure of Fund 9145;  2. The repayment of an interfund loan made by the Temporary Financing Fund 9242 to  the Sewer Fund 9300 in the amount of $892,500;  3. The repayment of an interfund loan made by the Temporary Financing Fund 9242 to  the Water Fund 9301 in the amount of $582,686; and  4. A one‐time transfer from Street Infrastructure Fund 9203 to Street Improvement  Project 2016 Fund 9250 in the amount of $10,588.40 and the closure of Fund 9250;    Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 23rd day of  November, 2020.               ______________________________           Mayor    Attest: ________________________  City Clerk  MEMO TO: KIRK MCDONALD FROM: VICKI HOLTHAUS, AEM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC SUBJECT: YEAR-END TRANSFERS, INTERFUND LOAN PAYOFFS AND FUND CLOSURE DATE: NOVEMBER, 10 2020 BACKGROUND In 2014, the temporary financing fund provided an interfund loan to finance the emergency water projects done in conjunction with the Joint Water Commission for the water fund. In our November 2020 update of the long-term plan, it was confirmed that the water fund has available resources to repay this interfund loan at the end of 2020. We have incorporated this repayment of $582,686 into our long-term plan document. In 2016, the temporary financing fund provided an interfund loan to finance the 2016 street improvement project utility costs for the sewer fund. In our November 2020 update of the long-term plan, it was confirmed that the sewer fund has available resources to repay this interfund loan at the end of 2020. We have incorporated this repayment of $892,500 into our long-term plan document. Furthermore, our review concluded that a small, one-time transfer of $10,588.40 from the street infrastructure fund to the 2016 street improvement construction fund is needed to close out the temporary construction fund. Lastly, the debt service fund associated with the 2010 (fire) equipment certificates has a residual cash balance of $69,287.69 after the final bond payment was made in 2020. It is recommended the residual cash be transferred to the fire capital fund to assist with future payments on the aerial lease. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend the City Council approve the proposed Resolution which will allow for the following accounting transactions to be recorded prior to year-end.  A one-time transfer from 2010B GO Debt Service Fund 9145 to Fire Capital Fund 9010 in the amount of $69,287.69 and the closure of Fund 9145;  The repayment of an interfund loan made by the Temporary Financing Fund 9242 to the Sewer Fund 9300 in the amount of $892,500;  The repayment of an interfund loan made by the Temporary Financing Fund 9242 to the Water Fund 9301 in the amount of $582,686; and  A one-time transfer from Street Infrastructure Fund 9203 to Street Improvement Project 2016 Fund 9250 in the amount of $10,588.40 and the closure of Fund 9250; I:\RFA\P&R\ARENA\2020\South Roof #1058\8.1 Q ‐ Authorize plans and specs for Ice Arena south roof.docx   Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: Parks & Recreation  By: Susan Rader, Director and  Mark Severson, Recreation Facilities Manager    Agenda Title  Motion to authorize preparation of plans and specifications for roof improvements at the New Hope Ice  Arena (Improvement Project No. 1058)  Requested Action  Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the city engineer to prepare plans and specifications  for improvements to the south roof at the New Hope Ice Arena, located at 4949 Louisiana Avenue North  (Improvement Project No. 1058). It is anticipated that work would begin late spring with the majority of the  project being completed by early summer.  Policy/Past Practice  The City Council routinely considers improvement projects to upgrade city facilities. The city’s capital  improvement plan has identified areas for maintenance projects in 2021.    Background  The Ice Arena is located 4949 Louisiana Avenue North. The original facility was built in 1975 and included  one sheet of ice, office space, locker rooms, Zamboni room, concession stand and restrooms. The community  room was added above the office space in 1979.     In 1996, a second sheet of ice with additional locker rooms and meeting rooms was added along the south  side of the original building. Over the past several years, staff has worked to extend the south rink roof life by  patching small leaks, however, the current roof has reached the end of its useful life and needs replacement.    The roof over the south part of the building is an EPDM (ethylene propylene diene terpolymer) roof which is  a durable synthetic rubber roofing membrane. The new roof would be replaced with a similar material. The  project would also include the repair of the EIFS (exterior insulation finish systems) wall on the south end of  the roof and the addition of a metal coping over the south and north EIFS walls.    Leaks in the area above the main entrance would also be addressed. The city engineer is recommending  replacing the rolled standing seam metal roofing, which was added as part of the 2011 north rink roofing  project, with a single‐ply membrane roofing system and adding a rain gutter and downspout to capture the  rainwater from the roof and direct it to the ground rather that down the EIFS wall.   Funding  This project is included in the 2021 CIP and the 2021 Ice Arena budget as shared with the Council during 2021  CIP and budget discussions and is budgeted at $750,000. Staff and AEM recommend the funding be  borrowed from the Temporary Financing Fund. The borrowed amount would be paid back over 15 years.  Agenda Section Development &  Planning Item Number  8.1    Request for Action, Page 2    Attachments   2021 CIP list   AEM 5.14.20 Memo re: financing options   Stantec Proposal   Pictures of existing roof    City of New Hope, MinnesotaCapital Improvement Plan - Ice Arena Fund 9303Schedule of Planned Capital Outlay 2020 to 20302020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Year toEstimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated EstimatedEstimated Estimated Estimated EstimatedReplace Item Cost Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts AmountsIce Arena 2020 IA dehumidification system200,000 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Ice Arena 2020 IA rebuild compressors 18,500 18,500 - - - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2020 IA replace system relief valves5,000 5,000 - - - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2020 IA scoreboard (south rink)25,000 25,000 - - - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2020 IA skate sharpening machine7,100 7,100 - - - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2020 IA security cameras70,000 70,000 - - - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2020 IA weight room upgrades20,000 20,000 - - - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2020 IA door security20,000 20,000 - - - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2021 IA skate tile replacement15,000 - 15,000 - - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2021 IA radiant heaters (north rink)25,000 - 25,000 - - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2021 IA replace roof (south rink)750,000 - 750,000 - - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2022 IA re-cement floor and replace glass and boards (south rink) 728,000 - - 728,000 - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2022 IA replace dasher boards and glass (north rink)208,000 - - 208,000 - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2022 IA meeting room carpet8,000 - - 8,000 - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2022 IA HVAC upgrades (south rink)50,000 - - 50,000 - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2022 IA Zamboni room garage doors15,000 - - 15,000 - - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2023 IA rebuild compressors22,000 - - - 22,000 - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2023 IA bleacher caps (north rink)25,000 - - - 25,000 - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2023 IA community room tile20,000 - - - 20,000 - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2023 IA concession stand upgrades30,000 - - - 30,000 - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2023IA replace water heaters40,000 - - - 40,000 - - - - - - - Ice Arena 2024 IA HVAC upgrades (south rink)50,000 - - - - 50,000 - - - - - - Ice Arena 2024 IA remodel bathrooms50,000 - - - - 50,000 - - - - - - Ice Arena 2024IA replace bleacher caps (south rink)25,000 - - - - 25,000 - - - - - - Ice Arena 2025 IA HVAC upgrades (south rink)50,000 - - - - - 50,000 - - - - - Ice Arena 2025 IA system relief valves8,000 - - - - - 8,000 - - - - - Ice Arena 2025 IA reader board55,000 - - - - - 55,000 - - - - - Ice Arena 2026 IA rebuild compressors24,000 - - - - - - 24,000 - - - - Ice Arena 2026 IA shower replacement20,000 - - - - - - 20,000 - - - - Ice Arena 2027 IA overhead doors25,000 - - - - - - - 25,000 - - - Ice Arena 2027 IA water heater for showers15,000 - - - - - - - 15,000 - - - Ice Arena 2028 IA protective netting15,000 - - - - - - - - 15,000 - - Ice Arena 2029IA rebuild compressors27,000 - - - - - - - - - 27,000 - Ice Arena 2030IA system relief valves10,000 - - - - - - - - - - 10,000 365,600$ 790,000$ 1,009,000$ 137,000$ 125,000$ 113,000$ 44,000$ 40,000$ 15,000$ 27,000$ 10,000$ Department City of New Hope, MinnesotaCapital Improvement Plan - Ice Arena Fund 9303Statement of Cash Flows2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated EstimatedEstimated Estimated Estimated EstimatedCash Flows from Operating Activities Receipts from customers and users (enterprise assumption of 2.5% growth)1,026,456$ 1,052,117$ 1,078,420$ 1,105,380$ 1,133,015$ 1,161,340$ 1,190,374$ 1,220,133$ 1,250,636$ 1,281,902$ 1,313,950$ Payments to suppliers and employees (enterprise modified assumption of 2.5% growth(730,086) (748,338) (767,047) (786,223) (805,878) (826,025) (846,676) (867,843) (889,539) (911,777) (934,572) Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities296,370 303,779 311,373 319,158 327,137 335,315 343,698 352,290 361,097 370,125 379,378 Cash Flows from Noncapital Financing ActivitiesTransfers in (levy, Park Infrastructure Fund)400,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 Transfers out (administrative charges)(10,769) (11,038) (11,314) (11,597) (11,887) (12,184) (12,489) (12,801) (13,121) (13,449) (13,785) Net Cash Provided (Used) byNoncapital Financing Activities389,231 488,962 488,686 488,403 488,113 487,816 487,511 487,199 486,879 486,551 486,215 Cash Flows from Capital and Related Financing ActivitiesAcquisition of capital assets(365,600) (790,000) (1,009,000) (137,000) (125,000) (113,000) (44,000) (40,000) (15,000) (27,000) (10,000) Proceeds from bonds and notes issued or interfund loan- 1,450,000 - - - - - - - - - Existing Principal and interest paid on long-term debt(57,482) (57,482) (57,482) (57,482) (57,482) (57,482) (57,482) (57,482) (3,562,482) - - Interfund loan payments (from Temp Financing for 2021/2022 improvements)- - (125,667) (123,734) (121,800) (119,867) (117,934) (116,000) (114,067) (112,134) (110,200) Net Cash Used by Capital and RelatedFinancing Activities(423,082) 602,518 (1,192,149) (318,216) (304,282) (290,349) (219,416) (213,482) (3,691,549) (139,134) (120,200) Cash Flows from Investing ActivitiesInvestment earnings12,549 15,300 29,405 25,779 30,930 36,349 42,040 48,578 55,324 27,442 34,892 Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents275,068 1,410,558 (362,685) 515,123 541,897 569,130 653,833 674,586 (2,788,248) 744,984 780,284 Operating Cash(103,491) (28,423) 1,172,135 589,450 874,573 1,176,471 1,495,601 1,889,434 2,294,020 2,744,173 3,489,156 Cash Held with Fiscal Agent1,358,401 1,558,401 1,768,401 1,988,401 2,218,401 2,458,401 2,708,401 2,968,401 3,238,401 - - Cash and Cash Equivalents, January 1 (1)1,254,910 1,529,978 2,940,536 2,577,851 3,092,974 3,634,872 4,204,002 4,857,835 5,532,421 2,744,173 3,489,156 Operating Cash(28,423) 1,172,135 589,450 874,573 1,176,471 1,495,601 1,889,434 2,294,020 2,744,173 3,489,156 4,269,441 Cash Held with Fiscal Agent1,558,401 1,768,401 1,988,401 2,218,401 2,458,401 2,708,401 2,968,401 3,238,401 - - - Cash and Cash Equivalents, December 31 (1)1,529,978$ 2,940,536$ 2,577,851$ 3,092,974$ 3,634,872$ 4,204,002$ 4,857,835$ 5,532,421$ 2,744,173$ 3,489,156$ 4,269,441$ Target Balance in Fiscal Agent Account1,545,000$ 1,755,000$ 1,975,000$ 2,205,000$ 2,445,000$ 2,695,000$ 2,955,000$ 3,225,000$ n/a n/a n/aEstimated Balance in Fiscal Agent Account1,558,401 1,768,401 1,988,401 2,218,401 2,458,401 2,708,401 2,968,401 3,238,401 n/a n/a n/aEstimated Surplus / Deficit in Fiscal Agent Account13,401 13,401 13,401 13,401 13,401 13,401 13,401 13,401 n/a n/a n/a(1) The value of cash & cash equivalents includes cash held in escrow which is restricted for future debt service.Enterprise Fund Projected Activity MEMO TO: KIRK MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER FROM: VICKI HOLTHAUS, AEM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC SUBJECT: INTERNAL FINANCING OPTIONS REVISTED (POOL, PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY AND ICE ARENA IMPROVEMENTS) DATE: 5/14/20 Background This memo will summarize past communication with regard to financing for the contemplated public works facility and ice arena improvements of 2021 (memo prepared in October of 2019), the funding options for the anticipated overage on the pool which is currently under construction (memo prepared in November of 2019), as well as our consolidated funding memo prepared on February 3, 2020. Please refer to prior memos for additional detail on the funding for these projects. Funding Options Revisited Public Works Facility (October Memo) The October 2019 memo suggests the use of Central Garage reserves to finance the public works facility expansion. Annual building replacement charges will replenish the fund within seven years. Ice Arena Improvements (October Memo) The October 2019 memo suggests the use of $1,450,000 of Temporary Financing fund resources to finance the ice arena improvements scheduled in 2021. We anticipate this interfund loan will be paid back over a 15 year period. Pool Overage (November Memo) The November 2019 memo suggests a one-time transfer of Temporary Financing fund resources to cover overages in the pool project. A transfer would not need to be paid back, unlike an interfund loan. February 2020 Update In our February 2020 update, our opinion on the ability to finance these projects internally remained unchanged. We estimated that $1.3 million dollars would remain in the temporary financing fund after the 2021 interfund loan to the Ice Arena and would be available to cover the overage on the pool and park project. May 2020 Update Since our February update, much has changed with regard to the economy and there is undoubtedly some uncertainty around the effects of COVID-19 on the City’s financial projections. At this time, there are no planned uses for the 2 resources in the temporary financing fund, beyond the Ice Arena 2021 improvements (estimated at $1.45 million) and the overage on the pool and park project (estimated at $275,000). This leaves approximately $1 million in available resources in the temporary financing fund to cover budget deficits in the General Fund or provide additional funding for the public works facility expansion. The General Fund ended 2019 with a 49.6 percent fund balance, well in excess of the City’s 42 percent fund balance policy. The City could elect to spend down some of this fund balance, however; it is recommended that the fund balance be maintained and reserved for budget shortfalls that the City may experience as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the General Fund reserve balance is maintained for potential revenue shortfalls in 2020 or 2021, the Council may feel more comfortable utilizing the remaining $1 million in the temporary financing fund to cover increased cost for the public works facility expansion. The feasibility study for the public works facility estimates the project cost at $6.3 million, which is an increase of $1,800,000 from the October 2019 funding analysis we conducted. It is possible that the additional cost may be covered with $1 million of available resources in the temporary financing fund, however; an $800,000 funding gap would remain. The City could look outside of the temporary financing fund to identify another opportunity for an interfund loan. Options may include the employee leave, insurance reserve or information technology internal service funds. These funds had combined cash balances of $2.6 million at the end of 2019. Summary The increase in the estimated cost for the public works facility makes it a bit more challenging to finance these projects internally, without the use of conventional bonding or other debt (lease purchase acquisition for example). Opportunities to finance the projects internally have been identified above, however; it is important to note that they are based on assumptions driven by future financial performance. The City should plan to re-evaluate it’s financial position and cash flows periodically to ensure that assumptions around internal financing are still valid. The following summary lays out the internal funding sources for each of the aforementioned projects below. Project Funding Source Public Works Facility Expansion Central Garage Reserves (Interfund loans - to be paid back)Interfund loan(s): Temporary Financing Fund and Internal Service Fund(s) Pool and Park Project Overage Temporary Financing Fund (Transfer - does not need to be paid back) Ice Arena Improvements Temporary Financing Fund (Interfund loan - to be paid back) We welcome your questions on this overall financing plan. Stantec Architecture Inc. 733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000, Minneapolis, MN 55402 October 30, 2020 Ms. Susan Rader, Director of Parks and Recreation City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Reference: New Hope Arena Roof Replacement Proposal Dear Susan, Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide professional architectural and engineering design and construction phase services for the roof replacement on the New Hope Arena addition constructed in 1996 per our meeting of October 28, 2020. We understand this project will include: • Replacement of the existing adhered EPDM roofing system. • New prefinished metal coping over the south and north EIFS walls. • Repair the EIFS on the south wall. • Replace the rolled standing seam metal roofing over the main entrance with single-ply membrane roofing system. • Add a rain gutter and downspout to capture the rainwater from the new main entrance single-ply membrane roof and direct it to the ground rather than down the EIFS wall. We understand the existing desiccant unit on the roof will be replaced under a separate contract that may or may not run concurrently to this project. The new desiccant unit will require a new roof curb. We also understand the heating unit adjacent to the desiccant unit will be removed and the roof opening and curbs will also be removed, as this unit is no longer used. We are proposing the following scope of services: Design and Bidding Phases 1. Schedule and facilitate a project kick-off meeting with City staff to verify project work scope, confirm type of new roofing system to be used, and verify project schedule. 2. Field verify dimensions and rooftop equipment, above-roof gas lines, and above-roof conduit locations. The roof plan from the construction documents does not show all the equipment currently on the roof. 3. Prepare construction documents to remove and replace the existing roofing system, repair south EIFS wall, provide new coping system on the north and south EIFS walls, and new membrane roofing system over the main entrance with rain gutter and downspout. 4. Prepare project specifications for the items noted above. Bid form will require each bidder to provide a minimum of three references for similar projects. October 30, 2020 Ms. Susan Rader, Director of Parks and Recreation Page 2 of 3 Reference: New Hope Arena Roof Replacement Proposal 5. Schedule and facilitate meeting with City staff to review the construction documents, specifications, project schedule and budget. 6. Incorporate any changes to the plans and specifications based on the City staff meeting and issue the bidding documents via QuestCDN. 7. Schedule and facilitate a pre-bid meeting at New Hope Arena. 8. Respond to bidder questions and issue addenda if necessary. 9. Attend the bid opening and review all bids for compliance with contract documents. References will be contacted and documented. 10. Prepare a bid tabulation and letter of recommendation for contract award. Items 1 through 10 above will be performed for a lump sum fee of $10,400.00. Reimbursable expenses will include mileage and printing/reproduction costs and are estimated to be no more than $500.00. Construction Phase 1. Provide construction contract administration and communication with City staff. 2. Schedule and facilitate the pre-construction conference. 3. Review contractor submittals and shop drawings for compliance with construction documents. 4. Coordinate and administer subconsultants, subcontractors and site visits. 5. Conduct weekly construction progress meetings. 6. Process requests for information, issue contract clarifications, process change orders. 7. Review and provide status of contractor submitted progress schedules. 8. Process contractor pay requests. 9. Provide weekly construction observation during construction in conjunction with weekly construction progress meetings and submit architectural field report. 10. Provide substantial completion inspection and punch list for contractor and issue certificate of substantial completion. 11. Provide final inspection and punch list for contractor. 12. Review final submittal from contractor with respect to conformance with contract documents. 13. Provide and verify record drawings (as-builts) based upon contractor's mark-up and field observation; verify receipt of all owner's manuals/documentation. 14. Process final pay requests and project closeout. October 30, 2020 Ms. Susan Rader, Director of Parks and Recreation Page 3 of 3 Reference: New Hope Arena Roof Replacement Proposal We propose to complete the Construction Phase efforts on an hourly basis. Based on the work scope identified in items 1 through 14 above, we estimate it will take approximately 6 weeks for demolition and replacement of the roofing systems on the New Hope Arena. We propose a Not- to-Exceed amount of $10,000.00 for contract administration as noted above, plus reimbursable expenses. Reimbursable expenses include mileage, postage, printing, and reproduction. Reimbursable expenses are estimated at no more than $1,500.00 for the entire construction phase. We understand the value of this Not-to-Exceed amount, totaling $11,500.00, cannot increase without written authorization from the City of New Hope. Should you wish to discuss any of the above information in further detail, please give me a call. Respectfully yours, Stantec Architecture Inc. Bruce P. Paulson Senior Project Manager/Architect Phone: (612) 712-2108 Cell: (651) 492-9089 Bruce.paulson@stantec.com CC: Dan Boyum, File   I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\City Council\11‐23‐20 Decertify TIF District 08‐1\8.2 Q ‐ TIF 08‐1 Decertification 11‐23‐20.docx   Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: Community Development  By: Jeff Sargent, Director   Agenda Title  Resolution approving the decertification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 08‐1 and Hazardous  Substance Subdistrict No. 08‐1A  Requested Action  Staff requests the City Council to approve the attached resolution decertifying Tax Increment Financing  Districts 08‐1 and 08‐1A  Policy/Past Practice  It is common practice for the City Council to decertify Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts if they have not  met the minimum redevelopment standards as defined in the development agreement, or if the proposed  redevelopment did not occur.  Background  On December 8, 2008, the City approved the above‐referenced redevelopment TIF District, with a hazardous  substance sub district (8‐1A).  On April 1, 2009, the District was certified by Hennepin County.    The district was located at the southeast corners of 42nd and Winnetka Avenues.  Ryan Companies was  anticipating constructing a new Super Target store with some ancillary retail space and potential restaurant,  but they never proceeded with the project.  A location map identifying the TIF District boundaries is attached  for reference. Pursuant to TIF statute, expenditures for qualified TIF costs need to occur within 5 years of  certification of the District (April 9, 2014).  Since this did not happen, the District is required to be decertified.    Since the inception of the TIF District pertaining to the possible redevelopment of this property, the city has  not entered into any contracts for development or for the environmental remediation on the subject property  with a private developer. The city has also not issued any bonds or other obligations to which tax increments  from the TIF District have been pledged. The proposed redevelopment of the property simply didn’t occur,  and no qualified TIF costs were accrued within five years of the certification of the district.  Recommendation  Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution approving the decertification of Tax Increment  Financing District No. 08‐1 and Hazardous Substance Subdistrict No. 08‐1A.    Attachments   Draft Resolution   Ehlers Memo   TIF District Map    Agenda Section Development &  Planning Item Number  8.2  359055v1 MNI NE395-2 CITY OF NEW HOPE HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DECERTIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 08-1 AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUBDISTRICT NO. 08- 1A WHEREAS, by resolution approved December 8, 2008, the City of New Hope (the “City”) and the New Hope Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”) approved the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 08-1 (City Center: SE) (the “TIF District”) as a redevelopment TIF district, and of Hazardous Substance Subdistrict No. 8-1A (City Center: SE) (the “Subdistrict”) as a hazardous substance subdistrict, both within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”) and adopted tax increment financing plans for the purpose of financing certain improvements and environmental remediation within the Project; and WHEREAS, as of the date hereof, the City has not entered into any contracts for the development or redevelopment or for the environmental remediation of any real property within the TIF District or Subdistrict by private enterprise; and WHEREAS, the City has issued no bonds or other obligations to which tax increments from the TIF District or Subdistrict have been pledged; and WHEREAS, as of the date hereof, no development of any property within the TIF District or Subdistrict has occurred, and no development of property within the TIF District or Subdistrict is reasonably foreseeable; and WHEREAS, the City desires by this Resolution to cause the decertification of the TIF District and Subdistrict as of the date hereof pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subd. 4(b), after which all property taxes generated within the TIF District and Subdistrict will be distributed in the same manner as other property taxes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ("Council") of the City of New Hope, Minnesota as follows: a. The TIF District and Subdistrict are decertified as of the date hereof. b. The City Administrator is authorized and directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County with a request that the director decertify the TIF District and Subdistrict, it being the intent of the City that no collection of tax increments from the TIF District or from the Subdistrict will be distributed to the City after the date hereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope this 23rd day of November, 2020. 359055v1 MNI NE395-2 __________________________________ Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Valerie Leone, City Clerk       MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Sargent – Community Development Director FROM: Stacie Kvilvang - Ehlers DATE: November 23, 2020 SUBJECT: Decertification of TIF 8-1 and 8-1A On December 8, 2008 the City approved the above referenced redevelopment TIF District, with a hazardous substance sub district (8-1A). On April 1, 2009, the District was certified by Hennepin County. The district was located at the southeast corners of 42nd and Winnetka Avenues. Ryan Companies was anticipating constructing a new Super Target store with some ancillary retail space and potential restaurant, but they never proceeded with the project. Pursuant to TIF statute, expenditures for qualified TIF costs need to occur within 5 years of certification of the District (April 9, 2014). Since this did not happen, the District is required to be decertified. The balance of TIF dollars received, if any, in the District since inception will be returned to the County for redistribution to the City, County and School District. Please contact me at 651-697-8506 with any questions. I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\Prorating Liquor License Fees 11‐23‐20\8.3 Q ‐ Prorating Liquor License Fees.docx       Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: City Manager  By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Brandon Bell, Community Development Assistant    Agenda Title   Resolution providing 14 week prorated reduction of on‐sale liquor license fees for 2021 due to business  impact of COVID‐19 pandemic  Requested Action  Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution that would provide a prorated reduction  for the 2021 renewal of on‐sale liquor license fees due to the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic.   Policy/Past Practice  Business license fees are reviewed periodically and amended as deemed appropriate. In this case there is an  extenuating circumstance where on‐sale liquor license holders had their businesses shut down due to the  emergency Governor orders in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic.  Background  At the November 16 work session, Council discussed the impact of COVID‐19 pandemic to local businesses.  The Governors’ order earlier this year required on‐sale liquor licensees to be closed for approximately 10  weeks. When the businesses were allowed to re‐open, it was at a reduced customer capacity. At the work  session Council supported a reduction in 2021 license fees to assist businesses with the 2020 revenue loss  based on prorating fees for 10 weeks. Restaurants were recently ordered to close again effective November 20  through December 18 (four weeks). A resolution has been prepared by the city attorney’s office based on  prorating fees for 14 weeks. Many cities in Hennepin County have taken measures to prorate their on‐sale  liquor license fees to assist license holders during the pandemic.    Staff recommends a prorating of 2021 on‐sale liquor license fees for 14 weeks. The annual fee is $6,200, which  would mean the prorated amount the seven businesses would save would be $1,669 each. The total loss of  revenue in 2021 for the city would be $11,683 and could be covered with the CARES fund balance. A listing of  current on‐sale liquor license holders is listed below.    Type of License Business Name Location  On Sale Applebee’s 4203 Winnetka Ave N  On Sale Palm Entertainment LLC dba Pub 42 7600 42nd Ave N  On Sale New Hope Bowl 7107 42nd Ave N  On Sale Fuhrmann Entertainment, LLC/ New Hope Cinema Grill 2749 Winnetka Ave N  On Sale Frankies Pizza 3556 Winnetka Ave N  On Sale Hy‐Vee Market Grill 8200 42nd Ave N  On Sale Los Sanchez Taqueria, LLC 7112 Bass Lake Rd    Agenda Section Ordinances &  Resolutions Item Number  8.3    Request for Action, Page 2    Summary  Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution providing a 14 week prorated reduction of 2021 on‐ sale liquor license fees due to the business impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic.  Attachments   Resolution       1 RESOLUTION NO. 2020- RESOLUTION PROVIDING 14 WEEK PRORATED REDUCTION OF ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE FEES FOR 2021 DUE TO BUSINESS IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: WHEREAS, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated safety measures instituted by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and overall general reduction in business due to public health concerns, businesses in the City of New Hope with On-Sale liquor licenses have suffered a dramatic reduction in business in 2020, which is expected to continue into 2021; WHEREAS, the need for social distancing to stop the spread of COVID-19 is expected to continue to cause significant economic challenges to these businesses; WHEREAS, the City Council desires to offer some assistance in the form of a temporary reduction in the On-Sale Liquor License Fees for 2021; WHEREAS, City Council has decided to impose a temporary reduction in the form of 14 weeks’ pro-ration, which totals a reduction of $1,669 for each On-Sale liquor license holder; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the matter at its meeting of November 23, 2020. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, PROCLAIMED, DECLARED, AND DIRECTED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: 1. The On-Sale Liquor License Fee shall be temporarily reduced in the form of 14 weeks’ pro-ration for On-Sale liquor license holders for 2021. 2. Orders that this Resolution be given prompt and general publicity on the City’s website and elsewhere and that it be filed promptly by the City Clerk. Dated the 23rd day of November, 2020. ____________________________________ Kathi Hemken, Mayor Attest: ____________________________ Valerie Leone, City Clerk P:\Attorney\SAS\1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-10011(community development general)\Resolution reducing liquor license fees for 2021 for prorated 10 week period.docx I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\Prorating other business license fees 11‐23‐20\8.4 Q ‐ Prorating Other Business License Fees.docx       Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: City Manager  By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Brandon Bell, Community Development Assistant    Agenda Title   Resolution providing prorated reduction of business fees for 2021 due to business impact of COVID‐19  pandemic  Requested Action  Staff requests that Council consider the attached resolution that would provide a prorated reduction for the  2021 renewal of certain business license fees due to the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic.   Policy/Past Practice  Business license fees are reviewed periodically and amended as deemed appropriate. In this case there is an  extenuating circumstance where certain business license holders had their businesses shut down due to the  emergency Governor orders in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic.  Background  During the November 16, 2020, work session Council discussed prorating 2021 liquor license fees. Several  Councilmembers expressed interest in prorating other license fees for businesses that were shut down  temporarily due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Staff identified four other types of licenses that would have  been affected by the COVID‐19 shutdown beginning back in March, 2020. Those types of licenses and their  respective prorated amounts for ten weeks are listed below.    Type Number of  Licenses Held in  the City  Annual Fee 10 Week Prorated  Amount per  Business  Total Revenue Loss  for the City  Bowling 1 $480 for 32 lanes  ($15 per lane)  $92.31 $92.31  Second Hand  Dealer  2 $200 $38.46 $76.92  Tattoo 1 $300 $57.69 $57.69  Massage 22 $100 $19.23 $423.06    Summary  Staff requests that Council consider a resolution that would provide a prorated reduction for the 2021  renewal of bowling, second hand dealer, tattoo and massage license fees due to the impact of the COVID‐19  pandemic.   Agenda Section Ordinances &  Resolutions Item Number  8.4    Request for Action, Page 2    Attachments   Resolution       1 RESOLUTION NO. 2020- RESOLUTION PROVIDING PRORATED REDUCTION OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEES FOR 2021 DUE TO BUSINESS IMPACT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: WHEREAS, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated safety measures instituted by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and overall general reduction in business due to public health concerns, multiple retail businesses in the City of New Hope with business licenses have suffered a dramatic reduction in business in 2020, which is expected to continue into 2021; WHEREAS, the need for social distancing to stop the spread of COVID-19 is expected to continue to cause significant economic challenges to the following types of businesses in New Hope: (1) Bowling alleys; (2) Second Hand Dealers; (3) Tattoo artists; and (4) Massage therapists; WHEREAS, the City Council desires to offer some assistance in the form of a temporary reduction in the business license fees for 2021 as set forth below in the following table: Type Number of Licenses held in City Annual Fee 10 week prorated amount per license Total Revenue Loss for the City Bowling 1 $480 for 32 lanes($15 per lane) $92.31 $92.31 Second Hand Dealer 2 $200 $38.46 $76.92 Tattoo 1 $300 $57.69 $57.69 Massage 22 $100 $19.23 $423.06 WHEREAS, the City Council has decided to impose a temporary reduction in the form of 10 weeks’ pro-ration as set forth in the above table in order to provide some economic assistance to those businesses; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the matter at its meeting of November 23, 2020. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, PROCLAIMED, DECLARED, AND DIRECTED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: 2 1. The Business License Fees for Bowling, Second Hand Dealer, Tattoo and Massage shall be temporarily reduced in the form of 10 weeks’ pro-ration for those license holders for 2021. 2. Orders that this Resolution be given prompt and general publicity on the City’s website and elsewhere and that it be filed promptly by the City Clerk. Dated the 23rd day of November, 2020. ____________________________________ Kathi Hemken, Mayor Attest: ____________________________ Valerie Leone, City Clerk P:\Attorney\SAS\1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-10011(community development general)\Resolution reducing business fees for 2021 for prorated 10 week period.docx I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\City Council\Text Amendments\11‐23‐20\10.1 Q PC 20‐13 Nonconforming Uses 11‐23‐20.docx   Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: Community Development  By: Brandon Bell, Community Development Assistant;   Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development  Agenda Title  Ordinance No. 20‐13, an ordinance amending Section 4‐3(a)(7) of the New Hope City Code related to  nonconforming uses (New Hope Planning Case 20‐13)  Requested Action  Staff requests that the City Council approve an ordinance changing the regulations regarding the expiration  of nonconforming uses   Policy/Past Practice  The City Council has approved ordinance amendments in the past to accommodate the changing needs of  the community.  Background  There are two sections in the New Hope City Code regarding the expiration of nonconforming uses that staff  feel should be amended. The current City Code states that:    1. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for six months, it can no longer be continued after that six‐ month period; and  2. If a nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by greater than 50% of estimated  market value, replacement of the structure would have to meet all zoning code requirements. If a  nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by less than 50% of its estimated market  value, it may be restored to its former extent provided that reconstruction is completed within 12  months of said destruction.    Minnesota state regulations differ from those of the city and are more lenient in the following ways:    1. A nonconforming use must be discontinued for a period of one year before it can no longer be  continued; and  2. If a nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by greater than 50% of estimated market  value, it can be rebuilt to its previous extent, as long as a building permit is applied for within 180 days  of when the structure was first damaged.    Staff believes that it would be beneficial for the City Code to reflect the state statute guidelines for  nonconforming uses. The city has the option of adopting stricter regulations that that of the state, and has  done so in the past. However, the state regulations are very reasonable, and aligning with the state  requirements will make it simpler for property owners to abide by and understand regulations regarding  nonconforming uses.  Recommendation  Agenda Section Ordinances &  Resolutions Item Number  10.1    Request for Action, Page 2    The Planning Commission considered the ordinance amendment that would adopt the state regulations  regarding the expiration of nonconforming uses and recommended approval with a 6‐0 vote. Staff  recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance and summary ordinance for publication.    Attachments   Ordinance 20‐13   Summary ordinance   Planning Commission minutes (November 4, 2020)        ORDINANCE NO. 20-13 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4-3(a)(7) & (8) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATED TO NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4-3(a)(7) and Section 4-3(a)(8) Nonconforming buildings, structures and uses is hereby amended to repeal the stricken text and add the underlined text as follows: (7) Partial destruction. If at any time a nonconforming building, structure or use shall be destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its fair market value, said value to be determined by the city assessor, then without further action by the council, the building and the land on which such building was located or maintained shall, from and after the date of said destruction, be subject to all the regulations specified by these zoning regulations for the district in which such land and buildings are located it may be reestablished to its prior size and form, but not expanded, if the property owner applies for a building permit within 180 days of the damage event. If no building permit is applied for within the specified time period, then, without further action by the council, the building and the land on which such building was located or maintained shall, from and after the date of said destruction, be subject to all the regulations specified by this ordinance for the district in which such land and building are located. Any building which is damaged to an extent of less than 50 percent of its value may be restored to its former extent provided reconstruction is completed within 12 months of said damage. Estimate of the extent of the damage or destruction shall be made by the building official. (8) Discontinuance. Whenever a lawful nonconforming use of a structure or land is discontinued for a period of six months 12 months, any future use of said structure or land shall be made to conform with the provisions of this Code. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication. APPROVED by the New Hope City Council this 23rd day of November, 2020. Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk P:\Attorney\SAS\1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-82013 - 4-3(a)(7) Partial Destruction Nonconforming Bldgs\Ordinance 20-13 Nonconforming Uses.docx SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NOS. 20-13, 20-14, 20-15, 20-16, 20-17, 20-18 ORDINANCES AMENDING SECTIONS 3-25 & 4-3 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATING TO FENCES, SWIMMING POOLS, LANDSCAPING, DECK SETBACKS, NONCONFORMING USES AND SCTUCTURES Ordinance No. 20-13 specifies new regulations regarding partial destruction and discontinuance of nonconforming uses. Ordinance No. 20-14 specifies new regulations for single-family nonconforming structures. Ordinance No. 20-15 defines setbacks for terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features. Ordinance No. 20-16 specifies at what height a building permit is needed to construct a fence and height limits for fences. Ordinance No. 20-17 prohibits pools in the front yard, prohibits pools and areas used in  conjunction from being placed within an easement, and reduces setback requirements in rear yards. Ordinance No. 20-18 prohibits synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable forms of landscaping. All of the above Ordinances were adopted by the New Hope City Council on November 23, 2020, and shall become effective upon publication. Valerie Leone City Clerk (published in the New Hope – Golden Valley Sun Post on December 3, 2020) 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to open the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. No one was present to address the commission. Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Chair Clark revisited Commissioner Redden’s comments about the fence height restrictions for the rear yard. Commissioner Redden inquired as to why the fence height would be limited to six feet. Residents may want to enjoy their full yard with having a privacy fence of seven feet on their property line. Mr. Sargent said at this meeting is the time to discuss the fence height and make any adjustments before moving forward to Council. Chair Clark asked if any other Commissioners had any other comments. Chair Clark provided the suggestion to adjust the text amendment to reflect a maximum fence height of 6 ½ feet. Motion Item 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 20-09, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to fence permit & height requirements, with the increase in fence height from 6 to 6 ½ feet in the rear yard; Item 4.2, Planning Case 20-10, request for amendment to Section 3-25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private swimming pool requirements; and Item 4.3, Planning Case 20-11, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to landscaping, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Clark, Mannix, Landy, Smith, Korkowski, Redden Voting against: None Absent: Brinkman, Hanson, Schmidt Motion approved 6-0 Chair Clark stated the case will be brought to the November 23, 2020 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 20-12 Planning Case 20-13 Planning Case 20-14 Items 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 Chair Clark introduced Item 4.4, Planning Case 20-12, request for amendment to Section 4-3(c)(6)e.2 of the New Hope City Code related to front deck setback requirements; Item 4.5, Planning Case 20-13, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(7) & (8) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming uses; and Item 4.6, Planning Case 20-14, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(11) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming structures, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Brandon Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-12. The New Hope City Code specifies that front deck can extend, “to a distance less than three feet from any lot line.” Compared to other cities in the surrounding area, this standard for front deck setbacks is extremely lenient. The current city regulation would allow for front decks and related structures to extend up to three feet from the front property line, 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 which staff feels is too close. Staff researched other city codes in the surrounding area, and found that they permit encroachments ranging from five to ten feet into the front yard setback. Staff is proposing to amend the current city code so that front decks will be able to encroach five feet into the front yard setback. This would allow for a reasonably sized structure to be constructed in the front yard while still aligning with the best practices in the area. Next, Mr. Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-13. There are two sections in the New Hope City Code regarding the expiration of non- conforming uses that staff feel should be amended. The current City Code states that: 1. If a non-conforming use is discontinued for six months, it can no longer be continued after that six-month period; and 2. If a non-conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by greater than 50% of estimated market value, replacement of the structure would have to meet all zoning code requirements. If a non- conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by less than 50% of its estimated market value, it may be restored to its former extent provided that reconstruction is completed within 12 months of said destruction. Minnesota state regulations differ from those of the city and are more lenient in the following ways: 1. A non-conforming use must be discontinued for a period of one year before it can no longer be continued; and 2. If a non-conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by greater than 50% of estimated market value, it can be rebuilt to its previous extent, as long as a building permit is applied for within 180 days of when the structure was first damaged. Staff believes that it would be beneficial for the city code to reflect the state statute guidelines for non-conforming structures. The city has the option of adopting stricter regulation than that of the state, and has done so in the past. However, the state regulations are very reasonable, and aligning with the state requirements will make it simpler for property owners to abide by and understand regulations regarding non- conforming uses. Commissioner Redden questioned what happens to a non-conforming use tied to a non-conforming structure if the timelines are maxed out to rebuild. Mr. Sargent replied that as long as building permit is applied for within the 180-day period, the timeframe requirement is satisfied. The building does not need to be fully constructed within the 180-day timeframe, so long as the permit has been applied for. Ms. Stacy Woods confirmed that was correct. Lastly, Mr. Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-14. The New Hope City Code specifies that in order to utilize a lot for residential use, I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\City Council\Text Amendments\11‐23‐20\10.2 Q ‐ PC 20‐14 Nonconforming Structures 11‐23‐20.docx   Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: Community Development  By: Brandon Bell, Community Development Assistant;   Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development  Agenda Title  Ordinance No. 20‐14, an ordinance amending Section 4‐3(a)(11) of the New Hope City Code related to  nonconforming structures (New Hope Planning Case 20‐14)  Requested Action  Staff requests that the City Council approve an ordinance changing the regulations regarding the expiration  of nonconforming structures   Policy/Past Practice  The City Council has approved ordinance amendments in the past to accommodate the changing needs of  the community.  Background  The New Hope City Code specifies that in order to utilize a lot for residential use, the lot must measure within  75 percent of the applicable zoning district standards for lot area and width. As a fully built‐out city, staff  believes that a lot of record should be sufficient to allow for reconstruction of a building, assuming it meets  the minimum applicable building setback requirements for the district.    Staff proposes a text amendment that would allow the reconstruction on undersized lots, as long as the lot  had been established as a lot of record and recorded as such with Hennepin County.  Recommendation  The Planning Commission considered the ordinance amendment that would eliminate the standard requiring  lot measurements to be within 75 percent of the applicable zoning district for lot area and width, and  recommended approval with a 6‐0 vote. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed  ordinance and summary ordinance for publication.    Attachments   Ordinance 20‐14   Summary ordinance   Planning Commission minutes (November 4, 2020)        Agenda Section Ordinances &  Resolutions Item Number  10.2  ORDINANCE NO. 20-14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4-3(a)(11) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATED TO NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4-3(a)(11) Nonconforming buildings, structures and uses is hereby amended to repeal the stricken text and add the underlined text as follows: (11) Nonconforming lots. A lot of record, existing upon the effective date of this Code in a residential district, which does not meet the requirements of this Code as to area or width may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes provided: the building setbacks of the applicable zoning district or subsection 4-3(c)(6) of this Code are met. a. The lot measurements for lot area and width are within 75 percent of the applicable zoning district standards. Subsection 4-3(a)(11) b. The building setbacks of the applicable zoning district or subsection 4-3(c)(6) of this Code are met. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication. APPROVED by the New Hope City Council this 23rd day of November, 2020. Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk P:\Attorney\SAS\1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-82014 4-3(a)(11) Nonconforming Lots\Ordinance 20-14 Nonconforming structures.docx SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NOS. 20-13, 20-14, 20-15, 20-16, 20-17, 20-18 ORDINANCES AMENDING SECTIONS 3-25 & 4-3 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATING TO FENCES, SWIMMING POOLS, LANDSCAPING, DECK SETBACKS, NONCONFORMING USES AND SCTUCTURES Ordinance No. 20-13 specifies new regulations regarding partial destruction and discontinuance of nonconforming uses. Ordinance No. 20-14 specifies new regulations for single-family nonconforming structures. Ordinance No. 20-15 defines setbacks for terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features. Ordinance No. 20-16 specifies at what height a building permit is needed to construct a fence and height limits for fences. Ordinance No. 20-17 prohibits pools in the front yard, prohibits pools and areas used in  conjunction from being placed within an easement, and reduces setback requirements in rear yards. Ordinance No. 20-18 prohibits synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable forms of landscaping. All of the above Ordinances were adopted by the New Hope City Council on November 23, 2020, and shall become effective upon publication. Valerie Leone City Clerk (published in the New Hope – Golden Valley Sun Post on December 3, 2020) 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to open the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. No one was present to address the commission. Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Chair Clark revisited Commissioner Redden’s comments about the fence height restrictions for the rear yard. Commissioner Redden inquired as to why the fence height would be limited to six feet. Residents may want to enjoy their full yard with having a privacy fence of seven feet on their property line. Mr. Sargent said at this meeting is the time to discuss the fence height and make any adjustments before moving forward to Council. Chair Clark asked if any other Commissioners had any other comments. Chair Clark provided the suggestion to adjust the text amendment to reflect a maximum fence height of 6 ½ feet. Motion Item 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 20-09, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to fence permit & height requirements, with the increase in fence height from 6 to 6 ½ feet in the rear yard; Item 4.2, Planning Case 20-10, request for amendment to Section 3-25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private swimming pool requirements; and Item 4.3, Planning Case 20-11, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to landscaping, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Clark, Mannix, Landy, Smith, Korkowski, Redden Voting against: None Absent: Brinkman, Hanson, Schmidt Motion approved 6-0 Chair Clark stated the case will be brought to the November 23, 2020 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 20-12 Planning Case 20-13 Planning Case 20-14 Items 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 Chair Clark introduced Item 4.4, Planning Case 20-12, request for amendment to Section 4-3(c)(6)e.2 of the New Hope City Code related to front deck setback requirements; Item 4.5, Planning Case 20-13, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(7) & (8) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming uses; and Item 4.6, Planning Case 20-14, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(11) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming structures, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Brandon Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-12. The New Hope City Code specifies that front deck can extend, “to a distance less than three feet from any lot line.” Compared to other cities in the surrounding area, this standard for front deck setbacks is extremely lenient. The current city regulation would allow for front decks and related structures to extend up to three feet from the front property line, 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 which staff feels is too close. Staff researched other city codes in the surrounding area, and found that they permit encroachments ranging from five to ten feet into the front yard setback. Staff is proposing to amend the current city code so that front decks will be able to encroach five feet into the front yard setback. This would allow for a reasonably sized structure to be constructed in the front yard while still aligning with the best practices in the area. Next, Mr. Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-13. There are two sections in the New Hope City Code regarding the expiration of non- conforming uses that staff feel should be amended. The current City Code states that: 1. If a non-conforming use is discontinued for six months, it can no longer be continued after that six-month period; and 2. If a non-conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by greater than 50% of estimated market value, replacement of the structure would have to meet all zoning code requirements. If a non- conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by less than 50% of its estimated market value, it may be restored to its former extent provided that reconstruction is completed within 12 months of said destruction. Minnesota state regulations differ from those of the city and are more lenient in the following ways: 1. A non-conforming use must be discontinued for a period of one year before it can no longer be continued; and 2. If a non-conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by greater than 50% of estimated market value, it can be rebuilt to its previous extent, as long as a building permit is applied for within 180 days of when the structure was first damaged. Staff believes that it would be beneficial for the city code to reflect the state statute guidelines for non-conforming structures. The city has the option of adopting stricter regulation than that of the state, and has done so in the past. However, the state regulations are very reasonable, and aligning with the state requirements will make it simpler for property owners to abide by and understand regulations regarding non- conforming uses. Commissioner Redden questioned what happens to a non-conforming use tied to a non-conforming structure if the timelines are maxed out to rebuild. Mr. Sargent replied that as long as building permit is applied for within the 180-day period, the timeframe requirement is satisfied. The building does not need to be fully constructed within the 180-day timeframe, so long as the permit has been applied for. Ms. Stacy Woods confirmed that was correct. Lastly, Mr. Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-14. The New Hope City Code specifies that in order to utilize a lot for residential use, 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 the lot must measure within 75 percent of the applicable zoning district standards for lot area and width. As a fully built-out city, staff believes that a lot of record should be sufficient to allow for reconstruction of a building, assuming it meets the minimum applicable building setback requirements for the district. Staff proposes a text amendment that would allow the reconstruction of buildings on undersized lots, as long as the lot had been established as a lot of record and recorded as such with Hennepin County. Bell concluded that the public hearing was posted in the SunPost and the city website and no feedback as received on the text amendments. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and approve the proposed text amendments. Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to open the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. No one was present to address the commission. Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion Item 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Redden, to approve Planning Case 20-12, request for amendment to Section 4- 3(c)(6)e.2 of the New Hope City Code related to front deck setback requirements; Item 4.5, Planning Case 20-13, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(7) & (8) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming uses; and Item 4.6, Planning Case 20-14, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(11) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming structures, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Clark, Mannix, Landy, Smith, Korkowski, Redden Voting against: None Absent: Brinkman, Hanson, Schmidt Motion approved 6-0 Chair Clark stated the case will be brought to the November 23, 2020 City Council meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Committee Item 5.1 The next potential meeting is on November 12, 2020. Staff will be informed if the meeting will take place or will be cancelled. Codes and Standards Committee Item 5.2 There currently is no meeting scheduled. NEW BUSINESS I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\City Council\Text Amendments\11‐23‐20\10.3 Q ‐ PC 20‐12 Decks 11‐23‐20.docx   Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: Community Development  By: Brandon Bell, Community Development Assistant;   Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development  Agenda Title  Ordinance No. 20‐15, an ordinance amending Section 4‐3(c)(6) of the New Hope City Code related to front  yard setback for decks  (New Hope Planning Case 20‐12)  Requested Action  Staff requests that the City Council approve an ordinance changing the front yard setback   Policy/Past Practice  The City Council has approved ordinance amendments in the past to accommodate the changing needs of  the community.  Background  The New Hope City Code currently specifies that the front yard setback for a deck is three feet from the front  property line. Staff felt this regulation was very loose considering it would allow for someone to practically  cover the majority of their front yard with a deck. Staff researched what other cities in the area had for front  yard setbacks. All the cities researched allowed for a deck to encroach into the standard front yard setback by  either five to ten feet. Seeing as most front yard setbacks were from 25 to 35 feet, and New Hope’s front yard  setback is 25 feet; staff recommended changing the ordinance for front yard deck setbacks to allow for a five‐ foot encroachment into the front yard setback.   Recommendation  The Planning Commission considered the ordinance amendment specifying the allowance for front decks to  encroach five‐feet into the front yard setback and recommended approval with a 6‐0 vote. Staff recommends  that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance and summary ordinance for publication.    Attachments   Ordinance 20‐15   Summary ordinance   Planning Commission minutes (November 4, 2020)        Agenda Section Ordinances &  Resolutions Item Number  10.3  ORDINANCE NO. 20-15 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4-3(c)(6)e.2. OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATED TO LOT AND YARD REQUIREMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4-3(c)(6)e.2. Lot and yard requirements, District setback exceptions, Permitted encroachments is hereby amended to repeal the stricken text and add the underlined text as follows: 2. Decks, stoops, etc. in all yards: Terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or and does not encroach further than five feet into the front yard setback to a distance less than three feet from any lot line. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication. APPROVED by the New Hope City Council this 23rd day of November, 2020. Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk P:\Attorney\SAS\1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-82015 - 4-3(c)(6) Decks - encroachment\Ordinance 20-15 Front Decks.docx SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NOS. 20-13, 20-14, 20-15, 20-16, 20-17, 20-18 ORDINANCES AMENDING SECTIONS 3-25 & 4-3 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATING TO FENCES, SWIMMING POOLS, LANDSCAPING, DECK SETBACKS, NONCONFORMING USES AND SCTUCTURES Ordinance No. 20-13 specifies new regulations regarding partial destruction and discontinuance of nonconforming uses. Ordinance No. 20-14 specifies new regulations for single-family nonconforming structures. Ordinance No. 20-15 defines setbacks for terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features. Ordinance No. 20-16 specifies at what height a building permit is needed to construct a fence and height limits for fences. Ordinance No. 20-17 prohibits pools in the front yard, prohibits pools and areas used in  conjunction from being placed within an easement, and reduces setback requirements in rear yards. Ordinance No. 20-18 prohibits synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable forms of landscaping. All of the above Ordinances were adopted by the New Hope City Council on November 23, 2020, and shall become effective upon publication. Valerie Leone City Clerk (published in the New Hope – Golden Valley Sun Post on December 3, 2020) 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to open the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. No one was present to address the commission. Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Chair Clark revisited Commissioner Redden’s comments about the fence height restrictions for the rear yard. Commissioner Redden inquired as to why the fence height would be limited to six feet. Residents may want to enjoy their full yard with having a privacy fence of seven feet on their property line. Mr. Sargent said at this meeting is the time to discuss the fence height and make any adjustments before moving forward to Council. Chair Clark asked if any other Commissioners had any other comments. Chair Clark provided the suggestion to adjust the text amendment to reflect a maximum fence height of 6 ½ feet. Motion Item 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 20-09, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to fence permit & height requirements, with the increase in fence height from 6 to 6 ½ feet in the rear yard; Item 4.2, Planning Case 20-10, request for amendment to Section 3-25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private swimming pool requirements; and Item 4.3, Planning Case 20-11, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to landscaping, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Clark, Mannix, Landy, Smith, Korkowski, Redden Voting against: None Absent: Brinkman, Hanson, Schmidt Motion approved 6-0 Chair Clark stated the case will be brought to the November 23, 2020 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 20-12 Planning Case 20-13 Planning Case 20-14 Items 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 Chair Clark introduced Item 4.4, Planning Case 20-12, request for amendment to Section 4-3(c)(6)e.2 of the New Hope City Code related to front deck setback requirements; Item 4.5, Planning Case 20-13, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(7) & (8) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming uses; and Item 4.6, Planning Case 20-14, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(11) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming structures, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Brandon Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-12. The New Hope City Code specifies that front deck can extend, “to a distance less than three feet from any lot line.” Compared to other cities in the surrounding area, this standard for front deck setbacks is extremely lenient. The current city regulation would allow for front decks and related structures to extend up to three feet from the front property line, 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 which staff feels is too close. Staff researched other city codes in the surrounding area, and found that they permit encroachments ranging from five to ten feet into the front yard setback. Staff is proposing to amend the current city code so that front decks will be able to encroach five feet into the front yard setback. This would allow for a reasonably sized structure to be constructed in the front yard while still aligning with the best practices in the area. Next, Mr. Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-13. There are two sections in the New Hope City Code regarding the expiration of non- conforming uses that staff feel should be amended. The current City Code states that: 1. If a non-conforming use is discontinued for six months, it can no longer be continued after that six-month period; and 2. If a non-conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by greater than 50% of estimated market value, replacement of the structure would have to meet all zoning code requirements. If a non- conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by less than 50% of its estimated market value, it may be restored to its former extent provided that reconstruction is completed within 12 months of said destruction. Minnesota state regulations differ from those of the city and are more lenient in the following ways: 1. A non-conforming use must be discontinued for a period of one year before it can no longer be continued; and 2. If a non-conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by greater than 50% of estimated market value, it can be rebuilt to its previous extent, as long as a building permit is applied for within 180 days of when the structure was first damaged. Staff believes that it would be beneficial for the city code to reflect the state statute guidelines for non-conforming structures. The city has the option of adopting stricter regulation than that of the state, and has done so in the past. However, the state regulations are very reasonable, and aligning with the state requirements will make it simpler for property owners to abide by and understand regulations regarding non- conforming uses. Commissioner Redden questioned what happens to a non-conforming use tied to a non-conforming structure if the timelines are maxed out to rebuild. Mr. Sargent replied that as long as building permit is applied for within the 180-day period, the timeframe requirement is satisfied. The building does not need to be fully constructed within the 180-day timeframe, so long as the permit has been applied for. Ms. Stacy Woods confirmed that was correct. Lastly, Mr. Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-14. The New Hope City Code specifies that in order to utilize a lot for residential use, I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\City Council\Text Amendments\11‐23‐20\10.4 Q ‐ PC 20‐09 Fences 11‐23‐20.docx   Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: Community Development  By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist;   Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development  Agenda Title  Ordinance No. 20‐16, an ordinance amending Section 4‐3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to  fencing and screening (New Hope Planning Case 20‐09)  Requested Action  Staff requests that the City Council approve an ordinance specifying the height at which a building permit is  needed to construct a fence and clarifying height limits for fences.  Policy/Past Practice  The City Council has approved ordinance amendments in the past to accommodate the changing needs of  the community.  Background  The New Hope City Code does not specify the height at which a building permit is needed in order to install  a fence, or height limits for fences placed along property lines. State building code requires a building permit  and engineering for fences that are seven (7) feet in height and taller. The proposed text amendment specifies  that a building permit is required for the installation of any fence that is seven (7) feet in height or taller.    Residential  The City Code currently allows fences 42 inches in height or less to be located on any part of a lot in residential  districts. There are no changes being proposed to that aspect of the City Code. The proposed text amendment  specifies that fences up to six‐and‐one‐half (6.5) feet in height may be located in rear yards and/or side yards  that do not abut a street, regardless of house orientation. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height would be allowed  in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, when meeting setback requirements for principal  buildings within the applicable zoning district. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height would also be allowed in  rear yards and/or side yards (up to the property line) where the lot directly abuts a commercial or industrial  use (includes CB, CC, Industrial, LB, R‐B, and R‐O districts).    Commercial & Industrial  The proposed text amendment specifies that fences up to eight (8) feet in height may be located in rear yards  and/or side yards that do not abut a street, regardless of building orientation, in commercial and industrial  zoning districts. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height may be located in front yards and/or side yards that abut  a street when meeting setback requirements for principal buildings within the applicable zoning district.  Recommendation  The Planning Commission considered the ordinance amendment specifying the height at which a building  permit is needed to construct a fence and clarifying height limits for fences and recommended approval with  a 6‐0 vote. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance and summary ordinance for  publication.    Agenda Section Ordinances &  Resolutions Item Number  10.4    Request for Action, Page 2    Attachments   Ordinance 20‐16   Summary ordinance   Planning Commission minutes (November 4, 2020)    For more information, including diagrams showing where fences would be allowed on different types of lots,  please refer to the staff report included in the November 4, 2020, Planning Commission packet, which was  previously distributed.    ORDINANCE NO. 20-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4-3(d)(3) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATED TO FENCING AND SCREENING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4-3(d)(3) Performance standards- Fencing and screening is hereby amended to add the underlined text as follows: (3) Fencing and screening. a. General provisions. 1. The required screening provisions as specified in subsection (4) of this section, shall supersede, where applicable, the provisions of this subsection. 2. All posts or similar supporting instruments used in the construction of fences shall be faced inward toward the property being fenced, unless symmetrical. 3. No fence shall obstruct natural drainage. No fence shall be placed within an easement that obstructs or impedes the free flow of surface water from, or within any drainage easements. If a fence is constructed within the easement and it is required to be removed, the city shall not be required to pay compensation for any such fence. 4. The height of a fence, in the case of grade separation, shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. 5. In the case of a corner lot with the building front oriented to the side yard abutting a street, fences over 42 inches may not encroach into either the required front yard setback or the required side yard setback abutting a street. 65. The following types of fences are prohibited: i. Electric. ii. Barbed wire or razor wire. iii. Sheet metal, scrap metal, corrugated metal, or metal building, siding, or roofing material. iv. Plywood or scrap wood. v. Canvass, nylon, or other non-rigid material or fabric. vi. Cast-off, secondhand, or other materials not originally intended to be used for constructing or maintaining a fence. 6. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any fence that is seven feet in height or taller. b. Residential fencing and screening. Subject to the general provisions of this section: 2 1. Fences shall be at least five percent open for passage of air and light. Fences not meeting this design standard will be treated as walls and will be required to meet building setbacks. 2. Short fences. Fences 42 inches in height or less may be located on any part of a lot. 3. Tall fences. i. Fences up to six-and-one-half (6.5) feet in height may be located in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, regardless of house orientation. ii. Fences up to eight feet in height may be located within the required side in rear yards and/or rear side yards that do not abut a street, when meeting setback requirements for principal buildings setbacks of a lot which is behind the required front yard building setback as defined within the applicable zoning district. iii. Fences up to eight feet in height may be located within rear yards and/or side yards where the lot directly abuts a commercial or industrial zoned property (includes CB, CC, I, LB, R-B, and R-O districts). c. Commercial and industrial district fences. Fences in the CB, CC, I, LB, R-B, and R- O districts are Ssubject to the general provisions of this section: 1. Fences shall be at least five percent open for passage of air and light. Fences not meeting this design standard will be treated as walls and will be required to meet building setbacks. setback requirements for principal buildings within the applicable zoning district. 2. Commercial and industrial fences may be erected up to eight feet in height. Fences in excess of eight feet shall require a conditional use permit. 3. Commercial and industrial fencing may be located within the required side and rear yard setback of a lot which is behind the required front yard building setback as defined within the applicable zoning district. fences up to eight feet in height may be located in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, regardless of building orientation. Fences up to eight feet in height may be located in front yards and/or side yards that abut a street when meeting setback requirements for principal buildings within the applicable zoning district. Shorter fences may be allowed within the required setback in front yards and/or side yards abutting a street when approved as part of a site plan review. 3 Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication. APPROVED by the New Hope City Council this 23rd day of November, 2020. Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk P:\Attorney\SAS\1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-82016 Fences - 4-3(d)(3)\Ordinance 20-16.docx SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NOS. 20-13, 20-14, 20-15, 20-16, 20-17, 20-18 ORDINANCES AMENDING SECTIONS 3-25 & 4-3 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATING TO FENCES, SWIMMING POOLS, LANDSCAPING, DECK SETBACKS, NONCONFORMING USES AND SCTUCTURES Ordinance No. 20-13 specifies new regulations regarding partial destruction and discontinuance of nonconforming uses. Ordinance No. 20-14 specifies new regulations for single-family nonconforming structures. Ordinance No. 20-15 defines setbacks for terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features. Ordinance No. 20-16 specifies at what height a building permit is needed to construct a fence and height limits for fences. Ordinance No. 20-17 prohibits pools in the front yard, prohibits pools and areas used in  conjunction from being placed within an easement, and reduces setback requirements in rear yards. Ordinance No. 20-18 prohibits synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable forms of landscaping. All of the above Ordinances were adopted by the New Hope City Council on November 23, 2020, and shall become effective upon publication. Valerie Leone City Clerk (published in the New Hope – Golden Valley Sun Post on December 3, 2020) CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 2020 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chair Clark called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting was conducted virtually using the Webex video media platform. ROLL CALL Present: Scott Clark, Matt Mannix, Roger Landy, Bill Smith, Matt Korkowski, Michael Redden Absent: Jim Brinkman, Chris Hanson, Tom Schmidt Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist; Brandon Bell, Community Development Assistant; Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney; Al Brixius, Planning Consultant; Jessi Weber, Recording Secretary NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 20-09 Planning Case 20-10 Planning Case 20-11 Items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Chair Clark introduced Item 4.1, Planning Case 20-09, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to fence permit & height requirements; Item 4.2, Planning Case 20-10, request for amendment to Section 3-25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private swimming pool requirements; and Item 4.3, Planning Case 20-11, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to landscaping requirements, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist, gave background information on Planning Case 20-09. The New Hope City Code does not specify at what height a building permit is needed to install a fence, or height limits for fences placed along property lines. State building code requires a building permit and engineering for fences that are seven (7) feet in height and taller. The proposed text amendment specifies that a building permit is required for the installation of any fence that is seven (7) feet in height or taller. The proposed text amendment specifies that fences up to six (6) feet in height may be located in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, regardless of house orientation. Fences 42” in height will continue to be allowed anywhere on the property. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height would be allowed in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, when meeting setback requirements for principal buildings within the applicable zoning district. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height would also be allowed in rear yards and/or side yards (up to the property line) where the lot directly abuts a commercial or industrial use (includes CB, CC, 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 Industrial, LB, R-B, and R-O districts). In commercial and industrial zoning districts, fences up to eight (8) feet in height may be located in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, regardless of building orientation. Fences may be located in front yards and/or side yards that abut a street when mee ting setback requirements for principal buildings within the applicable zoning district. Also in commercial and industrial zoning districts, shorter fences may be allowed within the required setback in front yards and/or side yards that abut a street when approved as part of a site plan review. Commissioner Redden questioned the height restrictions for residential fence heights in rear yards. Mr. Alger confirmed the maximum fence height in the rear yard would be six feet. Commissioner Redden asked why six feet was chosen for the height. Chair Clark suggested moving through the remaining planning cases and discussing the fence heights after the public hearing. Chair Clark questioned why the side yard of the corner lot was precluded from the allowable area for fences with a height of six feet. Mr. Alger pointed out that the typical lot will have the house situated closer to the front of the lot than the middle, as the diagram represents. Mr. Al Brixius stated if the house is located closer to the site triangle than the diagram represents, then the fence being located in the side yard would create site line issues for traffic. Next, Mr. Alger gave background on Planning Case 20-10. The proposed text amendment would prohibit pools in the front yard. It would also prohibit pools, adjacent deck areas, patios, aprons, and other similar areas used in conjunction with a pool from being placed within an easement. Setback requirements for pools in the side and rear yard would be ten feet for each side. This more closely aligns with regulations for surrounding cities in the area. Lastly, Mr. Alger gave background on Planning Case 20-11. The New Hope City Code specifies acceptable types of landscaping in the city, stating, “The lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building site and/or other requirements shall be landscaped using ground cover, ornamental grass, shrubs, trees or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used for landscaping.” The proposed text amendment specifically prohibits synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable landscaping materials due to concerns relating to appearance, maintenance, and storm water runoff. Alger concluded that the public hearing was posted in the SunPost and the city website and no feedback was received on the text amendments. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and approve the proposed text amendments. 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to open the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. No one was present to address the commission. Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Chair Clark revisited Commissioner Redden’s comments about the fence height restrictions for the rear yard. Commissioner Redden inquired as to why the fence height would be limited to six feet. Residents may want to enjoy their full yard with having a privacy fence of seven feet on their property line. Mr. Sargent said at this meeting is the time to discuss the fence height and make any adjustments before moving forward to Council. Chair Clark asked if any other Commissioners had any other comments. Chair Clark provided the suggestion to adjust the text amendment to reflect a maximum fence height of 6 ½ feet. Motion Item 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 20-09, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to fence permit & height requirements, with the increase in fence height from 6 to 6 ½ feet in the rear yard; Item 4.2, Planning Case 20-10, request for amendment to Section 3-25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private swimming pool requirements; and Item 4.3, Planning Case 20-11, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to landscaping, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Clark, Mannix, Landy, Smith, Korkowski, Redden Voting against: None Absent: Brinkman, Hanson, Schmidt Motion approved 6-0 Chair Clark stated the case will be brought to the November 23, 2020 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 20-12 Planning Case 20-13 Planning Case 20-14 Items 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 Chair Clark introduced Item 4.4, Planning Case 20-12, request for amendment to Section 4-3(c)(6)e.2 of the New Hope City Code related to front deck setback requirements; Item 4.5, Planning Case 20-13, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(7) & (8) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming uses; and Item 4.6, Planning Case 20-14, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(11) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming structures, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Brandon Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-12. The New Hope City Code specifies that front deck can extend, “to a distance less than three feet from any lot line.” Compared to other cities in the surrounding area, this standard for front deck setbacks is extremely lenient. The current city regulation would allow for front decks and related structures to extend up to three feet from the front property line, I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\City Council\Text Amendments\11‐23‐20\10.5 Q ‐ PC 20‐10 Swimming Pools 11‐23‐20.docx   Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: Community Development  By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist;   Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development  Agenda Title  Ordinance No. 20‐17, an ordinance amending Section 3‐25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private  swimming pools (New Hope Planning Case 20‐10)  Requested Action  Staff requests that the City Council approve an ordinance prohibiting pools in front yards, prohibiting pools  and areas used in conjunction from being placed within easements, and reducing setback requirements in rear  yards.  Policy/Past Practice  The City Council has approved ordinance amendments in the past to accommodate the changing needs of  the community.  Background  In New Hope, private swimming pools must comply with setback requirements for principal structures. In  single‐ and two‐family residential districts, pools must be set back at least 25 feet from the rear yard property  line and at least 10 feet from the side yard property line. The proposed text amendment would prohibit pools  in the front yard. It would also prohibit pools, adjacent deck areas, patios, aprons, and other similar areas  used in conjunction with a pool from being placed within an easement. Setback requirements for pools in the  side and rear yard would be ten feet for each side.  Recommendation  The Planning Commission considered the ordinance amendment prohibiting pools in front yards, prohibiting  pools and areas used in conjunction from being placed within easements, and reducing setback requirements  in rear yards and recommended approval with a 6‐0 vote. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the  proposed ordinance and summary ordinance for publication.   Attachments   Ordinance 20‐17   Summary ordinance   Planning Commission minutes (November 4, 2020)    For more information please refer to the staff report included in the November 4, 2020, Planning Commission  packet, which was previously distributed.    Agenda Section Ordinances &  Resolutions Item Number  10.5  ORDINANCE NO. 20-17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-25(e) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATED TO PRIVATE SWIMMING POOLS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3-25(e), Private swimming pools- Lot lines is hereby amended to repeal the stricken text and add the underlined text as follows: (e) Lot lines. Swimming pools shall comply with the setback line requirements of the zoning code of the city. Permitted locations and setbacks. No pool or adjacent deck areas, patios, aprons, and other similar areas used in conjunction with a pool shall be placed within an easement. Pools and adjacent deck areas, patios, aprons, and other similar areas used in conjunction with a pool are permitted in side yards and rear yards and subject to the following setback conditions: (1) Side yard ..... 10 feet (2) Rear yard ..... 10 feet Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication. APPROVED by the New Hope City Council this 23rd day of November, 2020. Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk P:\Attorney\SAS\1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-82017 Swimming Pools - 3-25(e)\Ordinance 20-17.docx SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NOS. 20-13, 20-14, 20-15, 20-16, 20-17, 20-18 ORDINANCES AMENDING SECTIONS 3-25 & 4-3 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATING TO FENCES, SWIMMING POOLS, LANDSCAPING, DECK SETBACKS, NONCONFORMING USES AND SCTUCTURES Ordinance No. 20-13 specifies new regulations regarding partial destruction and discontinuance of nonconforming uses. Ordinance No. 20-14 specifies new regulations for single-family nonconforming structures. Ordinance No. 20-15 defines setbacks for terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features. Ordinance No. 20-16 specifies at what height a building permit is needed to construct a fence and height limits for fences. Ordinance No. 20-17 prohibits pools in the front yard, prohibits pools and areas used in  conjunction from being placed within an easement, and reduces setback requirements in rear yards. Ordinance No. 20-18 prohibits synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable forms of landscaping. All of the above Ordinances were adopted by the New Hope City Council on November 23, 2020, and shall become effective upon publication. Valerie Leone City Clerk (published in the New Hope – Golden Valley Sun Post on December 3, 2020) CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 2020 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chair Clark called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting was conducted virtually using the Webex video media platform. ROLL CALL Present: Scott Clark, Matt Mannix, Roger Landy, Bill Smith, Matt Korkowski, Michael Redden Absent: Jim Brinkman, Chris Hanson, Tom Schmidt Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist; Brandon Bell, Community Development Assistant; Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney; Al Brixius, Planning Consultant; Jessi Weber, Recording Secretary NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 20-09 Planning Case 20-10 Planning Case 20-11 Items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Chair Clark introduced Item 4.1, Planning Case 20-09, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to fence permit & height requirements; Item 4.2, Planning Case 20-10, request for amendment to Section 3-25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private swimming pool requirements; and Item 4.3, Planning Case 20-11, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to landscaping requirements, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist, gave background information on Planning Case 20-09. The New Hope City Code does not specify at what height a building permit is needed to install a fence, or height limits for fences placed along property lines. State building code requires a building permit and engineering for fences that are seven (7) feet in height and taller. The proposed text amendment specifies that a building permit is required for the installation of any fence that is seven (7) feet in height or taller. The proposed text amendment specifies that fences up to six (6) feet in height may be located in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, regardless of house orientation. Fences 42” in height will continue to be allowed anywhere on the property. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height would be allowed in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, when meeting setback requirements for principal buildings within the applicable zoning district. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height would also be allowed in rear yards and/or side yards (up to the property line) where the lot directly abuts a commercial or industrial use (includes CB, CC, 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 Industrial, LB, R-B, and R-O districts). In commercial and industrial zoning districts, fences up to eight (8) feet in height may be located in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, regardless of building orientation. Fences may be located in front yards and/or side yards that abut a street when mee ting setback requirements for principal buildings within the applicable zoning district. Also in commercial and industrial zoning districts, shorter fences may be allowed within the required setback in front yards and/or side yards that abut a street when approved as part of a site plan review. Commissioner Redden questioned the height restrictions for residential fence heights in rear yards. Mr. Alger confirmed the maximum fence height in the rear yard would be six feet. Commissioner Redden asked why six feet was chosen for the height. Chair Clark suggested moving through the remaining planning cases and discussing the fence heights after the public hearing. Chair Clark questioned why the side yard of the corner lot was precluded from the allowable area for fences with a height of six feet. Mr. Alger pointed out that the typical lot will have the house situated closer to the front of the lot than the middle, as the diagram represents. Mr. Al Brixius stated if the house is located closer to the site triangle than the diagram represents, then the fence being located in the side yard would create site line issues for traffic. Next, Mr. Alger gave background on Planning Case 20-10. The proposed text amendment would prohibit pools in the front yard. It would also prohibit pools, adjacent deck areas, patios, aprons, and other similar areas used in conjunction with a pool from being placed within an easement. Setback requirements for pools in the side and rear yard would be ten feet for each side. This more closely aligns with regulations for surrounding cities in the area. Lastly, Mr. Alger gave background on Planning Case 20-11. The New Hope City Code specifies acceptable types of landscaping in the city, stating, “The lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building site and/or other requirements shall be landscaped using ground cover, ornamental grass, shrubs, trees or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used for landscaping.” The proposed text amendment specifically prohibits synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable landscaping materials due to concerns relating to appearance, maintenance, and storm water runoff. Alger concluded that the public hearing was posted in the SunPost and the city website and no feedback was received on the text amendments. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and approve the proposed text amendments. 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to open the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. No one was present to address the commission. Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Chair Clark revisited Commissioner Redden’s comments about the fence height restrictions for the rear yard. Commissioner Redden inquired as to why the fence height would be limited to six feet. Residents may want to enjoy their full yard with having a privacy fence of seven feet on their property line. Mr. Sargent said at this meeting is the time to discuss the fence height and make any adjustments before moving forward to Council. Chair Clark asked if any other Commissioners had any other comments. Chair Clark provided the suggestion to adjust the text amendment to reflect a maximum fence height of 6 ½ feet. Motion Item 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 20-09, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to fence permit & height requirements, with the increase in fence height from 6 to 6 ½ feet in the rear yard; Item 4.2, Planning Case 20-10, request for amendment to Section 3-25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private swimming pool requirements; and Item 4.3, Planning Case 20-11, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to landscaping, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Clark, Mannix, Landy, Smith, Korkowski, Redden Voting against: None Absent: Brinkman, Hanson, Schmidt Motion approved 6-0 Chair Clark stated the case will be brought to the November 23, 2020 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 20-12 Planning Case 20-13 Planning Case 20-14 Items 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 Chair Clark introduced Item 4.4, Planning Case 20-12, request for amendment to Section 4-3(c)(6)e.2 of the New Hope City Code related to front deck setback requirements; Item 4.5, Planning Case 20-13, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(7) & (8) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming uses; and Item 4.6, Planning Case 20-14, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(11) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming structures, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Brandon Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-12. The New Hope City Code specifies that front deck can extend, “to a distance less than three feet from any lot line.” Compared to other cities in the surrounding area, this standard for front deck setbacks is extremely lenient. The current city regulation would allow for front decks and related structures to extend up to three feet from the front property line, I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\City Council\Text Amendments\11‐23‐20\10.6 Q ‐ PC 20‐11 Landscaping 11‐23‐20.docx   Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: Community Development  By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist;   Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development  Agenda Title  Ordinance No. 20‐18, an ordinance amending Section 4‐3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to  landscaping requirements (New Hope Planning Case 20‐11)  Requested Action  Staff requests that the City Council approve an ordinance prohibiting synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as  acceptable forms of landscaping.  Policy/Past Practice  The City Council has approved ordinance amendments in the past to accommodate the changing needs of  the community.  Background  The New Hope City Code specifies acceptable types of landscaping in the city, stating, “The lot area remaining  after providing for off‐street parking, off‐street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building site and/or other  requirements shall be landscaped using ground cover, ornamental grass, shrubs, trees or other acceptable  vegetation or treatment generally used for landscaping.” The proposed text amendment specifically prohibits  synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable landscaping materials due to concerns relating to  appearance, maintenance, and stormwater runoff.  Recommendation  The Planning Commission considered the ordinance amendment prohibiting synthetic turfs and artificial  grasses as acceptable forms of landscaping and recommended approval with a 6‐0 vote. Staff recommends  that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance and summary ordinance for publication.   Attachments   Ordinance 20‐18   Summary ordinance   Planning Commission minutes (November 4, 2020)    For more information please refer to the staff report included in the November 4, 2020, Planning Commission  packet, which was previously distributed.    Agenda Section Ordinances &  Resolutions Item Number  10.6  ORDINANCE NO. 20-18 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4-3(d)(4) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATED TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4-3(d)(4)a., Performance standards – Landscaping- Required landscaping- General residential is hereby amended to add the underlined text as follows: a. Required landscaping—General residential. The lot area remaining after providing for off- street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building site and/or other requirements shall be landscaped using ground cover, ornamental grass, shrubs, trees or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used for landscaping. Synthetic turfs, artificial grasses, and other similar materials are prohibited. Fences, retaining walls, or trees placed upon utility easements are subject to removal if required for the maintenance or improvement of the utility. The city shall not be required to pay compensation for the items to be removed from a utility easement. Trees under overhead wires within an easement are restricted to tree types having mature height that will not interfere with the overhead wires. Section 2. Section 4-3(d)(4)b.4.ii., Performance standards – Landscaping- Required landscaping – Design is hereby amended to add the underlined text as follows: ii. All area within the property lines (or beyond, if site grading extends beyond) not paved or designated for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveways, open outdoor storage, or buildings shall be landscaped using ground cover, ornamental grass, shrubs, trees, or other acceptable vegetation generally used for landscaping. Synthetic turfs, artificial grasses, and other similar materials are prohibited. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication. APPROVED by the New Hope City Council this 23rd day of November, 2020. Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk P:\Attorney\SAS\1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-82018 Landscaping- 4-3(d)(4)\Ordinance 20-18.docx SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NOS. 20-13, 20-14, 20-15, 20-16, 20-17, 20-18 ORDINANCES AMENDING SECTIONS 3-25 & 4-3 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATING TO FENCES, SWIMMING POOLS, LANDSCAPING, DECK SETBACKS, NONCONFORMING USES AND SCTUCTURES Ordinance No. 20-13 specifies new regulations regarding partial destruction and discontinuance of nonconforming uses. Ordinance No. 20-14 specifies new regulations for single-family nonconforming structures. Ordinance No. 20-15 defines setbacks for terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features. Ordinance No. 20-16 specifies at what height a building permit is needed to construct a fence and height limits for fences. Ordinance No. 20-17 prohibits pools in the front yard, prohibits pools and areas used in  conjunction from being placed within an easement, and reduces setback requirements in rear yards. Ordinance No. 20-18 prohibits synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable forms of landscaping. All of the above Ordinances were adopted by the New Hope City Council on November 23, 2020, and shall become effective upon publication. Valerie Leone City Clerk (published in the New Hope – Golden Valley Sun Post on December 3, 2020) CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 2020 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chair Clark called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting was conducted virtually using the Webex video media platform. ROLL CALL Present: Scott Clark, Matt Mannix, Roger Landy, Bill Smith, Matt Korkowski, Michael Redden Absent: Jim Brinkman, Chris Hanson, Tom Schmidt Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist; Brandon Bell, Community Development Assistant; Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney; Al Brixius, Planning Consultant; Jessi Weber, Recording Secretary NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 20-09 Planning Case 20-10 Planning Case 20-11 Items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Chair Clark introduced Item 4.1, Planning Case 20-09, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to fence permit & height requirements; Item 4.2, Planning Case 20-10, request for amendment to Section 3-25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private swimming pool requirements; and Item 4.3, Planning Case 20-11, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to landscaping requirements, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist, gave background information on Planning Case 20-09. The New Hope City Code does not specify at what height a building permit is needed to install a fence, or height limits for fences placed along property lines. State building code requires a building permit and engineering for fences that are seven (7) feet in height and taller. The proposed text amendment specifies that a building permit is required for the installation of any fence that is seven (7) feet in height or taller. The proposed text amendment specifies that fences up to six (6) feet in height may be located in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, regardless of house orientation. Fences 42” in height will continue to be allowed anywhere on the property. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height would be allowed in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, when meeting setback requirements for principal buildings within the applicable zoning district. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height would also be allowed in rear yards and/or side yards (up to the property line) where the lot directly abuts a commercial or industrial use (includes CB, CC, 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 Industrial, LB, R-B, and R-O districts). In commercial and industrial zoning districts, fences up to eight (8) feet in height may be located in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, regardless of building orientation. Fences may be located in front yards and/or side yards that abut a street when mee ting setback requirements for principal buildings within the applicable zoning district. Also in commercial and industrial zoning districts, shorter fences may be allowed within the required setback in front yards and/or side yards that abut a street when approved as part of a site plan review. Commissioner Redden questioned the height restrictions for residential fence heights in rear yards. Mr. Alger confirmed the maximum fence height in the rear yard would be six feet. Commissioner Redden asked why six feet was chosen for the height. Chair Clark suggested moving through the remaining planning cases and discussing the fence heights after the public hearing. Chair Clark questioned why the side yard of the corner lot was precluded from the allowable area for fences with a height of six feet. Mr. Alger pointed out that the typical lot will have the house situated closer to the front of the lot than the middle, as the diagram represents. Mr. Al Brixius stated if the house is located closer to the site triangle than the diagram represents, then the fence being located in the side yard would create site line issues for traffic. Next, Mr. Alger gave background on Planning Case 20-10. The proposed text amendment would prohibit pools in the front yard. It would also prohibit pools, adjacent deck areas, patios, aprons, and other similar areas used in conjunction with a pool from being placed within an easement. Setback requirements for pools in the side and rear yard would be ten feet for each side. This more closely aligns with regulations for surrounding cities in the area. Lastly, Mr. Alger gave background on Planning Case 20-11. The New Hope City Code specifies acceptable types of landscaping in the city, stating, “The lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building site and/or other requirements shall be landscaped using ground cover, ornamental grass, shrubs, trees or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used for landscaping.” The proposed text amendment specifically prohibits synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable landscaping materials due to concerns relating to appearance, maintenance, and storm water runoff. Alger concluded that the public hearing was posted in the SunPost and the city website and no feedback was received on the text amendments. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and approve the proposed text amendments. 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to open the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. No one was present to address the commission. Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Chair Clark revisited Commissioner Redden’s comments about the fence height restrictions for the rear yard. Commissioner Redden inquired as to why the fence height would be limited to six feet. Residents may want to enjoy their full yard with having a privacy fence of seven feet on their property line. Mr. Sargent said at this meeting is the time to discuss the fence height and make any adjustments before moving forward to Council. Chair Clark asked if any other Commissioners had any other comments. Chair Clark provided the suggestion to adjust the text amendment to reflect a maximum fence height of 6 ½ feet. Motion Item 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 20-09, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to fence permit & height requirements, with the increase in fence height from 6 to 6 ½ feet in the rear yard; Item 4.2, Planning Case 20-10, request for amendment to Section 3-25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private swimming pool requirements; and Item 4.3, Planning Case 20-11, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to landscaping, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Clark, Mannix, Landy, Smith, Korkowski, Redden Voting against: None Absent: Brinkman, Hanson, Schmidt Motion approved 6-0 Chair Clark stated the case will be brought to the November 23, 2020 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 20-12 Planning Case 20-13 Planning Case 20-14 Items 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 Chair Clark introduced Item 4.4, Planning Case 20-12, request for amendment to Section 4-3(c)(6)e.2 of the New Hope City Code related to front deck setback requirements; Item 4.5, Planning Case 20-13, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(7) & (8) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming uses; and Item 4.6, Planning Case 20-14, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(11) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming structures, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Brandon Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-12. The New Hope City Code specifies that front deck can extend, “to a distance less than three feet from any lot line.” Compared to other cities in the surrounding area, this standard for front deck setbacks is extremely lenient. The current city regulation would allow for front decks and related structures to extend up to three feet from the front property line, I:\RFA\POLICE\112320 New Vehicle\10.7 RFA ‐ 2020 Reserve Vehicle F150 Purchase.docx   Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: Police  By: Tim Hoyt, Director of Police    Agenda Title  Resolution authorizing the purchase of equipment and appropriation of funds in the amount of $49,364.05 for the  purchase of one Ford F‐150 Reserve Officer vehicle and ancillary equipment.  Requested Action  Staff is requesting authorization to purchase a total of one (1) F‐150 community service vehicle from Midway  Ford under the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchase Agreement.     Policy/Past Practice  The city develops a ten‐year capital improvement program (CIP) for capital equipment, facility improvements  and infrastructure projects. Every two years the CIP is reviewed, updated and extended two years for another  ten‐year period.    Background  The current Reserve Vehicle (a high mileage 2013 Ford Taurus Sedan), squad #137, will be sold at auction.     As such, a request was made to replace the current Reserve squad, with a marked Ford F‐150 pick‐up.  The  increased duties of a Police Reserve Officer includes the transportation of large items which are utilized for city  events and services such as traffic cones, signs, and transportation of bicycles.  A pick‐up is more practical for these  tasks, than a small sedan.  It should also be noted that neighboring cities are also utilizing pick‐ups as reserve  squads.    The purchase of the new police vehicle would be from Midway Ford under the State of Minnesota Cooperative  Purchasing Agreement.   Funding  The state contract total for the purchase one F‐150 community service vehicle is $34,364.05.  The ancillary  equipment and set‐up costs are estimated at $15,000.00 for a total of $49,364.05.      The current replacement fund for the purchase of vehicle #173 is currently at $51,663.10.  The amount for the  new F‐150 is $2,299.05 under the current replacement fund.   Attachment   Resolution   Memorandum from Central Garage Supervisor   Quotation    Agenda Section Ordinances &  Resolutions Item Number  10.7  City of New Hope    Resolution No. 2020‐___    Resolution authorizing the purchase of equipment  and appropriation of funds in the amount of $49,364.05 for the purchase  of one (1) 2021 Ford F‐150 Police Reserve Officer service vehicle and ancillary equipment      WHEREAS, the city of New Hope prepares a ten‐year capital improvement program (CIP) as a guiding  document for equipment acquisition and improvement projects to assist with the preparation of  each annual operating budget; and,     WHEREAS, the CIP is not formally adopted as a budget document, nor does it authorize the acquisition of  individual equipment and/or projects listed therein; and,    WHEREAS, the Public Works and Police department recommend the acquisition of one (1) 2021 Ford F‐150  pick‐up type vehicle from Midway Ford; and,     WHEREAS, the funds for this equipment are provided within the central garage equipment replacement fund  account for the Public Works Department.    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Minnesota, that the  appropriation of $34,364.05 for payment to Midway Ford and $15,000 for ancillary equipment  and set‐up costs for a total of $49,364.05 from the central garage equipment replacement fund  CIP account, is authorized and the 2020 central garage equipment replacement fund budget is  hereby amended.    Adopted by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 23rd day of November,  2020.              ________________________________         Mayor    Attest: _________________________________   City Clerk  Memorandum To: Tim Hoyt-Chief of Police From: Bill Robberstad-Central Garage Supervisor Date: November 17, 2020 Subject: Purchase of a Marked Ford F-150 Reserve Officer Vehicle I am recommending the Central Garage purchase a marked Ford F-150 vehicle for the New Hope Police Department’s Reserve Officer, as part of the 2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The city develops a ten-year capital improvement program (CIP) for capital equipment, facility improvements, and infrastructure projects. Every two years the CIP is reviewed, updated, and extended two years for another ten-year period. A request was made to replace the current Reserve sedan with a marked Ford F-150 pick-up. The increased duties of the Reserves in New Hope often includes the transportation of various items such as traffic cones, signs, road debris, etc. A pick-up handles these tasks more easily than a car. Other neighboring cities are utilizing pick-ups as their reserves vehicles. The purchase of the vehicle would be from Midway Ford Commercial under the state of Minnesota cooperative purchasing agreement. The current Reserves vehicle, a 2013 Ford Taurus Sedan (#137) would be sold at auction. The state contract total for the purchase of the Ford F-150 is $34,364.05. The ancillary equipment set-up and installations cost is estimated at $15,000 bringing the total cost of the Ford F-150 to $49,364.05. The vehicle replacement fund, for the purchase of vehicle #173 is currently at $51,663.10 Midway Ford Commercial Travis Swanson Fleet and Government Sales 651-343-5212 2777 N. Snelling Ave. tswanson@rosevillemidwayford.com Roseville MN 55113 Fax # 651-604-2936 FTM10 Contract # 169665 Standard Automatic Transmission 40/20/40 Vinyl Seat 3.3L V6 Air Conditioning Dual Front Air Bags Rubber Floor Covering AM/FM Radio 4-Wheel ABS Brakes Bumpers w/Rear Step Matching Full Size Spare Tire Tilt Wheel Bluetooth Rear View Camera Options Code Price Select Exterior Colors Code Select 101A Package 101A $837 x Blue Jeans Metallic N1 (Power Windows, Locks, Cruise, CD Player, Sync)Race Red PQ 5.0L V8 995 $1,816 x Caribou Metallic LQ 3.73 E-locking Axle XL6 $518 x Agate Black UM x Hitch 53B $186 x Magnetic Metallic J7 Running Boards 18B $228 x Iconic Silver Metallic JS Privacy Glass 924 $91 x Oxford White YZ Rear Defrost 57Q $200 x SSV Package 66S $46 x Access Cover $525 x Extended Service Contracts Cost Select LED Box Lights Not Available on XL Trim 7 year/75,000 mile $2,970 PremiumCare Warranty (Bumper to Bumper) Option Total $4,447 You must have a active FIN code to participate in this Base Price Totals purchase contract : FIN code # $27,631.92 Purchase Order required prior to order placement Options Price Totals $4,447.00 Extended Warranty PO # Transit Impr Excise Tax $20.00 Tax Exempt Lic $55.00 6.5% Sales Tax $2,085.13 Name of Organization Document fee $125.00 Sub total per vehicle $34,364.05 Number of Vehicles 1 Address Grand Total for all units $34,364.05 City, State, Zip Acceptance Signature Contact Person/ Phone # Print Name and Title Date Contact's e-mail address and fax # 2021 F-150 4X4- Crew Cab- 5.5' Box S:\November 23, 2020 City Council Meeting\12.1 Q ‐ Upcoming Events_022420.docx   Request for Action  November 23, 2020    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: City Manager  By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager    Agenda Title  Exchange of communication between members of the city council  Upcoming meetings and events:    Nov. 24 7 p.m. ‐ Personnel Board Meeting, Police Officer Interviews      Nov. 26 Thanksgiving Holiday, City Offices Closed    Nov. 27 Thanksgiving Holiday, City Offices Closed    Dec. 1  No Planning Commission Meeting    Dec. 2  8:30 a.m. – Business Networking Group Meeting – location TBD    1:30 p.m. – Joint Water Commission Meeting    Dec. 7  4 p.m. – Blue Line Coalition Meeting   7 p.m. – Human Rights Commission Meeting (Virtual)    7 p.m. – Budget Public Hearing    Dec. 8  No Citizen Advisory Commission Meeting     Dec. 9  6:30 p.m. – West Metro Fire‐Rescue Board Meeting (In‐person, Station #3)    Dec. 10  12:30 p.m. – Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Meeting (Virtual)    Dec. 14  7 p.m. – City Council Meeting     Agenda Section Other Business Item Number  12.1