1987 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1987
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Planning Case 86-12 - Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan
Approval - New Hope U.S. Swim
Partnership, Petitioner
4. Planning Case 87-1 - Request for Conditional Use Permit -
Mark and Barbara Zeman, Petitioners
5. Planning Case 87-2 - T.J. Applebees/Donald Strang,
Petitioner
6. Planning Case 87-3 - Request for Conditional Use Permit -
Autohaus of Minneapolis, Inc./Tom
Boettcher, Petitioners
COMMITTEE REPORTS
7. Report of Design and Review Committee
8. Report of Codes and Standards Committee
NEW BUSINESS
9. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 7, 1986,
August 19, 1986, and February 18, 1986
10. Review of Council Minutes of January 12, 1987 and
January 26, 1987
11. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public,
Commissioners and Staff
12. Announcements
13. Adjournment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
SUBJECT: Planning Case 86-12
New Hope U.S. Swim Partnership, Petitioner
Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval
Zoning: B-4
DATE: February 27, 1987
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed the New Hope Mall Comprehensive Sign
Plan on February 18, 1987. The Planning Commission tabled the plan
with the exception of a 4' x 20' sign in order to gather more
information regarding:
1. The durability of the proposed canopy sign,
2. whether the painted letters on the canopy sign
would fade, and
3. the existing pylon sign.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner has provided the attached information on the
maintenance schedule and the canopy warranties. The peitioner also
noted that the paint color would be controlled by a color number
which would allow matching the color.
The existing pylon sign has a height variance and a setback
variance. The petitioner is proposing to lower the height of the
sign to conform with the sign ordinance (30 feet). The location
(setback) of the sign will not change. The proposed sign will be 160
square feet which is in compliance with the code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive sign plan for the New
Hope Mall.
February 23, 1987
FOWLER-HANLEY, INC.
Attention: Paul
1207 Harmon Place.
Minneapolis, MN 55403
MAINTENANCE SCItEDULE
RE: New }tope Mall
1.) Washed approximately 3 times a year (soft brush)
no soap.
2.) Armor All'ed once a year - After first year.
3.) Don't scrub lettering.
4.) Tighten anchor bolts one year after the first year.
Paul Ellefson
J.W. Hulme Co.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
SUBJECT: Planning Case 87-1
Mark and Barbara Zeman, Petitioner
8431 Bass Lake Road
Request for Conditional Use Permit, Home Occupation-
Beauty Salon (Section 4.038)
Zoning: R-4
DATE: February 27, 1987
BACKGROUND
The single family home is located in an R-4 district; therefore a
non-conforming use. Section 4.038 of the Code "Home Occupation" is
relevant to this request.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner is proposing to construct a beauty salon in the
basement of the house. The size of the area to be utilized is
9' x 13'. Plans are attached.
It is anticipated that one customer will be at the salon at one
time; therefore, parking is adequate.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval provided that the Planning Commission finds
that:
1. The request shall have no adverse effect on the neighborhood.
2. Interior changes will comply with all building, electrical,
mechanical, and fire codes.
3. Traffic generated by the business involves the type that
typically services family residences; and that such traffic
constitutes neither a nuisance or a safety hazard.
4. Signage permitted in 3.464(1) (d) is complied with.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
SUBJECT: Planning Case 87-2
Applebees, Inc./Donald Strang, Petitioner
4203 Winnetka Avenue North
Zoning: B-4
DATE: February 27, 1987
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved "Resolution 87-1, Resolution
Recommending an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development,
Conditional Use Permit For the New Hope Mall, and Exemption From the
Development Moratorium Established By Ordinance 86-6".
Section 3 of Resolution 87-1 required that:
1. Concrete curbs replace the proposed wooden curbs;
2. detailed plans for the fence be provided;
3. the petitioner, define the trash area; and
4. a detailed landscaping plan be provided.
Applebees has submitted plans addressing those issues.
ANALYSIS
1. Curbing
The petitioner has replaced the wooden curb with continuous
concrete curbing.
2. Fence
The petitioner has chosen to eliminate the fenced dining area;
therefore eliminating the proposed fencing.
3. Trash Enclosure
The petitioner has submitted plans for an enclosed trash area.
The proposed trash enclosure is constructed of concrete block
faced with stucco. The enclosure will be trimmed with a redwood
band. The doors have been shifted about 45 degrees from south
exposure.
The proposed trash enclosure will eliminate 20 feet of delivery
area; therefore, 40 foot trucks making deliveries at Applebees
will encroach on adjacent service bays.
-2-
The Planning Consultant has identified the following concerns
regarding this trash area:
1. The high visibility of the area;
2. Traffic congestion in the area, and
3. The typical deterioration of such structures when
constructed of wood.
4. Landscape Plan
The petitioner has presented a landscape plan with planting
schedule, which conforms with the landscape guidelines of the
City. If the trash enclosure is approved, approximately 7 feet
of the landscaping along the north wall will be cut back.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the concrete curb; deletion of the
wooden fence; the landscape plan; and the trash receptacle.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
SUBJECT: Planning Case 87-3
Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor
Storage and Leasing in an I-1 Zone
Autohaus of Minneapolis/Tom Boettcher, Petitioners
7701 - 7709 42nd Avenue North
Zoning: I-1
DATE: February 27, 1987
ANALYSIS
1. The Planner's report is attached. The report addresses a
number of issues regarding the site as well as the ordinance
requirements for conditional use permits for storage and
leasing in an I-1 zone.
2. This lot will potentially be affected by right-of-way
acquisition for the 42nd Avenue Street Improvement Project.
It is anticipated that with the proposed plans for 42nd Avenue
the property owner will lose twenty feet of front yard. The
coordination of combining curbs should be made at this time.
3. The planner is concerned about parking, curb cuts and setbacks.
The petitioner is only asking for outside storage. They plan
on remodeling and construction approval later this year. What
exists now on the site is what was developed by the City before
it sold the property in 1980. In my opinion it is not
appropriate to ask for all these changes when we did not do
them ourselves or we did not require the changes upon the sale
by the City. The petitioners will be willing to make the changes
when they get into their remodeling at a later date. They are
planning on major improvements to the front to make the building
visually attractive and more functional. I recommend the
Commission only deal with the storage issue and nothing more
at this time.
4. Staff recommends that the conditional use permit for outdoor
storage and leasing be approved contingent upon a finding that
no more than 30% of the floor area of the principal use is for
leasing.
northwest associated consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT ~~
TO: Dan Donahue
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: 26 February 1987
RE: Autohaus Conditional Use Permit
FILE NO: 131.01 - 87.03
BACKGROUND
Autohaus of Minneapolis is proposing to purchase the property at 7701 and 7709
42nd Avenue North to locate their business in New Hope. The site is currently
zoned I-2, General Industrial District~ and is occupied by ICU Film Processing
and Lake Air Metal. Autohaus will replace Lake Air Metal in the rear of the
site. The Autohaus operation includes the following elements: automobile major
repair, automobile storage and leasing. No automobile sales are proposed.
Within the I-2 Zoning District, major automobile repair is a permitted use and
outdoor storage and rental is allowed by conditional use. We have received the
applicant's site plan and offer the following review comments.
CONDITIONAL USE
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for~both outdoor storage
and outdoor leasing. Both of these conditional use permits are allowed in the
I-2 Zoning District, however, the performance standards for these conditional use
permits vary slightly, as shown below.
(1) ..Qpen Storage, Accessory. Open and outdoor storage as a conditional accessory
use provided that:
(a) Screened from Residential Uses. The area is fenced and screened from
view of neighboring residential uses or if abutting a residential
district in compliance with Section 4.033 (3).
(b) ~. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420
Da~' Donahue
26' February 1987
Page Two
(2) Outdoor Sales and Service, Accessory. Open or outdoor service, sale and
rental as an accessory use, provided that:
(a) Area Limit. Accessory outSide service, sales and equipment rental
connected with a principal use is limited to thirty percent of the
gross floor area of the principal use.
(b) Screened from Residential. Outside sales areas are fenced or
screened from view of neighboring residential uses.
(c) Surfacing. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
Storage/Leasin~ Area Size
The area restriction for the outdoor sales and service is intended to limit the amount
of actual customer service on an industrial site. The automobile leasing use raises
some concern from the standpoint of customer service. The applicant has indicated
that the majority of their leasing business consists of fleet leasing to companies
with only a small amount of off-street patronage. Based on this description, the
customer traffic generation is not anticipated .to be great and would not be in-
compatible with the industrial zoning designation. If there is an~ future change
in the facility to a more commercial car rental operation that caters to individual
customers, the size of the outdoor leasing area becomes a concern due to the type
of use.
The applicant desires to have the entire area south of the building as a storage/
leasing area. Based on the ordinance standards, the applicant can only have 30%
of the floor area of the principal use for outdoor leasing area. This amounts to
4,320 square feet of outdoor leasing space. If all of the area south of the building
is considered outdoor leasing space, then by code definition, the proposed use does
not comply with the zoning ordinance performance standards. The question arises
as to what amount of the site consists of leasing and what portion can be construed
to be outdoor storage. The City must through its evaluation of the proposed use
determine if what is being requested should be defined as outdoor leasing or
automobile outdoor storage.
Screening of Outdoor Storage
The site does not abut any residential land uses therefore, screening of the area
is not required. The area to the south.of the building already has a security
fence surrounding the use.
Dan Donahue
2~'~ebrdary 1987
Page'Three
Surfacing
Site inspection of the site indicates that all.paved areas are in poor condition
and are in need of upgrading. The rear of the site is in extremely poor con-
dition, characterized by deteriorating pavement, scattered 'trash and debris covering
the area, and drainage problems in the southwest corner of the site. Any con-
ditional use approval should be contingent on the correction of these noted problems
and other site review comments.
· SITE REVIEW
Lot Size and Setbacks ~
The lot in question is 1.7 acres in size, exceeding.the I-2 lot area standard.
The existing building complies with all of the I-2 required setbacks.
Access and Parking
The site is located along 42nd Avenue which is proposed to be widened in the 42nd
Avenue Improvement Study. To accomplish this street improvement, an additional
20 feet of right-of-way is to be acquired from the Autohaus site and the Animal
Clinic to the east. This right-of-way acquisition will affect the site access and
parking in the north end of these.sites. This will require some site redesign
for both of these properties.
Currently, the Autohaus site curb cuts are nonconforming with City standards in
two respects:
1. The maximum permitted curb cut size is 24 feet. The Autohaus site curb
cuts are 40 feet and 30 feet respective, both exceeding City standards.
2. The City Zoning Ordinance permits one curb cut for every 125 feet of street
front. The Autohaus site has two curb cuts for 146 feet of street frontage.
The 42nd Avenue Improvement Plan recommends the reduction of curb cuts along 42nd
Avenue through the consolidation of curb cut access points. Currently, the western
curb cut is a shared access between Autohaus and Country Kitchen Restaurant. We
would strongly recommend that a joint access drive be established between the
Autohaus site and the animal clinic. Through a shared access and driveway easement,
both sites woul.d benefit through improved access and parking between.the buildings.
Our site inspection'and review of the applicant's site plan raised a number of
parking and on-site circulation concerns.
Setbacks: The parking area lacks setbacks on all sides of the site. The Zoning
Ordinance requires a three foot setback from all property lines and a perimeter
curb barrier around the entire parking area.
Da,n' Don~hue
26 February 1987 ,
Page Four
The lack of a setback and curb barrier has resulted in the backing onto Country
Kitchen's sodded area, resulting in damage to these grassed areas. Approval of
the CUP should include the provision of curbing around the entire parking lot
except where shared driveways are provided.
Angled Parking: Due to the narrowness of the areas along the building, the
a"pplicant is p~oposing angled parking stalls. This arrangement presents several
circulation concerns:
1. The angled parking will requi're a one-way circulation pattern through the
site. To accomplish this, customer traffic.will have to pass through the
fenced storage area.
2. The site plan shows angled parking'in the same direction on both sides of
'the building. This will conflict with any one-way'traffic movement.
The .propoSed parking arrangement is.not convenient or functional as it is
currently proposed. Some revision to the parking-layout will be necessary if
angled parking and a.' one-way circulation system is proposed. The applicant
must demonstrate that the one-way circulation system on the site is a workable
arrangement.
With a shared driveway and parking agreement between the AutOhaus and Animal Clinic,
90 degree parking could be provided on the east side of the building.
Amount of Parking: Based on the parking requirement for industrial uses and auto
intensive uses, ~he following amount of parking was calculated:
Gross Net
Floor Area Floor Area Total
· Industrial 6,540 x .9 = 5,886 ~ 350 = 17 17 Spaces
Auto Intensive Use 10,760 x .9 = 9,683 e 800 = 12 + 8 20 Spaces
The proposed site plan shows 35 parking stalls on-site, exclusive of the storage
area. The~stalls'are all correctly dimensioned.
· The existing parking and driveway areas require a~number of improvements to meet
City'standards as follows:
1. Upgrade deteriorated bituminous area i'n both the parking and storage areas.
2. Provision of curbing around the entire parking and driveway areas.
3. Reduce'the curb cut widths to 24 feet.
Dan Donahue
26 February 1987
Pa~ge Fi ve
4. Eliminate the eastern curb cut. The City should encourage the consolidation
and shared curb cut and driveway between the Animal Clinic and the Autohaus.
5. The on-site drainage should be reviewed by the City Engineer to address the
water collection on site.
6. The applicant'must demonstrate a workable on site circulation pattern.
7. All parking stalls should be striped.
8. A curb barrier between the parking stalls and the building should be
provided to avoid vehicles from contacting the building.
Off-Street Loading.
Commercial and industrial buildings are required to be served by an off-street
loading area..The site plan that has been provided does not illustrate a loading
area. A designated loading area must be designated on-site unless an exception
is pursued by conditional use permit.
Trash Handling. Equipment
Our site inspection indicated that there are two on-site trash receptacles, one
located on the west side of'the building, the other located at the'rear of the'
building. Any'trash handling equipment visible from a public right-of-way should
be enclosed or screened from view.
General Site Condition
Our site inspection revealed that the site was generally poorly kept. The rear of
the site was cluttered with trash and debris scattered over the site. The pavement
area showed signs of deterioration. The site presents some drainage problems in
the southwest corner of the site. Within the fenced area there was a fishhouse,
camper and old car stored. Any site approvals should be contingent on the improve-
ment of all existing site conditions.
CONCLUSION
Any change of use in an existing structure or site is complicated by existing
development conditions. In consideration of the proposed application, the Planning
Commission must evaluate the appropriateness of this use within the I-2 Zoning
District, and the site impact in regard to the City's plans for the 42nd Avenue
Corridor.
Dan Donahue
· .26. Pebwuary 1987
~,Page Six
Based on the applicant's description of his facility, the proposed use could
compatibly co-exist on this I-2 site. If the City feels it is an appropriate
use, the City should impose conditions on the CUP to upgrade the site, reduce
the site nonconformities and to implement the City's planning objectives for the
42nd Avenue Corridor.
cc: Doug Sandstad
Jeanine Dunn
ANCE SURVEYING & ENGI~EIERING CO.'
..................................... Provide a shared driveway
.................................. ~. .... between the Autohaus site
........ .and the Animal Clinic.~
~ Combine curb cuts with ~
.~r ..... Animal Clinic
..........~-. 20'RO~ for street
.... expansion ~
~) ..............~ . Drainage problem areal~
Per~mete~ curb needed ~ark~n~ lot setback' '-'~
v~olations
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 7, 1987
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Planning Case 87-04 - Request for Preliminary Plat Approval
9201-9205 30th Avenue North
Thomas R./Donna Mae Stanton, Petitioners
4. Planning Case 87-05 - Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan
Approval - 5600-5604 Winnetka Avenue North
Steven Hendrickson, Petitioner
5. Planning Case 87-07 - Request for Preliminary Plat Approval
4511 Gettysburg Avenue North
Duane/Rosemary Oftelie, Petitioners
6. Planning Case 87-08 - Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan
Approval, variance in number of signs
allowed and square footage - New Hope Mall
New Hope/U.S.Swim Partnership and Peter
Obernesser, Petitioner
7. Planning Case 87-06 - Request for variance in number of signs
allowed - 4203 Winnetka Avenue North
Applebee's/Donald Strang, Petitioner
8. Planning Case 87-09 - Request for Construction Approval
3101 Louisiana Avenue North
Bruce Paddock, Petitioner
9. Planning Case 87-10 - Request for Concept and Development Stage
Approval for an I-1 PUD and Text Amendment
9401 Science Center Drive
Investment Management/D. Jon Monson,
Petitioner
COMMITTEE REPORTS
10. Report of Design and Review Committee
11. Report of Codes and Standards
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - April 7, 1987 (cont.)
NEW BUSINESS
12. Request for approval of Proposed Ordinance 87-2, An ordinance
amending the New Hope Zoning Code by clarifying the definition
of restaurant.
13. Request for approval of proposed ordinance defining minor
variances.
14. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1987.
15. Review of Housing and Redevelopoment Authority Minutes of
January 12, 1987.
16. Review of Citizens Advisory Commission Minutes of March 2, 1987.
17. Review of City Council Minutes of December 15, 1986; January 20,
1987; February 9, 1987; February 23, 1987; and March 9, 1987.
18. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public,
Commissioners and Staff.
19. Announcements.
20. Adjournment.
Petitioner Narrative Description
DATE: April 7, 1987
PLANNING CASE: 87-10
LOCATION: 9401 Science Center Drive
Lot 2, 'Block 1, Brandell 3rd Add.
PETITIONER: Investment Management, Inc.
ZONING: I-1 ~
PROPOSED USE: Multi-structure, Mini-office/
storage
APPROVAL REQUESTED FOR: Concept and Development Stage
Approval for I-l, Planned Unit
Development
REASON FOR REQUEST: 1. To permit a multi-structure
plan on a single parcel of land
2. To benefit from the
flexibility of design afforded by
the PUD ordinance
APPROVAL REQUESTED FOR: Text Amendment (Section 4.144
(11) g,h.)
REASON FOR REQUEST: To permit Petitioner to protect
property from fire in a manner
other than required by the
ordinance without increasing the
threat to health, safety or
welfare
~enefits to City if Approved
The site has'been and continues to be plagued with the following
development obstacles:
1) Oddly shaped parcel
2) Unresolved stormwater problem
3) Being adjacent to railroad tracks has both negative
aesthetic and technical ramifications
The current proposal will solve the above mentioned problems,
as well as provide the following benefits to the City: 1) Low rise, intensely landscaped development
2) Relatively passive development does not impose on City
streets and utilities
3) Provides a community service by making available
inexpensive, secure storage space ~
Page Two
New Hope
April 7, 1987
In order to achieve these goals, it is necessary to work
within the PUD context - a context which, by definition, allows
for flexibility within the standard zoning criteria.
Developer Background
The property is proposed to be developed by Investment
Management, Inc., which does business in the ministorage business
as Minikahda Ministorage. At the present time, Minikahda Mini-
storage has under development and/or in operation, over 4000
units and over 450,00OSF of space. This project, if developed,
would add about 550 units and about 87,000SF of space to the
Minikahda portfolio.
Minikahda Ministorage has taken great pains to overcome the
negative perception that ministorage is a detrimental business
within a community. Its security program (which consists of a
state of the art system where every unit is monitored for entry
detection and smoke detection, as well as a fenced perimeter
with controlled gate access which ties into the alarm system),
as well as limited yard access hours (units are accessible only
between the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.) have effectively minimized
the "customer" who may look to ministorage for use beyond the
law. As a result, Public Service calls to Minikahda Ministorage
are rare.
The overall result isa product which is an asset to each
community in which Minikahda Ministorage operates. High quality
ministorage is mUch preferred to cluttered residential and
business yards where garage/basement/storage space is not
sufficient for the needs.
Project/Market Rationale
The project consists of'2 independent structures, each 16,000SF
in size, which will accommodate a total of 20 - 1600SF mini-
office/warehouse tenants. Such structures are expected to fill a
market void in the community between the typical ministorage
facility and the typical office/warehouse environment where less
than 3000SF is rarely available. Such facilities are known
as incubators - the next step beyond a cottage.industry or a
basement/garage distributor.
Page Three
New Hope
April 7, 1987
The character of the building entry frontage is that of a typical
"hi-tech" office/warehouse, only smaller. The front yard is
extensively landscaped with building~setbacks from 80 feet to 120
feet being far in excess of the minimum ordinance requirement.
The project also consists of four larger ministorage buildings,
varying in size from 15,600 gross SF to ].9,200 gross SF (about
500 units), as well as a 1220SF office/residence, The mini-
storage portion of the project is hidden from public view, except
at a small 180 foot frontage which is visible from CSAH 18.
Planning Consultant Report Response
The Petitioner is aware of a planning consultant report dated
April 1, 1987, which addresses the specific iSsues of the
proposal. The Petitioner is grateful for the clarity of the
report, however, is disappointed that the spirit of the PUD
flexibility has not been taken into account.
The following is an issue by issue response to the report:
1) Land Use - no issue
2) Lot Area and Width - Petitioner agrees with the report
which says parcel is of unique L-shaped configuration.
Practically speaking, the site is not conducive to a
"typical" I-1 use because of its shape.
3) Lot Coverage - The I-1 ordinance specifically addresses
building coverage (40%) and landscaping coverage (35%)
but does not address paved surface coverage. Because of
the unique access r~quirements of an incubator/ministorage
use (access must be provided to all faces of a building)
it becomes physically impossible to fit the paved coverage
into the remaining 25% of the area. To provide for 35%
landscaped area, would require one of the structures to
become multi-story. It is the Petitioner's belief that
the City would prefer a development with building heighths
as low as possible with maximum front yard setback and
maximum landscaping.
If the green area minimum is for the purpose of
aesthetics, the Petitioner believes it can provide a
superior image of low density and high quality.
landscaping by way of the proposed plan.
Page Four
New Hope
April 7, 1987
The proposed~ 150 foot building length requirement is a
unique subjective requirement for ministorage, whereas
the 160 foot proposed length is based on site
considerations. The building length issue is not a
major issue to the Petitioner.
4) Setbacks - Setbacks as proposed are preferred, however,
they are not a major issue with the exception of the mini-
storage office/residence. Building footprint coverage
could be reduced, but would have to be made up in a multi-
story structure.
It should be noted that the consultant's reference to
flexibility in setback standards should apply to all
aspects of the ordinance and not selectively applied
to individual requirements. Furthermore, it should be
noted that the comment "...the applicant (should) reduce
the size of the ministorage building to City standards" is
not correct. The building coverage is within the standard
zoning limits.
5) Snow Storage - As in its other ministorage facilities, the
Petitioner proposes to remove e:rcess snow from the site.
6) Parking and Circulation
a) Amount of~parking - The proposed plan provides for 109
parking stalls, eleven of which would be designated
for ministorage customer parking, the balance being
for mini-office/warehouse. The Petitioner agrees with
the report's conclusion that parking is adequate,
however, comes about justifying it in a different
manner.
b) Parking stall and driveway dimensions - The Petitioner
wishes to point out that the submitted plan shows a
typical 9'-0" x 20'-0" dimension for all standard
parking stalls.
The Petitioner is willing'to make drive aisles 24
feet and 35 feet, however, based on past experience
believes it is not necessary.
The fifteen foot internal drive aisles are not for
large 'storage uses nor are they for large vehicle
access due to low clearance conditions. The drive
aisles could be made one-way, however, based on past
experience there is no need.
c) Curb cut - no issue
d) Parking lot surfacing and curbing - No issue, except to
point out that the plan does call for curbing around
the ministorage driveway.
Page Five
New Hope
April 7, 1987
e) Parking locations - within the PUD context, the
Petitioner requests flexibility in the application of
the appropriate criteria. If necessary, the zoning
criteria could be met by elimination of six stalls and
by designating the "front" parklng lot for customer
parking only.
f) Loading - It should be noted that the tenant base
anticipated in the mini-office/warehouse is one which
would rarely, if ever, require a 55 foot semitrailer.
The "loading docks" are at grade 8'x10' overhead doors
and are designed for the "UPS type" straight-axle
vehicle or smaller.
7) Fire Protection
a) Fire hydrants - The Petitioner shall comply with the
fire hydrant provision of the Code.
b) Sprinkler System and Fire ~larm System - These issues
are not part of the PUD but rather the Zoning Text
Amendment request. The purpose of requesting a Text
Amendment would allow the Petitioner the option oS
protecting the premises by another method. The heat
detection method, while not a fire extinguisher,
allows for quicker and cleaner fire locating. It tells
the manager and/or the fire department the exact unit
the fire is in so as to permit immediate direct access
to the unit. If a sprinkler system were to detect a
fire, it would respond by discharging water
into many units.
Because the ministorage facility is an unocccupied
structure, the benefit of a fire protection system is
to the contents only. Because water can do as much or
more damage as smOke or fire, the key to minimizing
any damage t~ property is by way of early detection.
Such is the benefit of an electronic detection system
compared to a typical sprinkler system.
The Petitioner would therefore propose the Text to be
amended to include:
"In lieu of items (g) and (h) all storage
buildings shall provide one heat detector for each
storage unit. Such heat detectors shall be wired
to a central monitoring station which shall be
capable of determining the location of the fire."
Page Six
New Hope
April 7, 1987
The intent of the Text Amendment would be to maintain
the quality of fire protection the City desires without
subjecting the unoccupied premises to potential water
damage in the event of discharge.
8) Caretakers Apartment - No issue, other than a 10 foot
setback does not seem to negatively impose on adjacent
property and Petitioner would prefer to see setback
exemption granted.
9) Drainage - The Petitioner would like to address the letter
of March 26, 1987, fron Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik &
Associates, Inc. to the City of New Hope instead of the
planner's report. Inasmuch as engineer Mark Hanson was
not able to be present at a staff/developer meeting which
was scheduled to address engineering issues, the
questions raised in Mr. Hanson's letter have not been
addressed. Based on a conversation between the
Petitioner and Mr. Hanson on April 7, 1987, the
Petitioner has good reason to believe that the plan as
submitted and once substantiated to Mr. Hanson's
satisfaction should comply with Engineering's desires.
10) Utilities - Development Stage Approval Plans show
availability of required utilities. Final Plan
Approval shall show detailed design provisions.
11) Trash enclosures - Trash Enclosures are believed to
be adequate for the development, however, this is not a
big issue.
12) Landscape Plan - No issue, other than Petitioner sees a
strong relationship between green area requirements
and the Landscape Plan and would like to receive PUD
consideration for the quality of the plan.
13) Recommendation - The planning report recommends non-
approval of submission based on thirteen areas of concern.
Item 11 of 13 refers to issues relative to the Text
Amendment request and not the PUD request. It is there-
fore requested that as the Planning CommissiOn deliberates
on the PUD, it deal only with the issues which relate
to the PUD.
Of the 12 remaining issues raised by the report, all are
fine tuning comments which would bring the proposal in
compliance with the standard non-PUD ordinance
provisions.
Page Seven
New Hope
April 7, 1987
CONCLUSION
As the Petitioner originally stated, the purpose of requesting
PUD approval was in part, to take advantage of the flexibility of
the design afforded by the ordinance. The purpose of design
flexibility is to allow a superior product to result when
-meeting typical zoning criteria may not be in the City's best
interest. The site has development difficulties which to
date, no previous applicant has been able to resolve.
The Petitioner sincerely believes that given the overall
development limitations, it is proposing a project which:
1) Is in accord with the intent and purpose of the PUD
2) Provides the City a creative and innovative development
solution to a difficult parcel
3) Provides for the health, safety and welfare of its users.
The Petitioner therefore respectfully requests that the Planning
Commission vote to approve both the Concept and Development Stage
Approval, as well as the Text Amendment as indicated in Item 7b.
of this report.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-04
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Location: 9201-9205 30th Avenue North
Zoning: R-2
Petitioner: Thomas R. and Donna Mae Stanton
Date: April 1, 1984
BACKGROUND
This property was developed in 1979 as a duplex in accordance with
the "zero lot line" building code requirements. The lot is .32
acres.
ANALYSIS
1. The Code requires that the lots be 7000 square feet in area.
Proposed Lot 1 is 7004 square feet and proposed Lot 2 is 7021
square feet; therefore exceeding the minimum requirements.
2. The existing structure on the lot meets the required useable
space standard.
3. Five foot wide drainage and utility easements exist on the side
and rear yard (except common lot line) but are not illustrated on
the preliminary plat. A ten foot drainage and easement exists
on the front (north end) of the property but is not shown.
4. The preliminary plat shows an R-4 zoning. The appropriate zoning
is R-2. No rezoning has been proposed.
5. City staff has notified all appropriate utility companies,
Hennepin County, and the City Engineer for review of this plat.
Property owners within 350 feet were also notified.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following
conditions:
1. A 10 foot utility and drainage easement be identified on
the north end of Lots 1 and 2.
2. A 5 foot utility and drainage easement be identified on the
east and south sides of Lot 1.
3. A 5 foot utility and drainage easement be identified on the
west and south sides of Lot 2.
4. That the final plat indicate R-2 zoning.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-05
Request: Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval
Location: 5600-5604 Winnetka Avenue North
Zoning: B-3
Petitioner Steven Hendrickson
Date: April 1, 1987
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed this case through a request for
construction approval in Planning Case 86-24. The new building will
house Midas Muffler and Sparks Tune-Up.
ANALYSIS
1. The Code allows 100 square feet of signage on the front wall
(facing south on Bass Lake Road) for 5600 Winnetka Avenue. The
petitioners proposed sign is 100 square feet.
2. The Code allows 90 square feet of signage on the front wall
(facing south on Bass Lake Road) for 5604 Winnetka Avenue. The
petitioner is proposing 84 square feet.
3~. The petitioner is proposing to illuminate both signs. The Sparks
Tune-Up sign is internally lit and the Midas sign is externally
lit.
4. The petitioner is proposing one ground sign. The sign is 20 feet
high with a 74 square foot face. Both height and area are in
compliance with the City Code.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive sign plan as proposed.
Attachment: Comprehensive Sign Plan
Gas II, Inc.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-07
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Location: 4511 Gettysburg Avenue North
Zoning: R-1 ~
Petitioner: Duane and Rosemary Oftelie/David Kosmecki
Date: April 1, 1987
BACKGROUND
The owners are proposing to demolish an existing house on the lot.
This will allow the subdivision of this lot into two lots. The size
of the current lot is .54 acres.
ANALYSIS
1. The lot area requirement in an R-1 zone is 9500 square feet.
As proposed, Lot 1 is 11,638 square feet and Lot 2 is 12,076
square feet.
2. The Code requires that the lots be at least 75 feet wide. As
proposed, Lot 1 is 125 feet and Lot 2 is 96.16 feet.
3. All utility companies, the City Engineer, and Hennepin Couunty
have received and reviewed the proposed plat. Public hearing
notices were sent to property owners within 350 feet.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as proposed. The
final plat cannot be approved until after the demolition fo the
existing structure.
The petitioner has requested that final plat review by the Planning
Commission be waived therefore allowing it to go directly to the City
Council. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Attachment: Proposed Gettysburg Knoll
Preliminary Plat ~
PROPOSED, GETTYSBURG KNOLL'
OWNER:
.,*' Duone ~ Rosemory Oflelie
~: DEVELOPER
:,. ~ . .. · . Weslnorthrid~e Development Corp. Inc.
/ ' L .-~ ¢ ' ~ /"'"'~ ,..r -.~..,-'.--
~' ~; ......
CITY OF NEW HOPE~
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-08
Request: Variance in number of signs allowed and square
footage; Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval
Location: New Hope Mall (42nd Avenue and Winnetka)
Zoning: B-4
Petitioner: New Hope/U.S.Swim Partnership and Peter Obernesser
Date: April 1, 1987
BACKGROUND
This sign plan was brought before the Planning Commission in February
and March. The Planning Commission requested that it be tabled in
February and the petitioners requested that it be tabled in March.
The petitioners have refined its application in terms of number of
signs allowed per tenant, size, etc. The petitioners are attempting
to establish sign guidelines which are consistent with City Code, but
will also allow some flexibility in negotiating leases with tenants.
The City Code supports the establishment of this policy. Section
3.467 of the Code states that:
"the effect of said comprehensive sign plan is to allow and
require the owner of multiple occupancy structures to
determine the specific individual sign requirements for
the tenants of his building. As sign locations and size,
etc. may be of some significant importance in lease arrange-
ments between owner and tenant, it is the City's intention
to establish general requirements for the overall building
only, thus providing a building owner with both the flexi-
bility and responsibility to deal with his individual tenants
on their specific sign needs."
The petitioners are requesting a variance in number of signs allowed,
square footage of signage, and comprehensive sign plan approval.
ANALYSIS
A review of the plans submitted by t~e petitioners reveals the
following:
1. U.S. Swim and Fitness is requesting 3 signs Which total 134
square feet.
-2-
Planning Case 87-08 (cont.)
2. Blockbuster Video is requesting six signs which total 178 square
feet. Four of these signs are 31 square feet canopy signs and
two are 27 square feet neon signs. Neon signs are prohibited by
Section 3.444(2) of the Code.
3. Applebee's, which has submitted a seperate request, is requesting
two signs. The total square footage is 56.5 square feet.
4. The pylon sign will remain at its present height but will be re-
constructed to eliminate the reader board. Other than the height
of the sign, which is an existing variance, the sign is in com-
pliance with the sign code.
RECOMMENDATION
The design of the New Hope Mall and the frontage on Winnetka and 42nd
Avenue presents some very unique signage needs. In addition, the mix
of tenants in the shopping center and the amount of space occupied is
very diverse. Given the restrictions of the City Code, the largest
tenant at the Mall, U.S. Swim and Fitness, is allowed the same number
of signs as the tenants which occupy a small area.
Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the
following conditions:
1. That the neon signs proposed by Blockbuster Video be
deleted.
2. That the number of canopy signs proposed by Blockbuster
Video be reduced from four (4) to two (2).
Staff recommends approval of a variance which will allow U.S. Swim
and Fitness 134 square feet of signage.
Staff recommends approval of the pylon sign as proposed and the
comprehensive sign plan.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-06
Request: Variance in Number of Signs Allowed
Location: 4203 Winnetka Avenue North
Zoning: B-4
Petitioner: Applebee's/Donald Strang III
Date: April 1, 1987
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting a variance in the number of signs
allowed. Section 3.467 of the City Code allows tenants in shopping
centers up to 100 sJquare feet in signage, and no more than one
sign. The petitioner is proposing 2 signs, for a total signage area
of 56.5 square feet. (The proposed signs are 28 and 28.5 square
feet.)
The owners of the Mall are aware of this application and are
supportive of the petitioner's request. The variance would allow the
petitioner to have signage on the east wall and west wall; therefore
allowing signage for traffic flowing in both directions on 42nd
Avenue.
City staff has requested Northwest Associated Consultants to review
New Hope's current sign ordinance regarding signage allowed at
shopping centers. It is anticipated that staff will be prepared to
make recommendations to the Commission in May, 1987.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this request finding that:
1. Unique conditions with this shopping center exist given the
frontage on 42nd Avenue.
2. That the purpose of this variance is not based exclusively
upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of ·
the business.
3. That the hardship is caused by the sign code and has not been
created by persons presently having an interest in the parcel.
4. That this variance will not be detrimental to public welfare.
5. That this variance will not impair adequate light to adjacent
property, increase congestion on public streets, or interfere
with police and fire departments of the City.
Attachment: Sign plans (2)
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Case: 87-09
Request: Construction Approval
Location: 3101 Louisiana Avenue North
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: Bruce Paddock
Date: April 1, 1987
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting construction approval for an 8800 square
foot addition to the existing structure. This addition is proposed
for the west side of the existing structure.
The petitioner met with Design and Review on March 24, 1987, and the
summary of that meeting is attached.
ANALYSIS
1. The proposed plan meets all of the Code criteria and requires no
variances.
2. The owner is currently storing barrels outside at the rear of the
building. This storage must be eliminated or a conditional use
permit for outdoor storage must be obtained.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval provided that the owner discontinue the
outdoor storage of barrels.
Attachment: Site plan
Design and Review Summary: Paddock Laboratories
DESIGN & REVIEW SUMMARY
Planning Case: 87-09
Location: 3101 Louisiana Avenue North
Petitioner: Bruce G. Paddock
Zoning: I-1
Date: March 24, 1987
The petitioners met with Design and Review Committee regarding the
request to build 8800 square feet of warehouse expansion.
Site Issues:
Parking proposed meets code.
Adequate loading area provided.
Petitioner proposes concrete curbs and gutter around the perimeter of
the parking lot.
Trash enclosure will be screened. Details regarding the proposed
fencing need to be provided.
Landscaping is proposed. Additional plantings are requested.
Snow storage will be off-site.
Proposed lighting is adequate~
New or additional rooftop equipment must be painted to match
building.
Other Issues:
The petitioner is proposing no change in signage.
The building and its addition will be sprinkled.
The owner is currently storing barrels outside. This outdoor storage
must be eliminated.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-10
Request: Concept and Development Stage Approval for an I-1
PUD and Text Amendment (Section 4.144(11) (a-l)
Location: 9401 Science Center Drive
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: Investment Management/D. Jon Monson
Date: April 1, 1987
Staff comments:
1. The petitioners for this project met with Design and Review on
March 24, 1987. The Design and Review Summary is attached.
2. The Planner's Report is also attached. The Planner recommends
thirteen conditions for approval which City staff concurs with.
3. The City Engineer has reviewed this plan for drainage considera-
tions. The petitioners are proposing to convey storm water from
the site into the existing storm sewer in the County Road 18
service drive. The City Engineer has identified that with this
proposed system, it is necessary to provide a ponding area of
1.5 acre feet to limit the outflow of storm drainage for the
site.
4. The petitioners are proposing a plan which does not meet 10 of
the 12 requirements of Section 4.144(11) of the New Hope Code.
This would require a text amendment. Staff has requested
proposed language but has not received it from the petitioners.
5. Staff recommends tabling this case because of the deficiencies
in the site plan and the lack of information for the requested
text amendment.
Attachments: Planner's Report
Design and Review Summary
DESIGN & REVIEW SUMMARY
PLANNING CASE: 87-10
LOCATION: 9401 Science Center Drive
PETITIONER: Investment Management, Inc.
ZONING: I-1 Zone
DATE: March 24, 1987
The petitioners presented information about the case. The request is
for:
1. Concept and Development State Approval for I-l,
Planned Unit Development
2. Text Amendment (Secion 4.144(11) (a-l)
Site Issues:
The site plan indicates 20 percent green space. The code requires 35
percent in an I-1 zone.
The City Engineer has reviewed the site plan for the purpose of
identifying drainage problems. The petitioners are working with
Hennepin County in establishing a storm sewer detention plan.
Evidence of this storm sewer drainage plan is needed.
Fire Marshall has indicated that manuevering for fire apparatus is
inadequate.
The Committee expressed concern for the ability to load and unload at
the office/warehouse portion'of the complex. The petitioners
indicated that a traffic engineer has been consulted in the develop-
ment of the plan.
The parking plan was reviewed by staff and found to be adequate,
given the 13 percent of office proposed on the plans. The
petitioners indicated that the office space will most likely account
for 25 percent of the overall building, and therefore the required
number of stalls must be reevaluated.
The Committee also discussed landscaping. The petitioners indicated
that the proposed landscaping could be sprinkled.
The site plan shows 12 refuse containers which open at a 45 degree
angle. The containers are screened. Concern was expressed about the
containers blocking the loading area.
Rooftop equipment will be very minimal and shall be screened or
painted to match the building.
Other Issues:
Brief discussion regarding the fire protection equipment required by
the Code and not incorporated into the plan.
The petitioner needs to provide a description of the PUD and other
information required in Section 4.197 of the Code of Ordinances.
northwest associated consultants, inc.
TO: Dan Donahue
FROM: Alan Brixius .
DATE: April 1, 1987
RE: Minikaha Ministorage PUD/New Hope
FILE NO: 131.01 - 87.10
BACKGROUND
Investment Management, Inc., is proposing to develop an Industrial
PUD that will include a combination of office warehousing and
mini storage on the same site. The proposed site is Lot 2, Block 1,
Blaisdell 3rd Addition, located at 9401 Science Center Drive
(See Exhibit A.)
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
LAND USE:
The proposed site is zoned "I-l" Limited Industrial District.
Within the proposed PUD use are classified as follows:
USE CLASSIFICATION
Office Permitted Use
Warehouses Permitted Use
Mini Storage Conditional Use
The I-1 zoning allows for an Industrial Planned Unit Development
by conditional use permit. The PUD permits development of a
combination of allowable uses within the I-2 District in an integrated~
and coordina-ted site design.
4820 minnetonka blvd, ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420
Dan ~.Donahue
Minikaha Mini Storage/New Hope
Page Two
LOT AREA AND WIDTH:
The proposed site has a unique L-shape configuration with frontages
on the Highway 18 service road and on Science Center Drive.
The site has a total area of 272,250 square feet or 6.25 acres.
This exceeds the I-1 lot area standard. The PUD standards require
PUD sites to have a minimum of 200 feet of street frontage.
The site in.question has 180 feet of frontage on the Highway
18 frontage road and 359 feet along Science Center Drive. In
respect to lot area and ~idth, the site conforms with the City
performance standards.
LOT COVERAGE:
The building coverage within an I-1 site cannot exceed 40% of
a building site. The applicant is proposing 105,200 square feet
of gross building floor space which represents 38.6% of the total
site area. While this complies with the maximum building coverage
standards, the following items must be corrected:
1. The building coverage along with the paved area of the
site, represents 80% of the site. The New Hope zoning
ordinance requires 35% of any I-1 site to be maintained
as green space, the amount of impervious surface raises
not only a aesthetic concern, but also concerns for site
function ~ith regards to storm water drainage, snow storage,
and on-site vehicle circulation.
2. The zoning ordinance restricts the length of mini storage
buildings to 150 feet. Three of the proposed mini storage
buildings have a 160 foot building length. The reduction
of these building lengths will reduce the setback violations
and increase the traffic maneuvering space between the
buildings.
SETBACKS:
The Industrial PUD allows some flexibility in the application
of the required setbacks in an overall PUD design. Exceptions
to the setback requirement may be granted by the City through
the PUD process, where the exception helps to integrate the site
design and will not inhibit the function of the site use. Review
of site plan reveals the follo~ving proposed setback exceptions:
· Required Requested
Setback from Hwy.~18 Service Road 50 feet 45 feet
Side yard Setback of Office/Residential Unit 20 feet 10 feet
Setback between Mini Storage Building ' 35 feet 30 feet
Dan ~onahue
Minikaha Mini Storage/New Hope
Page Three
The setback standards are an item that the City may allow flexibility,
however, the need for the setback exception emphasizes the over
utilization of the site that was cited in the lot coverage portion
of this report. We would suggest that the established setback
standards be maintained and the applicant reduce the size of
the mini storage building to City standards to correct the setback
exception. The office/residence should also be relocated to
meet the required I-1 setback standards.
SNOW STORAGE:
The Ne%~ Hope zoning ordinance requires mini storage facilities
to provide adequate area for snow storage. Snow storage area
cannot be in designated driveway, parking or loading areas.
The site plan only indicates 20% of the site area for green space,
the majority of tha green space is located around %he northern
office/warehouse facility and is not available near the mini
storage facilities. The site plan does not indicate any area
to accommodate the sno~ storage for the mini storage facility.
The site plan should be revised to accommodate this amenity or
the applicant should provide a plan for on-site snow removal
for City raview and approval.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION:
Amount of Parkin~
The following parking ~tandards are applicable to the proposed
use of the site. The City does not have a specific parking standard
for a mini storage facility:
USE STANDARD
Office 3 space + 1 space per 200 square feet of building
Warehousing 1 space per 1,000 square fee% of building
Based on the aforementioned standard, the site must provide the
following number of parking stalls:
USE NUMBER OF STALLS
Office 48 Stalls
Warehouse 20 Stalls
Ministorage 66 Stalls
TOTAL: 134 Stalls
1. Fire Hydrant. Ail structures are to be within two hundred
feet of a fire hydrant.
'Dan Donahue
Minikaha Mini Storage/New Hope
Page Four
We calculated the mini storage parking using the warehousing
standard. In the past, the city has treated mini storage facilities
as a unique use in regards to parking. The applicant illustrates
109 parking stalls, of these 41 stalls are provided to cover
the parking requirements of the mini storage. Considering the
par]ling and traffic generation typical of a mini storage, the
City may consider that the overall site parking is sufficient
for the combination of uses.
Parkinq Stall and Driveway Dimensions
The City requires all parking stalls to be 9 feet wide and 20
feet in length. The site plan indicates that stalls comply with
the 9 foot width but are only 18 feet long. All parking stalls
should be lengthened to 20 feet.
The site plan shows 24 feet driveway aisles on the northern portion
of this site which is in compliance with City standards. This
standard should be maintained for all driveway aisles throughout
the site.
The drive aisle in and around the mini storage buildings range
from 20 feet to 30 feet wide. All perimeter driveway aisles
should be at least 24 feet wide and drive aisles between the
building should be a minimum of 35 feet wide. This is to allow
both two-way traffic and sufficient maneuvering area for large
trucks and fire vehicles.
The site plan also shows a 15 foot wide covered drive aisle.
These narrower drive,aisles raise concern~_.re~a~ding£th~aecessibilityl-
of the internal compartments for larger storage items (i.e. boats
or automobiles), accessibility of fire equipment to the internal
compartments, and the narrower aisle eliminates any two-way traffic.
The City fire chief should comment on the acceptability of the
on-site circulation for the purpose of fire protection. If the
narrower 15 foot drive aisles are found to be acceptable, they
should be designated for one-way traffic flows.
Curb Cut
The City standard for curb cut widths is 24 feet wide. The site
plan proposes a 30 foot wide curb cut onto Science Center Drive.
Considering that the site will be designed to accommodate both
automobile and large truck traffic, the'30 curb cut width appears
to be acceptable.
~an Donahue
Mini'kaha Mini Storage/New Hope
Page Five
Parking Lot Surfacing and Curbing
The site plan shows a biluminous surfacing of all parking and
driveway areas in accordance with City standards. In addition
to the surfacing, all parking stalls must be striped and perimeter
curbing must be provided around the entire parking and driveway
areas. The curbing should be provided around the mini storage
driveway also.
Parking Location
Within the I-1 District parking must meet the following locational
standards:
1. All parking must setback 10 feet from all property lines.
The site plan shows setbacks of 5 feet and 7 feet from
the property lines for the north portion of the site,
the setback should be enlarged to City standards.
2. Within the I-1 zoning district, employee parking is pro-
hibited from the front of the building. Customer parking
may be permitted in this yard. The site plan shows 50
parking stalls in front of the north building. Without
building tenant identification, it is difficult to estimate
the amount, of customer traffic. The City must determine
the acceptability of this proposed'parking arrangement
within the PUD layout.
Loading
The New Hope zoning ordinance requires each commercial or industrial
use to provide one loading berth per 100,000 square feet or fraction
thereof of industrial floor space. The first loading berth must
be at least 70 feet in length and 10 feet wide. Any additional
loading areas can be 30 feet long.
The site plan complies with the ordinance provisions in that
it provides two loading 70 foot loading area per office/warehouse
building with the rest of the bays designed for 30 foot delivery
trucks. While the loading area meets code, the design does present
a concern for large trucks serving the interior tenant bays.
A 55 foot semi truck serving buildings 2, 9, 12, or 19 will totally
obstruct the driveway aisle between the buildings.
Fire Protection ·
The City requires all mini storage facilities to take the following
fire protection precautions:
1. Fire Hydrant. Ail structures are to be within two hundred
feet of a fire hydrant.
'ban Donahue
~Minikaha Mini Storage/New Hope
Page Six
2. Sprinkler Systems. Ail storage buildings are to be equipped
with dry sprinkling systems which will be subject to
review and approval of the City Building Official and
the City Director of Fire and Safety.
3. Fire Alarm System. Every 2,000 square feet of the storage
structure is to be separated by a fire wall and a complete
and comprehensive fire alarm system with smoke detectors
shall be initiated in each structure subject to the review
and approval of the Director of Fire and Safety.
The submitted utility plan fails to illustrate the extending
of water utilities through the site and location of fire hydrants.
The submitted building plans also fails to demonstrate the fire
precaution required in the building design. Ail this information
must be provided for review nnd comment by the Director of Fire
and Safety.
Caretaker's Apartment
The site plsn i!lus%r~tes a caretaker's apartment for the mini
storage facility as per ordinance requirements. The apartment
is located only 10 feet from the lot line. The apartment should
be relocated to achieve the required I-1 side yard Setback of
20 feet.
Drainage
The' applicant proposing that all storm water drainage will be
directed into an on-site storm sewer and then channelled into
the existing City storm sewer along %he Highway 18 service road.
We offer the following suggestions with regard to the on-site
drainage:
1. The site should reduce its imperious surface so that
35% of the site is preserved as green space.
2. The entire parking and driveway area should be surrounded
by a perimeter curbing to help direct storm ~ater flows.
3. The City Engineer should review and comment on the acceptability
of the on-site drainage plan and the impact of the development
may have on the City storm sewer system.
Dan Donahue
Minikaha Mini Storage/New Hope
Page Seven
Utilities
The utility plan should illustrate the extension of utilities
into the site. The submitted utility plan does not provide this
information. The extension of the water services into the site
is critical for fire protection. A revised utility plan should
be provided for review and comment of the City Engineer and Director
of Fire and Safety.
Trash Enclosures
There should be a trash enclosure for each tenant bay at the
rear of the building. The trash handling equipment will be enclosed
by a 6 foot high fence. The location and screening of the dumpster
appears to be adequate.
Landscape Plan
Extensive landscaping at the periphery of the site. The plant
materials appear to be of adequate type'and size to'meet City
standards. The planting quantities and location should be reviewed
and commented on by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Our review of the proposed PUD, reveals that the site plan is
deficient in meeting a number of City performance standards.
Each of the deficiencies indicate an over utilization of the
site which present site use concerns for on-site drainage, traffic
circulation, loading and fire protection. The following design
elements should be corrected or responded to prior to any City
action is taken:
1. 35% of the site should be preserved in green space.
2. The length of the mini storage building should be shortened
to a 150 foot maximum length.
3. The PUD layout should observe all I-1 setback standards.
4. The site plan should provide for snow storage areas.
5. Ail parking stalls must be dimensioned 9 x 20 feet.
6. All driveway aisles should be at least 24 feet wide.
7. Driveway aisles between the mini storage building should
be 35 feet to accommodate a fire truck turning radius.
pa~ Donahue
Minika~a Mini Storage/New Hope
Page Eight
8 If the interior 15 foot driveway aisle is found to be
acceptable, it should be designated for one-way traffic.
9. Ail parking areas must have biluminous surfacing, stripe
stalls and a perimeter curbing around the entire parking
and driveway area.
10. The parking lots should setback 10 feet from all lot
lines.
The Planning Commission should determine the acceptability
of the front yard parking.
11. A revised site and building should be submitted illustrating
compliance with the fire protection standards of the
City. Said plan should be reviewed and commented on
by the City's Director of Fire and Safety.
12. A revised utility plan should be provided, illustrating
acceptability of both the utility plan and the drainage
plan.
13, The City Engineer should review and comment on the acceptability
of both the utility plan and the drainage plan.
Based on the aforementioned site plan deficiencies, we cannot
recommend approval of the submitted PUD site plan.
cc: Jeanine Dunn
Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
new hope, minn.
-- 112
/assooa[eO
/consul~r~ts.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manaager
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance 87-2
DATE: April 3, 1987
Attached you will find a proposed ordinance change for the
definition of a restaurant in Section 4.022(120). The basic
difference is that the proposed ordinance change will clarify
that a restaurant in connection with on-sale liquor has a
different meaning than a restaurant in general under the
zoning code.
Upon review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the
City Council will act on this amendment.
ORDINANCE 87-2
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE
ZONING CODE BY CLARIFYING THE
DEFINITION OF RESTAURANT
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1.- Section 4.022 (120)' "Restaurant" of the New Hope
Zoning Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(120) Restaurant. An establishment which serves food in
or on non-disposable dishes. Customers are
generally seated at tables, booths or eating
counters within the building where food is s~rved
for consumption by waiters or waitresses rather
than served at pick-up stations by clerks. The
term restaurant for purposes of the sale of
intoxicating liquor or wine shall have the meaning
described in section 10.038 of this Code.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be
effective upon its passage and publication.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the day of
, 1987).
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Definition
DATE: April 2, 1987
During the 1985 code revision process, an attempt to include
minor variance procedure in the code was made. Section 4.202(2)
identifies the procedure utilized for a petitioner requesting a
minor variance. It also refers to a definition of a minor
variance in Section 4.221(4) of the code. If you try to look
for Section 4.221(4), you will find that it does not exist.
Staff if proposing a definition to the Planning Commission which
is consistent with the recommendations made by the attorney and
planner in 1985. The definition is as follows:
Minor variances. Requests qualifying as a minor
variance which are entitled to special processing
procedures are as follows:
(A) Unique physical hardships created as a
result of public action or change in
ordinacne standards as it might affect
property developed prior to such change.
(B) Structure or setback deviations (except
sideyard variances) which are character-
istic of and common to adjacent and
immediately neighboring properties and
which do not exceed five (5) feet.
Staff recommends approval of this ordinance definition for minor
variances.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1987
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Planning Case 87-11 - Request for Rearyard Setback Variance
3236 Ensign Court North
Steven/Leslee Kollins, Petitioners
4. Planning Case 87-13 - Request for Conditional Use Permit to
Allow Daycare Center in an R-4 zone
8421 58th Avenue North
School District %281, Petitioner
5. Planning Case 87-14 - Request for Variance in Required Location
of Accessory Equipment
3231 Flag Court
Sally Kolian, Petitioner
6. Planning Case 87-15'- Request for Setback Variance for Entryway
on Front of House
5833 Meadow Lake Road
James and Judith Larson, Petitioners
7. Planning Case 87-16 - Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for
GRR Third Addition
9401 Science Center Drive
GRR Investments, Petitioner
8. Planning Case 87-17 - Request for Setback Variance for Addition
on Back of Home
9120 61 1/2 Circle North
James and Barbara Crandall, Petitioners
COMMITTEE REPORTS
9. Report of Design and Review Committee
10. Report of Codes and Standards
1. Minor Variance
2. Sign Ordinance Revisions
Planning Commission Agenda
June 2, 1987
Page 2
NEW BUSINESS
11. Discussion regarding Ordinance 87-5; an ordinance amending
Section 3.43 of the New Hope Sign Code by including Permit
and Regulations Exceptions to the Code.
12. Discussion regarding a proposed ordinance; an ordinance
amending Section 4.032 of the New Hope Zoning Code regulating
satellite dishes.
13. Discussion regarding code standards for parking stall standards
at New Hope Mall.
14. Approval of Planning Commission minutes of May 5, 1987.
15. Review of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of
March 23, 1987, April 13, 1987, and April 27, 1987.
16. Review of City Council Minutes of April 13, 1987, April 27, 1987
and May 11, 1987.
17. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public,
Commissioners and Staff.
18. Announcements
19. Adjournment
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-11
Request: Request for Setback Variance
Location: 3236 Ensign Court
Zoning: R-1
Petitioner: Steven and Leslee Kollins
Date: June 2, 1987
The case was tabled at the May 5, 1987 Planning Commission meeting.
Staff has not received the necessary information from the
petitioners. However, the petitioners have not requested that the
planning case be withdrawn. Staff will try to determine the status
of this case before the Planning Commission meeting.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-13
Request: Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a
Parent-Child Center in an R-4 Zone
Location: 8421 59th Avenue North
Zoning: R-4
Petitioner: School District ~281/Dr. Carroll Vomhoff
Date: June 2, 1987
BACKGROUND
Independent School District 9281 has requested that a conditional use
permit be auithorized to continue the Parent-Child Center at the
apartment building located at 8421 58th Avenue NOeth. A conditional
use permit was authorized for this purpose on November 10, 1986~
subject to:
1. The parking lot be re-striped, and/or
2. If parking next to the building occurs, that curbing
be installed as a preventative measure.
ANALYSIS
1. The City has received very positive response regarding this
center in the apartment complex.
2. City staff has observed cars parked next to the building which
allows exhaust fumes to go into the building.
3. This center meets all requirements established by Section 4.074
of the New Hope Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit
to operate a parent-child center at 8421 58th Avenue North, Apt. ~3,
with the following conditions:
1. That the parking lot be striped by October 1, 1987;
2. That concrete bunkers be installed to prevent parking
next to the buildings;
3. That staff review the permit on an annual basis.
Attachment: Site Plan (10-16-86)
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-14
Request: Request for Variance in Required Location of
Accessory Equipment
Location: 3231 Flag Court North
Zoning: R-1
Petitioner: Sally Kolian
Date: June 2, 1987
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting that she be allowed to install an air-
conditioning unit in the side yard of her home. Secion 4.0321(1) of
the New Hope Code requires that:
"No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning
cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may
be located in a required side yard except for side yards
abutting streets and in such case the equipment shall be
fully screened from view."
The petitioner has indicated that placement in the rear yard would
cause a hardship because of the grade of her rear yard and existing
landscaping.
ANALYSIS
The City's position on the location of these units is primarily a
noise concern. Upon review of the code, staff has found that the
code states that the unit cannot be placed in the required side
yard. The petitioner has a 22 foot side yard. Technically, the City
cannot deny this request.
The Planning Commission should impress upon the petitioner that the
noise issue remains to be a concern. The neighbor to the south has a
bedroom which is only 35 feet from the petitioners proposed unit.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance in the
required location of accessory equipment as presented in Planning
Case 87-14 provided that the unit be screened from view.
Att'achments: Lot Survey (8-25-67)
' -'. DOLAN ENGI~ERING lNG.
ENGINEERS ~ LAN~ SURVEYORS
'~ertlf :ate of SUrvey/ _ For --- -- ~:'
".-':~.. DATE 8:- 7_5- G?- ,q ~ ~~
- -' :k7
~.Z':; -:' x
(~ ". - .!iL__
- r-[
I ..... ~-,,x ;~D
· / ~ ~ , .~.:,.-- -:' .: ::.,-' ~' .'u ~ ',-'!~['
Z ~ I i-'t~.; : · --'[ ;;'>'" -' I.--
/ '" ;'"'",.-~'>?" :-.:*"a 0 ¢, ' '
· .. ::'":$C/~.~... I,_- ~ - ____
.P_o.4o '~/" . : 'i -.
-I
L c,' ~- 12.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-15
Request: Request for Variance in Front Yard Setback
Location: 5833 Meadow Lake Road
Zoning: R-1
Petitioner: James and Judy Larson
Date: June 2, 1987
BACKGROUND
R-1 District requires a 30 foot frontyard setback. The petitioners
are proposing a 25 foot frontyard setback resulting in a 5 foot
variance. The petitioners are requesting this variance in order to
allow them to build a 5 foot x 12 foot entryway or vestibule on the
house.
ANALYSIS
1. The Planning Commission must determine whether this request meets
the variance criteria identified in Section 4.22 of the New Hope
Code.
2. The petitioner has indicated that the proposed structure would
make the house more energy efficient because of the buffer
between the living space and the outdoors.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff cannot identify a hardship created by the zoning code as
proposed in this case.
Staff recommends denial of the request for a 5 foot frontyard setback
variance submitted by James and Judy Larson in Planning Case 87-15
because the petitioners have not met the variance criteria
established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
Attachments: Site Plan (5-12-87)
Lot Survey (5-14-62)
i-:..: 4:~::.:..:-" ">:'"' ....... "
'"',.,~,~I~;':~'~,~.:.' -'~' ' 'I-': ......... ¥ ... :~, .,.:..: ;.,-- ..... i...'L ' ':. ..
MINDER F_2 GINEEttlNG Co., IN
~":-:,d¥,:~':,>.,-~:::.:'.' ENGINEERS AND ,SURVEYORS
~:~3.-;~,~'::,~,,:.: ::-¢. ~: ... ..... ,:. '--.-... ,:-- . ~ G4~-SG*. AvENuE
. ~ [;~g:%... 2,-~:- {, ,~.;.~ ~ - ... . . . .
',::.(.-,:?;>:~:.:.,.:~', , - ..: _ ,'.. , . ..... ._
. ~. ~ ..... ' ....... . ~; ',2 .
' "' ¢'?'?':'~":'&":' ' ' ¢;' ' ' ' :' '" '~'
<' ~ ~.' '~-:,.. ..
:'6: · . ; ~..-'
......
/,
I
· - BUILD~o ~.,e~r*~., ...~, - ........ ,'
~~ t ~;~ "" :"-:'-'~': .... ..., '.~ .: ....... ':.:." I
~...,, .... _ . )-~L:? -.. ..... . :... _ .-.
.':: ~ . . . . ....... ::.',:':.:: ....: .' ... _ ,, .:,~,~ ....
':~i" ...... .'.--'".'.,-;---'-'--:,,.,::~: .... . .,'.,:..'.... .- .-,..> .:::,);..',.... ':.'. :. ......
WE HEREBY ~E~TIF~ TH~T TH~5 I~ 8 TRUE ~0 ~O~CT ~Ep~E$ENT&T~O~ OF ~ ~RVEY OF ~UE ~ND~tES OF THE
L~D ~VE DE~RI~ED AND OF.THE LOC&TION OF ALL ~U~LDINGS, IF ~, T~REON, &~D ~ VISIBLE ENCROkCHMENTS,
~. m~...o~ o~o. s~,o~__~.~. '"' HINDER ENGIHEERiNG CO. iNC.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-16
Request: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval,
Waiver of Final Plat Review by Planning Commission
Location: 9401 Science Center Drive
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: GRR Investments, Inc.
Date: June 2, 1987
BACKGROUND
The subject property is currently 6.3 acres in size. This property
was platted as a result of Planning Case 86-20. The final plat was
approved by the City Council on March 9, 1987.
ANALYSIS
1. The petitioner is proposing three lots with the following
characteristics:
Dimensions Area
Lot 1 180.34' x 385.47' ~1.548 acres
Lot 2 178.80' x 379.99' 1.548 acres
Lot 3 180.00' x 766.07' 3.16 acres
2. The Multifoods building located on existing Lot 1 drains
southerly by pipe to the manhole located on Lot 3 of the proposed
plat. The City Engineer is recommending that either an easement
be granted on Lot 3 to accomodate Multifoods existing system or
that the system be constructed on Multifoods property.
3. Pursuant to Section 13.041(4), the City has the opportunity to
request a statement of the proposed use of lots so that the
effect of the development on traffic, fire hazards, etc. can be
revealed.
Staff will attempt to have that information available for the
Planning Commission meeting.
4. In accordance with Section 13.041(3) water and sewer mains must
be stubbed into the property. This action must take place within
one year of the final plat approval. A performance bond will be
required for this work.
i1! I ..
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-17
Request: Request for Rearyard Setback Variance
Location: 9120 61st Circle North
Zoning: R-1
Petitioner: James and Barbara Crandall
Date: June 2, 1987
BACKGROUND
R-1 zoning requires a 35 foot rearyard setback. The petitioner is
proposing a setback of 18 feet; therefore requesting a 17 foot
variance.
The building in its current state is non-conforming. The rearyard
setback is only 28 feet from the property line rather than the
required 35 feet. This was identified when the petitioner requested
a building permit. After review by staff, it was found that the
original certified lot survey prepared in 1965 was erroneous and did
not meet the City's standards. The surveyor drew the lot at 30 scale
and the structure at 40 scale, significantly altering the true condi-
tion of the lot.
ANALYSIS
1. Attached is the revised site plan. The petitioners are
requesting a variance in order to build a 14 foot x 22 foot
living room at the rear.
2. Also attached is a copy of the pla% which identifies the
proximity of the proposed addition to the properties abutting the
lot.
3. The purpose of the variance is to permit a relief from the strict
application of the Zoning Code to prevent undue hardship.
Basically, the hardship should be a result of provisions of the
code, and not by the property owner.
4. In this case, the lot is already a non-conforming property. The
addition to the house will continue to identify the use of the
lot beyond its original intent.
The Planning Commission should also consider the distance of this
proposed structure from buildings on abutting lots. As
identified on the attachment, the abutting existing structures
would be located 130' from the petitioners proposed addition.
Planning Case 87-17
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the request for a 17 foot read yard variance as
proposed in Planning Case 87-17 by James and Barbara Crandall be
denied because the petitioner has failed to meet the variance
criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of
Ordinances.
Attachments: Site Plan (5-4-87)
Lot Survey (9-20-65)
I~iNDER~ ENG. I~EERING~O., INC.
LAND SURV[YORS AND. CONSULTING ENGINEE
6418 56th AVENUE NOR'TH, MINNEAPOLI~ 28, MINN. - KE 7- 9637
CIVIL ~ND MUNICIPAL ENG/NEEBING
LAND SURVEYING
~e~tions sho~ ar~~sed.
northwest associated consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Jeanine Dunn
FROM: Alan Brixius/Michelle Hren
DATE: 21 May 1987
RE: New Hope Sign Ordinance
FILE NO: 131.01
BACKGROUND
Based on City staff review of the sign ordinance a number of provisions were' cited
as being confusing and difficult to enforce. The staff also cited the provisions
governing Shopping Center comprehensive sign plan as being v. ague with regard to the
permitted signage not providing, a clear guideline for the applicant. The following
sign ordinance provisions were identified for amendment' consideration.
e Special Events Signs
Section 3.441 of the New Hope sign ordinance as follows addresses special events
signs.
3.441 Banners, Pennants, Streamers, Strings of LightS, Searchlights. No
portable sign, banner, pennant, streamer, string of lights, searchlights or any
other similar sign shall be permitted, except as provided in Subsection 3.463,
provided, however, that upon a change of ownership of management, commercial
establishments shall be permitted to use said signs for a period of seven
consecutive'days for a "grand opening", as such term is commonlY used, said
seven days shall be within thirty days of the change of ownership or management
or receipt of Certificate of Occupancy.
Staff review of this provision indicates that this provision limits the commercial
and industrial special events to change of ownership or management. The temporary
permit may Tun for a period of seven (7) consecutive days.
City staff suggested the following guidelines:
Commercial and Industrial property owners may obtain a maximum of two "special
events advertising permits" during any calendar year for a period not to exceed
30 days each. Application' for the permit must be made 14 days before the
4820 minne onka b/vd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420
Jeanine Dunn
May 21, 1987
Page Two
special event.
In our review of the Special Events type signs we would suggest the following items
for consideration in regard to Special Events signs.
1. Definition: The type of events that a Special Events sign would advertise
should be established. Currently, the only special event is a change in ownership
or management of a business or grand opening of a new business. The City may choose
to expand the Special Event sign permit to allow special sale or periodical promotional
events for businesses. The definition of special events should be limited to just
commercial and industrial activities, so as not to be confused with special events of
non-profit organizations (i.e. civic groups, churches, schools, etc.) that are
addressed under section 3.463 of the New Hope Sign ordinance.
2. Timing: Special Event signs should have a limited exposure term in order to
prevent these signs from becoming permanent fixtures. Current ordinance establishes
a seven day term for Special Events signs. Some consideration should be given to
extending the term of these Special Events signs. Staff suggests a 30 day term,
however, typically Commercial sale or promotional events seldom last a full month.
We would suggest a time. period of 10 to 14 days maximum for the Special Events sign.
3. Frequency: To prevent a continuous circuit of special e~ent~signs~for a
particular site, the City should establish a frequency standard. The staff suggests
allowing two events per year for a 30 day Special Event period. If the City
decides on a shorter Special Event term'ag~eaterfrequency may be considered, i.e.
3 or 4 events per year.
4. Location: All Special Event signs should be limited to the property where the
event is occurring.
5. Application: For the sake of monitoring and enforcement, all Special Event
signs should require a special permit. Application for said permit should be pro-
cessed 14 days prior to the event for which the sign will serve.
Using the aforementioned criteria the following ordinance amendment options should
be considered.
Option 1
3.441 Commercial and Industrial Special Event Signs. Banners, Pennants,
Streamers, Strings of Lights, Searchlights. No portable signs, banners, pennants,
streamers, strings of lights, searchlights shall be permitted, except as provided in
Subsection 3.463, or by special permit under the conditions outlined 'as follows:
1. Commercial and Industrial Special Events shall be limited to short term
promotional events such as grand openings, changes in'ownership or management of a
business, periodic special sales or events.
2. AlliSpecial Event signs shall require a special permit. Application for any
special event must be filed with the City a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to
the special event.
3. Special Event sign permits shall be limited to a ten (10) day term. Upon
conclusion of the ten (10) day sign permit all Special Event signs must be removed
from the premises.
Jeanine Dunn
May 21, 1987
Page Three
4. Commercial and Industrial property owners shall be limited to four special
event sign permits in a calendar year.
5. All Special-Event signs must be located on the premises where the special
'event is occurring.
Option 2
3.441 Commercial and Industrial Special Event Signs. Banners, Pennants, Streamers,
String of Lights, Searchlights. No, portable signs, banners, pennants, streamers,
string of lights, searchlights shall be permitted, except as provided in Subsection
3.463, or by special permit under the conditions outlined as~follows:
1. Commercial and Industrial special events shall be limited to short term
promotional events such as grand openings, change in ownership or management of a
business, periodic special sales or events.
2. All special event signs shall require a special permit. Application for any
Special ev~t must be filed with the City a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior
to the special event.
3. Special event~sign permits shall be limited to a fourteen (14) day term.
Upon conclusion of the fourteen (14) day sign permits all special event signs must
be removed from the premises.
4. Commercial and industrial property owners shall be limited to three special
event sign permits in a calendar year.
5. All special event signs must be located on the premises where the special
event is occurring.
The changes in the aforementioned options pentain to the length and frequency of the
special events. The options offer a starting point for discussion that the City
should review and tailor to accomplish the ultimate objective.
· Neon Signs
Currently the New Hope sign ordinance allows neon signs as an exterior illuminated
wall sign for business identification under Section 3.465. Neon signs are prohibited,
however, as an interior window sign under Section 3.444 of the New Hope sign ordinance.
Currently, Blockbuster Video, a potential tenant of the New Hope Mall is interested
in this type of signage. Site inspection of various businesses in New Hope reveals
that this type of signage is being utilized even though it is prohibited.
In addressing neon window signs the City has various options.
1. Enforce its current ordinance, and require the signs in violation be removed.
2. Amend the Sign ordinance to delete the prohibition m~.~neon ~window signs from
the New Hope ordinance.
Jeanine Dunn
May 21, 1987
Page Four
3. Amend the Sign ordinance to specifically address neon window signs.
If the City chooses to amend their ordinance to allow for neon window signs we
suggest the following language.
3.444 Window Signs.
(1) Maximum Window Area. In no event shall the size of the interior
window signage exceed twenty percent up to a maximum of.one hundred
twenty-five square feet, of the entire window area of the~ne~i, de..of
the building upon which said signs shall be displayed.
(2) Illuminated Signs. Interior window signs may be of a gaseous tube
type or illuminate by interior lighting provided said sign does not exceed
the size standard established in section 3.444. (1) and the illuminate
does not result in glare~impacting adjacent businesses or properties.
(3) Temporary Advertising Signs. Advertising signs that are clearly
intended for temporary display only, may be affixed to a window or
located inside a window surface visible to the general public, provided
that the sign area conforms with the formula allowance outlined in this
subsection. The allowable sign area for a window advertising sign is in
addition to the total permitted wall sign area as regulated in Section 3.
465 (1). Window signs other than for advertising, such as business
identification, or any sign which is permanently affixed to a window, shall
constitute a dual purpose sign and thus be regulated under both the
above and the provisions of Section 3.465 (i).
Another option the City may wish to consider would be to only allow neon signs as
permitted window signs and the prohibition of all other interior illuminated signs.
This secon'd option would allow for the more aesthetically pleasing and permanent
neon signs, but would serve to prohibit the illuminated reader boards that may
be less attractive.
o Temporary "For Sale" or "For Rent" Signs in Residential Areas
Section 3.461 (2) allows Temporary For Sale or For Rent .signs of not greater than 40
square feet in residential areas containing more than six vacant residential lots
or dwelling units. City staff suggests that this sign standard be enlarged to
75 feet to be consistent with the commercial and industrial properties. The following
amendment simply changes the sign area standard.
3.461. (2) 7 or More Residential Dwelling Units. Where more than six
dwelling units (or lots for residential development purposes) are offered ~or
sale or rental by the same party, signs advertising such sale or rental may
be cOnstructed therefore in any district. There shall be permitted one sign
facing each public street providing access to the property being offered. E~ch
Jeanine Dunn
May 21, 1987
Page Five
such sign shall not exceed seventy-five square feet in area; shall be located
at least one hundred thirty feet from any pre-existing home; and shall be
removed within one year from the date of building permit issuance, or when
le~than six units remain for sale or rent, whichever is less. Said sign shall
fully comply with the setback requirement for the zoning district in which the
property is located.
In v~ew of th~s proposed zoning ordinance change the City must take into
consideration the impact of the surrounding land uses. Different sign size stand-
ards that are currently established in the ordinance basically reflect the different
environments where 'the signs are placed.
The larger 75 foot signs are allowed in the Commercial and Industrial districts
where lot sizes~ use intensity are greater. The larger advertising suits the nature
of the area. In a residential neighborhood the City established a smaller sign
standard so that the introduction of these temporary signs would be compatible
with the neighborhood.
The City must. ldetermine if the increased sign size would benefit the residential
use and not be detrimental to the adjacent area. The established sign setback
provid6s positive protection for the adjacent land uses.
o Shopping Center Signs.
City staff has suggested ordinance changes to the section of the New Hope sign
ordinance that pertains to Shopping Centers. The primary area of interest includes
special attention to the size and number of signs for major shopping center tenants.
This area of attention is cited due to the great number of sign variance requests
in the past and the introduction of the New Hope Mall signage plan.
The area that we suggest the City consider changing in this section of the ordi-
nance includes the following elements.
1. Definition of "Anchor" or "Major" tenants to identify what tenants are
to receive'special treatment. By defining these tenant ~ we would suggest the
following criteria. The tenant" bay size, the tenant' bay location (i.e. corner
tenants), anticipated largest traffic generator.
2. Increase number of signs for Anchor tenant bays.
3. Increased sign standards for Anchor tenants.
Section 346.7 (2)
(2) Wall Signs.
(a) Maximum Area. The total allowable sign area for a multiple occupancy
structure shall not exceed fifteen percent of the combined wall surfaces
on walls which abut streets in Limited or General Business Districts or
Jeanine Dunn
May 21, 1987
Page Six
ten percent in Limited or General Industrial Districts. No individual sign
may exceed one hundred square feet in area.
(b) Anchor Tena~%$~ Tenant~ bays havi~ng a floor area of greater than
3,000 square feet and a corner location within the shopping center may
be allowed a wall sign per street frontage. Total~size of the anchor
tenant' signs shall not exceed 15 percent of the total wall surface of
the tenant~ baYwhere the sign will be located. No individual anchor
tenant sign may exceed 200 square feet in area.
(c) Building Identification. No multiple occupancy structure may dis-
play more than two overall building identification signs.
(d) Prohibited Signs. Individual tenants located within multiple
occupancy structures, other than shopping centers, shall not be permitted
to display individual signs, except for tenants which have separate exterior
entrances to their use or tenants in shopping centers, in which case, not ~.
more than one sign may be displayed.
(e) Delivery Signs. A delivery sign or signs not exceeding nine square
feet in area may be located on the side or rear wall of the structure.
(Ord. 76-17)
In laying out the anchor tenant sign standard we used the New Hope Mall as a model.
These ordinance changes represent options to be discussed and expanded upon. We
have attempted to address the areas of concern raised by staffand outline some of
the impact that may resul't from the changes.
northwest associated consultants, inc.
TO: Jeanine Dunn
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: 26 ~ay 1987
RE: - New Hope Signs
FILE NO: 131.00
BACKGROUND
At the May 26, 1987 meeting of Codes and Standards Committee, the.Planner's report
dated May~21, 1987 that addresses proposed changes.to the New Hope Sign ordinance was
reviewed..~The following general comments were made to the various proposed ordinance
amendments.
· Special Events:
The Codes and Standards Committee agreed with Option 2 as outlined in the Planner's
report. This option established a 14 day term and a frequency of three permits per
year for special events signs.
The Codes and Standards Committee also suggested the following additions to Option 2.
1. Special Events signs shall be limited to permanent shopping center tenants. Those
tenants having a one year lease. This is intended to prevent one time special
events sales for transient businesses.
2. The application should require a cash security to insure compliance with the terms
of the sign permit,
3. The Codes and Standards Committee also suggested that the sign ordinance amendment
allow for an exception to the Special Event sign term and frequency. The exception
would allow a business to request an extended signage term or sign permit frequency
by processing the application through the Planning Commission and City Council.
We have not yet developed the criteria for allowing the extended sign term or
frequency.
This exception provision would allow the City to consider special signage needs of
individual businesses without processing a variance.
· Neon Signs
minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420
4106 Excelsior Blvd. Ste. 410,
Jeanine Dunn
May 26, 1987
· Page Two'
The Codes and Standards Committee outlined the following suggestions for neon
window signs.
1. That permitted illuminated window signs be limited exclusively to neon signs.
Other interior illuminated window signs would be prohibited.
2. The neon window signage shall be restricted to business:identification
exclusively.
3. Flashing signs shall be prohibited.
· Temporary "For Sale" or "For Rent" Signs in Residential Areas.
Increasing the sign area from 40 square feet to 75 square feet was seen as an
acceptable amendment'by the Codes and Standards Committee.
· Shopping Center Signs.
The discussion of Codes and Standards Committee left the proposed shopping center
signage amendments unresolved. Further consideration of the proposed amendment was
desired.
CC: Dan Donahue
Doug Sandstad
northwest associated consultants, inc.
TO: Jeanine Dunn
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: 27 May 1987
RE: New Hope Mall Parking Lot Standards
FILE NO: 131.01
BACKGROUND
With the redevelopment of the New Hope Mall and the introduction of U. S. Swim
and Fitness into this facility, the City now faces a potential parking shortage
at the Mall site. This parking shortage will be further emphasized by introduction
of additional mall tenants such as Applebee's Restaurant or Blockbuster Video and
the redevelopment of the Sinclair Station site.
The New Hope Mall PUD site plan was approved with 447 Parking stalls which conforms
with City parking standards for a shopping center facility. The introduction of
the health club facility into the shopping center resulted in a higher parking demand
than typically generated by a shopping center containing just retail uses. In an
effort to respond to this potential parking shortage the City is studying possible
alternative design standards that may provide a parking layout that affords the
site a greater number of parking stalls.
CURRENT STANDARDS
Section 4.036.h. establishes the following parking stall demension standards.
(i) Parking Space Size. Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet
wide and twenty feet in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall
be served adequately by access aisles.
(v) Parking Stall Standards. Except in the case of single' family, two family
and townhouse dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in
compliance with the following standards:
4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420
Jeanine Dunn
May 27 1987
Page Two
Wall to Wall to Interlock to
Wall Interlock Interlock
Ang.le Minimum .Minimum Minimum
30 48.6'~ 44.5' 40.3'
45 56.8' 53.4' 50.0'
60 62.0' 59.7' 57.4'
90 64..0' 64.0' 64.0'
Parallel parking: 22 feet in length
We surveyed a number of communities to determine if the New Hope standards are unusually
restrictive. Our survey indicated that the New Hope standards are generally comparable
with other metropolitan suburban communities which generally require a parking stall
width of 8½ to 9 feet and a 20 foot length. The New Hope parking stall width require-
ment is conservative when compared to the architectural standards of the American
Institute of Architect~ which recommend a.stall width of 8½ to 9 feet to serve a
standard size car.
Mr. Richard Kennedy of Walker Parking Consultants, representing the owner of the New
Hope Mall met with the City staff to discuss the potential of the City considering an
amendment to the New Hope parking standards. Mr. Kennedy cited the national trend
of downsizing of body sizes of automobiles by manufacturers and the increased
popularity of smaller compact cars as reasons for considering the smaller parking
stall dimensions. Walker Parking Consultants has provided some background material
on automobile trends and some recommendations for revised parking standards.
Any reduction in the City parking stall width or length will result in loss in manue-
vering a~ea within.~the~parking stall, this influences user convenience. As such,
we have outlined a number of reduction alternatives that attempt to compensate for any
loss of maneuvering space in parking stalls and in other areas of the parking lot.
We have applied the reduced parking standard options to the New Hope Mall site plan
to illustrate the impact of the possible change in standards.
OPTION #1: Reduced Parking Stall Width
In option #1 we are proposing a parking stall width of 8½ feet. This standard re-
presents the lower end parking width recommendation of the American Institute of
Architects and is generally consistent with the width suggestions'of the Walker study.
To comp~ensate for the loss of. maneuvering space in the stall, option #1 suggests that
the stall length remain 20 feet and the aisle width remain 24 feet to maintain
maneuvering ~pace into the stall.
Jeanine Dunn
May 27 1987
Page Three
Option #1 Standards
Stall Width Stall Length Aisle Width
8~ feet 20 feet 24 feet
The application of Option #1 to the New Hope Mall site creates one additional
parking stall for each teir of parking currently containing 16 or more parking stalls.
The reduced stall size would create 20 additional parking stalls over the entire
mall site. The application of this option to the New Hope Mall site would not
require a change in location of the concrete islands in the parking lot. The~additional
stalls could be created with the lot striping.
OPTION #2: Reduction of Interlock to Interlock. Width for 90o Parking
This currently requires a 64 foot dimension for 90o parking interlock to interlock.
Option #2 suggests a 62' interlock to interlock dimension. The reduction can be
considered either a shortening of the stall length or a narrowing of the drive
aisle. Opti6n #2 is comparable with the interlock dimension recommendation of the Walker
study, however, we are suggesting that the City maintain its 9' stall width to compen-
sate for the maneuvering space loss in the drive area.
Option #2 Standards
Stall Width Stall Lenqth Drive Aisle
9 feet 20 feet 22 feet
The application of Option #2 to the New Hope Mall site could result in an additional'
tier of parking on the east side'of the mall.~ The new tier would produce eleven new
9' wide stalls for the New Hope Mall.
In order to implement Option #2 the eastern parking lot would have to be reconstructed
to change the driveway and parking tier locations. This option would also cause a
two foot encroachment into either the north or south green space. Based on our
review, the benefits of Option #1 to the New Hope Mall greatly exceed Option #2, in
both the number of parking stalls produced and the amount of parking lot reconstruction
necessary.
OPTION #3: Reduction of Both the Stall Width and Interlock Dimension
Option #3 conservatively approaches the parking standards suggested in the Walker
study for s%andard cars in a short term parking situation. The basis for this option
is the current trend toward the downsizing of automobiles resulting in a smaller
standard car size.
Jeanine Dunn
May 27, 1987.
Page Four
Option #3 Standards
Stall Width Stall Length Drive Aisle
8½ feet 19 feet 24 feet
The application of Option #3 to the New Hope Mall site would produce 31 new parking
stalls. The implementation of the 62' interlock dimension would require the same
parking lot construction as described in Option #2.
OPTION #4: Reduction of Both the Stall Width and Interlock Dimension
The Walker study also describes two parking standard options that are based on a
mixture of standard size and compact automobile use. These standards assume that
parking lot use of smaller cars will provide a space compensation for the larger
vehicles. The Option 3 represents a conservative standard based on the Walker 30%
compact/70% standard alternative.
Option #4 Standards
Stall Width Parking Length Drive Aisle Width
8½ feet 18 feet 24 feet
The application of Option #4 to the New Hope Mall site results in 31 new parking
spaces. While Option #4 will require the reconstruction of the mall's east parking
lot, the 60' interlock dimension would not requ.ire the loss of any green space in
providing another tier of parking.
CONCLUSION
Based on the options noted in this report a change in the New Hope parking standards
could produce between 11 to ~31 additional parking stalls for the New Hope Mall site.
Being City Planning Consultant's for other communities we have had experience in the
application of Options 1 and 2 and can attest to their effectiveness. These two
options basically allow for a trade-off in whether the maneuvering space is provided
in the stall or in the drive aisle. The trends toward smaller cars provide some
merit for both Option #3 and #4. We have no direct experience in the application of
these smaller parking standards. The smaller parking standards do present some con-
cern regarding user convenience, maneuverability, and snow storage. Option #3 is
based on 100% standard size car use, as such, the parking design standards present a
lesser degree of concern than Option #4. If the City feels that these smaller standard
options are appropriate we would recommend that the more conservative Option #4 be
considered, unless a more detailed parking study of the mall area can be pursued.
CC: Dan Donahue
Doug Sandstad
Parking Standards
By Mary S. Smith P.E.
in Table 1, there has been a dramatic increase in small car
sales particularly in the period 1977 to 1982. 1983 sales
MARYSMITH is Direc- figures indicate that the ratib of small and large cars among
new vehicles in the 1983 model year was about equal, i.e.
tor of Transportation for
50%/50%. In 1984, small car sales rebounded to 55% due
WALKER Parking Con-
largely to the discontinuance of several large models, and
sultants and Restoration the introduction of more compact model lines. It can there-
Engineers. Mrs. Smith is fore be concluded that as vehicles from the older model
responsible for the pro- years, which are predominantly (over 75 %) standard cars,
duction of the firm's traf- are retired from service, at least half of the new vehicles
fic and parking studies coming into service are small cars. Therefore, the percent-
in addition to research age of small cars on the road will continue to increase.
and development pro- Using the Automotive News and R. L. Polk data, WALKER
grams for parking re- projected that small cars as previously discussed account
lated issues. ~¥1ary has for 36% of all vehicles on the road from model years
been with WALKER for 1970-1984. Data from pre~1970 model years was neglected
since they account for a relatively small portion of the
nine years, current population.
Mrs. Smith is a graduate of Purdue University. She The data base indicates that, with a leveling offofthe ratio
is the first woman elected to membership on NPA's of small cars in new vehicle sales at 50%, the percentage
Parking Consultants Council. of small cars from all model years on the road wilt increase
at about 2% per year. Based on this rate of escalation, the
population will reach 40% by early 1987 and 50% in the
early 1990's. It seems highly likely, however, that external
In 1982, WALKER Parking Consultants and Restoration forces such as international oil supplies may again signif-
Engineers performed an extensive research study in order icantIy impact and disrupt any smooth transition to smaller
to develop new design standards accommodating the cars. Therefore these predicitons are provided merely for
changing automobile. The research study resulted in a set information.
of flexible standards that could be adjusted according to the These projections of small car population are somewhat
local mix of autos and client needs while providing an more conservative'than those used by the auto and parking
appropriate level of comfort and service for users, industry for a number of years. Some discrepancies are due
These standards have been in use for three years and to the selection of the cut-off points between compact and
have proven very successful in "fie[d testing" in numer- standard cars. For example, according to manufacturers
ous parking facilities designed by WALKER in the last designations of vehicles, nearly 53% of cars in the 1983
th tee years, model year were "compact" or smaller. WALKER data is thus
Automobile Trends naturally about 3% more conservative than data based on
manufacturers designations. It also appears from the data
The progressive downsizing of all body sizes and the that Americans held on to their older, larger cars longer in
terminology used by manufacturers has made itdifficult for the period 1979 to 1982 because they had not totally
consumers and the parking industry alike to distinguish accepted the new smallercars, because gasoline prices had
between "small" and "standard" cars. The first step of the not risen as expected and because of the general economy
research project therefore was to define a cut-off point during that period. WALKER's research found, for example,
between "small" and "standard" cars that is appropriate to that the average age of vehicles in 1982 was 6.6 years, corn-
parking conditions. Among the factors considered were pared to 4.9 years a decade earlier. In the surge of new car~
manufacturers categories and natural breaks in the data. sales of 1983, many of the "hold outs" purchased larger cars
Most importantly, consideration was given to what drivers from among those available in. the marketplace today. The
think of as a small car and ~vhat vehicles fit comfortably in substantial increase in standard vehicle sales in 1983 while
the commonly accepted small car parking stall, compact sales remained fairly constant bears this out.
Based on these considerations, a 5'9" car width and It must also be remembered that the preceding analysis
14'11" car length wer~e chosen as the largest dimensions in is based on national auto sales and registrations. The actual
the small car category. It should be noted that vehicles mix of vehicles parked in a facility will vary according to
which exceed either dimension were classified as standard locality, commuter tendency, generating land use, etc. For
vehicles. This is because a vehicle which exceeds only one example, a recent survey of more than 2,000 vehicles parked
of the dimensions will reduce the comfort for others using at a dozen office buildings in suburban Chicago yielded
nearby stalls, small car ratios of 48% to 60% with an average of 56%.
Utilizing this cut-off point, annual automobile sales for Although the research found that the percentage of small
small cars and standard cars as published by Automotive cars in the population has not increased as rapidly as had
News and by R. L. Polk Company were tabulated. As shown been expected, it nevertheless confirmed that there has
EXHIBIT A
Table 1. Annual Automobile Sales
Year Compact Car Sa[es Percent Standard Car Sales Percent Total Car Sales
1970 1,176,000 14 7,221,000 86 8,397,000
1971 1,639,000 16 8,603,000 84 10,242,000
1972 1,750,000 16 9,186,000 84 10,936,000
1973 2,516,000 28 8,922,000 72 11,438,000
1974 1,434,000 16 6,532,000 84 8,851,000
1975 2,156,000 25 6,469,000 75 8,625,000
1976 1,919,000 19 8,180,000 81 10,099,000
1977 2,570,000 23 8,605,000 77 11,1 75,000
1978 2,488,000 22 8,821,000 78 11,309,000
1979 3,841,000 36 6,828,000 64 10,669,000
1980 4,398,000 49 4,577,000 51 8,975,000
1981 4,521,000 53 4,009,000 47 8,531,000
1982 4,946,000 62 3,032,000 38 7,978,000
1983 4,569,000 50 4,609,000 50 9,1 78,000
1984 5,708,000 55 4,685,000 45 10,393,000
significant impact on parking dimensions. WALKER The second alternative is to set aside a percentage of total
challenged to develop parking design standards that are stal Is for smaller vehicles.
flexible enough to accommodate a changing population as It must also be noted that small car owners still have the
population itself reacts to external forces and yet are option of parking in standard stalls. Therefore, the per-
comfortable for today's parkers, centage of small stalls set aside should be less than the
expected population. As a general rule, WALKER holds the
Parking Design Principles percentage of compact stalls to 75% of the expected
compact population. The owner who accepts a design with
There are several major concerns in the design of proper sign ificant numbers of small stalls must also accept respon-
width and parking module (the combination of vehicles sibility for enforcement. For this reason, WALKER more
parked in the stalls and the drive aisle providing access
frequently recommends the one size fits ali approach.
thereto is called the "parking module"). The key to the establishment of all WALKER standards is
first major concern is the door opening dimension, the "design vehicle" which is a larger car among the
long term parking (three hours or more), studies (1) have expected' users. All standards are developed to provide a
shown that a door opening clearance of 20 inches is
acceptable. For high turnover parking, a door opening good level of comfort for this vehicle.
clearance of 24 inches provides a better level of con- The Design Vehicle
venience for the more frequent movements.
second major concern is vehicle movement into the To maintain the WALKER recommended level of comfort
stalI.Thesharpertheangleofpark, thesmallerthe parking for all users the design vehicle is se[ected as the 85th
module may be while yet providing similar maneuverability percentile vehicle in use today for each vehicle classifica-
one turning movement) into the stall. The aisle width tion. It is highly unlikely that three 100th percentile (i.e.
dependent to some extent on the sta[l width. A narrower absolutely largest) vehicles will be parked side by side with
requires more aisle width for the same comfort in three 100th percentile vehicles across the aisle. Use of the
turning movement as a wider stall. WALKER has established 85th percentile is still conservative with respect to the
standards ofaislewidth for its minimum recommended stall average condition (which would be the 50th percentile)
widths. Stall widths greater than the minimum provide while realistically representing the probable worst condi-
higher levels of comfort for turning movement and door tion of parked vehicles. This approach parallels the standard
opening. Increasing ,aisle width is generally not as design principalfortrafficinwhicharoadwayisdesigned
economical a method for increasing comfort as stall width, for the 85th percentile peak volume.
Another concern in design is accommodating the chang- The current design vehicle for small cars is 5'7" x 14'8",
small car population. Two methods are generally used. about the size of a Chevrolet Citation (1983 model). The
is the "one size fits all" approach in which an average design vehicle for standard cars is 6'7" x 18'4" which is
thestalls required for each design group weighted by the about the size of the larger Buick station wagon (1983
of population is used for ali stalls. Because it is very model). The design vehicle for 70% standard/30% small
that the vehicles parked on either side of a large car vehicle mix is 6'4" x 17'5", about the size of a 4-door Ford
considerably smaller, acceptable comfort is maintained. LTD. For the 60% sta~d/40% small vehicle mix, the
vehicle is 6'3" x 17'0", aboutthe size of a 1983 Chrysler recommended by WALKER. For this reason it has been
New Yorker. established that a column which slightly reduces the
module in a parking structure on an occasional basis does
Stall Size not significantly impact the comfort or flow of traffic, just
The minimum stall width for the various vehicle groups as an occasional snow pile in surface lots can be tolerated.
based on the design vehicle and door opening clearances Even if a larger car parks at the column, it is likely that a
cited above as follows: smaller car will be parked opposite. Furthermore, the only
stall which is truly impacted by the reduced aisle is the first
Low Turnover High Turnover stall beyond the longer car. It is highly likely (a probability
Small Cars 7'3" 7'7" of 99.7%) that this car also will have no trouble entering
Standard Cars 8'3" 8' 7" the stall.
The parking module is, as previously noted, the width
All Cars (30% small available for parking. It should not be confused with the
cars in mix) 8'0" 8'4" center to center dimensions of columns or the distance
Ail Cars(40% small between curb stops. Following are WALKER current
cars in mix) 7'11" 8'3" standards on the components and the module for
The stall length has been determined by adding 8" to 10" 30%/70%, 40%/60% and 100%/100% small/standard
to account for the tendency of parkers not to pull tight to a mixes. The components are based on geometry of parked
wall or curb. The adjustment is based on field surveys which vehicles, not striped stalls, although relationships with
determined that, on average, compact cars pulled to within striping are shown for clarity.
10" of the wall, curb, etc. For standard cars, the average was For proper use of the table, the following guidelines are
about 8" The design stall lengths are as follows: provided. The parking module (dimension D as per the fol-
lowing diagram) is computed by adding vehicle projections
Stall Length in the parked stall (dimension B) to the required aisle width
Small Cars 15' 6". (dimension C) for that angle of parking. Columns of a com-
bined maximum dimension of 2'0" may protrude into a
Standard Cars 19'0"-- module with a parking angle between 45 degrees and 75
All Cars (30% small cars in mix) 17' 11" degrees (up to 2'0" from the face of the wall). Where wheel
All Cars (40% small cars in mix) 17'6" stops or curbs are placed, the distance of face of curb from
modUle edge shall not exceed the overhang dimension (F).
The design stall size for all cars is used for selection of If one row of stalls is composed entirely of small car stalls
modules when the stalls on both sides of the aisle are full
and the other is composed of standard stalls, the aisle width
size, even ifa number of small car stalls (generally upto 15% ' required shall be the greater of the aisle widths required.
of the capacity) are provided in the facility. The separate for either stall type using the separate small/standard table.
small/standard stall sizes are used when a significant If the parking stalls are interlocked, the total module may
percentage of the stalls are set aside for compacts, be reduced by one interlock dimension (E) for each row of
Module Dimensions cars in a module that is interlocked with a row in an adja-
cent module. The "typical module" (D) is the sum of two
The parking module is the clear width provided for the vehicle projections and the required aisle for that stall type
parking of vehicles and ~in adequate access aisle. In most and angle.
cases, the module contains two rows of parking with an aisle To maintain the standard comfort level with wider stalls,
between. The modules recommended by WALKER are the module can be reduced by 3 inches for each additional
based on experience so that a comfortable ais[e for both inch of stall width. As noted previously, stall widths greater
passage through and turning into a stall is provided when than minimum will provide a greater level of comfort with
cars are parked under normal circumstances, i.e. not the module shown. Increasing modules should be a sec-
necessarily tight to walls and curbs, ondary choice as it is a less efficient method of increas-
ing comfort.
"... small car owners still mp, ct of Design Standards
The preceding design standards differ significantly from
f p current published standards (2) which, in general, were
have the option o arking developedbefore the large' American car models were
downsized. There have been significant reductions in car
in standard stalls." [engthasdenotedbythefactthatingoingfrom 30°/o to40%
small cars, the design vehicle reduced 1" in width but 5"
in length. This has not only reduced stall lengths but has also
/ reduced needed aisle widths due to decreased turning radii.
Because most cars using a stall are considerably smaller The changes have impacted angled parking more than 90
than the design vehicle, the typical aisle will be wider than degrees parking, since the aisle for 90 degree parking is
the required aisle used in calculating the module. Using often controlled by two way traffic rather than the turning
standard statistics and probability methods, the probability movement. The net effect therefore is to improve the
of having two 85th or higher percentile vehicles parked economy of providing angled parking, which while
opposite each other is 2.1%. Thus, one expects that at any providing improved function has traditionally been less
one average moment, there would be 2 locations in a 100 economical than 90 degree parking.
space facility where the aisle width would be less than
Parking Module Dimensions -.-. D ..~ -
Minimum Stalls for Comfort B , c _ ~ B_l'~- o
Table 2. Parking Module Dimensions
Minimum
Stall Vehicle Typical Interlock
Angle Stall Width Projection Aisle Module Reduction Overhang
Type (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
LT ST
0° CO 7'3" 7'7" 7'0" 10'0" 24'0" -- 2'0"
STD 8'3" 8'7" 8'0" 10'0" 26'0" -- 3'0"
45° CO 7'3" 7'7" 15'2" 10'9" 41 '1 ' 1 '6" 1 '6"
STD 8'3" 8'7" 18'4" 13'0" 49'8" 2'3" 2'3"
50° CO 7'3" 7'7" 15'8" 11'2" 42'6" 1'4" 1'7"
STD 8'3" 8'7" 19'2" 13'6" 51 '10" 2'0" 2'4"
55° CO 7'3" 7'7" 16'0" 11'7" 43'7" 1'2" 1'8"
STD 8'3" 8'7" 19'8" 14'0" 53'4" 1 '9" 2'5"
60° CO 7'3" 7'7" 16'4" 12'6" 45'2" 1 '0" 1 '8"
STD 8'3" 8'7" 20'0" 15'0" 55'0" 1 '6" 2'6"
65° CO 7'3" 7'7". 16'5" 13'3" 46'1" 0'10" 1 '9"
STD 8'3" 8'7" 20'2" 16'0" 56'4" 1 '3" 2'7"
70° CO 7'3" 7'7" 16'5" 14'1" 46'11" 0'8" 1'10"
STD 8'3" 8'7" 20'4" 17'0" 57'8" 1 '0" 2'8"
75° CO 7'3" 7'7" 16'6" 16'4" 49'4" 0'6" 1 '10"
STD 8'3" 8'7" 20'2" 18'0" 58'4" 0'9" 2'9"
90°* CO 7'3" 7'7" 15'6" 19'0" 50'0" -- 2'0"
STD' 8'3" 8 ~7". 19'0'~ 23'0" 61 '0" -- 3'0"
Note: LT - 'Long ~erm parking; 5T - Short term parking.
*Assumes two way traffic flow.
Parking Module Dimensions
Minimum Stalls for Comfort
One Size Fits Ail - 30% Compact/70% Standard®
Table 3. Parking Module Dimensions
Minimum Vehicle Typical Interlock
Angle Stall Width Projection Aisle Module Reduction Overhang
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
LT ST
0° 8'0" 8'4" 7'8" 10'0" 25 '4" -- 2'8"
45° 8'0" 8'4" .17'4" 12:3" 46'11" 2'0" 2'0"
50° 8'0" 8'4" 18'0" 12'9" 48'9" 1'10" 2'1"
:35° 8'0" 8'4" 18'6" 13'3" 50'3" 1'7" 2'2"
60° 8'0" 8'4" 18'10" 14'3" 51'11" 1'4" 2'3"
65° 8'0" 8'4" 19'0" 15'2" 53'2" 1'2" 2'4"
70° 8'0" 8'4" 19'2" 16'1" 54'5" 0'11" 2'5"
75° 8'0" 8'4" 19'0" 17'6" 55'6" 0'8" 2'6"
?0°* 8'0" 8'4" 17'11" 22'6" 58'4" -- 2'8"
, :~Current national average mix.
· ~ re: LT - Long term parking; ST - Short term parking.
Parking Module Dimensions 1~
Minimum Stalls for Comfort
One Size Fits All - 40% Compact/60% Standard '
Table 4. Parking Module Dimensions
Minimum Vehicle Typical Interlock
Angle Stall Width Projection Aisle Module Reduction Overhang
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
LT ST
0° 7'11" 8'3" 7'7" 10'0" 25'2" -- 2'0"
45° 7'11" 8'3" 17'0" 12'1' 46'1" 2'0" 2'0"
50° 7'11" 8'3" 17'8" 12'6" 47'10" ..1'10" 2'0"
550 7'11" 8'3" 18'3" 13'0" 49'6" 1'7" 2'1"
600 7'11" 8'3" 18'5" 14'0' 50'10" 1'4" 2'2"
650 7'11" 8'3" 18'8" 14'11" 52'3" 1'2" 2'3"
700 · '?7' 11" 8 '3" 18 '9" 15 '9" 53 '3" 0' 11" 2 '4"
75° 7'11" 8'3" 18'8" 17'3" 54'7" 0'8" 2'5"
90o* 7'11" 8'3" 17'6" 22'4" 57'4" -- 2'7"
,'Vote: LT - LOn~, term parking; ST - Short term parking.
;~ssumes two way traffic flow.
Conclusions
WALKER's research has found that the population of
vehicles has not shifted to small cars as rapidly as had been
projected, but that a relatively slow escalation in percent of
small cars is occuring. Including vehicles sold through 1984,
approximately 36% of all vehicles may comfortably use a
small car only parking stall of about 7'6" x 15'6" This
should conservatively increase to 40% by the end of 1986,
and 50% by the early 1990's.
The downsizing has not been limited to a shift to the
"small" car. The significant reduction in dimensions of the
largest vehicles manufactured has had a beneficial impact
on bay widths, especially for angled parking. This has made
angled parking more economical, which allows owners
more latitude to explore the functional benefits Of angled
over 90 degree stalls.
References
1. A Parking Standards Report, Volume I, Parking Standards Associates,
March 1971.
2. Parking Principles, Highway Research Board, Special Report No.
125, 1971.
Parking Consultants
Restoration Engineers
2121 Hudson Avenue
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008 Reprinted from PARKING luly-,'\ugust 1985
.... ~ ,,-- ,,, ~~'~-- .,,
i-'-'~_~{ This option combines the standard
"~> ,~,..~,~.~Y-Oq SS~,~ . ...... reduction of both Option I an~
~. ~' .{:'-~]- ~ { 2. The option would create
-'-]~ : =/' . a total of 31 new parking
~]'-- :;~' { spaces.
!Z]] i:'--~ , ~'~1~ {' {~}lj.:{{~{ ~ Option 3 faces the same design
: ~ constraints as outlined in
,,- 1' i-'t " ' l., fiJlllilll!l
-.-~
~ ' :~.::~_.~
Ii. ~ i .: ":'ix .......... ~ .
,] % ~"-,n ,',,~' r .... ]: ~'~ ::-::. -, , ........ ~ ..... , :~
-- ' {~ · i ' ' " 'l ..... ' ' i; ~ ~"' i
~ J:4 .... ~:~=-'b~ ~ r'~"'~ ''~ ........ ~:~
"-' ,, Option 4 provides for an 8½'
stall width and a 60' interloc~k
to interlock dimension. This
I!----];~~'~ ~ ~-- -']'j ]':~l l"_L]. ~4 j~--Oq q~<3 ~ ~ iiiiii!!!iiiiiiiiiiii!~iSiiii]ii~J/ ~' I' I~ I t-~1~~ optiOn,site wouldi f appl i edproduce to31 newthe Mal,]
~r.T~ ~ :/. - parking stalls.
[ -
~'?~ ~ ]~]~ As in the case as Option 2 and 3,
. ~ ~-- the Option 4 interlock dimension
~.__ could only be applied to the Mall
~ ~ ~ eastern parking lot. Redesign
~i~ ~_~Z~ ~ ~ . .~~~. pa rki n g
would be required of this
~- in Options 2 and 3
' S~ ~.: be eliminated.
~ ~ ~ ~ ' I
OPTION 4
:'-
Revised Agenda
July 6, 1987
AGENDA
PLANNING COM~ISSION MEETING OF JULY 7, 1987
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Planning Case 87-11 - Request for Rearyard Setback Variance 3236 Ensign Court North
Steven and Leslee Kollins, Petitioners
4. Planning Case 87-17 - Request for Rear Yard Setback Variance
9120 61-1/2 Circle North
James and Barbara Crandall,
Petitioners
5. Planning Case 87-18 - Request for a Frontyard Setback Variance
4948 Wisconsin Avenue North
William J. and Alta Asplund,
Petitioners
6. Planning Case 87-19 - Request for Construction Approval
for Office/Warehouse
5300 Boone Avenue North
Scott!Larkin/Opus Corporation,
Petitioner
7. Planning case 87-20 - Request for a Conditional Use Permit
to Allow a Home Occupation
8325 46th Avenue North
Larry J. and Carol Bredahl,
Petitioners ~
8. Planning Case 87-21 - Request for a Variance in Require~
Location of Accessory Equipment ~
4617 Nevada Avenue North,
James A. and Roberta A. Casey
Petitioners
COMMITTEE REPORTS
9. Report of Design and Review Committee
10. Report of Codes and Standards Committee
Planning Commission Agenda (Revised)
July 7, 1987
Page 2
OLD BUSINESS
11. Proposed Ordinance 87-5
An Ordinance Amending Section 3.43 of the New Hope Sign Code By
Including Permit and Regulations Exceptions to the Code.
12. Proposed Ordinance 87-6
An Ordinance Amending Section 4.036 of the New Hope Code By
Downsizing Parking Stall and Bay Requirements.
NEW BUSINESS
13. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 2, 1987.
14. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of
May 26, 1987.
15. Approval of City Council Minutes of May 26, 1987 and June 8,
1987.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-11
Request: Request for Setback Variance
Location: 3236 Ensign Court
Zoning: R-1
Petitioner: Steven and Leslee Kollins
Date: July 7, 1987
Staff has attempted to obtain information about this case and
have been informed by the petitioners that they would like to
withdraw this case.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-18
Request: Request for a Front Yard Setback Variance
Location: 4948 Wisconsin Avenue North
Zoning: R-1
Petitioner: William and Alta Asplund
Date: July 7, 1987
BACKGROUND
The petitioners are requesting a variance to allow a seven foot
encroachment into the required 30 foot front yard setback. Section
4.034~3) of the New Hope Code specifies the setback requirements.
The petitioneers propose to construct an 8 x 14 foot all season porch.
at the front of the home.
ANALYSIS
1. The petitioners told staff that they would like to construct this
porch in order to make entrance to the house more safe. The
petitioners indicated that the steps become very icy in the winter
time.
2. Staff and the petitioner have not identified a non-economic
hardship pursuant to the variance criteria listed in Section 4.22
of the New Hope Code.
3. Staff believes that the petitioner has not exhausted all of the
options for construction of this porch which would not require a
variance.
4. The property located to the north of the subject property would be
effectively screened from this addition. However, such screeing
is not available on the south side; nor is this screening
permanent in nature.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of request for a front yard setback variance
at 4948 Wisconsin Avenue North as proposed in Planning Case 87-18.
Attachments: Plans
Certified Lot Survey (dated 8-29-63)
~ MINI)ER F.~OI~T~~_. ]X%T 0 12 O, INC
ENO! NEEP. 3 AND/ ~U~VEYO~3
~ G418- 5G?" A NUE
. : MINNEAPOLIS ~.~INN.
~! ' ~ ~ , ,.o.~ ~,.. .- - ~ 0---~. ~o~
SC~L~ 1"=5~ ~ ~ ~-~ '
:: ~_...... ~ f
":: ~:
I
.~ .. ~ ~/~LAT
~UIkDING INSPECTOR
ViLLAG[.,OF
'DATE'
'LOT l& BLOCK 2, MOR'K-CAMPlON MANOR
', ~.~ .-.. . ~:, ...-'
WE HE~Y ~RTIF~ ~RT THIS 15 k ~E ~O C~ ~P~SENT&TIO~ OF & ~VE~ OF THE ~O~'IES ~ THE
L~D ~VE ~RIBED ~ O~THE L~ATIO~ OF ~ ~LDtHGS~ I~ ~, THER~, ~D ~ VtSI~LE ENCEO~C~ME~S~
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-19
Request: Construction Approval
Location: 5300 Boone Avenue NOrth
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: Opus Corporation/Scott Larkin, Petitioner
Date: July 7, 1987
BACKGROUND
Opus Corporation is proposing construction of a 69,860 square foot
office/warehouse at 5300 Boone Avenue North. The site is 5.9 acres.
The b~ilding will be constructed of pre-cast concrete with raked
finish. The petitioner is requesting no variances from the New Hope.
Code. Attached is the site data from the proposed plans.
Opus Corporation met with the Design and Review Committee on June 23,
1987. The petitioner has made some revisions to the plans based on
the recommendations of the Committee.
ANALY S I S
1. Attached is a report from the City Engineer regarding the
project. This report was made prior to submission of the
revised plans. The petitioner has adequately addressed
recommendations #1 and #2, but has not addressed
recommendation #3.
2. The petitioners have not provided signage designating "trucks
only" or "shipping/receiving" on the south drive.
3. The petitioners have provided additional screening of the
trash compactor by providing two (2) black spruce.
4. The Fire Marshall has recommended that two fire hydrants be
relocated from the site shown on the original plans because
they reduce the number of parking stalls. The petitioner has
eliminated one of these hydrants on the revised plans. The
Fire Department recommends that the petitioner provide two
fire hydrants at the location identified at the Design and
Review Commmittee meeting.
5. The petitioner has increased the amount of landscaping from
55 plantings to 260 plantings. However, sod will need to be
provided for 100 feet along both street frontages.
Planning Case 87-19
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends construction approval of the office/warehouse at
5300 Boone Avenue North as proposed in Planning Case 87-19 with the
following conditions:
1. Drainage plan approved by City Engineer.
2. Two fire hydrants be identified on the utility plan.
3. 100 feet of sodding be provided along Boone and 54th Avenue
North.
Attachments: Site Plan (6-19-87)
Site Data
City Engineer's Correspondence (6-30-87)
SITE DATA
SITE ZONING CLASSIFiCATiON I-1
REQUIRED ~C~NC CLASSIFiCATiON
GROSS BUILDING AR~A
OFFICE BUILDING AREA ·
OFFICE 3,668 S.F. (ALL FIGURES
PRODUCTIO~ 19,557 $.F. ARE APPROXIMATE)
WARE~OU5~ 51~638 S.F.
TOTAL AREA 69,860 $.F.
PER~'ENTAGE OF SITE COVERED BY BUILDING 26.8%
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
.. CALCULATFD FOR: ' ·
OFFICE AT 1 STALL/ 200 $.F.
PRODUCTION AT ] STALL/350 $.F. "
WAREHOUSE A" ! STALL/I,000 S.F.
REQUIRED PARKING:
OFFICE AT 3,668 $.F. - 18 STALLS
PRODUCTION AT 14,557 $.F. - 42 STALLS
WAREHOUSE AT 51,638 S.F. - 52 STALLS
PHASE II ADDITION:
WAREHOUSE AT 24,500 - 25 STAL~S
TOTAL REQUIRED STALLS ' ·
PHASE 1 AND 2 - 137 STALLS
TOTAL REQUI]{ED P[~SE 1 - 112 STALLS
TOTAL PROVIDED PHASE 1 - 70 STALLS '
PROOF OF PAP. KING FOR - 139 STALLS
PERCENTAGE OF SITE COVERED
BY PARKING - 19.9%
PERCENTAGE OF SITE LEFT AS
GREEN SPACE - 53.3% "
SITE LIGHTING
SITE '
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. O,,oO. ones,roo.
Robert H/. Rusene, P,E.Keith A. Gordon, p.F.
I Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. Thomas E. Noyea. P.I:'.
0 Bradford A. Lemberg, P.E. Richard H/. Foster, P.E.
Richard E. Turner. P.E. Robert G. Schunk'ht. P.E.
2335 W. TrunkHighway36 Engineers & Architects J.... C. Olson, P.E. Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E.
Donald C. Burgardt, P.E.
St. Paul, MN 55113 ~e,r~ A. Bourdon, P.E.
Ted K. Field, P.E.
Michael T. Rautmann. P.E.
Robert R. PfeJferle, P.E.
David O. Luskota, P.E.
.Tune
--30, 1987 rhon,a~ W. Pe,e
P.E.
Michael C. Lynch,
Karen L. Willis, P.E.
James R. Maland, P.E.
City of New ~ope Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E.
Keith A. Bachmann, P.E.
4401--xylon Avenue No. Mar~ R. Ro~/s. P.~.
New Hope, MN 55428 nobertC. R~e*,A.~.,~.
Thotnas E. Angus, P.E.
Scott L. Young, P.E.
Attn: Ms. Jeanine Dunn CharlesA. IO'ick$on
Leo M. Pawelsky
Harlan M. OIson
Re: International Packaging, Inc. SusanM. £be,lin
Our File No. 34 Gen.
Dear Jeanine',
International Packaging, Inc. is located on 5.9 acres in the southeast quad-
rant of Boone Avenue and 54th Avenue. Approximately 1/2 of the site drains to
an existing pond located in the southeast corner of the site while the remain-
ing part of the site drains onto Boone Avenue and 54th Avenue. The existing
pond outlets through a 36" RCP beneath Boone &venue at the R.R. crossing and
· s conveyed by open ditch along the north side of the R.R. tracks to the open
ditch which serves as the outlet for the 49th Avenue pond.
The plan presently provides for filling a portion of the pond and constructing
an open ditch along the south side of the property conveying drainage from the
adjacent property to the east through an open ditch to the existing 36" RCP
beneath Boone Avenue. The portion of the pond which will remain will then
collect runoff from roof drains off the proposed building and the parking area
located on the south part of the site. Therefore, it is recommended:
1.) The existing 36" RCP beneath Boone Avenue shall be restricted by a 12" RCP
at its easterly end with a manhole and 12" RCP flared end with trash
guard. The restriction will detain storm water in the open ditch east of
Boone Avenue, thereby maintaining approximately the same flow rate through
the existing open ditch west of Boone Avenue which is poorly defined. The
existing culvert beneath the spur track shall be reconstructed as 'required
to conform to the open ditch.
2.) A drainage easement shall be provided over the open ditch along the south-
ern property line abutting the railroad spur.
Page 1.
4782e
City of New Hope June 30, 1987
New Hope, MN
Re: File No. 34 Gen.
'3.)~ The pond being provided on the site shall be restricted by a 6" diameter
orfice constructed on the upstream side of catch basin #5 to allow the or-
fice to be maintained by entering the catch basin. The outlet for the
pond shall be provided from ¢.B. #5 to allow the runoff from C.B. #7 to
enter th~ pond.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Yours very truly,
Mark A. Hanson
MAX:ii
cc: Doug Sandsted
Bob Steenhoff - Opus, Box 150, Mpls. 55440
Page 2.
4782e
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-20
Request: Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation
Location: 8325 46th Avenue North
Zoning: R-1
Petitioner: Larry J. and Carol Bredahl
Date: July 7, 1987
BACKGROUND
The petitioners have requested a conditional use permit for a home
occupation pursuant to Section 4.038 of the New Hope Code. This
request was made after the General Inspector identified that a home
occupation existed without a conditional use permit.
ANALYSIS
1. The five criteria for permitted home occupations are listed in
Section 4.038(3) of the New Hope Code. Staff has identified that
the petitioner cannot meet these criteria because:
A. Mechanical equipment is stored at the home;
B. The business requires other employees than those living
at the premises.
As a result, the petitioner must meet the four provisions listed
under Section 4.038(4) of the New Hope Code to obtain a
conditional use permit.
2. City staff has notified property owners within 350 feet of the
subject property and have received no comments.
3. No exterior changes have been made nor "are proposed to the
building so screening is not an applicable requirement.
4. The storage of plumbing equipment in the garage~ makes it
impossible for the homeowners to store their personal vehicles or
the business vehicles in the garage. Attached is correspondence
from the petitioners which indicates that they plan to address
this issue.
5. The traffic generated by this business is plumbing vehicles which
do service single family residences; therefore meeting 4.038(4) (d)
of the New Hope Code.
Planning Case 87-20
. Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
The petitioner is requesting that a conditional use permit be granted
on a temporary basis until the new office/warehouse is built.
Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for a home
occupation at 8325 46th Avenue North as submitted in Planning Case
87-20 for a period not to exceed one year.
Attachments: Lot Survey (dated 2-14-68)
Petitioners' correspondence (6-11-87)
City of New Hope
Dune ll, 1987
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
In reponse to your letter dated May 14, 1987, signed by Jean Coon, General
Inspector, and pursuant to my meeting with Mr. Doug Sandstad on May 21, 1987
we submit to you the enclosed Application for Conditional Use Permit.
We do understand and can appreciate the zoning ordinance as it applies to
our single-family residence and it has been our intent to comply. Realizing
that the growth of our company makes this difficult, we had already done
several things prior to receipt of the May 14th violation notice:
l) Obtained rental of a storage unit at "All-American Storage" on April 18
(see attached rental agreement) and had one of our employees working on
setting it up and transferring tools and materials to that location.
(Accounting for the on-site employee referenced in paragraph 2 of the
May ~4 letter.)
2) Had a leasing broker looking for office/warehouse rental space.
3) Been in negotiations for construction of an office/warehouse complex
with ground-breaking expected in Fall, 1987 on acquired property. This
facility will then be the permanent home of Bredahl Plumbing.
Because it has been our intent to build our own complex in the very near future,
the rental of office/warehouse space is not a workable alternative as leases
are required for a minimum of 2 and 3 years and the costs involved in moving
twice (telephone, printing of stationery, etc.) would create a hardship for us.
We do have 3 employees working for us at the present time; however, they keep
their vehicles at their own places of residence and commute to their job sites
directly from there. The materials for the work they do are delivered directly
from the supplier to the jobsite or they pick up the materials themselves at
our supplier. The material we do keep on site (most of which is now at our
storage facility) is very minimal and the men have occasion to stop by the office
usually no more than once or twice a week to drop off paperwork or excess
materials and/or pick up paperwork and a few supplies. These stops are about
20 minutes in length.
As to the last paragraph of the May ~4 letter regarding more than one truck parked
in our driveway, that has now been corrected. There was a period where one of our.
employees retired and was not replaced. His truck remained in the driveway of our
residence until receipt of the violation notice. Since that time it has been placed
in storage and it is our intent to have only 1 truck parked in the driveway.
In considering our Application for Conditional Use, we ask that you take the above
into account, realizing my effort to remain as "invisible" as possible until such
time as we have our permanent facility completed and the assurance that we are
willing to work with you in this matter. Thank you.
/~rry
J./~dahi Carol A. Bredahl
Pow-}$el Gonst. Go.
F. C 4ACKSON
~'~-~;/~.'~"-,: ,' .'- , ~. ,-~ '' ".' .V: ' R(GIST~R(O UNDER ~W$ OF $TAT~ OF MINNE~T~
;~.:~.::::{~:..j..: . ....**' .~: :.<.;... ':. LICENSED By ORdINaNCE OF CITY OF MINNEA~Lll
, ~';',?~.'*:?::' L"- .... "'- ~': ....... - '- ~
~?,~ ~..,~ ~:,~ . ~, :~:~<,.: . .... ,,,.. ~., _ :. -.. , . ~ - . · ,. ......
.,:~' :<- ?:..~.~,.'-4~'~.~{i.~:-.~:~t~' "-'<~-2:'~-??.':-...~<c-'.."' ' .~ '~ · ..-'-.. . " ~:.
'17~.'?-~ ...'- :~."...~-~ ~" .:'~": .. '. '.-j:~_:.'.. ~ .'-.' ' . .~..-:. - , , , ' -
'~,~. '?.~:~'.:.". ;'~.;.,q::~:7;~' .' :::"-. ~.~:. ~ ~ c:. :;':-'- · .;'. '-- . . ·
-.'.~:..~.;,~ .>~?:.. :'~?.:..~ ~--': .... '. . , _
'~.~:~V, :~.'-' ..... :::,:...'.::.. ' ;.',.: ..... 7~.o - ,. ~
.~'i.'.-A~- ~.:~:..~?-.. · ~'." '-...:':.%r.~. " ..~ ' · - .. · .~,.. .. :
......... . ....... ,~, ~ - ~,~
-:" :' ~ -. ' '. ' I~':' ~/ '
Lot 4 Block ~ Del Hel~hts 2nd Add~tlon~ ..
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-21
Request: Request for Variance in Required Loction of
Accessory Equipment
Location: 4617 Nevada Avenue North
Zoning: R-1
Petitioner: James and Roberta E. Casey
Date: July 7, 1987
BACKGROUND
The petitioners are requesting that they be allowed to install an air
conditioning unit in the side yard of their home. Section 4.0321(1)
of the New Hope Code requires that:
"No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning
cooling structures or condensers which generate noise
may be located in a required side yard except for side
yards abutting streets and in such case the equipment
shall be fully screened from view."
The petitioners have indicated that the ordinance causes a hardship
because of the additional cost of moving the condenser to the back
and the difficulty of venting through the family room.
ANALYSIS
1. The proposed air conditioner would be located within the
required ten foot side yard setback. There is only ten feet
between the home and the property line. The air conditioner
has been placed eight feet from the property line.
2. Because the noise of the proposed unit is a concern, staff
has measured the distance between the home to the south of
the subject. Eighteen (18) feet exists between these two
homes. The north wall of the adjacent house is a garage
wall.
3. The only hardship that the petitioner has identified is
economic in nature.
RECOM~ENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance in required
location of accessory equipment at 4617 Nevada Avenue North because
the petitioners have not met the variance criteria established in
Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code.
Attachment: Lot Survey (dated 5-5-67)
~-:)u~EN ~ALLLY. L~INN. LAND SURVEYORS
~CENSED BY ORDI~ANC~ Or CITY Or MIN~E~OLIS
' 59~7 Idaho Arc. ~.
~/" Minneapolis, Minn~ 33128
CITY LOTS - PLA~ING L~ETROPOLITAN AREA
. 7~notes Iron ' ' · .... ,
'~1 - ~ , -~
1,, ,VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE
We hereby certify that this is a true and colrect representa- ~ ~! .',.,,'.a/' /-', .
tion of · survey of ~he bounder;es of the above descr;bed
land and the location o[ all bu;ldlnqs ~nd visible encroach. ~T SURVEYS COMPLY
merits, if ~n~. (~om or On s~d ~4nd.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Codes and Standards Committee
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance 87-5
Agenda Item 11
DATE: July 7, 1987
The Codes and Standards Committee met on June 19, 1987 and
reviewed proposed Ordinance 87-5. This ordinance basically moves
the exemptions for sign permit fees from Section 3.1 "Building
Regulations" to Section 3.40 "Sign Ordinance".
Codes and Standards requests that this proposed ordinance change
be reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommends forwarding
it to the City Council.
Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 87-5
/
ORDINANCE NO. 87-5
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.43
OF THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE BY INCLUDING
PERMIT AND REGULATIONS EXCEPTIONS TO THE CODE
The City Council of 'the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 3.43 "~ign Permits" of the New Hope City
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.43 Regulation And S~q~ Permit Exceptions. The
signs indicated in Sections 3.431 through 3.436 are
exempt from the permit requirements of Section 3.116
and from the regulations of the New Hope Sign Code,
Section 3.40 through 3.485, except that they shall be
set back from the street right-of-way line a distance
of at least one-half of the minimum setback specified
in the New Hope Zoning Code district regulations. S~gn
Pe~m~ks are ~equ~ed as p~es~ed ~n Su~se~k~on ~8~.
Section 2. Section 3.431 "Flags" of the New Hope City Code
is hereby added to read as follows:
3.431 Flags. Flags or emblems of a national, federal or
state government, or a subdivision thereof, displayed
on private property.
Section 3. Section 3.432 "Memorial Signs" of the New Hope
City Code is hereby added to read as follows:
3,432 Memorial Signs. Memorial sig~s and tablets displayed
on private property.
Section 4. SectiOn 3.433 "Signs Required By Law" of the New
Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows:
3.433 Signs Required By Law. Legal notices, address numerals
and other signs required to be maintained by law or
governmental order, rule or regulations, provided that
the content and size of the sign do'~not exceed the
requirements of such law, order, rule or regulation.
Section 5. Section 3.434 "Public Convenience Signs" of the
New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows:
3.434 Public Convenience Signs. Small signs, not exceeding
two square feet in area, displayed o__n private property
for the convenience of the public, including
directional or identification signs for restrooms,
freights entrances, garage and rummage sales and the
like. Garage and rummage sale signs shall show, clearly
imprinted, the name and address o__f the person erecting
the sign~ or responsible for the same. Said signs
shall not be erected more than five days before or
maintained more than one da~ after the sale to which
the sign relates.
Section 6. Section 3.435 "Political Siqns" of the New Hope
City Code is hereby added to read as follows:
3.435 Political Signs. Small signs, not exceeding eight
square feet in area, displayed on private property,
containing matter which Ks intended or tends to
influence directly or indirectly any voting at any
primary, general, municipal, special or school
election, including pictures or announcements relative
to candidates or campaign advertising. Said signs are
permitted i__qn addition to other signs in any zoning
district provided that no person shall permit or allow
any such sign to be located or maintained on his
~ more than thirty-one days before or five days
after the election to which the sign relates.
SectiOn 7. Section 3.436 "Government Signs" of the New Hope
City Code is hereby added to read as follows:
3.436 Government Signs. Signs of a duly constituted
governmental body including traffic o__r similar
regulatory signs, legal notices and warnings at
railroad crossings.
Section 8. Section 3.116 "Signs"of the New Hope City Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.116 Signs. ~x~ept ~or routine ma~ntenanee7 no ~ sign may
not be painted, constructed, erected, remodeled,
relocated, ~r expanded o__r painted except in cases of
routine maintenance without u~t~ a sign permit.
~ta~ae~ and ~t~ ~ permit shall not be issued unless
the sign and all other signs on the premises of the
applicant are ~r~ht ~%~ ~n~man~e in compliance
with th~s sec~on~ No s~gn permit sha~ ~e ~s~ed
any s~gn un~e~s the s~gn ~s perm~tte~ By a~d eomp~es
w~th the regulations of the New Hope Sign Code, Section
3.40, et al. Drov~ded? however7 that s~gnso~ a
s~m~ar regulatory devices? ~ega~ no%~ces? am~ warnings
requirement and from the regu~at~ons of th&s
Section 9. Section 3.116 (1)(a) through (e) "Exceptions",
"Flags", "Memorial Signs", "Signs Required By Law",
"Public Convenience Signs" and "Political Signs" are hereby
repealed in their entirety.
Section 10. Section 3.116(2) "Exemptions FrOm Permit Fee"
and 3.116(3) "Exemption From Permit" are hereby renumbered
3.116(1) and 3.116(2) respectively.
Section 11. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be
effective upon its passage and publication.
Dated: April __, 1987.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the day of
, 1987.)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Codes and Standards Committee
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance 87-6
Agenda Item 12
DATE: July 7, 1987
Attached is a proposed ordinance for reduction of parking stall
and bay dimensions. The requirements cited in this ordinance
were discussed at the June 19, 1987 Codes and Standards Committee
meeting.
The Committee has identified an alternative for the Section 2 of
the proposed ordinance which is attached and will be discussed at
the Planning Commission meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. 87-6
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.036
OF THE NEW HOPE CODE BY DOWNSIZING
PARKING STALL AND BAY REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains~
Section 1. Section 4.036(4)(h)(i) "Parking Space Size"
of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(i) Parking Space Size. Each parking space shall be not
less than n~ne eight feet nine inches (8'9")
wide and %we~y nineteen (19') feet in length
exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be
served adequately by access aisles.
Section 2. Section 4.036(4)(h)(v) "Parking Stall Standards"
of the. New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(v) Parking Stall Standards. Except in the case of single
family, two family and townhouse dwellings, parking
areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance
with the following standards:
Wall to Wall to Interlock to
Angle/By Wall Interlock Interlock
Degree Minimum Minimum Minimum
30 48=6x 45.0' 44~5x 43.5' 40~x 40.0'
45 56=8x 51.0' 5~4x 48.4' 58~0x 46.2'
60 6~8~ 56.8' 59=~~ 55.3' 5~4· 52.8'
90* 64=8· 62.0' 64=8· 62.0' 64=8~ 62.0'
Parallel parking: 22 feet in length
· The 90 degree parking bay dimensions may be reduced to
60.0' upon submission and prior City Council approval of a
comprehensive snow removal site plan. The snow removal
site plan shall be contractual in nature, signed by the
~pperty owner and filed with the City Clerk. The reduction
shall not be allowed until the conditions of this section
are met.
Section 3. Section 4.036(4)(i) "Reduction of Parking__S~9~
Size" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows:
(i) Reduction of Parking Stall Size. All development in
New Hope shall conform to these adopted standards of
stall~ aisle~, and driveway desiqn based on land use and
floor area.
In recognition that these standards may at times not
always allow for sufficient number of parking stalls
to accommodate unknown or unusual parking demands of
~_particular developm~nt,_.~ variaDce may_be_~ranted
for smaller parking stall and parkinq_ba~ dimensions.
A variance shall be granted only where the sate
and/or land use has a unique parking demand. In
demonstrating a unique parking demand the following
criteria will be considered~
(1) A variance will not be granted to meet
New Hope's minimum parking standards.
(2) Demonstration that the property use
will actually generate a parking demand
for a greater number of parking stalls
than required by this Code.
(3) Demonstration that the reduced parking
stall dimensions can safely and conveniently
accommodate the parking demand and circulation
needs of the use and the on site motorist.
(4) In no case shall a variance be .~ranted for
a parking stall width of less than 8 1/2 feet.
(5) Compliance with section 4.22 of this Code.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be
effective upon its passage and publication.
Dated: , 1987.
Mayor~
Attest:
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the day of
, 1987.)
SUGGESTED TABLE OF MINIMUM DIMENSIONS
Parking Angle
Degree 90 75 60 45
Stall Width 8.7' 8.7' 8.7' 8.7'
Stall Width-
Parallel to
Isle 8.7' 9.0' 10.0' 12.3'
Stall Length 19.0' 18.0' 19.0' 18.0' 19.0' 18.0' 19.0' 18.0'
Parking Space
Length
(Isle to
Barrier) 19.0' 18.0 20.2' 19.2' 20.2' 19.1' 18.4' 17.7'
Parking Space
Length
(Isle to
Interlock) 19.0' 18.0' 19.4' 18.4' 19.4' 18.5' 17.2' 16.5'
Isle Width-
One Way 24.0' 20.9' 18.5' 13.0'
Isle Width-
Two Way 24.0' 23.0' 22.0' 22.0'
End Isle Width 24.0' ~ 16.0' 17.0' 18.0'
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 1987
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Planning Case 87-17 - Request for Rear Yard Setback Variance
9120 61st Circle North
James and Barbara Crandall,
Petitioners
4. Planning Case 87-18 - Request for a Frontyard Setback Variance
4948 Wisconsin Avenue North
William J. and Alta Asplund,
Petitioners
5. Planning Case 87-23 - Request for Construction Approval 9100 49th Avenue North
Englund Graphics/Edward A. Englund,
Petitioner
6. Planning Case 87-24 - Request for Variance to Allow a
Five Foot Fence in Front Yard
3581 Independence Avenue North
Joan H. Johnson, Petitioner
7. Planning Case 87-25 - Request for Concept and Development Stage
Planned Unit Development; Request for
Conditional Use Permit to Allow a
Cconvenience Food Store with a Drive-
through Window; and a Variance in
Stacking Lane Required
4201 Winnetka Avenue North
McDonald's Corporation, Petitioner
COMMITTEE REPORTS
8. Report of Design and Review Committee
9. Report of Codes and Standards Committee
Planning Commission Agenda
August 4, 1987
--2--
OLD BUSINESS
10. Proposed Ordinance 87-6
An Ordinance Amending Section 4.036 of the New Hope Code By
Downsizing Parking Stall and Bay Requirements.
11. Proposed Ordinance 87-7
An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code relating to
Temporary Signs, Neon Signs, Residential "For Sale" Signs,
and Comprehensive Sign Plan
NEW BUSINESS
12. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 7, 1987.
13. Review of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of
June 22, 1987.
14. Review of City Council Minutes of June 22, 1987.
15. ANNOUNCEMENTS
16. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-18
Request: Request for a Front Yard Setback Variance
Location: 4948 Wisconsin Avenue North
Zoning: R-1
Petitioner: William and Alta Asplund
Date: August 4, 1987
The petitioner has spoken with staff regarding the application. He
indicated that he may be able to reduce the variance by two feet.
Staff has not received revised plans.
Attachments: Planning Report (7 July 1987)
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-18
Request: Request for a Front Yard Setback Variance
Location: 4948 Wisconsin Avenue North
Zoning: R-1
Petitioner: William and Alta Asplund
Date: July 7, 1987
BACKGROUND
The petitioners are requesting a variance to allow a seven foot
encroachment into the required 30 foot front yard setback. Section
4.034(3) of the New Hope Code specifies the setback requirements.
The petitioneers propose to construct an 8 x 14 foot all season porch
at the front of the home.
ANALYSIS
1. The petitioners told staff that they would like to construct this
porch in order to make entrance to the house more safe. The
petitioners indicated that the steps become very icy in the winter
time.
2. Staff and the petitioner have not identified a non-economic
hardship pursuant to the variance criteria listed in Section 4.22
of the New Hope Code.
3. Staff believes that the petitioner has not exhausted all of the
options for construction of this porch which would not require a
variance.
4. The property located to the north of the subject property would be
effectively screened from this addition. However, such screeing
is not available on the south side; nor is this screening
permanent in nature.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of request for a front yard setback variance
at 4948 Wisconsin Avenue North as proposed in Planning Case 87-18.
Attachments: Plans'
Certified Lot S°urvey (dated 8-29-63)
G418-SG?" A~E~UE ~.
,.... BUILDING INSPECTOR
.'VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE:
/
'LOT 18, BLOCK o ~0RK-CA:PION ~ANOR
WE ~E~Y ~RTIF~ ~AT THiS I$ A ~E ~O C~ ~P~SENTNTiO~ 0F ~ ~YE~ OF THE ~O~iES ~ THE
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-23
Request: Construction Approval
Location: 9100 49th Avenue North
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: Englund Graphics/Edward A. Englund
Date: August 4, 1987
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting approval to allow construction of a two-
story 3,166 square foot addition. The original building was
constructed in 1985 and is 10,000 square feet of office/production
area.
ANALYSIS
1. Site Data with addition:
Area of site - 96,900 (2.2 acres)
Building area - 13,166 square feet - 14% of lot area
Green space - 49,734 square feet - 51% of lot area
Parking area - 34,000 square feet - 35% of lot area
2. The building is broken down into the following areas:
Office - 4,000 square feet
Manufacturing - 6,000 square feet
Warehouse - 3,166 square feet
13,166 suqare feet
3. Total parking required is 37 spaces. The petitioner is
proposing 66 spaces.
4. The City Engineer has reviewed the drainage plan and has
recommended approval. Staff has discussed the plans with the
Department of Natural Resources and has received verbal
approval. The plans have been sent to Shingle Creek
Watershed and are in the review process.
5. Pursuant to recommendation made by Design and Review
Committee, one additional fire hydrant has been added on the
north corner of the lot.
Planning Case 87-23
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for construction approval in
Planning Case 87-23.
Attachments: Site Plan
Floor Plan
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-24
Request: Variance to allow a 5 foot fence in front yard
Location: 3581 Independence Avenue North
Zoning: R-2
Petitioner: Joan H. Johnson
Date: August 4, 1987
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow a five foot
cyclone fence in the front yard. Pursuant to Section
4.033(3) (a) (v), the maximum height of such fence is three feet.
The petitioner proposes to place this five foot fence along the
north side of the property, adjacent to the driveway.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner is requesting this variance so that she can place
a fence which will prevent pedestrians from crossing over her
property to 36th Avenue.
The petitioner proposes to tie her fence into the fence for the
adjacent property.
Pursuant to code, the petitioner can place a three foot fence in
the front yard.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the petitioner be granted a variance to
extend the fence along the north property line. Staff recommends
that the request for a five foot fence along the property's south
side be denied.
Attachments: Certificate of Survey (19 September 1980)
Petitioner's Application (14 July 1987)
- CERTSFiCATE OF SURVEY
.... ~o~: La,v,/ ~ c.l'/ Co r~
~l Descrlpt~: Zo/~ ~1~, Bloc~ ~, He~ Hope Hl~hl~Hd~ Z~A ~
EXISTINC3 5' FENCING
I PROPOSED 5' FENCIN~
t /~ ,
I~ , .....
I hereby certify th.~t this is a true 'and correct representation of a survey of
MERILA-HANI~;EN, INI~. the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings,
Engineers, Surve¥or~, Sire ?lanner~ if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land.
As surveyed by me this ./q ~ day of
,601-6,mAv~.No. t390, S~ring Lake Rd. /"~. ~ ~,~ Minn. Reg. No. (>~',~'
Brooklyn C~nte¢, kin 55430 M,nnetonka. MN 55343
$12/5~-2660 612/g38-5~ 78
Job NO. ,,~5'O'/,:5'0 BOok - Page Scale / w'-.~'O"
I BASIC FEE DEPOSal
DATE ~ILED City of New Hope
n 4403 Xylon Avenue Nort~ ~
,y~ ~ ]C New ,op~, MN 5542~
~a[~ IPT NO. ~
Street Location of Property: 35~ IMD~Pf~;~)~;C~ ~VF no. ~£~
~ga] Description of Property: A~F ~6 ~ ~A~ ;, ~ ~;~ ~6~~
O~ER OF) Name: ~ ~. · ~ ~. ~~ Phone:
RECORD ) PLEASE PRI~H
Address: ~1 I~~~~ ~- ~ ~, ~-
APPLICA};T (If Other Than Owner)/ Name: ~L ~$ Phone:
J Address: ~W~ o~ ~FESF~ ~A~. ~
Nature of Legal or Equitable Interest of Applicant: ~1~ ~.~F~
<33 (il;) (ir)
Description of Request: ~ I~ [4 ~O ~~ ~o~O~C ~ ~~ ~F T~ ~[ ~o~1~
Applicane acknowledges tha~ s/he understands tha~ be~o:e ~h~s :eques~ can be consi~e:e~
approved, all fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposts ~ust be paid to the
city and that, if additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by.the city, the city
manager has a rioht re require additional payment.
~ee -own~
~e Ow~- ~-- Contract ~or Deed Owner
Other Owner in Chain of Title Purchaser by Purchase Agreement
Other Owner in Chain of Title Applicant Other Than Owner
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Evidence of Ownership Submitted: Yes
Certified Lot Survey: Yes__ No / Required
Legal Description Adequate: Yes '/ No
Legal Ad Required: Yes '/' No
Date of Design and Review Meeting:
Date of Planning Commission 'Meeting: ~" ~
Approved:__ Denied: By Planning Commission on:
Approved:__ Denied: By Council on:
Subject to the following conditions:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-25
Request: Request for Concept and Development Stage approval
for a commercial planned unit development;
Conditional Use Permit to allow a convenience food
store with a drive-through window; and variance in
stacking lane required.
Location: 4201 Winnetka Avenue North
Zoning: B-4
Petitioner: McDonald's Corporation
Date: August 4, 1987
Staff Comments:
1. The pertinent sections of the New Hope Code of Ordinances are as
follows:
-Planned Unit Development (4.194)
-Conditional Use Permit to allow
a convenience food store (4.124(3))
-Variance in stacking lane required (4.124(3) (j))
2. The City's planning consultant has prepared a report which is
attached.
3. McDonald's will be presenting traffic information to the Planning
Commission at the public hearing.
4. The McDonald's Corporation has increased the building size from
3500 square feet to 4350 square feet. In discussions with
representative from McDonald's, staff has learned that McDonald's
corporate policy is such that buildings are constructed to meet
the market demand. Note that in page four of the Planner's
Report, the proposed restaurant is larger than ten other
restaurants in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. McDonald's
should supply information to support the need for a larger
building.
5. The average size of McDonald's restaurants, per the information on
page four of the Planner's Report, is 3404 square feet. The
average number of parking spaces is 55. Therefore, a ratio of one
stall for every 62 square feet of building can be established as
McDonald's norm per the data of sample buildings made available to
City Staff. Given this ratio, for 4350 square feet proposed,
Planning Case 87-25
--2--
McDonald's should provide 70 parking spaces. The plan shows 40
stalls on site and an additional 29 stalls shared through the PUD
agreement with the Mall.
6. Additional parking spaces may be created by downsizing the stall
and bay requirements.
7. The proposed building may or may not require a variance in
stacking lane, depending on the easement agreement with the New
Hope Mall. If no easement agreement is met, McDonald's will be
five feet short of the required 180 feet stacking lane. For
information, City staff has gathered information on the drive-
through windows in the City.
Restaurant Location Stackinq Lane
Burger King 7900 Medicine Lake Road 210'
Burger King 7009 Bass Lake Road 260"
Hardee's 4210 Winnetka Avenue 120'
Attachments: Planner's Report (30 July 1987)
northwest associated consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Jeannine DUnn
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: July 30, 1987
RE: New Hope - McDonald Site
FILE NO: 131.01
BACKGROUND
The McDonald's Corporation has purchased the Sinclair Station site at the corner
of 42nd Avenue and Winnetka Avenue for the purpose of constructing a convenience
food restaurant.
The McDonald's development follows a long line of planning and redevelopment
efforts targetted for the City Center and 42nd Avenue area. The Sinclair site
had been identified as a potential redevelopment site in both the 42nd Avenue
Improvement Study and the 42nd Avenue Redevelopment District Plan. The Sinclair
site has physical limitations with regard to site size, access and location that
restricts future development of the site if it were to stand as an independent
site. In recognizing the development limitations of the Sinclair site, the City
required that a conceptual site layout for the Sinclair site be included in the
overall New Hope Mall PUD design. This conceptual"design includes provisions for
shared site access and parking between the Sinclair site and the New Hope Mall
site.
The concept plan for the site is shown in Exhibit B. This concept plan illustrates
a si-te layout for a convenience restaurant with approximately 3,500 square feet of
floor area. The proposed use site planned from recommendations of the 42nd Avenue/
City Center Market Study and the building size reflected a building plan provided
by the McDonald's Corporation. The conceptual site plan attempted to respond to
City standard performance standards.
4-601 excelsior blvd., ste. 41 O, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420
.~ ~ beann~ne Dunn
, July 30, 1987
Page Two
The McDonald Conporation has now requested a conditional use permit for a
convenience food operation and PUD to permit the construction of the restaurant
facility. With these applications they also have submitted site and building
plans (See Exhibit C through G ) fQr City review and evaluation. This report
analyzes the proposed plan against ordinance standards.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Land Use:
The project site is zoned B-4, General Business District. Within this district a
fast food restaurant is allowed by conditional use permi.t, provided it can comply
with the performance standards outlined in Section 4.].24(3) of~the City code.
The proposed restaurant use is consistent with the land use and market recommendation
of %he198542nd Avenue/City Center Market Study. This study suggested that local
market would be favorable to a fast food convenience restaurant. The study detailed
this market recommendation by stating that such a facility would be better served
in conjunction with the City Center shopping centers where site access and parking
could be shared.
Lot Size:
Within a B-~4 zoning district all lots must be one acre in area. The project site
is approximately 29,250 square feet, as such the site would be substandard as an
independent lot. In. recognizing this development limitation, the City requires
that the site be included in the New Hope Mall PUD planning, with the provisions
of easements for shared access and parking for the smaller site.
With the area provided by the parking 'and access easements, the site has a usable
area of approximately 58,350 square feet. Through the PUD process, the project.
site is provided with a usable area that meets the code.
It is important to stress that the easements are only provided for parking and
access and the building must be integrated into the project site itself in
a manner that is both functional for the site and in compliance with City
standards.
Building Size:
The applicant is proposing a building that is 56' wide by 72' long with a 320
square foot freezer attached on the north side of the building. This 4,350
square foot proposed building.is larger than the 3,500 square foot building
shown in the original concept plan. The McDonald's Corporation bases the size of
the building on the available market support, not necessarily the building site.
The larger building occupies a larger portion of the site and will generate a greater
traffic and parking demand. Our concern over the larger building stems from
the site's ability to physically accommodate the building and required accessory
uses in a functional design and in compliance with City performance standards.
Jeannine Dunn
July 30, 1987
Page Three
Setbacks:
Review of the applicant.'s site plan indicates that the proposed building complies
with all ~he required setbacks in the B-4 district.
Required Proposed
Front Yard Abutting 42nd Avenue 50' 57'
Side Yard Abutting Winnetka 35' 89'
Side Yard (West) 10' 10'
Rear Yard (North) 35' 40'
ArchiLectural Compatibility:
The City of New Hope is attempting to establish an attracti.ve and cohesive image
for the New Hope City Center business d~$trict. In this regard, the New Hope Mall
renovation establishes the architectural standard for this portion of the City
Center. The McDonald's facade and color, scheme should be coordinated to be
compatible with or complement the New Hope Mall building materials and color
scheme.
The building elevation of McDonald's displays the'typical building facade of all
McDonald's restaurants. While the general design of the building elevation
contrasts the Mall appearance, the facade will have a brick exterior and color
schemes can be coordinated with the existing Mall facility. The applicant should
describe the architectural treatment proposed for the building exterior to demon-
strate how architectural compatibility for the City Center will be maintained.
Parking and Access:
The New Hope zoning ordinance requires drive-in convenience food establishments to
provide one off-street parking stall for each fifteen square feet of gross service
-and seating floor area excluding the kitchen. Two additional spaces shall be
required for a drive-in service window. Based on this zoning standard, the pro-
posed facility is required to.provide 118 parking stalls. The site plan indicates
that the applicant's site will contain 40 parking spaces and the parking and access
easement will. provide an additional 29 stalls for a total of 69 parking stalls.
This is a shortfall of.49 parking spaces.
City staff has investigated the parking requirements for McDonald's restaurants
and found that New Hope parking standards for this type of facility is more
restrictive than other communities, as illustrated in the table below.
Jeannine Dunn
July 30, 1987
Page Four
McDonald's Location Sq. Footage of Bldg. Parking Spaces
1) Crystal 3,790 73
2) Brooklyn Center 4,320 63
3) Golden Valley 3,185~ 54
4) New Brighton 3,456 43
5) Fridley 1,820 43
6) Little Canada 3,268 42
7) Robbinsdale .3,220 56
8) 2400 Nicollet Ave. Mpls. 4,200 34
9) 1100 University Ave. Mpls. 3,016 45
10) 210 Lake St. Mpls. 3,740 40
In comparison with the other McDonald restaurant facilities, it would appear that
the 69 parking spaces provided to serve the purposes of the New Hope facility
would be adequate. We would note, however, that 29 spaces are being provided in
a shared arrangement with the Mall which is currently indicating a potential
parking shortage.duning peak hours. On behalf of McDonald's it 'should be indicated
that the restaurant peak period is during the noon rush while the U.S. Swim and
Fitness peak business hours are in the evenings, suggesting a compatible relation-
ship.
In view of the potential parking problem for the overall area the City could
require a small building size in order to reduce the parking demand and to provide
additional parking'on-site as shown in the original concept plan for the site.
See ExhibitlB.
-Review of the parking lot design reveals that the parking stalls comply with the
City's current 9' by 20' dimensional standards. The aisle width for the parking
area on the south side of the building is 22' This is nonconforming under the
current ordinance', howevers if the City 6dopt~ the proposed parking amendment
this parking area will meet the new standards.
The site plan shows that the parking lot will have a bituminous surface with
concrete perimeter curbing at the periphery of the parking lot. The parking
-lot will be striped and lighted. These construction elements comply with City
performance standards.
Jeannine Dunn
July 30, 1987
Page Five
Vehicle Access:
One of the requirements for the convenience food facility CUP is that vehicular
access points shall be limited to create a minimum of conflict with through traffi~c
movement.
The proposed development will eliminate the current nonconforming curb cuts onto
42nd Avenue and Winnetka Avenue that were used by Sinclair. All site access will
be via the New Hope mall site. The proposed site curb cuts align w~th the
internal drive aisles Of the New Hope Mall. The McDonald's curb cuts are shown
to have a width of 25', these should be reduced to 24' to be consistent with the
New Hope Mall drive aisle and City code. The northern curb cut presents a potential
traffic concern area as traffic entering the Mall site from Winnetka would have
to turn left to access McDonald's. A potential traffic problem with this location
arises if cars leaving the.~M6~l-site~at th.is location or cars entering the drive-in
service lane block the northern McDonald's curb cut. This may result in cars
waiting to enter McDonald's stacking back onto Winnetka Avenue. Based on the
site design, we feel that while the potential for this traffic congestion does
exist, site design provides features that reduce the potential for these cir-
cumstances as follows:
1. If cars exiting the Mall site block the McDonald's entrance, motorists
entering the site can drive to the southern curb cut to access McDonald's or
chose to park in the teir of parking stalls abutting the McDonald's site
on the' north.
2. The applicant has shifted the building to the west in order to provide a
180' drive-in service lane. This 180' lane can accommodate up to nine cars
without interfering with other site traffic. This amount of stacking should
accommodate most of the drive-in traffic. In the event of the motorists still
stacking up for drive-in service when the drive-in is at full capacity, the
site and the Mall driveway offer stacking space for three additional automobiles
before encroaching into Winnetka. Generally, if the drive-in.lane is at full
capacity, (nine cars) it will discourage motorists from joining the drive-in
waiting line.
3. Left turn from the curb cut onto Winnetka are already difficult due to the
traffic volumes at the Winnetka/42nd Avenue intersection. This difficult turn
maneuver discourages motorists from using the curb cut in this fashion, thus
reducing the number of traffic movement at this point. To further discourage
these traffic movements, the City may consider the extension of the concrete
island in Winnetka~Avenue to prevent left turns into and out of the site at the
curb cut next to McDonald's. This street improvement will serve to eliminate
some of the more difficult traffic movements from this curb cut. In consi-
deration of this strget imporvement, the City must evaluate the impact that
such an improvement will have on ex'isting businesses on the east side of
Winnetka Avenue.
Jeannine Dunn
July 30, 1987
Page Six
We would recommend that directional signage be provided to direct traffic to
further reduce the traffic congestion at this intersection.
Drive'Through Window:
The applicant's site plan proposes a drive-through service window on the west
side of the building. The drive-through service lane that access the window
winds around the north and west side of the building. The drive-through lane
extends partially over.the north and west property lines. This design is
consistent with the approved New Hope Mall PUD plan that illustrates this
design. The~e is some question as to whether the access and parking easement
includes this type 'of access lane. This issue must be resolved between the
property owners.
The design of the drive-through lane complies with City standards in that 1) the
drive-through lane is 180 feet in length providing stacking of nine automobiles,
2) the drive-through lane has a width of 18 feet to accommodate two lanes of
traffic to escape the drive-through lane, 3).the drive-through lane is designed
with curbing and sidewalk separation-between the lane and building to prevent
traffic damage to the building, and 4) the Order Board is located on the north
side of, the buildi~ng thus providing some visual and audio screening from the
Winnetka and 42nd Avenue.intersection.
There is one design feature that should be further addressed, however, that is the
provisioD...?or pedestrian traffic froTM th~ New Hope Mall site to the McDonald's
facility. The current site layout provides for no Pedestrian access points between
the Mal.1 parking lot and the McDonald's facility.. Pedestrian traffic is also
£orced to cross the drive-through service lane to access the restaurant. Provi-
sion should be made for pedestrian connections into.the McDonald's site and
designated pedestrian crossing over the drive-through service lane.
Loading Area:
The New Hope Ordinance requires that all convenience food restaurants provide
adequate space for a loading area that can accommodate a semi trailer and tractor.
The applicant's site plan shows a 12' by 70' loading area on the east side of the
building occupying five parking stalls and the entrance to the drive-through lane.
This arrangement is contrary to Section 4.037(4) of the New Hope codes that pro-
hibits the use of required off-street parking stalls for a loading area, The
PUD provides some flexibility from the ordinance standard if a functional and
feasible alternative exists for accommodating the loading. In the past the City
has permitted a loading area exception where the property Owner could restrict
deliveries to the site at times that would not conflict with business hours. The
McDonald's corporation has expressed a ~illingness to establish this arrangement.
Jeannine Dunn
30' July 1987
Page SeYen
We have some reservations regarding this particular situation in that the lack
of a segregated loading area along with the parking situation highlights the
over utilization of the site. Also with the introduction of breakfasts to the
McDonald's restaurants, their business hours fill the entire day, as such this
will only permit night-time deliveries.
Trash Enclosures:
The site plan shows that the fa~ility'~s trash, enclosure is to be located on the
north side of. the building. The north building elevation, indicates that the
trash enclosure will be constructed of brick with a wooden gate.
Access to this trash enclosure must be via the drive-through service lane. This
will prohibit trash collection during business hours. The applicant must
demonstrate that trash collection times can be arranged so as to not interfere
with business hours.
Landscaping.
The applicant's landscape plan conforms to City standards in regard to plant
variety and plant sizes.
All plants must be located at least three feet from the property lines along
42nd Avenue and Winnetka. Any landscaping on New Hope Mall property shall be
subject to the approval of the owner of the New Hope Mall.
RECOMMENDATION
The McDonald's site represents a difficult development site due to size, and access
-limitations. In recognizing these development limitations the City.took Steps
during the evaluation of the New Hope Mall PUD, that would provide for the
development of the'site in conjunction with the overall Mall site. During this
planning process, .it was realized that the flexibility of the PUD would be neces-
sary to allow this site to develop and the building would have to be integrated
into the site to insure the greatest.degree of code compliance.
Review of the applicant's site plan reveals that a larger building is being proposed
than was originally shown on the PUD concept. The introduction of a larger building
intensifies the use of the site and reduces the site area necessary to provide for
required, parking and loading facilities. The acceptability of the site depends on
the degree of design flexibility the City feels is appropriate for the site.
We would suggest a smaller building would be more physically appropriate for the
site. However, the acceptability 'of the proposed site plan rests with the City.
Jeannine Dunn
'July 30; 1987
Page Eight
In the event.the City approves the site plan as proposed, we would offer the
following recommendations.
1. The architectural treatment of the building should be compatible with the
Mall.
2. Signage should be provided to direct on site traffic around~the northern
curb cut.
3. Applicant address pedestrian access between the Mall and the restaurant.
4. Applicant agree that on site deliveries will notoccur during business hours.
5. Applicant must demonstrate that trash collection will not interfere with
business hours.
CC: Dan Donohue
Doug Sandstad
EXHIBIT A
SITE LOCATION MAP
new hope, minn.
]associated
]consu -~ts, ~nc
.. APPROVE SITE CONCEPT
" June 9, 1985
¢ )
.~r~N~AV V~I ~NNIA~
EXHIBIT C
--'"'~'-~ SITE PLAN LAYOUT
m
EXHIBIT D
FLOOR PLAN
,
EXHIBIT E
BUILDING ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATION
DO,C~J5
&. RUGCIFJ~I
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
.
42ND STREET E ) ~ ~~ ~-. ~-
FINAL LANDSCXPE PLAN - .'~t.~ : ~j~ ';~: ":~'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: M. Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance 87-6
Parking Stall/Size Reduction
DATE: July 31, 1987
Attached is the referenced ordinance. The Codes and Standards
Committee met on July 24, 1987 to discuss the proposed ordinance.
I have also enclosed a diagram provided by Northwest Associated
Consultants to assist in clarifying the dimensions.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance 87-6
ORDINANCE NO. 87-6
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.036
OF THE NEW HOPE CODE BY DOWNSIZING
PARKING STALL AND BAY REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4.036(4)(h)(i) "Parking Space Size"
of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(i) Parkinq Space Size. Each parking space shall be not
less than n~ne eight feet nine inches (8'9")
wide and kwent~ nineteen (19') feet in length
exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be
served adequately by access aisles.
Section 2. Section 4.036(4)(h)(v) "Parking Stall Standards"
of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(v) Parkinq Stall Standards. Except in the case of single
family, two family and townhouse dwellings, parking
areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance
with the following standards:
W~ to W~ ~ ~n~e~ ko
~eg~ee M~n~m~m M~n~mum M~n~m~m
~8 48~6~ 44=5~ 48=~
45 56=8~ 5~4~ 58=8~
60 6R=O~ 59=~x 57~4~
98* 64=8z 64=8£ 64=8~
Ya~a~e~ pa~ng~ ~R feet ~n ~ength
Curb Stall Depth Stall Depth Aisle Width
AnGle of Stall Length Stall Wall to Interlock One Two
Parking Width Per Car Length Aisle to Aisle Way Way
*The parking ~ot dimensions may b__e reduced upon submission and prior City
Counc~ approval of a comprehensive snow removal site plan. The snow removal
site olan shall be contractual in nature, signed b~ the propertl own~ and filed
with the City ~lerk. The reduction shall not be allowed until the conditions of
this section are met.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be
effective upon its passage and publication.
Dated: , 1987.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the day of
, 1987.)
PARKING LOT DIMENSIONS TABLE
Curb Stall Depth Stall Depth Aisle Width
Angle of Stall Length Stall Wall to Interlock to One Two
Parking Width Per Car Length Aisle Aisle Way Way
90o 8' 9" 8' 9" 19'0" 19 '0" 19 '0" 24' 0" 24' O"
*8' 9" 8' 9" 18' 0" 18' 0" 18' 0" 2q' 0" 24' 0"
750 8'9" 9'0" 19'0" 20'3" 19'5" 20'11" 23'0"
*8'9" 9'0" 18'0" 19'3" t8'5" 20'11" 23'0"
600 8'9" 10'0" 19'0" 20'3" 19'5" 18'6" 22'0"
*8'9" 10'0" 18'0" 19'2" 18'6" 18'6" 22'0"
45o 8'9" 12'3" 19'0" 18'5" 17'3" t3'0" 22'0"
*8'9" 12'3" 18'0" 17'9" 16'6" 13'0" 22'0"
0° 8'0" 22'0" 22'0" 8'0" 8'0" 12'0" 24'0"
*The parking lot dimensions may be reduced upon submis'sion and prior City Council approval of
a comprehensive snow removal site plan. The snow removal site plan shall be contractual in
nature, signed by the property owner and filed with the City Clerk. The reduction shall not
be allowed until the conditions of this section are met.
a Stall width ~
¢ Stall length ~J
e Stall depth ~j xx / x,. ' ,
interlock to aide ?.~>~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: M. Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Sign Code Amendments
DATE: July 31, 1987
Attached is the proposed ordinance revising the existing sign
code. Please be advised that the City Attorney has some concerns
regarding some specific language of this proposed ordinance. The
City Attorney has addressed those concerns in the attached letter
to the Administrative Assistant.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance 87-7
City Attorney's Correspondence (31 July 1987)
ORDINANCE NO. 87-~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE
SIGN CODE RELATING TO TEMPORARY SIGNS,
NEON SIGNS, RESIDENTIAL "FOR SALE" SIGNS AND
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLANS
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 3.441 "Banners, Pennants, Streamers,
Strings of Light, Searchlights" of the New Hope City Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
3.441 Banners, Pennants, Streamers, Strinqs of Light,
Searchlights. No Portable signs, banners, pennants,
streamers,'strings of light, searchlights or any other
s~m~a~ temporar~ sign shall be permitted
permissable only for commercial or industrial special
o__~r promotional events of a limited duration ~ permit
acquired from the Citz pursuant to the following
conditions: e~cept as p~ov~ded ~n S~Bseet~on ~4~7
p~ov~ded7 however7 that ~Don a change o~ ownership o~
management? comme~e~a½ establishments sha½~ Be
consecutive days ~o~ a ag=and open'riga? as such %e~m ~s
dams o~ the change o~ ownership o~ management or
(1.) Special or Promotional Events - Special or
promotional events shall mean events such as grand
openings, management or ownership changes, or
periodic sales or similar events.
(2.) Permit A~plication - Permits for any ~emporary
~ign pursuant to this section shall be issued only
to owners or tenants of commercial or industrial
p_~p_~y_~ ~plications must be submitted to the
City Building Official on a form approved by the
Ci~ a minimum of 14 days prior to the special or
promotional event when the signs will be used.
(3.) Permit Duration - All permits issued hereunder
shall be for a m~ximum period of fourteen days and
shall expire automaticallZ after said period.
~pon the permit ~iration, the applicant shall
cease to display ~ and all signs permitted ~
the permit unless the applicant has obtained a
new permit for said signage.
(4.) Limitation on Permits - No more'than three permits
yearly shall be issued to ~an¥ one property o__~r
location. If two permits.are obtained in
succession b_~ an_~ applicant per subsection ~
above, both permits shall be counted for the
purpose o_~f determininq the yearly limitations of
this subsection.
(5.) Sign Location - All special or promotional signs
must be located on the premises where the event i__~s
occurring? Sign~[~ ~all not exceed an ~mount
equivalent to the permitted signage area allowed
the applicant's business in the respective zoning
district.
(6.) Grand Openings - Nothwithstanding the duration
provisions of subsection 2 above, g~and ~
signage may be for a maximum period of thirty
days.
(7.) Exception - Temporary signs permitted by section
3.463(2) of this Code shall be exempt from the
requirements of this section.
(8.) Non Compliance - An~ violation of any of the
conditions of this section will result in a
forfeiture for additional sign permits for the
property under this section for a period of 12
months from the date of the violation. The
permit forfeiture shall be in addition to any
other penalties for code violations allowed by
this Code.
Section 2. Section 3.444 "Window signs" of the New Hope
City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.444 Window Signs.
(1) Maximum Window Area. In no event shall the size
of the interior windown signage exceed the lesser
of twenty percent ap ~ a ma~½m~m ~ ~e h~n~e~
~we~%~-~ve ~a~e ~ee~, of the entire window area
of the one side of the building upon which said
signs shall be displayed or one hundred twenty-
five square feet.
(2) Neon Signs. An interior window sign may be
~gseous tube ~llumination (neon) provided it
complies with the following conditions:
~ Use. The sig_q is restricted to business
identification only, 'as defined in Section
3.422 (11). This may include the business
· name or log9 exclusive to the property.
b. Flashing Signs. Flashing §igns are
prohibited.
Total Area. The encompassed area of the neon
sign shall not exceed t_~h~ maximum window sign
area as defined in paragraph 1. above.
~+(3) P~h~b~edLS~s. Other Illuminated Signs.
Interior window signs other than neon sign~,
n~ be of the ~ase~s ~be ~pe n~ sha~ ~he~
that are illuminated by interior lighting directed
toward the window shall be prohibited.
+~+(4) Temporary Advertising Signs. Advertising
signs that are clearly intended for temporary
display only, may be affixed to a window provided
that the sign area conforms with the formula
allowance outlined in this subsection. The
allowable sign area for a window advertising sign
is in addition to the total permitted wall sign
area as regulated in Section 3.465 (1). Window
signs other than for advertising, such as business
identification, or any sign which is permanently
affixed to a window, shall constitute a dual
purpose sign and thus be regulated under both the
above and the provisions of Section 3.465 (1).
Section 3. Section 3.461 (2) "7 or More Residential
Dwellinq Units" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(2) 7 or More Residential Dwelling Units. Where more
than six dwelling units (or lots for residential
development purposes) are offered for sale or
rental by the same party, signs advertising such
sale or rental may be constructed therefor in any
district. There shall be permitted one sign
facing each public street providing access to the
property being offered. Each suGh sign shall not
exceed f~t~ seventy-five square feet in area;
shall be located at least one hundred thirty feet
from any pre-existing home; and shall be removed
within one year from the date of building permit
issuance, or when less than six units remain for
sale or rent, whichever is less. Said sign shall
fully comply with the setback requirement for the
zoning district in which the property is located.
Section 4. Section 3.467 "Signs Accesory'to Multiple
Occupancy Business and Industrial Uses Including Shopping Centers"
of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.467 Signs Accessory to Multiple Occupancy Business Industrial
Uses Including Shopping Centers. When a single
principal builidng is devoted to two or more
businesses, or industrial uses, a comprehensive sign
plan for the entire building or shopping center shall
be submitted and shall include the information required
by paragraph (1) be of suff{e~ent s~oge and ~eta~ to
permit a determination as to whether or not the plan is
consistent with paragraphs %~} (2) through +~+
(4) of this subsection. No permit shall be issued for
an individual use except upon a determination that it
is consistent with a previously or concurrently
approved comprehensive sign plan. The effect of said
comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the
owner of multiple occupancy structures to determine the
specific individual sign requirements for the tenants
of his building. As sign locations and size, etc. may
be of some significant importance in lease arrangements
between owner and tenant, it is the City's intention to
establish general requirements for the overall building
only, thus providing a building owner with both the
flexibility and responsibility to deal with his
individual tenants on their specific sign needs.
Section 5. Section 3.467 (1) "Comprehensive Sign Plan
Information" is hereby added to the New Hope City Code to read as
follows:
(1) Comprehensive Sign Plan Information. The
applicant shall prepare a written and graphic
comprehensive signage plan for submission to the
City. Said plan shall include but not b_~e limited
to the following information:
(a) Sign location (Both wall signs and
freestanding signs)
(b) Sign area
(c) Sign height
(d) Scaled buildin9 elevations
(e) Scaled floor 1~ that outlines tenant bays
(f) Identification of anchor tenants
(9) Description of window signage use
(h) Identification of sign design
(i) Sign Construction Drawings (sections)
(.j~ The Council,. Planning Commission and City
Staff may request additional information from
the applicant concerning the application or
~ retain expert opinions at the expense of
the City, or may require as a condition of
proceeding with its consideration that the
applicant furnish expert o_pinion and data at
the expense of the applicant.
Section 6. Section 3.467 (2) "Wall Signs" of the New Hope
City Code shall be hereby renumbered 3.467 (3) and amended to
read as follows:
+R~ (3) Wall Signs.
(a) Maximum Area. The total allowable sign area
for a multiple occupancy structure shall not
exceed fifteen percent of the combined wall
surfaces on walls which abut streets in
Limited or General Business Districts or ten
percent in Limited or General Industrial
Districts. No individual sign may exceed one
hundred twenty-five square feet in area.
(b) Anchor Tenants. Tenant bays having a floor
area of greater than 4,000 square feet and a
corner location within the shopping center
may be allowed one wall sign per street
frontage. Total size of the anchor tenant
~lgns shall nOt exceed 15 percent of the
total wall surface of the tenant bay where
the sign will be located. No individual
anchor tenant sign may exceed 200 square feet
in area.
%~ (c) Building Identification. No multiple
occupancy structure may display more than two
overall building identification signs.
%e+ (d) Prohibited Signs. Individual tenants located
within multiple occupancy structures, other
than shopping centers, shall not be permitted
to display individual signs, except for
tenants which have separate exterior
entrances to their use or tenants in shopping
centers, in which case, not more than one
sign may be displayed.
+4+ (e) Delivery Signs. A delivery sign or signs not
exceeding nine square feet in area may be
located on the side or rear wall of the
structure.
Section 7. Sections 3.467 (1) "Compliance" and 3.467 (3)
"Ground Signs" are hereby renumbered 3.467 (2) and 3.467 (4)
respectively.
Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be
effective upon its passage and publication.
Dated: , 1987.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the day of
, 1987.)
COl{RICK & SONDRALL
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
L~wY~S
3811 WEST BROADWAY
I~O~INSDALE, ~INN~SOTA 554~2
TELEPHONE (61~) 533-~41 LEGAL ASSISTANTS
WILLIAM ~l. CORRICK~ P.A.
STEVEN A. SONORALL. P.A. SONDRA K. PITTMAN
MICHAEL R. LAFLEUF~ LAVONNE E. kEBKE
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT
July 31, 1987
M. Jeannine Dunn
Administrative Assistant
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: Sign Code Amendments
Temporary Signs, Neon Signs
Comprehensive Sign Plan
Our File No. 17.033
Dear Jeannine:
Enclosed please find the amendments to the sign code in proposed
ordinance form.
We have several concerns regarding the proposed language
outlined in the planner's report as you and I discussed in our
recent telephone conversation about this matter. These concerns
are as follows:
1. In § 3.441 special event signs were limited to
businesses with a year or longer lease preventing
businesses with leases shorter than one year from using
special event signs. Such a distinction is probably
~unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection and
due process, unless there is a legitimate government
interest for treating these businesses differently.
We mutually agreed that such a distinction should be
deleted.
2. In § 3.444 we are now allowing neon signs but not other
illuminated signs. While such a distinction between
signs has no constitutional protection, an argument
could be made that to allow illuminated neon signs and
prohibit other illuminated signs is arbitrary and
M. Jeannine Dunn
July 31, 1987
Page 2
capricious. Enforcement of this distinction could be
difficult unless there is a governmental purpose for
distinguishing between various kinds of illuminated
signs.
3. In § 3.467 we have included a definition of anchor
tenant and afforded said tenants more signage than
other tenants. Again, this creates a classification
which carries constitutional equal protection and due
process concerns between anchor and non-anchor tenants.
I realize anchor tenants are more valuable to the
multiple occupancy buildings and this may constitute a
lawful basis for the distinction. However, we feel it
is a weak distinction as presently used in light of the
anchor tenant definition which is based only on a
corner location and total square footage. I can see
situations where non-corner shopping center tenants
could argue they are anchor tenants and demand more
signage based on the number of jobs they provide, taxes'
they pay, gross revenues they generate and their
customer draw to a center. We feel enforcement of this
distinction as presentlY used may be a problem.
If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
s2f2
Enclosures
cc: Daniel J. Donahue
William J. Corrick, Esq.
Dave Licht
Alan Brixius
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1987
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARING
3. Planning Case 87-28 - Request for Conditional Use Permit,
Side Yard Setback Variance,
Construction Approval
7300 36th Avenue North
Creamette Company, Petitioner
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-28
Request: Conditional Use Permit, Variance to Side Yard
Setback Requirement, Construction Approval
Location: 7300 36th Avenue North
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: The Creamette Co./Don Litterer, Petitioner
Date: September 9, 1987
STAFF COMMENTS
1. Staff has received revised plans. A preliminary landscaping
plan has been reviewed by staff and the final will be
available for the Commission on September 9, 1987.
Creamette has retained the services of a landscape architect
to revise these plans.
2. The City has notified the property owners within 350 feet of
Creamette of the special meeting.
3. Staff has inspected issues that the Planning Commission
noted as non-conforming conditions which included the trash
compactor, the flour bin, and the truck trailers. Staff has
the following comments to offer:
A. The flour bin was addressed during the 1972 site
plan review of the Creamette Company. Staff
believes that this should have been addressed as a
special use permit but has found no record of
official action taking place. As a result, the
flour bin exists as legal non-conforming.
B. The trash compactor was illustrated in the 1975
expansion plans for the Creamette Company. Such
equipment would be addressed as a conditional use
under the current zoning code. It also exists as
a legal non-conforming use.
C. The Planning Commission also addressed the issue
of the outdoor storage of trailers. The
petitioner has indicated to staff that this
storage will not be required once the expansion is
complete.
4. The petitioner has relocated the proof of parking area to
accommodate the required 28 spaces.
5. The petitioner is proposing to curb all parking areas. The
petitioner is proposing bituminous curb and gutter. While
concrete curb is ~refered, no specific materials are
required by the city (~ode (Section 4.036(4) (h) (xv).
6. Sections 4.037(2) (e) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances
defines the criteria for granting a conditional use permit
in the front yard. In staff's opinion, the petitioner has
met all the requirements with the exception of a landscape
plan for screening pursuant to Section 4.033(4) (h). Pending
the receipt of this landscaping plan, staff recommends
approval of the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use
permit to allow a front loading berth, a variance to allow a five
foot encroachment in the side yard and construction approval at
7300 36th Avenue North as presented in Planning Case 87-28.
Attachments: Revised Plans (9-8-87)
Unofficial Synopsis (9-8-87)
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1987
City of New Hope, Minnesota
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PUBLIC' HEARINGS
3. Planning Case 86-13 -Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan
Approval - New Hope/U. S. Swim
Partnership, Petitioner
4. Planning Case 87-2 -Request~ for Construction Approval -
T. J. Applebee's/Do~ald Strang,
Petitioner
COMMITTEE REPORTS
5. Report of Design and Review Committee
6. Report of Codes and Standards Committee
NEW BUSINESS
7. Discussion regarding implementation of Vacant Land Study
8. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 2, 1986
9. Review of Council Minutes of November 24, 1986; December 8,
1986; and December 22, 1986
10. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public,
Commissioners and Staff
11. Announcements
12. Adjournment
PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NOTES
DATE: February 18, 1987
CASE: 86-13
PETITIONER: New Hope/U. S. Swim Partnership
REQUEST: Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval
LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, New Hope Mall
ZONING: B-4
Staff Findings and Comments:
1. The petitioner is requesting comprehensive sign plan approval for
the New Hope Mall.
2. The proposed total signage on the front walls is only 52% of what
the New Hope Code allows. All tenants have less than 100 square
feet of signage.
3. The free standing ground sign will remain but the owners are pro-
posing to reface and repair the structure.
4. A major portion of the sign plan includes the vinyl canopy.
Staff recommends that the petitioners clarify how portions of
the canopy will be replaced as tenants change and new signage
in the canopy is needed.
5. Staff recommends approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NOTES
DATE: February 18, 1987
CASE: 87-2
PETITIONER: T. J. Applebee's, Inc./Donald W. Strang, III
REQUEST: Construction Approval
LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, New Hope Mall (Southwest corner of Mall)
ZONING: B-4 District
Staff Findings and Comments:
1. The planner's report is attached to the case notes. It addresses
the issues of parking, building expansion, landscaping, etc.
2. The planner's report indicates that the site plan proposes a
trash area along the west side of the building. Be advised that
the revised site plans delete this trash area. All tenants will
be utilizing the trash compactor provided by the mall.
3. The planner's report indicates that concrete curbing around the
building and landscape area is required to separate the driveway
from the landscape area. Revised plans demonstrate this.
4. Applebee's will be proposing a canopy which is of different
style, color, and texture than that of the New Hope Mall's.
Applebee's will bring a mounted color board to assist in
demonstating the compatibility of the two awnings.
northwest associated consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Dan Donahue
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: 12 February 1987
RE: New Hope Mall/Applebees PUD Amendment
FILE NO: 131.01- 87.02
BACKGROUND
The owners of the New Hope Mall have signed a lease with Applebees Restaurants.
The restaurant will occupy the southern most tenant bay of the New Hope Mall.
The restaurant will occupy approximately 4,200 square feet of the shopping
center. With the introduction of the restaurant, Applebees is requesting an
amendment to the approved Mall PUD to permit several minor site and exterior
building changes (see Exhibit A, Site Plan).
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Building Expansion. Applebees is proposing a 4' x 40' greenhouse expansion along
the south building wall. To accommodate this expansion, the southern driveway
and parking stalls will also be shifted four feet south. This shift results in
a building setback of 55 feet and a parking lot setback of 8 feet. Both of these
setbacks conform to the City's setback standards.
The southern shift will not negatively impact the circulation around the southern
wing of the Mall, nor does it reduce the amount of parking. We would recommend
that the applicant provide a 2 to 3 foot concrete curb separation by the building
and south driveway to prevent automobiles from hitting the building.
Parking. The overall Mall is required to provide six parking spaces per 1,000
square feet of net floor area. The New Hope Mall PUD exceeds this City standard
as follows:
Total Spaces
Gross Floor Area Net Floor Area Required
79,844 x .9 = 71,860 ? 1,000 = 71.86 x 6 = 431
4820 minnetonka blvd.,' ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420
D~n..Donahue
12 February 1987
Page Two
The New Hope Mall PUD provides: 452 Standard Stalls
11 Handicapped Stalls
463 Total
The shopping center promotes one-stop shopping and shared use of accessory amenities
by shopping center tenants. The shopping center parking standard recognizes this
parking characteristic, and as such the standard is intended to accommodate a mixture
of diverse uses. .In this light, the proposed restaurant parking demand will be
covered by the shopping center's required parking.-
Loading. The revised site plan shows a reduced loading area on the west side of the
building. The reduction in the loading area is acceptable as long as the restaurant
has direct building access to the loading area. The building plans demonstrate a
kitchen door access to the proposed loading area..
Trash Handling Equipment. The site plan proposes a trash area along the west side
of the building. We question the need of this trash receptacle at this location,
since the Mall will provide a centralized trash compactor for all of the Mall
tenants.
The proposed location is highly visible from 42nd Avenue and will create another
service operation within the west driveway. Due to the visibility and traffic
congestion concerns ~egarding the trash receptacle at its proposed location, we
would recon~end.that the restaurant use the Mall's trash compactor located at
the rear of the Mall.
Landscaping. The applicant's landscape plan shows a landscape treatment along the
~'e~ side of the building that will enhance this side of the building.
This landscape plan shows a wood retaining wall separating the landscape area from
the driveway. The wood retaining wall is not acceptable curbing. The driveway
curbs should be concrete to reduce deterioration and maintenance.
Building Appearance. The applicant is proposing a change in the exterior elevation
of the building. This presents some compatibility concerns as to .how this use will
blend with the balance of the Mall.
To reduce the impact of such a design change, the applicant should blend his proposal
to the design lines and colors of the balance of the Mall.
RECOMMENDATION.'
Based on our review of the applicant's site plan, we find that the proposed PUD
amendment is acceptable as it complies with the City's zoning standards. We would
make any approval of the PUD amendment contingent on the following conditions:
Dan Donahue
2 ~ebruary 1987
Pag6 Three
1. Provide a 2 to 3 foot concrete curb separation between the building and
the south driveway.
2. Eliminate the individual trash receptacle on the west side of the
building.
3. Provide concrete curbing around the building and landscape area to
separate the driveway from the landscape area.
4. Any changes in the exterior appearance of the Mall should blend the
design and color to reduce any incompatibil~ity in appearance.
cc: Doug Sanstad
Jeanine Dunn
EXHIBIT A
SITE PLAN
~'~ .... AGENDA .... ~:.
pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1987'
cITy OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 Planning Case 87-35 Request for Concept Stage Planned
Unit Development Conditional Use
Permit; Rezoning and Preliminary
Plat Approval
3900 Winnetka Avenue North
Asp Construction Company/Richard Asp
Petitioner
3.2 Planning Case 87-37 - Request for ConditigDal Use Permit
to Allow Outdoor Storage and Off-
site Parking/Driving Lane
5101 Boone Avenue North
Precision Metals AKA Keelor Steel,
Petitioner
3.3 Planning Case 87-38 - Request for Variance to Expand Non-
Conforming Structure
3930 Boone Avenue North
Ronald E. Potter, Petitioner
3.4 Planning Case 87-39 - Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan
5651-5671 International Parkway
Veijo Tarnanen/Arnold E. Hillukka,
Petitioners
3.5 Planning Case 87-40 - Request for Conditional Use Permit
to Allow Outdoor Storage and
Leasing in an I-2 Zone
7701-7709 42nd Avenue North
Autohaus of Mpls., Inc./Thomas W.
Boettcher, Petitioner
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee
4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee
Planning CommisSion Agenda - December 1, t9~87 ·
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Discussion regarding exclusive parking at shopping centers.
6.2 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of November 4, 1987.
6.3 Review of City Council Minutes of October 26, 1987.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-35
Request: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development
Conditional Use Permit; Rezoning and
Preliminary Plat Approval
Location: 3900 Winnetka Avenue North
Zoning: I-1 and I-2
Petitioner: Asp ConStruction Company/Richard Asp
Date: December 1, 1987
The City Council reviewed this case on November 9, 1987, and
referred the case back to the Planning Commission to be heard at
its December 1, 1987 meeting pending revised plans.
The developer has requested that this case be.tabled until the
January 5, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. He has held a
neighborhood meeting and is in the process of revising his plans.
Staff recommends that the case be tabled until January 5, 1988.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASEREPORT
Pl~nningCase: 87-37
Request: Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor
Storage and Off-site Parking/Driving Lane
Location: '5101 Boone Avenue North
Zoning: I-1 "Limited Industrial"
Petitioner: Processed Metals, Inc. AKA Keelor Steel and
Aluminum
Date: December 1, 1987
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow outdoor storage (Section 4.144 New Hope Code of
Ordinances) and a conditional use permit to allow off-site
parking/driving lane (Section 4.036(12) New Hope Code of
Ordinances) in an I-1 zone.
2. In 1983 staff approved a temporary driveway for a period of
24 months. This request was made to alleviate some internal
traffic problems on the site which resulted in trucks backing
out of the property and on to 51st Avenue North and Boone
Avenue North. The petitioner desires to continue the use of
the parking/driving lane and is therefore before the
Commission with this request.
3. Property owners within 350 feet of the site have been
notified of this proposal. To date, the City has received no
comments.
ANALYSIS
1. A conditional use permit is required for outdoor storage in
an industrial zoning district. Two requirements must be met
in consideration of this request. As defined in Section
4.144 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances, the requirements
are as follows:
A. Outdoor storage must be screened from view .of
neighboring residential areas or if abutting a
residential district in compliance with Section
4.033(3) .
B. Storage areas must be grassed or surfaced to control
dust.
Planning Case Report 87-37
r~_The~petitioner is proposing to add painted metal slats to an
exiSting cyclone fence along a southern portion of 51st
Avenue frontage. The petitioner is also proposing to place
asphalt on the storage area.
2. A conditional use permit is also required for off-site
driveway stacking pursuant to Section 4.036(12) of the New
Hope Code of Ordinances. The requirements are attached to
this report.
The petitioner does not meet the required lease agreement.
The petitioner currently renews a lease with the Soo Line
Railroad on an annual basis for the use of this property.
3. A staff inspection identified that the rear yard parking lot
has a crushed rock surface which does comply with Section
4. 036 (4) (h) (×1) .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use
permit to allow outdoor storage and conditional use permit to
allow off-site parking/driving lane with the following conditions:
1. That the screening fence along 51st Avenue be installed.
2. That all outdoor storage is limited to the west rear
yard.
3. That the petitioner submit a copy of the lease agreement
between the petitioner and Soo Line Railroad relevant to
the driveway by November 1 of each year.
4. That the site be subject to an annual review by City
staff.
5. That the City receive a bond or letter of credit for the
improvements.
Attachments: Section 4.036(12) New Hope Code of Ordinances
Site Plan
4.036 (11) (a) (ii) - (12) (c)
(ii) Night Time or Sunday Uses. Up-to fifty percent of the
~Off-street parking facilities re~ed- for any use
specified under (iv) below as ~'~mary daytime uses may
be supplied by_the parking facilities provided by the
follow%n~_~t-time or Sunday uses; auditoriums
incidental to a public or parochial school, churches,
bowling alleys, dance halls, theatres, bars,
restaurants or apartments.
(iii) Schools~ Auditorium and Church Uses. Up to eighty
percent of the parking facilities required by this
section for a church or for an auditorium incidental to
a public or parochial school may be supplied by the
off-street parking facilities provided by uses
specified under (iv) below as primarily daytime uses.
(iv) Daytime Uses. For the purpose of this section the
following uses are considered as primarily daytime
uses: banks, business offices, retail stores, personal
service shops, household equipment or furniture shops,
clothing or shoe repair or service shops,
manufacturing, wholesale and similar uses.
(b) Additional Criteria for Joint Parking. In addition to the
preceding requirements, the following conditions are
required for joint parking usage:
(i) Proximity. The building or use for which appIi'~ation
is being made to utilize the offrstree~ parking
facilities provided by another building or use shall be
located within three hundred feet of such parking
facilities.
(ii) Conflict in Hours. The applicant shall show that there
is no substantial conflict in the principal operating
hours of the two buildings or uses for which joint use
of off-street parking facilities is proposed.
(iii) Written Consent and Agreement. A legally binding
instrument, executed by the parties concerned, for ~
joint use of off-street parking facilities, duly
approved as to title of grantors or lessors, and form
and manner of execution by the City Attorney, shall be
filed with the City Clerk and recorded with the
Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, and a
certified copy of the recorded document shall be filed
with the City within 60 days after approval of the
joint parking use by the City.
(12) Off-Site Parking.
(a) A Conditional Use. Any off-site parking which is used to
meet the requirements of this Code shall be a conditional
use as regulated by Section 4.20 of this Code and shall be
subject to the conditiens listed below.
(b) Code Compliance. Off-site parking shall be developed and
maintained in compliance with all requirements and standards
. ~ of this Code.
(c) Access. Reasonable access from off-street parking
facilities to the use being serviced shall be provided.
4-39
072684
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE'REPORT
P!~nning:'Case: 87-38
ReqUeSt: Variance to Expand Non-conforming Structure
Location: 3930 Boone Avenue North
Zoning: 'R-1
Petitioner: Ronald E. Potter
Date: December l, 1987
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is reqUesting a variance to Section 4.032 (11)
of the New Hope Code to allow expansion of a non-conforming
structure. The petitioner wants to build a 16' x 19'
addition on the side yard.
2. This house is considered a non-conforming structure. As
defined in Section 4.022(84) of the New Hope Code of
Ordinances "The front of a lot shall be...that boundary
abutting a public right-of-way, having the least width".
Therefore, the front yard is on 40th Avenue. The front yard
setback is 20 feet and the required setback is 35 feet,
resulting in a non-conforming structure.
3. Property owners within 350' of this request have been
notified. As of November 24, 1987, the city has received
one verbal opposition to this proposal from the property
owner located east of the subject site, at 8609 40th Avenue.
This neighbor is concerned that the addition will be built
too close to his home and that it will block sunlight.
ANALYSI~
1. Attachment "A" describes the buildable yard for this
property. The petitioner will not be encroaching into the
required side yard setback.
2. While the configuration of this lot is not narrow or
irregular, the placement of the house on the lot prohibits
any expansion if no variance is granted.
3. The abutting property'owner at 8609 40th Avenue is concerned
about an impairment of the supply of light. Please note that
this is a criteria for considering whether a variance should
be granted.
Planning Case Report 87-38 _. '~"
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for variance to allow an
expansion of a non-conforming structure at 3930 Boone Avenue North
as proposed in Planning Case 87-38.
Attachments: Front Yard Sketch (11-24-87)
Lot Survey (9-10-86)
Site Plan (11-9-87)
(ZONI~qG FRONT YARDS)
NONCONFORMING WING ~
I i- ,~ ' --"?'~-]." '
, I 8601
/
-
(B~%LDABLE YARDS AS PLATTED)
/
~..,,0 ,: co,.. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY
30O'~LNiSWICK AYF S ~917
a~DeN VALLEY MINN LAND SURVEYO~
' ~CE~ED ~T O~D~AMOE OF' CITT O~._M~EAPOLI~
" 6917 idaho Ave. 'N.
~ey x'or: Inv. ~,'2472
~o~ ~z~~~0,2 ~ A~v ~. N.i ~.~.~-~o.
-. -DO. ~
_ '~5.o
¢ z~'''~'''
~ ~B SCA~: ~" = 20'
~ DENOTES IRCN
, ~ ~5o ~' .-..
~ ~ ~,,,
~'~-.~ ~-,~ .~ .._ ·.,
__ _ . ~ ~.~
~ - -~o.o -
HIP~'S HOP~00D Hlr. r.qREViS~
· ~. ~.,.~,-,,.. ,~., ,~,, :,., ..... ~ ~o,,.~, ,..,.,..,.. ~/~~~
loth Sept. ,,~. '~'
CITY OF NEW ~OPE.~.~
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning'Case: 87~3~9
Request: Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval
Location: 5651-5671 International Parkway
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: Veijo Tarnanen and Arnold Hillukka
Date: December 1, 1987
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting comprehensive sign plan approval
pursuant to Section 3.467 of the New Hope Code.
2. This building was recently constructed and a temporary
certificate of occupancy has been issued.
ANALYSIS ....
1. Attached is a copy of the revisions to the sign code adopted
on October 12, 1987 by the New Hope City Council.
2. The following table describes the allowed signage and the
proposed signage:
Wall Siqns
Permitted Proposed
Number 3 3
Size 125 sq. feet 54 sq. feet
Ground Siqn
Permitted Proposed
Height 20 feet 20 feet
Size 75 sq. feet 54 sq. feet
The ground sign is required to be placed
10 feet from the property line. The
petitioner meets this requirement.
3. The proposed ground sign also has a time and temperature
which will not be blinkinq or flashinq. This type of sign is
permitted by the sign ordinance.
Planning. case-~Report 87-39
~ ~':~'RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive sign plan for 5651-
5671 International Parkway as presented in Planning Case 87-39.
Attachments: Sign Ordinance (12 October 1987)
Comprehensive Sign Plan for 5651-5671
International Parkway (9 November 87)
__---" AN ORDINA~dE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE
- ' ~SIGN CODE RELATING TO TEMPORARY SIGNS,
ILLUMINATED SIGNS, RESIDENTIAL "FOR SALE" SIGNS AND
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLANS
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 3.441 "Banners, Pennants, Streamers,
Strings of Light, Searchlights" of the New Hope City Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
3.441 Banners, Pennants, Streamers, Strings of Light,
Searchlights. No Portable signs, banners, pennants,
streamers, strings of light, searchlights or any other
simi~a~ ~e__m~9~ sign shall be permitted
permissable ~Z for commercial o__r industrial ~pecial
or promotional events of a limited duration ~ permit
~pired from the Cit~ pursuant to the following
conditions: exeept as provided in Sabseetion
management7 eommereiai establishments sha~ be
~onse~tive days for a "grand o~eninga7 as s~eh
eemm~n}y used7 said seven days sha~ be within thirty
days of the change of ~wnership or management
(1) S_~Dgcial or Promotional Events L ~pe~ial or
promotional events shall ~e__a~ events such as frand
9~Q.i__n~[~m management or ownersh~9 ~-~ange~,--~r
Periodic sales or similar events.
(2) Permit Application - Permits for ~
~ pursuant to this section shall be issued only
to owners or tenants of commercial or industrial
9r~~ ~99~!ggtions must be submitted to the
CitZ Buildinq Official on a form ~proved ~ the
E!~ a minimum of 14 days 9~9~ t~ the ~R~gial or
promotional event when the s~gns wi~i-be used.
(3) Permit Duration - Ail permits issued hereunder
shall be for a maximum period of fourteen daz~ and
shall expire 9utomaticalli after said period.
~pon the permit expiration, the ~pplfc~ shall
cease to ~i~9~I ~t and all siqn~ permitted
the permit unless the_aR~licant has obtained a
new permit for said siq__t_~na e - -
(4) Limitation on Permits - No more than three 99rmits
X~R~I shall be issued to an~ o~
location. If two permits are obtained in
-succession ~ ~ ~pp~iCan~per subsection ~
above, both permits Shal-t-b-e counted for the
p~Rg~e of determinin~ th~ l~rl~ limitations
~ - this sub~ection.
(5) S_~n Loc~tion - All special 9~ promotional
must ~ located 9~ the premises where the event is
occurrinq~ ~!gnag§ shall not exceed an amount
eq~i__valent to the permitted §!~_~ area allowed
the applicant's business in the respective zoninq
district.
(6) Grand ODenin~s - Nothwithstandinq the duration
provisions ~ subsection 2 above, ~rand o_~D~in_~
~!gn~ ~ be for a maximum period o~ thir~
days.
(7) Exception - ~emRg~ry ~!gns permitted b_~ section
3.463(2) of this Code shall be exempt from the
~e_guirements of this section.
(8) Non Compliance - ~n~ violation of an~ of the
conditions of this section will result in a
forfeiture for additional ~!gn permits for the
~9~ty under this section for a period of 12
months from the date of the violation. The
permit forfeiture shall be in addition to an~
other penalties for code violations allowed ~
this Code.
Section 2. Section 3.444 "Window signs" of the New Hope
City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.444 Window Siqns.
(1) Maximum Window Area. In no event shall the size
of the interior window signage exceed the lesser
~ twenty percent ~p to a maximum o~ o~e h~n~ed
%we~ty-~ve ~a~e ~eet, of the entire window area
of the one side of the building upon which said
signs shall be displayed or one hundred twent~
five §~uare feet.
(2) Illuminated Siq~. P~oh~B~te~-S~
w~ndow signs sha~ not be of the gaseous t~be type
no~ sha~½ they be ~mfnated by ~nte~o~
d~ee~ed t~wa~ the w~n~w= An interior window
~i__q~ ~ .~ illuminated provided !~ co~plies with the
followinq conditions:
~a Use. The §!~__is restricted to business
identification 9n~y, ~§ defined__in Section
3.422 (ll). This ~ay include the business
name or loq9 exclusive to the ~rop~rty_~
' ~ ~.__ Flashin~ Siqns. FlaSh~nq~signs_ are
prohibited.
Total Area. The encompassed area of the
illuminated §!gn shall not exceed the maximum
window sig~ area as defined in ~rag~aph 1.
above.
(3) Te~_p~y Advertising ~i__q~. Advertising
signs that are clearly intended for temporary
display only, may be affixed to a window provided
that the sign area conforms with the formula
allowance outlined in this subsection. The
allowable sign area for a window advertising sign
is in addition to the total permitted wall sign
area as regulated in Section 3.465 (1). Window
signs other than for advertising, such as business
identification, or any sign which is permanently
affixed to a window, shall constitute a dual
purpose sign and thus be regulated under both the
above and the provisions of Section 3.465 (1).
Section 3. Section 3.461 (2) "7 or More Residential
Dwelling Units"___ of the New Hope City Code is hereby a~ended to
read as follows: -
(2) 7 or More Residential. Dwelling Units. Where more
than six dwelling units (or lots for residential
development purposes) are offered for sale or
rental by the same party, signs advertising such
sale or rental may be constructed therefor in any
district. There shall be permitted one sign
facing each public street providing access to the
property being offered. Each such sign shall not
exceed ~%~ sevent~-five square feet in area;
shall be located at least one hundred thirty feet
from any pre-existing home; and shall be removed
within one year from the date of building permit
issuance, or when less than six units remain for
sale or rent, whichever is less. Said sign shall
fully comply with the setback requirement for the
zoning district in which the property is located.
Section 4. Section 3.467 "~ns Acq~9~ to Mult%~
Ocq~99q~_Business and Industrial Uses IncludinqS~9~_Centers,,
of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.467 ~.!~ns Accessq~ to Multiple Oc~q~ Business Industria'l
Uses Includinq_~9~!~' Centers. When a single
principal builidng is devoted to two or more
businesses, or industrial uses, a comprehensive sign
plan for the entire building or shopping center shall
be submitted and shall include the information ~guired
~ paragraph (1) Be of suf~e~en~ s~o~e and ~e~a~ to
permit a determination as to_.wh~ther or not the plan is
consistent with pS. ragraphs +~+ (2) through
(4) Of this subsection. No permit shall be issUed for
~ .an.~individual use except upon a determination that it
is consistent with a previously or concurrently
approved comprehensive sign plan. The effect of said
comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the
owner of multiple occupancy structures to determine the
specific individual sign requirements for the tenants
of his building. As sign locations and size, etc. may
be of some significant importance in lease arrangements
between owner and tenant, it is the City's intention to
establish general requirements for the overall building
only, thus providing a building owner with both the
flexibility and responsibility to deal with his
individual tenants on their specific sign needs.
Section 5. Section 3.467 (1) "~9~prehensive Sign Plan
Information" is hereby added to the New Hope City Code to read as
follows:
(1) Comprehensive Siqn Plan Information. The
a_/291~cant shall ~repare a written and g~p~ic
comprehensive §~gna_~q9 plan for submission to the
~y. Said plan shall include but not be limited
to the followinq information:
(a) Si~n location (Both wall signs and
freestandinq §igns)
(b) Sign area
(c) ~!~n hei~h~
(d) Scaled buildin~ elevations
(e) Scaled floor pla~ that 9ut!ines tenant
(f) Identification of anchor tenants
Descri~ioq of window ~ig~ge use
(h) Identification of si~n design
(i) Si~ Construction Drawinq~ (sections)
The Council, Planning Commission and Cit~
Staff may E~ue~ additional information from
the applicant concerning the aRplication or
~I retain expert 9pinions at the ex~gns~-~[
the ~., or maz ~e__q~.ire as a condition of
pr6ceedinq ~ith its consideration that t~
~plicant furnish ex~er~ 9pinion a~-~ata at
the expense of the applicant.
Section 6. Section 3.467 (2) "Wall Siq~" of the New Hope
City Code shall be hereby renumbered 3.467 (3) and amended to
read as follows:
+~+ (3) Wall Siq~.
(a) Maximum Area. The total allowable sign area
. ~ - for a multiple occupan~y~ structure shall not
exceed fifteen pe~c~h~ of the combined wall
surfaces on walls which abut streets in
~i~d or General Business Districts or ten
percent in Limited or General Industrial
Districts. No individual tenant
identification sign may exceed one hundred
square feet in area.
(b) Building Identification. No multiple
occupancy structure may display more than two
overall building identification signs.
(c) P~sh~B~e~ Tenant Identification Siqns.
Individual tenants located within multiple
occupancy structures, 8%he~ ~ha~
ee~%e~7 shall ~% be permitted to display
individual identification signs, eMeep%
if they %e~a~%~ wh~eh have separate exterior
entrances to their use or they are tenants in
a shopping center~, in which case, not more
than one sign may be displayed. A tenant
occupying ~ corner location fronting two
streets may display identification s~gns to
both street frontages. _
(d) Delivery Signs. A delivery sign or signs not
exceeding nine square feet in area may be
located on the side or rear wall of the
structure.
Section 7. Sections 3.467 (1) "Compliance" and 3.467 (3)
"Ground Signs" are hereby renumbered 3.467 (2) and 3.467 (4)
respectively.
Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be
effective upon its passage and publication.
Dated: 0ct0ber 12 , 1987.
//Mayor
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the _~ day of
0ctober , 1987.)
,~ 5~51-5671 ~.t. ~k~,y. ~, .': ~, ~'/ '.....
~1:~' i~'~ · ' '.~ii "i~ll~;~ ~}' . ' '. I'~
5651 ' ,~'~:~' ' ' 5661 '~r~ ,~ , 5671
NOR'TH ELEVATION
: i WALL SIGNS: GRO~-NO'si~'~-
' 4' x 15' + l'~x 4' = 69 Sq. ft.
t "A" 3' x 18' == 54 sq. ft. (Custom Glass; see detail) /~
"B" 3' x 18' =: 54 sq. ft.~ (Future) ~[ [ ~ 6~"~,
"c" 3' x ~a"== s~,~fl, ft. (Fi,.Ish S,,.~: s~e ~et~i~) ) ~.~ - '1
,
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Pl'an~i~g'icase -87-40
Request: Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outside
Storage and Leasing in an I-2 Zone
Location: 7701-7709 42nd Avenue North
Zoning: I-2 "General Industrial District"
Petitioner: Autohaus of Minneapolis, Inc./Tom Boettcher
Date: December 1, 1987
The petitioner has filed plans with the City. Staff has reviewed
the plans and has noted a number of deficiencies and is in the
process of working with the petitioner to correct these
deficiencies.
The petitioner will be unable to attend the January, 1988,
Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommends that the case be
tabled until February 2, 1988.
TO_::~':'~'u::'.:, Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
SUBJECT: Exclusive Parking in Shopping Centers
DATE: November 25, 1987
On November 9, 1987, the City Council reviewed exclusive parking
in shopping centers. Exclusive parking refers to the
designation of parking spaces for a specific business. There
are currently exclusive parking signs in both the Winnetka
Shopping Center and the New Hope City Center.
The City Council reviewed a memorandum dated November 5, 1987,
from the Administrative Assistant regarding options the City has
in addressing this issue. The City Council referred the matter
to the Planning Commission. The City Council favors the option
of allowing 10 percent of the total parking spaces to be
designated for specific tenants.
Staff will review this issue with you at the Planning Commission
meeting on December 1, 1987.