070285 PlanningWORK SESSION:
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 16, 1985
City of New Hope, Minnesota
4401 Xylon Avenue North
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Planning Case 85-18 - Request for Conditional Use Permit for Day-
care at 3540 Winnetka Avenue North -
(Holy Nativity Lutheran Church) - Northwest
YMCA, Petitioner
COMMITTEE REPORTS
4. Report of Design and Review Committee
5. Report of Land Use Committee.
6.Report of Codes and Standards Committee
NEW BUSINESS
7. Discussion with Planning Consultant - Marketing Study for 42nd
Avenue
8. Discussion of Study on Mini-warehouse Construction
9. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 4, 1985
10. Review. of Council Minutes of June 10, 1985 and June 24, 1985
11. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests
and Staff
12. Adjournment
of Public, Commissioners
SPECIAL PLANNING COM~ISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 30, 1985
7:30 a.m.
There will be a speci.~l meeting of the Codes and Standards Committee
the City Manager and the Planning Consultant.
The meeting will be held at the Town Crier Restaurant, 2480 Winnetka
Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
The following items will be discussed:
1. Discussion of Recommendations of City Attorney in Regard
to Proposed Ordinance Changes.
2. Sections 4.233 - Performance Bonds for Variances
4.202 - Termination of Special Zoning Approval
3. Sections 4.037 - Off-Street Loading
4. Section 4.032 - Garage Location Limitation, and
Section 4.034 (3) - Setback Standards - R-1 and R-2 Districts
5. Section 4.032 (3) - Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment
Section 4.035 - Area and Building Requirements
Section 4.036 - Off Street Parkinq
6. Review of Draft Ordinance - Minor Variances
7. Clarification of Language Pertaining to Conditional Use Permits.
8. Section 4.221 (3) - Earth Sheltered Homes
9. Review of Recommendations of Building Official.
10. Section 4,134 (5) - Stacking Lane Requirements
Section 4.124 (3) - Drive-in and Convenience Food
11. Section 3.467 (3) - Sign Ordinance
12. Discussion Regarding Self-Storage (mini-warehouse) Facilities
and Recommendations of Planner.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATED:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Director of Administrative Services for City Manager
JUly 12, 1985
Planning Commission Agenda of July 16, 1985
7
Planning Case 85-18
Refer to Doug Sandstad's Planning Case No. 85-18 Report.
The Market Study on 42nd will be delivered on Monday by
the Planning Consultant.
Information on the Mini-Warehouse Construction is in the
packet for consideration.
PLAN
CASE
3. Planning
Case 85-18
REPORT
DATE: July 11, 1985
PLAN CASE: 85-18
PETITIONER: Rev. Wahl for Holy Nativity Ev. Lutheran Church (+Y.M.C.A.)
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Group Day Care Center in R-O Zone *
SITE: 3540 Winnetka Ave. No. ZONINO: R-0
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS;
I. Submittal;
A. Everything is in order, although we have no drawings,
II. Background;
A. The site, in question, has had two buildings on it for about 15
years, both used for religious/worship functions. The property
is zoned R-O and.located on the corner of an intersection of
a collector level street and a minor arterial street. The site
not adjacent to any residential uses and it has a surplus of
available on-site parking spaces.
B. The C.U.P. requested is allowed by the text change which our
Council reviewed and approved in 1983 for a similar operation,
which has been in operation at 5016 Boone Ave. for two years.
Please refer to Plan Case 83-42.
III. Concerns;
A. All eleven conditions in the ordinance (draft-Aug.23,1983) should
be followed and formally agreed to by the petitioner.
B. A Comprehensive Sign Plan will be necessary because we will have
three separate uses on the site, if this C.U.P. is approved;
Holy Nativity Church, P.R.I.S.M. and Y.M.C.A. Day Care Center.
Note that Ordinance 3.463 allows very little signage for these
types of uses.
C. Asite plan illustrating the parking, drop-off and loading areas
is needed, prior to the requiredqot-striping.
D. The site plan should also detail the outdoor play area and its
screening.
E. Staff have already advised the property owner ofastate Building
Code problem with the proposed use in a "basement".
northwest
associated
consultants, inc.
July 1, 1985
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager
City Administrative Offices
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
RE: Self Storage (Mini Warehouse)Facilities
File No: 131.01
Dear Mr. Donahue:
Based upon comments received from Mr. Sandstad and Mr. Smith we have revised
our 10 June 1985 draft of regulations addressing mini storage facilities.
Additionally, we have made several other text changes based upon our continu-
ing investigation of this matter.
Relative to the points made by Mr. Smith and Mr. Sandstad, it should be noted
that their position is that points (g) and (b) of the conditional use provisions
should be an "either/or" situation. We have continued to list these as two
separate and distinct requirements based upon the fire hazard which exists plus
the minimal tax generation considerations. Under this philosophy we are stating
that a mini warehouse facility must take on extra protection for public safety.
Again, we are available at your convenience to discuss this matter further.
Very truly yours,
NORTHWEST ASSOC~~NC.
President~/
DRL/nd
CC:
William Corrick
Doug Sandstad
Doug Smith
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420
northwest
associated
consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
David Licht
10 June 1985 - Revised I July 1985
New Hope Self Storage (Mini Warehouse) Facilities
131.01
PREFACE
At your directive, our office has undertaken a study of self storage (mini
warehouse) facilities. The attached memorandum provides documentation of
our study and findings.
Based upon our study findings plus subsequent discussions with you and the
City Attorney we have proceeded to draft zoning regulations considered as
appropriate to govern the self storage developments and uses which may occur
within the City. A background discussion and suggested zoning ordinance text
follow.
DEVELOPMENT AND USE ISSUES
In evaluating self storage facilities, a number of significant issues have
been identified. These issues generate points of concern which subsequently
should be addressed by the zoning ordinance.
Residential Facilities - Compatibility. Beyond the internal site
harmony, a compatibility at a broader area scale exists with residential
facilities accessory to mini warehouses. By allowing residential uses
within industrial districts, a potential environmental problem with
noise, odor, light is created. As the City of New Hope is aware through
past problems between residential and industrial uses, such situations can
be quite significant. Additionally, it would seem inappropriate to impose
special standards on surrounding _neighboring industries for the introduction
of a residential use within an "exclusive" industrial area. It is therefo~
suggested that in such cases accessory residential facilities be designed
and positioned to minimize any potent-iai environmental concerns.
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420
Dan Donahue
10 June 1985
Page Two
o
Potential safety problems for the residents of a care taker facility are
also seen to exist. Beyond the question of noise, semi-tractor-trailers
pose a potentially dangerous situation, especially if children are involved.
The hazard of fire from materials stored at the facility or surrounding
industries is also a potential concern.
Beyond having special standards to address these specific issues, a
conclusion can also be reached at an exclusive industrial area is a highly
questionable location to allow accessory residential uses. As such,
consideration should be given to the creation, of a new zoning district
which would more appropriately accommodate business and industrial activities
which require on-premise, live-in quarters.
Caretaker/Watchman Facilities - Development Standards. A frequent accessory
use associated with self storage facilities are living quarters for caretakers
or watchmen. Quite commonly no special standards or provisions are imposed
upon these living units. 'As the City has no control on who the operator may
hire to occupy such units, building site, and usable open space requirements
would seem appropriate to insure livability and harmony between the residential
and business activities.
Building Design/Construction. Both a public safety as well as aesthetic
concern are raised by the design and positioning of self storage buildings
From an aesthetic consideration, long narrow buildings create a wall effect
which may or may not be viewed positively. This design consideration
also, however, has implications for fire protection. Given the fact that
the City has no effective means whereby to control and police the materials
which are stored within the warehouse units, any appropriate control would
be to limit the size and length of structures. In this same regard the
separation of structures is an added minimal protection which appears
justifiable from a fire protection concern.
Beyond the size and locatio~ of structures, the building material standards
which are imposed should be the maximum again given the fact that there is
basically unregulated storage. In this same vein, dry sprinkling systems
and stand pipes plus close proximity to or installation of fire hydrants
are seen as essential for basic protection. Given the low tax revenue
generation of self storage facilities, the use should be required to carry
the burden of minimizing the public safety risk.
Dan Donahue
10 June 1985
Page'Three
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing considerations and upon analyzing the zoning district
options which are available in the New Hope Zoning Code, we have concluded
that several major changes to the Zoning Code are necessary to appropriately
handle mini-self storage facilities. A first and fundamental change is the
creation of a new transitional zoning district to accommodate nonresidential
uses which are not strictly commercial or industrial in character. This
district would address a broader range of uses than simply self storage/mini
warehouse facilities. Due to the special concerns noted with regard to self
storage/mini warehouse facilities, these uses are recommended as being handled
as conditional use activities.
Our suggested approach to address these matters is as follows:
"T-i" TRANSITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT
Purpose. The purpose of the "T-I" Transitional Zoning District is to provide
for the establishment of a specialized zoning district to accommodate unique,
nonresidential activities which are not strictly commercial or industrial in
character. The "T-l" Transitional Zoning District is to typically be applied
in areas and to sites located between residential and nonresidential uses.
Permitted Uses, "T-I" The following are permitted uses in an "T-I" District:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Governmental and public utility buildings and structures, not including
outside storage.
Commercial/leased offices.
Medical and dental clinics.
Public and semi-public educational and religious buildings and uses.
Private clubs for handball, racket ball, tennis, etc.
Indoor commercial recreation.
Public parks, playgrounds ~nd related buildings and structures.
Mortuaries and funeral homes.
Accessory, Uses, "T-i"
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Parkin9. Off-street parking as regulated by Section 4.036.
Off-Street Loading. Off-street loading as regulated by Section 4.037.
Signs. Signs as regulated by and in compliance with Chapter 3.
Buildings. Accessory buildings and structures which are utilized in support
of the principal building and principal use of the site not to exceed
twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the principal building
or one thousand square feet, whichever is least.
Conditional Uses, "T-I" The following are conditional uses in an "T-I" District:.
(Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated
by Section 4.20, and compliance with Section 4.036, Parking; 4.037, Off-Street Load-
ing; Chapter 3, Signing.)
Dan Donahue
10 J~une 1985
Page Four
(1)
Comment: Due
to lot coverage
this require-
ment is seen as
necessary for
drainage concerns.
Comment:
Allows for fire
truck manue-
verability.
Comment:
Concept is to
minimize fire
hazard.
Comment:
Suggestions
made by
Director of
Fire and
Public Safety.
Self storage (mini warehouse) facilities, provided that:
(a)
(b)
At least thirty-five (35) percent of the site is open, green
space which is sodded and intensely landscaped in accordance
with a plan approved by the City Council.
Building coverage shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the
lot area.
(c)
No buildings shall be located closer than thirty-five (35)
feet to each other to allow for parking, loading, driveway
and fire lanes.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(J)
No building shall be greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet
in length.
Adequate space is provided for snow storage.
All structures are to be within two hundred (200) feet of a
fi re hydrant.
All 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.
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.
All driveway~ and parking areas are to be hard (blacktop or
concrete) surfaced and adequate turning radius for fire truck
maneuverability is to be maintained throughout the site.
Designated snow storage space is to be provided to insure
adequate and safe access during winter months.
Accessory living quarters on the site are to be in a separate
structure and are to conform to Uniform Building Code and
Zoning Ordinance design standards for single family dwelling
units. At least two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet
of usable open space which is in addition to any other open
space, green area requirement is to be provided expressly for
the accessory living quarters.
'Dan Donahue
IO June 198~
,Page~Five
(k)
Any structures having exposure to an adjacent residential
use or public right-of-way, park, or similar public use areas
shall be of brick, natural stone, wood, or stucco facing
material.
(1)
Lot Requirements, "T-I"
No ~etailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, repair, or other
such activity other than storage is to occur within the
self storage, mini warehousing facility.
(1) Lot Area. One (1) acre
(2) Setbacks.
(c)
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Fifty (50) feet.
Interior lot line twenty (20) feet, street lot line
forty (40) feet.
Thirty-five (35) feet.
SUMMARY
We emphasize that this is a preliminary draft of suggested regulations which require
the review of City staff, the Planning Commission and the Mayor and City Council.
Once an approach and content of regulations have been agreed upon by these parties,
the City Attorney needs to place the material in appropriate ordinance format for
public hearing and adoption.
CC:
William Corrick
Doug Sandstad
Doug Smith
northwest associated consultants, inc.
June 10, 1985
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager
City Administrative Offices
4401Xylon Avenue No.
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Mr. Doug Sandstad, City Building Official
City Administrative Offices
4401Xylon Avenue No.
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Mr. William Corrick
Attorney at Law
3811 West Broadway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422
RE: New Hope - Self Storage (Mini Warehouse) Facilities
File No: 131.01
Gentlemen:
Based upon the study which we conducted plus the general directions we have
received, we have prepared a report justifying and recommending zoning actions
to be taken by the City of New Hope in regulating mini warehouse facilities.
A copy of our report, stamped preliminary, is attached for your review and
comment. We would very much appreciate your detailed analysis of the material
which we have prepared.
Upon completing your evaluation of this material, please contact me with any
suggested additions or modifications which you may have to offer. U@on receiving
authorization we will proceed to finalize the report so that it can be distri-
buted for formal consideration by City officials. It is our hope that our work
on this matter can be completed before i July.
Sincerely yours, ~2J
/~S E~~x EST ASSOC × I NC .-
David R. Lich/lh/t~;, AICP -
President ~
DRL/nd
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420
PLANNING REPORT
northwest
associated consultants, inc.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
David Licht
10 June 1985
New Hope Self Storage (Mini Warehouse) Facilities
131.01
PREFACE
At your directive, our office has undertaken a study of self storage (mini
warehouse) facilities. The attached memorandum provides documentation of
our study and findings.
Based upon our study findings plus subsequent discussions with you and the
City Attorney we have proceeded to draft zoning regulations considered as
appropriate to govern the self storage developments and uses which may occur
within the City. A background discussion and suggested zoning ordinance text
follow.
DEVELOPMENT AND USE ISSUES
In evaluating self storage facilities, a number of significant issues have
been identified. These issues generate points of concern which subsequently
should be addressed by the zoning ordinance.
Residential Facilities - Compatibility. Beyond the internal site
harmony, a compatibility at a broader area scale exists with residential
facilities accessory to mini warehouses. By allowing residential uses
within industrial districts, a potential environmental problem with
noise, odor, light is created. As the City of New Hope is aware through
past problems between residential and industrial uses, such situations can
be quite significant.. Additionally, it would seem inappropriate to impos~---
special standards on surrounding neighboring industries for the introduction
of a residential use within an "exclsive" industrial area. It is therefore
suggested that in such cases accessory residential facilities be designed
and positioned to minimize any potential environmental concerns.
4820 minnetonka blvd minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420 .
Dan Donahue
10 June 1985
Page Two
o
Potential safety problems for the residents of a care taker facility are
also seen to exist. Beyond the question of noise, semi-tractor-trailers
pose a potentially dangerous situation, especially if children are involved.
The hazard of fire from materials stored at the facility or surrounding
industries is als~ a potential concern.
Beyond having special standards to address these Specific issues, a
conclusion can also be reached at an exclusive industrial area is a highly
questionable location to allow accessory residential uses. As such,
consideration should be given to the creation of a new zoning district
which.would more appropriately accommodate business and industrial activities
which require on-premise, live-in quarters.
Caretaker/Watchman Facilities - Development Standards. A frequent accessory
use associated with self storage facilities are living quarters for caretakers
or watchmen. Quite commonly no special standards or provisions are imposed
upon these living units. As the City has no control on who the operator may
hire to occupy such units, building site, and usable open space requirements
would seem appropriate to insure livability and harmony between the residential
and business activities.
Building Design/Construction. Both a public safety as well as aesthetic
concern are raised by the design and positioning of self storage buildings.
From an aesthetic consideration, long narrow buildings create a wall effect
which may or may not be viewed positively. This design consideration
also, however, has implications for fire protection. Given the fact that
the City has no effective means whereby to control and police the materials
which are stored within the warehouse units, any appropriate control would
be to limit the size and length of structures. In this same regard the
separation of structures is an added minimal protection which appears
justifiable from a fire protection concern.
Beyond the size and location of structures, the'building material standards
which are imposed should be the maximum again given the fact that there is
basically unregulated storage. In this same vien, dry sprinkling systems
and stand pipes plus close proximity to or installation of fire hydrants
are seen as essential for basic protection. Given the low tax revenue
generation of self storage facilities, the use should be required to carry
the burden of minimizing the public safety risk.
Dan Donahue
10 June 1985
Page Three
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing considerations and upon analyzing the zoning district
options which are available in the New Hope Zoning Code, we have concluded
that several major changes to the Zoning Code are necessary to appropriately
handle mini-self storage facilities. A first and fundamental change is the
creation of a new transitional zoning district to accommodate nonresidential
uses which are not strictly commercial or industrial in character. This
district would address a broader range of uses than simply self storage/mini
warehouse facilities. Due to the special concerns noted with regard to self
storage/mini warehouse facilities, these uses are recommended as being handled
as conditional use activities.
Our suggested approach to address these matters is as follows:
"T-I" TRANSITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT
.~urpose. The purpose of the "T-I" Transitional Zoning District is to provide
for the establishment of a specialized zoning district to accommodate unique,
nonresidential activities which are not strictly commercial or industrial in
character. The "T-I" Transitional Zoning District is to typically be applied
in areas and to sites located between residential and nonresidential uses.
Permitted Uses, "T-I" The following are permitted uses in an "T-I" District:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(7)
(8)
Governmental and public utility buildings and structures, not including
outside storage.
Commercial/leased offices.
Medical and dental clinics.
Public and semi-public educational and religious buildings and uses.
Private-clubs for handball, racket ball, tennis, etc.
Indoor commercial recreation.
Public parks, playgrounds and related buildings and structures.
Mortuaries and funeral homes.
Accessory Uses, "T-I"
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Parking. Off-street parking as regulated by Section 4.036.
Off-Street Loading. Off-street loading as regulated by Section 4.037.
Signs. Signs as regulated by and in compliance with Chapter 3.
Buildings. Accessory buildings and structures which are utilized in Support
of the principal building and principal use of the site not to exceed
twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the principal building_
or one thousand square feet, whichever is least.
Conditional Uses, "T-I" The following are conditional uses in an "T-I" District.
(Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated
by Section 4.20, and compliance with Section 4.036, Parking; 4.037, Off-Street Load-
ing; Chapter 3, Signing.)
Dan Donahue
10 June 1985
Page Four
(1) Self storage (mini warehouse) facilities, provided that:
Comment: Due (a)
to lot coverage
this require-
ment is seen as
necessary for
drainage concerns.
At.least thirty-five (35) percent of the site is open, green
spac'e which is sodded and intensely landscaped in accordance
with a plan~approved by the City Council.
(b)
Building coverage shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the
1 ot area.
Comment:
Allows for fire
truck manue-
verabi 1 i ty.
(c)
No buildings shall be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet
to each other.
Comment:
Concept is to
minimize fire
hazard.
(d)
(e)
(f)
No building shall be greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet
in length.
All storage buildings are to be.equipped with a dry sprinkling
system which is subject to the review and approval of the City
Building Official and City Director of Fire and Public Safety.
All structures are to be within two hundred (200) feet of a fire
hydrant.
Comment:
Suggestions
made by
Director of
Fi. re and
Public
Safety.
(g)
(h)
(i)
A complete and comprehensive fire alarm system with smoke
detectors shall be initiated in each structure subject to the
review and approval 6f the Director of Fire and Public Safety.
Within storage structures a firewall shall be provided for each
unit.
All driveways and parking areas are to be hard (blacktop or concrete)
surfaced and adequate turning radius for fire truck maneuverability
is to be maintained throughout the site. Designated snow'storage
space is to be provided to insure adequate and safe access during
winter months.
(J)
Accessory living quarters on the site are to be in a separate structure
and are to conform to Uniform Building Code and Zoning Ordinance
design standards for single family dwelling units. At least two ---
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of usable open space which
is in addition to any other open space, green area requirement is
to be provided expressly for the accessory living quarters.
Dan Donahue
10 June 1985
Page. Fi ve.
(k)
Any structures having exposure to an adjacent residential use or
public right-of-waY, park, or similar public use areas shall be
of brick, natural stone, wood, or stucco facing material.
Lot Requirements, "T-I:'
(1) Lot Area. Forty Thousand (40,000) square feet.
(2) Setbacks.
(c)
Front yard:
Side yard:
Rear Yard:
Forty (40) feet.
Interior lot line twenty (20) feet, street lot
line forty (40) feet.
Thirty-five (35) feet.
SUMMARY
We emphasize that this is a preliminary draft of suggested regulations which
require the review of City Staff, the Planning Commission and the Mayor and
City Council. Once an approach and content of regulations have been agreed
upon by these parties, the City Attorney needs to place the material in
appropriate ordinance format for public hearing and adoption.
CC:
William Corrick
Doug Sandstad
Doug Smith
Imm
northwest associated
consultants, inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue /~/
David Licht×~
16 May 1985
New Hope - Self Storage Facilities
131.01
The attached report gives a statistical and factual background on self or
mini storage facilities. From this basis, a policy direction must be
established and zoning provisions drafted which respond to both the facts
and the directions wanted by the community.
There are in our review a number of regulation changes which we believe can
be imposed in a reasonable fashion upon self storage, mini warehouse facilities.
These could be imposed in total or individual items could be selected based
upon legal as well as policy criteria. The alternatives which we have
identified are as follows:
Create a new transitional business/warehousing district. An activity
to be included would be the self storage facilities.
Comment:
ae
As no land is presently zoned for such a district, the City would
have added control on placement.
bo
Due to caretaker residences being part of such uses, it is questionable
to have such activities in strictly industrial, zones.
e
Due to potential fire hazards, require a dry sprinkling system plus fire
separat~ion walls, physically design driveway and building placement to
accommodate emergency vehicles, and rental restrictions on flamable or
explosive materi al s.
Comment:
Given the low tax revenue yield of such facilities, the City should not
be called upon to take an extra service for fire protection responsibilities.
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 975-9420
Dan Donahue
16 May 1985
Page Two
As such, higher construction standards appear justifiable.
Architectural'appearance standards should be substantially increased to
insure compatibility and a lessening of any negative impact. In this
regard, the length of structures should also be limited.
e
Very strict landscaping requirements and standards should be established
to further insure harmony and compatibility. ~
On an initial basis, the foregoing summarizes the major thrust of possible
regulations which could in our opinion be reasonably imposed on self storage
facilities. Other performance standards would also be applicable and can be
addressed at a later time. We would first like to gain a consensus at the staff
level of the direction, extent and scope of regulation measures which are con-
sidered appropriate in line with what is envisioned as City Council policy on
the matter.
Once you and other staff members have had an opportunity to review this memorandum
plus the background report, I would suggest that we have a staff meeting to
discuss and clarify the next steps of this work assignment.
CC:
Doug Sandstad
Bill Corrick
Steve Sondral
northwest associated consultants, inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue
Alan Brixius/David Licht
15 April 1985
New Hope Self Storage Facilities
131.01
BACKGROUND
In the last fiveyears the City of New Hope has received five develop-
ment requests for the construction of self storage warehouse facilities.
Due to the somewhat surprising high frequence of this type of development
request, the City of New Hope has directed our office to conduct a study
of the self storage warehouse facilities and evaluate these uses in
relation to site design, land use compatibility and market need.
II. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
A. Existing and Approved ~acilities
Self storage warehouse facilities are designed and used for the
purpose of renting and leasing individual warehouse space within a
facility for the purpose of storage~
The facilities are generally focused on serving residents and businesses
who lack sufficient storage facilities at their homes, stores or offices.
This being the case, self storage facilities locate in areas characterized
by concentrations of higher density housing to best capture the afore-
mentioned market. New Hope and Crystal both contain a large number of
multiple family development. As such, these areas provide an attractive
market for the self storage warehouses. _
Since 1979 the City of New Hope has considered five proposals for
self storage facilities. ~ Each of these proposals received construction
approvals, however, only three facilities have been develoPed as
fol 1 ows:
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 '(612) 925-9420
Dan Donahue
15 April 1985
Page Two
1. Olson Storage - 9211-21 52nd Avenue No.
Zoning: I-1
Number of Units: 43 Units
Occupancy 100%
Expansion Plans: None
2. S and S Storage - 3225 WinPark Drive
Zoning: I- 1
Number of Units: 161 units
Occ upa ncy: 98%
Expansion Plans: None
3. All American Storage - 7301 36th Avenue North
Zoning:
Number of Units
Occupancy:
I-1
52O
Still under construction
opening date is February 11, 1985
The two other projects that were approved, but never constructed were:
1. Rusty Demeulus - 4990 County Road 18
2.. C. Brandell - 9100 49th Avenue North
In addition to the facilities in New Hope, both Plymouth and Crystal have
self storage facilities that also compete for the rental market in New Hope.
(See Exhibit A)
1. Minnesota Mini Storage - 5500 N. Douglas Drive, Crystal
Number of Units: 195
Occupancy: 90%
Expansion Plans: This facility is being relocated through
a'Crystal redevelopment project. Actual'
relocation sites have not
0
Minnesota Mini Storage - 1015 County Road 18, Plymouth
Number of Units: 296
Occupancy: 90%
Expansion Plans: None at this time
The occupancy rates displayed by these existing warehouse facilities indica, te
a strong market for this type of service. With the closing of the Minnesota
Mini Storage facility in Crystal through a redevelopment project, it can be
expected that the newly constructed All American Storage facility will fill the
void left by the Minnesota Mini Stora§e in Crystal.
Dan Donahue
15 /Lpril 1985
Page Three
Be
Physical Development Concerns
The warehouse storage use and building appearance are industrial in nature.
As such, the New Hope facilities are all located in the I-1 zoning district.
Although the use is industrial in nature, the use intensity is low. With
the exception of an on-site caretaker, or water for landscape maintenance
or fire protection, these facilities have a low utility demand. Based on the
existing New Hope facilities, the traffic generation from these types of use
typically is not more than 5-6 cars a day. These facilities do not generate
the nusiance characteristics (i.e., noise, odors, waste) associated with more
intense industrial uses.
Development concerns that are created by these self storage facilities include
the following items:
Site Drainage. The self storage warehouse development results in a large
amount of impervious surface on site from building and driveway con-
struction. This impervious surface increases the amount and rate of
stormwater runoff. Unless development controls regulate the rate of
runoff through the provision of detention ponds or preservation of
wetland, the stormwater drainage could be detrimental to surrounding
properties.
Architectural Appearance. The building materials used in the construc-
tion of the self storage facilities in New Hope ranges from concrete to
steel. These buildings are generally long single story structures.
While these structures are consistent with other industrial structures,
a compatibility concern rises where these facilities abut a public
right-of-way or residential area. New Hope has consistently required
extensive landscaping and screening of these uses to enhance the site and
reduce the visual impact on adjacent properties.
In addition to landscaping' and screening, architectural treatments have
been utilized on exterior walls abutting public right-of-way and resi-
dential areas. This treatment was utilized by All American Storage to
ensure architectural compatibility with surrounding uses.
Security. Due to the nature of the use, security is an important concern.
The design of the facility should provide a security enclosure with limited
access points through the use of fences and building locations. Controlled
access points that limit entry to only tenants can be accomplished in
the following manner:
a. Locked entry gates for unsupervised storage facilities.
Provision of an on-site caretaker for on-site security supervision. --
This activity raises some concern for compatibility as well as public
safety with a residential use within an industrial district.
Dan Donahue
15 April 1985
Page Four
Lighting. Security lighting on a warehouse site presents a potential
nuisance problem caused by reflecting light into adjacent properties
or public rights-of-way. The City zoning regulations addressing glare
provide criteria for lighting design by requiring hooded lights that
are directed away from adjacent properties and public streets which can
reduce this nuisance problem.
Fire Protection. The New Hope Planning Commission and City Council
have cited that fire protection for these facilities is an important
concern.
The City has not adopted Appendix E of the Building Code that would require
that all commercial and industrial buildings in excess of 2,000 square
feet have an automatic sprinklen system. Developers have argued that
the cost of installing sprinkler systems make the development of these
warehouse facilities prohibitive due to the following reasons:
The facilities are generally not heated. As such, a wet sprinkler
system is subject to freeze.up.
bm
Dry sprinkler systems are claimed as prohibitive due to cost by
owners.
If sprinkler systems are judged not feasible for these facilities, other
fire protection alternatives could be taken:
Building construction should include fire seParation walls to
provide containment for any fire that starts.
Co
Rental agreements should include provisions restricting the
storage of flamable or explosive materials. This requires some
form of policing, the feasibility and practicality of which is
questioned.
Site design must provide adequate site ingress and egress for
emergency vehicles. Driveway width must offer sufficient area
for manueverability.
Due to the nature and appearance of the self storage facility, the use is ~
appropriately classified as industrial. Since these facilities are low intensity
uses, they can be used as a transition buffer between more intense industrial
use and commercial and residential areas. A question which does exist, however,
is whether the I-1 and I-2 Districts are appropriate for such developments,
given the residential use associated with the activity.
Dan Donahue
15 April 1985
Page~ Fi ve~
0
Public Financial Analysis
An underlying factor of all development is City finances and revenue generation
for support of City services. Ideally, a city hopes to promote high value, high
quality development that contributes to the City's tax base. As part of our
study, we have made a comparison of the tax generation from the existing mini
warehouse uses and other types of land uses as follows:
Existing Mini Warehouse Facilities
Currently there are two storage facilities operating in New Hope. Their
estimated market value, assessed valuation, 1984 property tax and the City's
share of the property tax generation is displayed in the following table.
Estimated Assessed 1984 City Property
Land Use Market Value Value .P.ropert~. Tax Tax (15%)
Olson Storage $293,200 $117,000 $12,880 $1,932
S&S Storage 475,000 195,250 21,524 3,230
Comparison Land Uses
The following land uses provide a tax generation comparison with the existing
warehouse units. The tax estimation are based on development of a two acre site
that provides 35,000 square feet of buildable area. This is comparable to the
existing warehouse sites.
Estimated Assessed Estimated
Land Use Market Value Value Property Tax
100 Unit Low Rise
Apartments (800 sq.ft.
per dwelling, having
3 or fewer floors)
City Share of
Property Tax
$1,500,000 $510,000 $53,550 $ 8,000
200 Unit Mid to High
Rise Apartments (800
sq.ft, dwelling units,
4 or more floors)
4,200,000 1,428,000 150,000 22,500
Neighborhood Commercial
Center (35,000 sq.ft.
at $38/sq.ft.)
1,330,000
'118,500
1,448,500 622,800 65,900 9,900
Office Space
(35,000 sq.ft, at
$52/sq.ft.)
1,820,000
'118,500
1,938,500
833,500 88,300 13,300
Dan Donahue
15 April 1985
Rage Six
Land Use
Manufacturing
(35,000 sq.ft, at
$35/sq.ft.)
Warehousing
(35,000 sq.ft, at
$23/sq. ft. )
Es ti ma ted
Market Value
1,225,000
'118,500
1,343,500
805,000
'118,500
923,500
Assessed Estimated
Value ProPerty Tax
City Share of
Property Tax
577,-700 61,200 9,200
397,100 42,000 6,300
*Land costs were calculated based on the average square foot land values of the
existing mini warehouse facilities.
The tax generation estimates for various land uses indicate that the mini ware-
house facilities are low value, low tax generating uses. Based on our estimates,
the mini warehouse facilities generate approximately one-half'to one-third of the
tax of other permitted industrial uses.
III.
CC:
STUDY SUMMARY
Our analysis would suggest three major concerns with self storage mini ware-
houses which need to be considered in regulations addressing these developments.
These are:
Compatibility of residential caretaker units with the predominent
industrial utilization of the area.
o
Fire protection and the need to either police or have available equip-
ment to prevent or stop a major fire from the storage of fuels,
chemicals and the like.
e
The very low property tax revenue generation of these developments, at
least in comparison to other possible uses and also the possible public
safety concerns.
Other concerns such as architectural appearance, drainage and the like must not,
however, be totally over shadowed by the more major concerns.
In a subsequent report, our office will address possible alternatives for
properly regulating self storage, mini warehouse facilities.
Doug Sandstad
William Corrick
Steve Sondral
Storage
HOE
~lus Proposal
Brandell Proposal
PORT
All American Storage
[ .:;if
S&S Storage
Minnesota Mini Storage
*%.
i
CFO;X
EXHIBIT A
STORAGE FACILITIES SITES
ASSESSED VALUES AND TAX GENERATION
Faci 1 i t¥
Olson Storage
9211 -21 52nd
New Hope
Ave.
No.
S&S Storage
3225 Winpark Drive
New Hope
All A~erican Storage
7301 36th Avenue No.
New Hope
Minnesota Mini Storage
5500 N. Douglas Drive
Crystal
Minnesota Mini Storage
1015 County Road 18
Plymouth
No. of
Units
43
161
195
296
Site
Occupancy Area
Rate Sq.Ft.
1984
Estimated
Market Value
1984
Assessed
Valuation
1984
Tax Levy
100% 16,000 $293,200 $117,079 $12,282
98% 26,000 475,000 195,250 21,524
NA 60,000
NA
NA
NA
90% 33,800 570,500 245,315 26,800
90% 38,000 600,000 249,000 24,700
X
WlLLIAN J, CORRICK
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
NARTIN p. MALECHA
(~ORRIClr ~ SOlVDRALL
CHARTERED
L A~RS
3811 WEST BROADWAY
ROBBINSDALE, ~NNESOTA ~4~
LEGAL ASSISTANT
SANDRA J, KRUSE
July 12, 1985
Mr. Daniel J. Donahue
City Manager
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Re: Zoning Code Revision Updates
Dear Dan:
I have had a chance to review the various comments, suggestions
and proposals offered by Doug Sandsted and Dave Licht relating to
changes for the New Hope Zoning Code. I also spoke at length
with Bill Corrick. The following is our recommendation
concerning the suggestions made:
Performance Bond Requirement for Variance and
Conditional Use Permits. In his October 25, 1984
letter, Dave Licht suggests that the performance bond
requirement of section 4.233 be expanded to also
include variance requests. Essentially, the thought is
to provide the City with some economic leverage to
ensure conditions of CUP's and variances are satisfied,
i.e. fence construction, sodding, tree planting, etc.
We feel this is a very good idea, but suggest that it
be taken a step further. Specifically, a CUP or
variance applicant, under certain circumstances, should
be required to sign a "Performance Agreement" whereby
said applicant contracts with the City to perform the
conditions of the CUP or variance in consideration for
receiving the permit. This would allow the City to
include in such an agreement a hold harmless,
indemnification, and reasonable attorneys fees
provisions in the event the City.must take legal action
to obtain compliance. This Agreement will essentially
be the equivalent of a Development Agreement, but on a
much simpler scale. We recommend an ordinance change
to require a performance bond and performance agreement
for certain CUP and variance requests.
Mr. Daniel J. Donahue
Page Two
July 12, 1985
Termination of Special Zoning Procedural Approval. In
the same October 25th letter referred to in number 1.
above, the procedural change for termination of CUP's
and variances is also discussed. This change
inadvertently found its way into the codification as
pointed out in Bill Corrick's letter of October 30, 1984.
While we believe that valuable property rights such as
CUP's should be given some due process consideration
before being automatically terminated we agree with
Dave, at this time, that the former code language
should be readopted until more study and discussion can
be had on changing this procedure.
Street Loading Ordinance - 4.037. We agree that the
expansion of the off-street loading requirements as
proposed in Dave Licht's February 20, 1985 letter is a
good idea. After a discussion with Doug Sandsted and
our own text review of the ordinance, it appears that
only subsections (2), (6) and (7) of our present
section 4.037 need revision. Basically, the proposed
revision will impose loading requirements on three or
more unit rental buildings as well as commercial and
industrial buildings of any size. We concur with the
proposed changes.
Garage Location - 4.032 and 4.034. We are in agreement
with Dave Licht's letter of February 13, 1985 regarding
conditional use permits for garage locations. The only
suggestion we have pertains to the proposed language of
4.032(3)(d)(ii)(d). We think this section should read
as follows: "The City Council shall determine that the
building will not negatively impact the neighboring
property." The only problem we do see with this change
would be a "standard" to determine what constitutes a
"negative impact" on surrounding property.
Single Family Development Standards. We agree with
Dave Licht's letter of February 11, 1985 regarding this
topic.
Minor Variance Procedure. We are in basic agreement
with Dave Licht's February 11, 1985 letter relating to
this topic. However, we are unclear regarding what
would constitute a minor variance under the proposed
definition found in 4.221(5)(a) and (b). As an
example, the problems we have encountered with
inadequate fireplace hearths aroSe due to a change in
ordinance standards. Would consideration of a problem
like this be classified as a minor variance under the
Mr. Daniel J. Donahue
Page Three
July 12,1985
e
definition found in (5)(a). I think it may be
advantageous to more clearly specify what would
constitute a minor variance.
Reference to Section 4.212 General Requirements in Each
Specific Conditional Use. In response to Dave Licht's
letter of February 11, 1985 regarding this topic, we
feel the present code language is adequate and that
referring to the general requirements of 4.212 in every
specific conditional use is unnecessary. It may be a
good idea to expand only the general sections dealing
with conditional uses in each zoning district to
reflect that compliance with 4.212 is necessary.
Earth Sheltered Homes. We have no problem with
establishing conditional use requirements for earth
sheltered homes. It was treated as a variance because
Minn. Stat. Section 462.356, Subd. 6(2) treats this
topic as a variance and we simply conformed our zoning
code to state law. We certainly agree that treating
it as a conditional use involving specific standards is
a better way to approach this topic. Keep in mind
however, that if all standards are met it would be
unlawful not to grant a CUP. The burden of proof on an
applicant to obtain a variance is much greater than
that to obtain a CUP.
Comments made by Sandsted in November 1, 1984 Letter.
We certainly agree that the typographical errors should
be corrected. With respect to the comments made by
Doug not dealing with typographical errors, we offer
the following comments:
Item 6. - The "R-5" language should be restored.
did not intend to eliminate it.
We
Item 7. - Doug is correct. This is a content change
and should be removed from the Code.
Items 14-16 & 20. - The loading requirements for day
care facilities and nursing homes will now be
covered by ordinance due to changes proposed
in 4.037. See #3 of these comments. The
loading requirements are also specifically
required in the general CUP requirements in
new Code sections 4.074, 4.084, and 4.114.
Item 17.- The dropped wording should be restored.
Mr. Daniel J. Donahue
Page Four
July 12, 1985
Item 19.- We don't think the language is superfluous
and should be retained since all R-0 uses may
not be considered businesses, therefore all
R-0 uses may not fall within the preview of
4.033(3)(6).
Item 21.- We did not intend to change any lighting
requirements. We think the current Code
covers the problems raised by Doug.
Specifically, new Code section 4.033(5)
requires that lights be hooded/controlled so
as not to light adjacent properties. This
has the same practical affect as prohibiting
the light source to be visible from the
public right of way or from neighboring
residences. We have no problem with
reverting back to the language which
prohibits light on right-of-way or adjacent
property if that is considered more
desirable. We don't think the content or
affect will change either way.
Item 22.- We agree that this section should be
reconciled with the preceding Item 21, based
on whichever language is used.
Item 25.- As indicated in comment 8 above, this
language was inserted to conform with state
law. See M.S. Section 462.357, Subd. 6.
Please contact me if you have any questions concerning the
foregoing comments.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
k2f4
northwest
associated
consultants, inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue
Doug Sandstad
David Licht~
25 October 1984
New Hope - Zoning Ordinance
131.01
I am writing as a follow-up to the special Planning Commission meeting
which was held on 23 October relative to our brief discussion of the revised
Administrative Section of the Zoning Ordinance.
I believe it would be appropriate to revise the new Section 4.233 to include
the option of requiring performance bonds for variances as well as conditional
use permits. As was indicated, this code enforcement tool was previously
included for variances and is seen as a valuable policing mechanism.
Another point of possible concern is the "termination of special zoning
procedure approval" (Section 4.202 (17)) page 4-96. I assume this applies
primarily to variances and conditional use permits. This should possibly be
clarified in the text. Secondly, this revised section introduces a major new
procedure. Under the former version of the text the termination of authoriza-
tion was automatic. The revised ordinance calls for a public hearing by the
Council to terminate the approval. Procedurally and enforcement wise, this is
a major shift of responsibility and places a new, and in our opinion question-
able, burden on staff to monitor development progress. The philosophy behind
the former text was that it was the applicant's responsibility to keep tract
of the time limitation. Enforcement wise, the building official would
typically catch a lapse of approval when building permits were pursued. In
the latter case, termination was automatic. The fear of the revised procedure
is that implementation of a special approved action will go unchecked and as
a consequence of requiring special City action, could be implemented five
to ten years later. This was the very problem the prior text was attempting
to avoid. I believe this is a critical change which needs review with Mr.
Corrick's office.
'~Dan Donahue
// Doug Sandstad
25 October 1984
Page Two
Beyond'the points noted above, we have not reviewed the administrative
section further. We are concerned, however, that in the two points reviewed,
major policy and operational procedure modifications have been made. We
believe these changes plus a detailed review of the sections should be made
by staff in the immediate future. Should you wish our further evaluation
please so advise. '
cc: William Corrick
northwest
associated
consultants,
inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FRO~-~:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue
David Licht
20 February 1985
New Hope Zoning Ordinance Revision
131.01
At the City staff's request we have evaluated the recodified Zoning Ordinance
provisions as it relates to loading requirements. This text review has been
enhanced by recent exposure to several convenience food/gas development requests
which highlight the concern for loading and delivery.
Mr. Sandstad has previously noted that loading requirements specifically imposed
on some conditional uses has. been dropped from the recodified zoning text.
For those instances cited, we would recommend that provisions be imposed which
require designated loading areas. In general, however, we would recommend
a much more encompassing application of a loading area requirement which would
apply to all multiple residential, all group care facilities over 17 individuals,
including nursing homes and the like, all commercial facilities, and all in-
dustrial facilities.
Rather than go through and add this provision to each district' we are recom-
mending that Section 4.037 be revised as a general provision addressing require-
ments by use throughout the ordinance. Our suggested approach to this matter
is as follows:
4.037 Off-Street Loading.
(1)
Purpose. The regulation of loading spaces in these zoning
regulations is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public
right-of-way and in off-street parking areas so to promote the
safety and general' welfare of the public, by establishing minimum
requirements for off-street loading and unloading from motor
vehicles in accordance with the specific and appropriate
utilization of various~parcels of land or structures.
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, m nnesota, ste. 420 55416 tel. 612/925-942(
Dan Donahue
20 February 1985
Page Two
(2)
(3)
(4)
Location.
(a)
Off-Street. All required loading berths shall be off-street
and located on the same lot as the building or use to be
served.
(b)
Distance from Intersection. All loading berth curb cuts
shall be located at minimum fifty feet from the intersection
of two or more street rights-of-way. This distance shall
be measured from the property line.
(c)
Distance from Residential Use. No loading berth for a non-
residential use shall be located closer than one hundred feet
from a residential district unless within a structure.
(d)
(e)
Prohibited in Required Front Yards. Loading berths shall not
occupy the required front yard setbacks.
Front or Side Yard Locations. A conditional use permit shall
be required for loading berths for non-residential uses
where the loading berth is located at the front or at the
side of the building on a corner lot.
(i)
Pedestrians. Loading berths shall not conflict with
pedestrian movement.
(ii)
Visibility_. Loading berths shall not obstruct the
view of the public right-of-way from off-street
parking access.
(iii) General Compliance. Loading berths shall comply with
all other requirements of this section.
(f)
Traffic Interference. Each loading berth shall be located
with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or'
public alley in a manner which will cause the least inter-
ference with traffic.
Surfacing.. All loading berths and accessways shall be improved
with not less than six inch class five base and two inch
bituminous surfacing to control the dust and drainage accord-
ing to a plan submitted to and subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
Accessory USe; Parking,and Storage. Any space allocated as a
required loading berth or access drive so as to comply with the
terms of these zoning regulations shall not be used for the
storage of goods, inoperable vehicles or snow and shall not be
included as part of the space requirements to meet the off-street
parking requirements.
Dan Donahue
20 February 1985
Page Three ·
(5)
(6)
Screening. Except in the case of multiple dwellings all load-
ing areas shall be screened and landscaped from abutting and
surrounding residential uses in compliance with Section 4.033
(3) of this Code.
Number and Size of Loading Berths. The number of required off-
street loading berths shall be as follows:
(a) Commercial or Industrial Uses.
(i)
(ii)
One loading berth and one additional berth for each
additional one hundred thousand square feet or fraction
thereof. The first loading berth shall be not less
than seventy feet in length and additional berths
required shall be not less than thirty feet in length
and all loading berths shall be not less than ten
feet in width and fourteen feet in height, exclusive
of aisle and maneuvering space.
RedUction of Size of Space. For commercial or
industrial buildings five thousand square feet or
less, the size of the loading area may be reduced
or the requirement may be waived upon the approval
of a conditional use permit. To qualify for such
exception, the following provisions must be met:
(a)
It must be demonstrated that the site cannot
physically accommodate a loading berth to the
size required.~
(b)
(b) It must be demonstrated that semi-trailer truck
deliveries will not occur at the site or all
deliveries will occur at such a time as to not
conflict with customer or employee access to the
building and parking demand.
Multiple Residential Type Uses. One loading area shall be
provided for each structure and shall be exclusively reserved
for loading and unloading. The space shall be at minimum
forty feet in length and ten feet in width. Said area may
be part of a driveway, but shall not serve to block the
flow of traffic into a parking area.
CC:
Doug Sandstad
William Corrick
?J
northwest
associated
consultants,
inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue
David Licht~~[
13 February 1985
New Hope Zoning Ordinance Revision
131.01
At the Planning Commission's request, our office has formulated provisions
which would allow for garages to be built under certain conditions within
two feet of a side yard property line. The basis for this consideration is
that presently such construction is typically processed, and in many cases,
approved through the variance procedure. This approach appears legally
questionable and as a consequence we are recommending that a formalized
conditional use permit provision be established for the consideration of
such requests.
Our initial thoughts on this matter are presented below.
Present Ordinance Provisions:
Section 4.032 (3)
(c)
Garage Location Limitation. No accessory garage shall be located
in a required front yard or a required side yard paralleling the
depth of the principal structure. '~
(d)
Further Location Limits. Except as noted above, accessory build-
ings and garages shall not exceed fifteen feet in height and shall
be five feet or more from all lot lines of adjoining lots and shall
not be located within a utility easement.
Section 4.034 (3)
Setback standards - R-1 and R-2 Districts
(c) Ten feet on one side of the building and five feet on the garage
side.
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, minnesota, ste. 420 55416 tel. 612/925-9420
Dan Donahue
13 February 1985
Page Two
Suggested Changes:
Section 4.032 (3)
(c)
Garage Location Limitations. In no case shall an accessory garage be
located in the required front yard or required side yard paralleling
the depth of the principal building.
(d) Further Location Limits.
(i)
Except as provided elsewhere in this section, accessory buildings
and garages shall not exceed fifteen feet in height, shall be
five feet or more from all lot lines of adjoining lots, and shall
not be located within a utility or drainage easement.
(ii)
Upon the processing of a conditional use permit, the City may
allow a three foot encroachment into a required side yard for
the purpose of constructing a garage, provided that:
ae
The use of the structure is the storage of operable passenger
vehicles which are the property of the occupant of the
principal structure.
bo
The location of the structure is at minimum sixty feet from
the front property line or is located to the rear of the
principal structure, whichever distance is greater.
The proposed structure is not to be located within an
established drainage or utility easement.
Within the determination of the City Council, the building will not
negatively impact the neighboring property.
eo
The same or similar quality building material shall be used
in the accessory building as in the principal building.
Additionally, the exterior appearance and architectural design
of the accessory building is to be similar to that of the
principal building.
fo
The request is considered in relation to the provisions
of Section 4.212 of this Ordinance.
Section 4.034 (3)
Setback standards - R-1 and R-2 Districts
(c)
Ten feet with the exceptions that an attached garage may be located
within five feet of the side yard lot line and subject to the provisions
as provided in Section 4.032 (3) of this Ordinance.
Dan Donahue
13 February 1985
Page Three
The above proposal should be reviewed by staff and the Codes and Standards
Committee prior to general release.
Please contact me should there be questions or clarification needed.
cc: Doug Sandstad
William Corrick
northwest associated consultants,
inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue ~
David'Licht
11 February 1985
New Hope Zoning Ordinance Revisions - Single Family
Development Standards
131.01
At the request of the Planning Commission and the Codes and Standards
Committee, our office has evaluated the development requirements pertaining
to single family detached dwellings.
The major provisions currently addressing single family dwellings are as
follows:
4.034 - Yard Requirements
Front yard
Side yard
Rear yard
30'
20' abutting a street
10' building
5' garage
35'
4.035 - Area and Building Requirements
Lot area per unit - single family
Lot width
Building height
Minimum floor area per dwelling -
single family
9,500 sq.ft.
75'
2-2½ stories
1,240 sq.ft.
4. 036 - Off-Street Parking
Single family - one enclosed and one open space (minimum)
4.032 (3) - Accessory buildings, uses and equipment
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, minnesota, ste. 420 55416 tel. 612/925-9420
Dan Donahue
11 February 1985
Page Two
The question has been raised as to whether these standards are adequate in
the case of a large dwelling and whether protection is afforded the City
based upon new definitions of single family uses.
It is our opinion that as the ordinance is now written, only minimum pro-
tection exists for a large dwelling which might demand increased supportive
elements such as yard space, parking or the like. Changing the present
standards, however, presents a possible problem for a nearly totally developed
community. In this regard, caution must also be exercised for dwelling units
with potential of expansion of interior living space.
With the above factors'in mind, we have some initial suggestions on how
increased protection for compatibility might be attained. We emphasize
that these are preliminary thoughts which require review and discussion with
the staff and Codes and Standards Committee prior to their general considera-
tion by the Planning Commission.
Lot coverage of buildings should not exceed twenty percent (the present
average is about 16% according to Mr. Sandstad). This provision would
address existing structures which are proposed for additions, as well as
new construction.
For principal structures with the existing or potential living space
in excess of 2,200 square feet, the parking requirements should be three
off-street spaces. (This assumes a five bedroom house and would affect
both existing and new construction. The proposed 2,200 square foot
standard should be carefully weighed.)
e
A minimum width of twenty-two feet should exist for any single family
detached dwelling. (This addresses the manufactured housing issue.)
e
The provisions noted above should be automatic rather than require a
conditional use permit.
Open space (design density) and parking appear to be the two fundamental issues
which can be addressed without creating too extensive of a disruption to
existing development. Again, these matters need "in-house" discussion prior
to general exposure of the full Commission, Council and community. A staff
or Committee meeting would be helpful in this regard.
cc: Doug Sandstad
William Corrick
northwest
associated
consultants,
inc.
February 11, 1985
Mr. Dan Donahue
City Administrative Offices
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
RE: New Hope - Zoning Ordinance Revision - Minor Variance
Procedures
File No: 131.01
Dear Mr. Donahue:
This letter forwards a revision to the minor variance procedures
provisions which was previously supplied to you. This draft
dated 11 February is reflective of staff comments to date.
I believe Mr. Corrick has yet to review and comment on this
material. Once he has done this and assuming it meets with
his approval, the material should be sent on to the Codes and
Standards Committee and eventually the full Planning Commission
for public hearing.
Please call if you have questions.
'Very truly yours,
NORTHW EST ASSO C~~_f.
~a~deR.ntLi ~, AICP
DRL/nd
cc: Doug Sandstad
William Corrick
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, minnesota, ste. 420 55416 tel. 612/925-9420
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
DRAFT
ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION
VARIANCE PROCEDURES
(REVISED 11 FEBRUARY 1985)
4.202
Decisional Process. The City Council acting as the Board of
.Appeals and Adjustments under H.S. 462.354, 462.357 (6) and
462.359 (4) shall make the decisions within the legislative
and executive framework of the City on all Special Zoning
Procedures.
The format of this
Section has been
restructured into
cases other than
minor variances;
minor variance cases,
and combined procedures.
These are re~resented
by the headings (1), (2)
and (3). The City
Attorney shout~ review
this format for
acceptability.
(1)
Section .4. 202 (1) is
material presently
contained in the City
Cod~. Where appropriate
"exceptions" for minor
variances have been noted.
Section 4. 202 (1) (b) -
a requirement for specific
property interest documenta-
tion has been added as
suggested by staff.
All Special Zoning Procedures - except minor variance.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Planning Commission. All Special Zoning Procedures
shall first be presented to the Planning Commission,
together with appropriate comment, findings and
recommendations from the City Manager.
Application. Special Zoning Procedures may be
initiated by any person owning an interest in the
real estate which would be affected by the requested
procedure. A certificate of title or documentation
of interest is to be provided as part of the application
Request for Special Zoning Procedures shall be filed
with the Zoning Administrator or any staff persons
designated by the City Manager on an official applicatio~
form of the City, accompanied by a fee as outlined in
Chapter 14. The application shall also be accompanied
by detailed written and graphic materials fully ex-
plaining the proposed change, development, or use.
The number of copies to be provided and any additional
data shall be determined by the City Manager.
Initiation by City_. The Planning Commission or the
Council may initiate any Special Zoning Procedure
on its own motion and may in such event waive fees
and costs.
(d)
Further Data. The Council, Planning Commission and
City staff may request additional information from
the applicant concerning the application or may retain
expert opinions at the expense of the City, or may
require as a condition of proceeding with its c'on-
sideration of any matter, that the applicant furnish
expert opinion and data at the expense of the applicant.
(e)
City Manager's Report. Except for minor variances,
the Special Zoning Procedure shall be processed under
the direction of the City Manager for a report and
recommendation and presented to the Planning Commission.
A preliminary draft of the report of the City Manager
and his comments and/or recommendations with such
supporting data as furnished by the applicant, and
as the City ~lanager deems necessary or desirable
shall be given to the Planning Commission prior to the
meeting at which said report and recommendations are
to be presented. The final report and/or recommenda-
tions of the City Manager are to be entered in and
made part of the permanent written record of the
Planning Commission, and forwarded to the Council.
This is new material
addressing only the
processing of minor
variances.
(2)
(f)
Hearing. After receipt of the report of the City
Manager, the Planning Commission shall consider the
application at its next regular meeting unless the
filing date of the application falls within fifteen
days of said meeting, in v~hich case the application
shall be placed on the agenda and considered at the
regular meeting following the next regular meeting.
(g)
Notice of Heari_n~. The Planning Commission shall
set a date for a public hearing. Notice of such
hearing shall be published in conformance with Chapter
I and individual notices shall be mailed not less than
ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the hear-
ing to all owners of property, according to the records
available to the City within three hundred fifty feet
of each parcel included in the request, as provided
in Chapter 1.
(h)
Notice not Received. Failure of the City to send, or
a property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate
any proceedings under this Code.
(i)
Presentation of Application. The applicant or a repre-
sentative of the applicant shall appear before the
Planning Commission in order to present the case for
the application and to answer questions concerning
the proposed Special Zoning Procedure. Failure of
the proponent to appear at either the Planning Com-
mission or Council consideration of the matter shall
constitute grounds for rejection of the application.
The Planning Commission and the Council may each
require swor'n testimony and a verified transcription
of the proceedings at the expense of the City. The
applicant shall have the same privilege of presenting
sworn testimony and may provide for a transcript of
the proceedings at the expense of the applicant.
(J)
Recommendations of Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission shall make ~inaings of fact and recommend
such actions or conditions relating to the request
as deemed necessary or desirable to carry out the
intent and purpose of this Code and the Comprehensive
Plan. Such recommendation shall be in writing,
either in the minutes or by resolution, and accompanied
by the report and recommendation of the City Manager,
and forwarded to the City Council.
Hinor Variances Special Zoning Procedures.
(a) Application. Special Zoning Procedures Minor Variance
may be initiated by any person owning an interest in
the real estate which would be affected by the re-
quested procedure. A certificate of title or documenta-
tion of interest is to be provided as part of the applic
tion. Request for Special Zoning Procedures Hinor
Variance shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator
or any staff person designated by the City Manager on
an official application form of the City, accompanied
by a fee as outlined in Chapter 14. The application
shall also be accompanied by detailed written and
graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change,
development, or use. The number of copies to be pro-
vided and any additional data shall be determined by
the City Hanager.
Section 3 are procedures 13 I
which are applicable to
both minor variances and
all other request processing.
This material, except where
specially noted, is unchanged
from the present text.
Exclusions for minor variance
have been ~ade where
considered necessary.
(b)
Initiation by __City_. The Planning Commission or the
Council may initiate any Special Zoning Procedure
Minor Variance on its own motion and may in such
event waive fees and costs.
(c)
Further Data. The Council and City staff may request
additional information from the applicant concerning
the application or may retain expert opinions at the
expense of the City, or may require as a condition
of proceeding with its consideration of any matter,
that the applicant furnish expert opinion and data
at the expense of the applicant.
(d)
City Manager's Report. The Special Zoning Procedure
Minor Variance shall be processed under the direction
of the City Manager for a report and recommendation
and presented to the City Council. A preliminary
draft of the report of the City Manager and his
comments and/or recommendations with such supporting
data as furnished by the applicant, and as the City
Manager deems necessary or desirable shall be given
to the City Council prior to the meeting at which
report and recommendations are to be presented. The
final report and/or recommendations of the City Manager
are to be entered in and made part of the permanent
written record of the City Council.
(e)
Presentation of Application. The applicant or a
representative of the applicant shall appear before
the City Council in order to present the case for the
application and to answer questions concerning the
proposed Special Zoning Procedure Minor Variance.
Failure of the proponent to appear before the Council
for consideration of the matter shall constitute
grounds for rejection of the application. The Council
may require sworn testimony and a verified trans-
scription of the proceedings at the expense of the
City. The applicant shall have the same privilege
of presenting sworn testimony and may provide for a
transcript of the proceedings at the expense of the
applicant.
All Special Zoning Procedures.
(a)
Council Review. The City Council shall act upon a
Special Zoning Procedure application after it has
received, where applicable, the report and recom-
mendation from the Planning Commission and the City
staff or sixty days after the first regular Planning
Commission meeting at which the request was considered,
if no recommendation is received from the Planning
Commission. If, upon receiving the reports and
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City
Manager, the City Council desires further consideration,
or finds that inconsistencies exist in the review
process, data submitted, or recommended action, the
City Council may, before taking final action, refer
the matter back to the Planning Commission with a
statement detailing the reasons for referral. This
procedure shall be followed only one time on an applica-
tion, except for a good cause. The Council may refer
an application back to the Planning Commission if it
'determines that changes in the application after
Planning Commission recommendation require such
action, or such referral may be waived by the Council.
3
(b)
(c)
'This Section is changed ( d)
from the recodi fied material
recently received. The clause
as written here is reflective
of policy established as (e)
part of the 1976 Zoning
Ordinance revision. This
Section deserpes cz~ tica~
discussion.
]~is Section has undergone
major"change as part of the
recodi fication process. As
such, we believe this Section
should undergo major discussion
as a major shift in responsi-
bility has been made from
the applicant to the City.
(f)
(g)
Record Before Council. Where applicable, the City
Manager shall place the report and recommendations
of the Planning Commission and the City Manager,
on the agenda for the next regular Council meeting
after Planning Commission action, or the expiration
of 60 days after the first consideration by the
Commission, whichever is earlier. Such reports and
recommendations shall be entered in and made part
of the permanent written record of the City Council
meeting.
Council Action. Upon receiving the report and
recommendation of the Planning Commission, where
applicable, and the City Manager, the City Council
may, at its option set and hold a public hearing if
deemed necessary and shall make findings of fact and
impose any condition on approval which it considers
necessary to protect the public health, safety and
welfare, and shall make its decision as to the
application.
Votes Require~. Approval of a request for any Special
Zoning Procedure requires passage by a 4/5ths vote
of the City Council.
Notice to Applicant. The City Manager shall notify
the applicant of the decision of the Council in
writing, including any relevant resolution and
findings which may have been passed by the Council.
Reconsideration. Whenever an application for a
Special Zoning Procedure has been considered and
denied by the City Council, a similar application
affecting substantially the same property shall not
be considered again by the Planning Commission or
City Council before ~he expiration of six months from
the date of its denial and any succeeding denials.
However, a decision to reconsider such matter may be
made by not less than 4/5~hs vote of the full Council
at any time, or under Robert's Rules of Order.
Termination of Special Zoning Procedure Approval.
If the work or use authorized by a Special Zoning
Procedure has not been implemented within a year
after final Council approval, the Council may
thereafter terminate or modify the Special Zoning
Procedure for non-use, after a hearing or hearings
held in the same manner as for the original considera-
tion mf the Special Zoning Procedure, including notice
to the applicant and his successor in interest, if any.
If after a hearing, the Council determines that the
Special Zoning Procedure has not been utilized, and
that the basis for approval of the original Special
Zoning Procedure no longer exists, in whole or sub-
stantial part, the Council may terminate or modify
the authority or use previously approved under the
Special Zoning Procedure. The applicant may request
an extension of the original approval at any time
prior to termination.
(h)
Filing of Notice of Action. A certified copy of
any Conditional Use Permit shall be filed with the
Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
A certified copy of any variance granted or Zoning
Code text change authorized shall be filed with
the Hennepin County Recorder.
4.22 Variances.
Except for a 4.221
minor addition
to Section (2) and
the addition of
Section (5), this
material is the same
as presently con~
tained in the
recodi fication.
Purpose of Variance. The purpose of a variance is to permit
relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning
Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic
hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property
and where circumstances are unique to the individual property
under consideration, and the granting of a variance is demon-
strated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this
Code. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallow-
ness or shape of a specific parcel of property or a lot existing
and of record upon the effective date of this Code or that by
reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a
specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the
terms of this Code would result in exceptional difficulties
when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the district in which said lot or
parcel is located, or would create undue hardship upon such lot
or parcel that another lot or parcel within the same district
would not have if it were to be developed in a manner proposed
by the appellant.
(1)
Undue Hardship. "Undue hardship" as used in connection
with the granting of a variance means the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight
of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his
property not created by the landowner, and the variance,
if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality. Economic considerations alone shall not consti-
tute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property
exists under the terms of the o'rdinance. Undue hardship
also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access
to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
(2)
Planning Commission and Council. The Planning Commission,
where applicable, based upon a report and recommendation
by the City Manager, shall have the power to advise and
recommend such conditions related to a variance regarding
the location, character and other features of a proposed
building, structure or use as it may deem advisable
consistent with the intent and purpose of this Code.
Should the City Council find that all or a part of the
conditions outlined apply to the proposed lot or parcel
the Council may grant a variance from the strict applica-
tion of this Code so as to relieve such difficulties or
hardships to the degree considered reasonable.
This provision for
hcs~dling earth sheltered
homes is questionable
from' our perspective.
We would recon~nend that
it be removed from this
section and addressed as
a conditional use permit.
A ~Sraft revision has been
formulated and submitted
for consideration.
(3)
Earth Sheltered Homes. Variances shall be granted for
earth sheltered construction as defined in M.S. 116J.06,
subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinance.
This is a new section
defining variance
requests qualifying
as minor and thereby
subject to special
processing procedures.
(4)
(5)
Use Compatibility. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments
or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit
as a variance any use that is not permitted under the
ordinance for property in the zone where the affected
person's land is located.
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 ordinance standards as
it might affect property developed prior to such
change.
(b)
Structure or setback deviations (except side yard
variances) which are characteristic of and common
to adjacent and immediately neighboring properties
and which do not exceed five (5) feet.
6
northwest
associated
consultants,
inc.
February 11, 1985
Mr. Dan Donahue
City Manager
City Administrative Offices
4401Xylon Avenue North'
New Hope, Minnesota 55328
RE: New Hope Zoning Ordinance Revisions
File No: 131.01
Dear Mr. Donahue:
As revisions and corrections to the present Zoning Ordinance text are
addressed with Mr. Corrick, a point of clarification should be discussed
relative to conditional use permits. While it is automatic that Section 4.212
is applicable to all conditional use considerations, the reference to this
section has been dropped from the criteria listed for each conditional use.
The previous Zoning Ordinance included such a reference primarily for the benefit
of applicants unfamiliar with the Code and to insure the staff's, Commission's
and Council's recognition of these criteria in each and every conditional use
request evaluation.
Please contact me should you require further clarification or wish to
discuss this matter further.
Very truly yours,
NORTH~EST ASSOCIATED CON~~~/~C.
President ~
DRL/nd
cc: Doug Sandstad
William Corrick
'4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, minnesota, ste. 420 55416 tel. 612/925-9420
northwest
associated
consultants, inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue ~
David Licht~
11 February 1985
New Hope Zoning Ordinance Revision - Earth Sheltered
Housing
131.01
As part of the general clean-up of the Zoning Ordinance which you, Mr.
Sandstad and I discussed, the issue of earth sheltered housing was to be
addressed. At present, such housing is handled as a variance, which is a
legally questionable procedure. It would appear more techinically appro-
priate to handle such developments as a conditional use permit. Our
suggestions in this regard are as follows:
Delete:
Section 4.221 (3) Earth Sheltered Homes
Add:
4.040 Earth Sheltered Homes
(1)
Purpose. The regulation of earth sheltered homes is intended
to insure their harmony and compatibility as single family
detached dwelling units with neighboring conventional residential
development.
(2)
All such uses as defined by M.S. 116J.06, Subdivision 2, as may
be amended, shall require a conditional use permit. A conditional
use permit shall be processed according to this code and may
be granted provided that:
ae
Construction is in compliance with state standards and the
Uniform Building Code.
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, minnesota, ste. 420 55416 tel. 612/925-9420
Dan Donahue
11 February 1985
Page Two
Co
Compliance is demonstrated with lot area and setback
standards of this Code.
The provisions of Section 4.212 are considered and
determined as being satisfactorily met.
cc:
Doug Sandstad
William Corrick
. ~.J2.~ ~'~ ~J. 2!. E~:'~ ~ 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 5~-1521
Bill Corric?
City Attorney
3811 West Broadway
November 1, 1984
Dear Bill,
I received your letter, today, regarding the change to
our Zoning Code on Termination of Special Zoning Procedures.
I completed my review of the new Zoning Code text two weeks
ago and submitted the attached list of errors / potential
errors to.my Director. It may include several of the "inad-
vertant" inc!usicns that you described to Dan ponahue.
I am providing Dave Licht and Dan Donahue copies of this
information because discussion may be warranted for several
items. Others are clearly typographical and routine.
That list should also have an additional item, as follows:
27. 4--38; 4.036 (lO)(cc): omission: Warehouse uses
are no longer required to add parking spaces
for the number of employees on max. shift.
This change has a li~mited impact upon parking standards
and is diffict, l~ to evaluate in the older Zoning Ordinance. It
is,however, a reduction that I was surprised by.
My review of Chapters 2,3,9.40-9.50 & 13 will be completed
in one week sequences, hereafter. Please call, if you have
any questions or would like to discuss this further.
S.~,~n c e e 1 -
£
Do~'glas Sands~ad
Building Offl c'! ]1
cc: Dan Donah~el,/
Dave Li cnt
Doug Smi th
file
Family Styled Village ~ For Family Living
CODIFICATION REVIEW
Ch. 4: Zoning
Sandstad
10/18/84
1 4-5; typo.- (24A)"munici..pal"
2 4-13; typo.' (1!0) "identified" '
~ 4-20; missing word:(g)~Ffor at least one automobile..."
~'- 4-22; misreferenced:(iii) "2" should be "ii"
5 4-22; " (iv) "2" should be "ii"
6 4-26; omission' (d) "R-5" should be added to sentence end.
7 4-32; questionable new language: "not a resident at the
residential site." This is a content change.
8. 4-33;ty~po(v):"minimums"need to be above three figure columns.
9. 4-35; misreferenced: 6(a) should read "Section 4.033 (9).
· Fg)" continuous fire-resistant wall "
10. 4-35; type : ,, ......
11. 4-37; omission: (t) should read '~BUildi~g Material Sales" in...
12. 4-39; typo.- "le__~_ally binding"
i3. 4-46; misreferenced:(4.042) change 4.23 to "4.24".
~ 14. 4-51; dele'cion that is a content change: 4.074 (2) Day Care
Group Nurseries may have a need for "LOading" area.
Note: this is neither a "Commercial or Industrial" use,
but a required "Loading" facility has been dropped. See
4.0T4 in old Ordinance, Subdivision (d).
* 15. 4-53; Aga'in, "Loading" requirement dropped, here, also for
Nursing homes, which is inappropriate. Again, the use is
not otherwise required by our Code to provide same.
* 16. 4-54; Again, ~'Loading" requirement has been dropped for
Elderly Housing.
17 ' 4-56; omission: 4.08 (2): wording dropped at end of sentence
except sub-paragraph (m) shall apply.
18. 4-57; 4.093 (2) typo.: sub-paragraphs "c" and "d" are mis-
numk(~red; should be "b" and "c"
19. 4-57; 4.0?3 (2) duplication: "Buffers" section is superfluous,
since ~ 033 (3)d already requires screening between a
bus ness use and adjacent residential.
* 20. 4-61; omission 4.114 (2): MR C.U.P. in B-2 Zone no longer
requires "LOading'' space as before.
21. 4-74; omission 4.144 (2): "Hooded Lighting" requirement has
been dropped for Outdoor Sales & Service in the I-1 zone.
22. 4-75; clarification needed: "Hooded Lighting" section has
not been dropped in this section for Commercial Rec.
23. 4-61; typos :4.113 (2): change phrase ..."criteria as Section
4.2UI and..." to "criteria of Section 4.20"
.. --~-77; typo 4 ~.45 (3): should read "...remain as a grass plot"
25. .$-98; clarification needed 4.221 (3): Variance for "~arth
Sheltered Homes" is excessive. Why was this inserted?
26. 4-99; typo 4.232: change Administrative Office to "Admin-
istrative Officer". ~
* SUGGESTION: Retain "Loading" area requirements and expand text
in 4.037 (7) to add subdivision (b)"Desi~nated Cases. Special
uses may requ re one loading berth per building as detailed in
Sections 4.05 through 4.15." Modify 4.037 (2) as needed.
northwest
associated
consultants, inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue~.~
David Licht~/~'
16 May 1985
New Hope - Zoning Ordinance Revision
131.01
The recent Taco John's development request has generated a number of questions
relative to the controls imposed upon fast food/drive-through facilities. As
it is likely that the City will confront this matter again, we have drafted
recommended changes to the ordinance to correct these provisions.
1. Stacking Lane Requirement
At present the B-4 District in Section 4.134 (5) makes specific note
of drive-up service windows as a separate conditional use permit for
convenience food operations. It is recommended that the section be
taken from the B-4 District provisions and included as part of the B-3
District 4.124 (3) "Drive-In and Convenience Food" conditional use
section.
Through this ordinance structure revision the provisions for drive-
up windows will be applicable to the B-3 District plus carry over
into the B-4 zone as well.
The recent encounters with Taco John's, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried
Chicken and the like have also two additional areas of concern. The
first is adequate off-street loading. In each and every case which
has been recently dealt with, loading conflicted with the proposed
'or existing operation and as a consequence special provisions were
typically imposed or recommended to allow deliveries only during hours
when the operation was closed to the public. This method of addressing
the issue is seen as a policing problem as well as an indication of an
inadequate sized site. As a consequence, we would strongly recommend
that separate loading requirements be imposed.
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420
Dan Donahue
16 May 1985
Page Two
The second, minor concern generated through recent reviews is the proper
screening of refuse containers. To insure this matter is addressed, we
are recommending a provision be included in the specified criteria.
Taking into account the points raised above, we would suggest the
new Section 4.124 (3) read as follows:
(3) Drive-In and Convenience'Food. Drive-in and convenience food
establishments provided that:
(a)
Compatibility. The architectural appearance and functional
plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to
the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in
property values or constitute a blighting influence within a
reasonable distance of the lot.
*(b)
(c)
Green Strip. At the boundaries of a residential district, a
strip of not less than five feet shall be landscaped and
intensely screened in compliance with Section 4.033 (3).
Lighting. Each light standard island and all islands in the
parking lot landscaped or covered.
(d)
(e)
Curbing. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with
continuous curbs not less than six inches high above the
parking lot or driveway grade.
Vehicle Access. Vehicular access points shall be limited,
shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic
movements, shall comply with Section 4.036.
(f)
(g)
Drainage. The entire area shall have a drainage system
which is subject to the approval of the City.
Surfacing. The entire area other than occupied by buildings
or structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a material
which will control dust and drainage and which is subject to
the approval of the City.
*(h)
Loading Berth. Adequate space shall be provided on the site
for a loading berth to accommodate the parki.ng and manuevering
of semi tractor trailors and shall comply with the require-
ments of Section 4.037 of this Ordinance.
*(i)
Refuse Storaqe. All refuse shall be stored in containers as
specified by City Ordinance. Said containers are to be
screened and enclosed by a fence or similar structure.
Dan Donahue
16 May 1985
Page Three
e
**(j)
Drive-Up Service Windows. For convenience food restaurants,
as defined in Section 4.022, with special criteria as follows:
Convenience Food. Only convenience food restaurants
qualify due to the nature of the food dispensing service
provided.
Stackin_g~ Not less than 180 feet of segregated automobile
stacking lane must be provided for the service window.
Traffic Control. The stacking lane and its access must be
designed to control traffic in a manner to protect the
buildings and green area on the site.
Use of Street. No part of the public street or boulevard
may be used for stacking of automobiles.
e
Noise. The stacking and window placement shall be designed
and located in such a manner as to minimize automobile and
communication noises, emissions and headlight glare as to
adjacent premises, particularly residential premises, and
to maximize maneuverability of vehicles on the site.
*New material, see discussion below.
**Section transferred from B-4.
Parking Requirements - Calculations
The Taco John's case has pointed to the need to clarify several parking
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Generated as a point of some
confusion were the interpretations of Section 4.036 (4) (a) - page 4-31
and 4.036 (4) (g) iii - page 4-32. The basic question is whether Section
4.036 (4) (g) iii should be figured on a gross or net space basis. In
other words, should exact calculations be made for non-productive space
such as hallways, restrooms, entries or the like, or should simply the
gross area be calculated and 10 percent deducted for the non-productive
areas.
As the City has utilized a gross calculation minus 10 percent basis in the
past, it is recommended that this procedure be continued and Section 4.036
(4) (g) iii be clarified to reflect this approach. Our suggested wording
is as follows:
iii.
More than One Use. Except for shopping centers, should a
structure contain two or more types of uses, the gross floor
area of each use shall be calculated and a 10 percent reduction
shall be made for non-productive space. The resulting net
useable floor space figure shall be utilized to determine the
off-street parking requirement.
Dan Donahue
16 May 1985
Page Four
e
Parking Requirement - Convenience Food Operations. Due to change in
marketing and operations, the City has to address parking requirements
for convenience food operations through a variety of calculations based
upon differing space utilizations. The typical division is kitchen space,
convenience food service area, and restaurant (sit down) space. A need
is seen to simplify this calculation. Also no additional parking require-
ments are added due to drive-through service. As such space can generate
upwards of 40 percent of a convenience foods' gross sales, employee
parking for such an activity.would appear a reasonable requirement. Based
upon these considerations, we recommend the following modification to
Section 4.036 (10) (1) - page 4-36:
(1)
Drive-In Establishment and Convenience Food. One parking space for
each twenty square feet of gross service and seating floor area
excluding the kitchen, but not less than fifteen parking spaces.
Two additional spaces shall be required for a drive-through service
window.
We urge the Planning Commission and Council to review this proposed standard.
While the proposal is less restrictive than what the ordinance calls for now,
it would impose higher requirements then the practical application of the
ordinance which has been utilized. We believe, however, in line with the City's
philosophy to upgrade strip and highway commercial areas, these suggested standards
will work towards upgrading of such areas and away from "marginal" operations.
We are available to review these suggested changes with staff and subsequently
with the Planning Commission and Council.
CC:
Doug Sandstad
Bill Corrick
Steve Sondral
//
northwest associated consultants, inc.
May 16, 1985
Mr. Wi 11 i am Corri ck
Mr. Steve Sondral
Attorneys at Law
3811 W. Broadway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422
RE: New Hope Sign Ordinance
File No: 131.01
Gentlemen:
Almost six months ago Mr. Donahue communicated to our office a number of
questions related to sign regulations for the City. These were generated
out of the sign requests made by the Winnetka Mall. I have attached a copy
of these questions for your reference.
From our office's perspective, we take a liberal position that providing
justification can be made on the basis of health, safety and general welfare,
the City can impose reasonable standards. Your office, at least on the sign
content issue, has however, been much more conservative and as a consequence
I am questioning whether you believe it possible or advisable to proceed
with questions I and 2 in Mr. Donahue's letter.
Would you please review these matters and advise me of your opinion at the
earliest possible date.
Very truly yours,
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
David R. Licht, AICP
President
DRL/nd
cc: Dan Donahue
Doug Sandstad
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420
CITY
V NEI HOPE
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 5~28 Phone: 5~-1521
November 28, 1984
Dave Licht
Northwest Associated Consultants
4820 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
SIGN ORDINANCE
The Council as its meeting on November 26, 1984 passed Ordinance
84-13 which amended 3.467(3) (a) of the Sign Code. The language
leaves the ground sign intact except for the language prohibiting
tenant's names on the ground sign.
Council, after passing the ordinance, passed a motion directing
staff and the Planning Commission to examine the following issues:
Should there be a minimum letter height for these
ground signs as well as any ground signs for all
-districts?
2. Should there be a minimum, such as 20%, for identifi-
cation of the shopping center or commercial area?
How best can Section 3.467(3) (a) pertain only to shop-
ping centers in a B-4 zone? There seems to be some con-
fusion as. to whether this section of the Sign Ordinance
could apply to other commercial areas not in a B-4 zone.
I will be talking with you further on these matters after I have
talked with the Planning Commission at the December meeting.
Another action by the City Council was the passing of a resolution
and Ordinance 84-14. This places a nine month moratorium on the
acceptance of applications and the issuance of building permits for
the construction of any mini-warehouses in the City of New Hope.
Please see the enclosed resolution and ordinance.
I am directed to conduct a study for the purpose of evaluating
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code as it relates
to mini-warehouse developments. I will also be talking to you fur-
ther on this study.
Family Styled Village ~ For Family Living
- 2 -
Dave Licht
Northwest Associated Consultants
Last week, at the special meeting of the Planning Commission, the
Commission stated that they wished to study further the subjects
of performance bonding as they relate to Conditional Use Permits
and for the elimination of most of the variance procedures and an
increase in the use of the Conditional Use Permit.
We will need to discuss this further and make some recommendations
to the Planning Commission and Codes and Standards sub committee.
Think over the items above and perhaps we can get together after
next week.
Dan Donahue
City Manager
dd/jsb
el%c.
ORDINANCE NO. 84-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.467(3)(a)
OF THE CITY CODE BY DELETING CERTAIN
RESTRICTIONS ON SIGNS
City of New Hope, Minnesota
The City Council of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, ordains:
Section 1.
follows:
Section 3.467(3)(a) is hereby amended to read as
(3) Ground Siqns.
(a)
Shopping Centers. Shopping centers
containing more than four separate and
distinct occupancies may erect only one
ground sign per street frontage (single or
double faced) to be used as an identification
sign for the shopping center. Said ground
sign may not exceed two hundred square feet
in area, nor thirty feet in height and must
be set back a minimum of twenty feet from all
property lines.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effec-
tive upon its passage and publication.
Dated: November 26, 1984.
Mayor
Attest:
City Manager/Acting Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post the
, 1984.)
day of
1
WILLIAM J. CORRICK
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
MARTIN P. MALECHA
CORRIClI & SOI'~'I)RtLI'.
CHARTERED
L.&~ERS
3811 WEST BROADWAY
ROBBIlW~Ik&LE, lV[II~ lW E ~ OW.&
T£LEI=HONE (612) 533-2241
LEGAL ASSISTANT
LORRAINE M. NORTHAGEN
May 23, 1985
Mr. David R. Licht, AICP
President
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, %200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
Planning and Zoning
Our File No. 4607
Dear Dave:
In response to your letter of May 15, we feel that recuirin? a
minimum letter height for ground signs could be legally
supportable if based upon a record with sufficient factual
analysis of the safety elements. The public health and safety
element seems to be present.
~owever the requirement for identification of the shopping center
or cormmercial area presents a more difficult legal problem. The
proper governmental purpose to be served by such a regulation is
not apparent to me at this time, although possibly the arguments
could be developed. Even more dubious is the basis for
governmental regulation of commercial free speech. A Court could
conceivably accept the argument that an identification sign is
needed to enable people to find a 20 acre shopping center, but is
more likely to frown upon this as unnecessary restriction of free
speech. Any regulation of sign content is of dubious validity
from a legal standpoint, and the need for such regulation should
be determined to be very strong from a dolicy standpoint.
By WILLIAM J. CORRIC~
William J. Corrick
klthul
CC: Daniel Donahue HISCOPYru ~.~
Doug Sandstad -
northwest associated consultants, inc.
July 1, 1985
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager
City Administrative Offices
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
RE: Self Storage (Mini Warehouse) Facilities
File No: 131.01
Dear Mr. Donahue:
Based upon comments received from Mr. Sandstad and Mr. Smith we have revised
our 10 June 1985 draft of regulations addressing mini storage facilities.
Additionally, we have made several other text changes based upon our continu-
ing investigation of this matter.
Relative to the points made by Mr. Smith and Mr. Sandstad, it should be noted
that their position is that points (g) and (b) of the conditional use provisions
should be an "either/or" situation. We have continued to list these as two
separate and distinct requirements based upon the fire hazard which exists plus
the minimal tax generation considerations. Under this philosophy we are stating
that a mini warehouse facility must take on extra protection for public safety.
Again, we are available at your convenience to discuss this matter further.
Very truly yours,
NORTHWEST ASSOCI~JNC.
President~/ .
DRL/nd
CC:
William Corrick
Doug Sandstad
Doug Smith
4820 minnetonka blvd, minneapolis, mn, ste, 200 55416 (612) 925-9420
northwest
associated
consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:.
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue, City Ma~nager
David Licht
10 June 1985 - Revised 1 July 1985
New Hope Self Storage (Mini Warehouse) Facilities
131.01
PREFACE
At your directive, our office has undertaken a study of self storage (mini
warehouse) facilities. The attached memorandum provides documentation of
our study and findings.
Based upon our study findings plus subsequent discussions with you and the
City Attorney we have proceeded to draft zoning regulations considered as
appropriate to govern the self storage developments and uses which may occur
within the City. A background discussion and suggested zoning ordinance text
follow.
DEVELOPMENT AND'USE ISSUES
In evaluating self storage facilities, a number of significant issues have
been identified. These issues generate points of concern which subsequently
should be addressed by the zoning ordinance.
Residential Facilities - Compatibility. Beyond the internal site
harmony, a compatibility at a broader area scale exists with residential
facilities accessory to mini warehouses. By allowing residential uses
within industrial districts, a potential environmental problem with
noise, odor, light is created. As the City of New Hope is aware through
past problems between residential and industrial uses, such situations can
be quite significant. Additionally, it would seem inappropriate to impose
special standards on surrounding neighboring industries for the introduction
of a residential use within an "exclusive" industrial area. It is therefore
suggested that in such cases accessory residential facilities be designed
and positioned to minimize any potential environmental concerns.
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420
Dan Donahue
10 June 1985
Page Two
e
Potential safety problems for the residents of a care taker facility are
also seen to exist. Beyond the question of noise, semi-tractor-trailers
pose a potentially dangerous situation, especially if children are involved.
The hazard of fire from materials stored at the facility or surrounding
industries is also a potential concern.
Beyond having special standards to address these specific issues, a
conclusion can also be reached at an exclusive industrial area is a highly
questionable location to allow accessory residential uses. As such,
consideration should be given to the creation of a new zoning district
which would more appropriately accommodate business and industrial activities
which require on-premise, live-in quarters.
Caretaker/Watchman Facilities - Development Standards. A frequent accessory
use associated with self storage facilities are living quarters for caretakers
or watchmen. Quite commonly no special standards or provisions are imposed
upon these living units. 'As the City has no control on who the operator may
hire to occupy such units, building site, and usable open space requirements
would seem appropriate to insure livability and harmony between the residential
and business activities.
Building Design/Construction. Both a public safety as well as aesthetic
concern are raised by the design and positioning of self storage buildings
From an aesthetic consideration, long narrow buildings create a wall effect
which may or may not be viewed positively. This design consideration
also, however, has implications for fire protection. Given the fact that
the City has no effective means whereby to control and police the materials
which are stored within the warehouse units, any appropriate control would
be to limit the size and length of structures. In this same regard the
separation of structures is an added minimal protection which appears
justifiable from a fire protection concern.
Beyond the'size and locatio~ of structures, the building material standards
which are imposed should be the maximum again given the fact that there is
basically unregulated storage. In this same vein, dry sprinkling systems
and stand pipes plus close proximity to or installation of fire hydrants
are seen as essential for basic protection. Given the low tax revenue
generation of self storage facilities, the use should be required to carry
the burden of minimizing the public safety risk.
Dan Donahue
10 JUne 1985
Page Three
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing considerations and upon analyzing the zoning district
options which are available in the New Hope Zoning Code, we have concluded
that several major changes to the Zoning Code are necessary to appropriately
handle mini-self storage facilities. A first and fundamental change is the
creation of a new transitional zoning district to accommodate nonresidential
uses which are not strictly commercial or industrial in character. This
district would address a broader range of uses than simply self storage/mini
warehouse facilities. Due to the special concerns noted with regard to self
storage/mini warehouse facilities, these uses are recommended as being handled
as conditional use activities.
Our suggested approach to address these matters is as follows:
"T-I" TRANSITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT
Purpose. The purpose of the "T-i" Transitional Zoning District is to provide
for the establishment of a specialized zoning district to accommodate unique,
nonresidential activities which are not strictly commercial or industrial in
character. The "T-l" Transitional Zoning District is to typically be applied
in areas and to sites located between residential and nonresidential uses.
Permitted Uses, "T-I" The following are permitted uses in an "T-I" District:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Governmental and public utility buildings and structures, not including
outside storage.
Commercial/leased offices.
Medical and dental clinics.
Public and semi-public educational and religious buildings and uses.
Private clubs for handball, racket ball, tennis, etc.
Indoor commercial recreation.
Public parks, playgrounds ~nd related buildings and structures.
Mortuaries and funeral homes.
Accessory Uses, "T-1"
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
parking. Off-street parking as regulated by Section 4.036.
Off-Street Loading. Off-street loading as regulated by Section 4.037.
Signs. Signs as regulated by and in compliance with Chapter 3.
Buildings. Accessory buildings and structures which are utilized in support
of the principal building and principal use of the site not to exceed
twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the principal building
or one thousand square feet, whichever is least.
Conditional Uses, "T~" The following are conditional uses in an "T-I" District.
(Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated
by Section 4.20, and compliance with Section 4.036, Parking; 4.037, Off-Street Load-
ing; Chapter 3, Signing.)
Dan Donahue
t'~O June 1985
Page Four
(1)
Comment: Due
to lot coverage
this require-
ment is seen as
necessary for
drainage concerns.
Comment:
Allows for fire
truck manue-
verability.
Comment:
Concept is to
minimize fire
hazard.
Comme n t:
Suggestions
made. by
Director of
Fire and
Public Safety.
Self storage (mini warehouse) facilities, provided that:
(a)
At least thirty-five (35) percent of the site is open, green
space which is sodded and intensely landscaped in accordance
with a plan approved by the City Council.
(b)
Building coverage shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the
1 ot area.
(c)
No buildings shall be located closer than thirty-five (35)
feet to each other to allow for parking, loading, driveway
and fire lanes.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i.)
(J)
No building shall be greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet
in length.
Adequate space is provided for snow storage.
All structures are to be within two hundred (200) feet of a
fi re hydrant.
All 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.
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.
All driveway~ and parking areas are to be hard (blacktop or
concrete) surfaced and adequate turning radius for fire truck
maneuverability is to be maintained throughout the site.
Designated snow storage space is to be provided to insure
adequate and safe access during winter months.
Accessory living quarters on the site are to be in a separate
structure and are to conform to Uniform Building Code and
Zoning Ordinance design standards for single family dwelling
units. At least two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet
of usable open space which is in addition to any other open
space, green area requirement is to be provided expressly for
the accessory living quarters.
'Ban Donahue
fO 6une 1985
Page Five
(k)
Any structures having exposure to an adjacent residential
use or public right-of-way, park, or similar public use areas
shall be of brick, natural stone, wood, or stucco facing
material.
(1)
No retailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, repair, or other
such activity other than storage is to occur within the
self storage, mini warehousing facility.
Lot Requirements, "T-i"
(1) Lot Area. One (1) acre
(2) Setbacks.
(c)
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Fifty (50) feet.
Interior lot line twenty (20) feet, street lot line
forty (40) feet.
Thirty-five (35) feet.
SUMMARY
We emphasize that this is a preliminary draft of suggested regulations which require
the review of City staff, the Planning Commission and the Mayor and City Council.
Once an approach and content of regulations have been agreed upon by these parties,
the City Attorney needs to place the material in appropriate ordinance format for
public hearing and adoption.
CC:
William Corrick
Doug Sandstad
Doug Smith