Loading...
080685 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 1985 City of New Hope, Minnesota 4401 Xylon Avenue North 7:30 p.m. o o o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Case 85-16 Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 8700 49th Avenue Robert L. Gearou, petitioner. Planning Case 85-19 Request for a Conditional Use Planning Case 85-20 Planning Case 85-21 North, Permit for Business in Home, 4900 Virginia, Richard Drechnik, Petitioner. Request for Side-Yard Variance, 3240 Ensign Court, Richard and Donna Kranz, Petitioner. Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Retail Sales and Parking Variance, Edina Properties, Petitioner. Discussion concerning City Center Marketing Study. Discussion Concerning Zoning Code Updates. COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design and Review Committee. Report of Land Use Committee. Report of Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 16, 1985. Review of Council Minutes of July 22, 1985. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, sioners and Staff. Announcements. Commis- 16. Adjournment. MINUTES CODES AND STANDARDS SUB-COMMITTEE PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 a.m. Town Crier Restaurant 2480 Winnetka Avenue North Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 PRESENT: ABSENT: Chair, Ken Anderson, City Manager Dan Donahue, Planning Consul- tant, David Licht Terry Lutts Anderson, on recommendation of City Manager, agreed to discuss Item 12 Self-Storage Facilities, first. The Planner's recommendations on a new zoning category T-1 was discussed by Mr. Anderson at length. The result was that mini-warehouse develop- ments could be regulated by either creating a new zone or establishing a separate conditional use under an existing zone, such as I-1 and/or I-2. Mr. Licht agreed to draft this second option for a conditional use and have it to the City Manager by Friday, August 3, 1985. Mr. Anderson reviewed Items 1-11 with Mr. Licht and Mr. Donahue. After discussion, Mr. Anderson recommended passing on all 12 items to the full Planning Commission for discussion at the regular meeting of August 6, 1985. The meeting was adjourned at 9 a.m. / Dan Donahue City Manager August 2, 1985 TO: Planning Commission FROM: City Manager ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA At the last Council meeting, the Council accepted the marketing study of the center city shopping area at 42nd/Winnetka from the consultant. I have included it in your packet of information. Please take a little bit of time to review it as it is on the agenda for discussion on Tuesday night. On July 29, the Codes and Standards sub-committee met to review the staff recommended zoning code updates and changes. The codes and standards committee at the review recommended that they be put on the agenda for discussion on Tuesday night. I am providing you with the agenda from that meeting on July 29, along with the letter from the City Attorney on the changes. The actual paperwork which has the changes and justifications is quite lengthy. The letter from the City Attorney should provide you with an adequate summary of the changes. If you wish to have further information on some or all of the recommended code changes, please get hold of me on Monday or Tuesday or I will be glad to furnish them to you on Tuesday night. DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: August 6, 1985 85-16 Robert Gearou Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval 8700 49th Avenue North I-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: The petitioner is seeking approval for a comprehensive sign plan. This is for the entire building, including the recently added addition at 49th/Boone. The proposal is to affix a sign which is allowed by the sign code to the south corner of 49th/Boone. Code requires a comprehensive sign plan for the overall building. In addition to the current sign, which states "Bob Inc." the new sign will say "Robin Industrial Supply Robin Engineering Kluge Incorporated" Overall, the sign will be 11'6" by approximately 1~'. 2. I don't have a reproduceable plan for the sign but I will have one for you on Tuesday night. DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: August 6, 1985 85-19 Richard Drechnik Conditional Use Permit for Business in the Home 4900 Virginia Avenue North R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: Under Ordinance 4.038, the petitioner is seeking a conditional use permit in order to have a commercial cabinet shop in his single family detached garage. 2o The residence is on a corner lot and was developed approximately 20 years ago. It has a detached garage which is 24' x 22' or 528 square feet. You may recall that in 1983 the petitioner sought another conditional use permit for a home occupation to have a retail new and used clothing store operating out of their basement. This was denied by the Planning Commission and Council. I have enclosed the minutes from that previous planning case. The business is already in operation and has been for some time. The Inspections Department found the business to be operating without com- pliance with city ordinances. At the time of discovery and subsequent inspection, the site was littered because of the woodshop business opera- ting in the detached garage. Complaints were received from neighbors because of the materials normally found in the garage, which were found laying about in the yard. The Inspection Department found the petitioner to be in violation because he added a gas fired unit heater to the garage. 5o The city has received complaints about this business. I believe the complaints were directed more at the messy appearance of the yard and the coming and going of traffic. From a staff perspective, it does not appear that the business is compati- ble with the residential character of the neighborhood and recommends denial. Also, you should note that the petitioner will be using in excess of 500 square feet and the code allows only 300 square feet for a home occupation. 4.038 Home Occupation. (1) Purpose. The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to insure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. (2) Application. For purposes of this Code, home occupations, as defined in Section 4.022, shall be further defined to distinguish permitted home occupations from conditionally permitted home occupations. Accordingly, all home occupations which satisfy the permitted home occupation criteria shall be considered as a permitted accessory use in all residential zoning districts. Ho~e occupations which fail to satisfy the permitted home occupation criteria, shall require a conditional use permit, as provided for in Section 4.20, and may be located in any residential zoning district based upon conditions set forth in the approved conditional use permit. (3) Permitted Home Occupations. Home occupations which meet the following criteria: (a) Structural Changes. Businesses which require no interior or exterior changes necessary to conduct the business; which are conducted within a principal building; and which require no mechanical or electrical equipment not customarily found in a home. (b) Traffic. Businesses which do not significantly alter the traffic pattern of the neighborhood. (c) Employees. Businesses which do not require employees other than those living on th9 premises. (d) Area Permitted. Businesses which require no more than twenty percent of the gross floor area of a dwelling, not to exceed three hundred square feet including accessory building. (e) Sales on Premises. Businesses which are not involved in direct sales on the premises except as may be conducted through the use of the U.S. mail or by taking and ordering delivery of orders by telephone. (4) Conditional Use Permits. Conditionally permitted home occupations shall consist of those home occupations which do not meet all of the provisions of (3) above. Said home occupation may be granted a conditional use permit provided that: (a) Adverse Effect on Neighborhood. The City Council shall find that all business related activity occuring on the premises shall not cause any adverse changes to the residential character of the neighborhood. (b) Screening of Exterior Changes. The City Council shall find that any exterior changes necessary to conduct the business are sufficiently screened, properly designed, or separated by distance so as to be consistent with existing adjacent residential uses and compatible with the residential occupancy. ) (C) Interior Changes. The city Council shall find that any inter,or changes necessary to conduct the business comply with all building, electrical, mechanical and fire codes governing the use in a residential occupancy. (d) ~raffic. The City Council shall find that the traffic generated by the business involves only vehicles of the type that typically service single family residences and that such traffic constitutes neither a nuisance nor a safety hazard. %.. PLANNING CASE 83 - 20 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PEP~M'£T FOR HOME OCCUPATION - 4900 VIRGINIA AVENUE NORTH - RICIIARD AND JANET DRi'~CHNIK, PETITIONERS Mr. and Mrs. Drechnik stated they were requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow them to operate a retail new and used clothing store from their basement. ~ley were asking for the permit for a maximum of two years to allow them to determine if it would be profitable to return to New Hope. They had previously had a store in the New Hope Mall and in Minneapolis. They would like to stay in the New Hope area. Financially it was not working for them to be in Minneapolis. He stated he would be open only three days a week by appointment only. He feels he has ample parking for seven cars on his lot. He would see to it that no cars would park on the street either on 49th or on Virginia Avenue. He did not see that this would cause any congestion. Mrs. Drechnik stated she had taken a traffic count one day between 7:30 and 8:00 on a Friday and there were 113 cars that were driven one way past their house.' Mr. Drechnik said that he felt the street was already busy and they would not create any more problems if they had the store in their house. He said that he had spoken to a majority of the neighbors and explained they would only be open three days a week and'by appointment only and that they were asking for a two year permit. They seemed to feel there would be no problem with the business. In answer to a question from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Drechnik stated he had spoken to. the close neigh- bors and had received no negative comments. He did not plan to put any signs outside, and since the customers would have to call him first for directions to the house, he felt he could limit the customers to three or four at a time. The customers would get into the basement through the back door. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the driveway was horseshoe shaped and there was also the drive up to the garage. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about three or-four customers at a time, and the problems that could result during the r6tation process. He was concerned about the parking. He asked the petitioner what modifications he planned inside the house? Mr. Drechnik said that the basement was already sectioned off. He would be using approximately 300 square feet, with the rest of the space being for the laundry room and for office space. He stated that as far as he knew, the space met city fire codes. The City Manager stated that there were a whole range of things that Mr. Drechnik would have to do as far as complying with code, if he did receive a Conditional Use Permit, before he could conduct a busi- ness in the downstairs. Mr. Drechnik noted that there was one room that could be sectioned off for a changing room if he needed it. The hours of operation would be 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Saturday, Monday and Thursday. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that they would be ~ealing with clothes that had been purchased and now wanted to re-sell. Mr. Drechnik stated he had a high standards and would be dealing with strictly designer and brand name clothing. He would not be doing any alterations or customer fitting. He agreed with Commissioner An- derson that his was an unusual request for an R-1 zone. He stressed he wanted only a temporary two year permit and was agreeable to even a three month review by staff. If he could not make it in two years, he would give it up. There would be no outside advertising on the site. Commlssioner Anderson noted that it was possible that Mr. Drechnik would have to get involved in some fairly substantial expenses in an effort to remodel the space to bring it up to code. He might have to make a fairly substantial investment. Mr. Drechnik stated that he had not as yet been informed as to what he might have to do to upgrade the facility. If it were too much, he might have to abandon the idea completely. Commissioner Anderson re-expressed his concerns about the parking on the site and the fact that this business is proposed for a single family residential area. Commissioner Bartos stated that he would hate to have the petitioner go into this without knowing what _ the costs would be. He suggested a table until June, so the petitioner could see what would be entailed in bringing the potential sales site up to code. lie felt this would save him both time and money. Commissioner Gustafson commented that his personal feelings in regard to this type of business in a resi- dential area were quite negative. He added that if the same opinion was held by the remainder of the Commission, he felt to delay the decision would be unfair to the petitioner, if they would then deny the request in another month. There wa~ no one present in regard to'this request. ~-~'~'~-~ ~'~ Commissioner Friedrich stated that he agreed with the Chairman that a retail operation ~n a residential neighborhood would have an adverse affect. Commissioner Gundershaug asked the petitioner how he got the clothes to his home? Mr~ Drechnik said that people brought clothes to them, but he also Dicked uo some of them himself. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether the petitioner already had clothes stored on the site. The answer was yes, there were clothes that they had to liquidate, as in a garage sale. The City Manager stated that over the weekend there had been a sign up that he had been order to take down. Mr. Drechnik stated he had not been ordered to ta~e the sign down, he had not had an order on this. The sale was conducted only on Friday. He is trying to liquidate stock he now has. He had never received a phone call about the sign. Commissioner Friedrich made a motion to table Case 83-20 until the meetinq of June 7, 1983. Commissioner Barton second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Barton Voting against: Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion failed for lack of a majority. Commissioner Gundershaug' r~de motion recommending denial of the request in Case 83-20. Commissioner Ed- wards second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Barton, Gustafs°n, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None V-C- ~"--~ ~,~ Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion failed. Plann~n_~ Case No. 83-2Q, request from Richard and 3anet Drechnik, for a conditional use permit to allow sale of retail clothing from their single-~{ly-~h-ome at 4900-Virginia Avenue North, was considered by----fh~-C~6-£I'. Mrs. Janet Drechnik made the presentation. She said they would like a permit to operate ~ a shop to sell consignment clothing at their home. She said they would make no changes to the premises. There would be no signs. They would use 300 square feet for the sales area. There would be one dressing room. Parking would be provided on the U-shaped drive- way which holds about seven cars. There would be no parking on either 49th or Virginia Avenues. There would be no more than four customers at any one given time and they will be stressing "by appointment only". She stated that they wanted the permit for no more than two years. They used to operate in the New Hope Mall. They had relocated in Minneapolis and it started out fairly well but the freeway came in and they were forced to close at a loss. Mrs. Drechnik said they would like to get the permit for two years so they can see whether or not it is worth getting back into business again. She said they did not think there would be any unnecessary traffic since they are only a specialty shop and only certain customers would come who were interested in brand name clothing. The purpose is to save people money. She said it also serves people who want to consign clothing for sale and that she thought New Hope could use such a store. Mrs. Drechnik said that she did not think there would be a problem with setting a prece- dent because they plan to pay a much higher percentage than most consignment stores. They plan to pay between 60 and 65 percent to their clients. She said that Council could review the operation at any given time and close down the operation if it does not live up to what they have said about it. She said they would also furnish copies of their ads to the city so they could be reviewed. Mrs. Drechnik said they had talked to their neighbors and there was no one opposed to it. She said they would create less of a traffic problem than any garage sale where cars come and go constantly. Mr. Drechnik clarified that they would be operating out of the basement of their home, which is a 300 square foot sectioned off segment, for the business. He pointed out that they were only requesting a temporary permit to see if they can make it again in this business. The mayor commented that he did not think that the Council could legally allow them to operate a business out of their basement because it would not meet code as to access. There would be only one door out of the basement. This would not r~eet state or local codes. There would also be a p=oblem with setting a precedent for allowing a retail business in a single family residential zgne. The mayor continued that the Council representm the whole city, and they cannot endanger the whole city by allowing retail sales from a house. He then mentioned other areas where people might want retail sales from 'their homes. Mr. Drechnik replied that is why they were only asking for a two-year permit, or maybe even a shorter period of time. Nine out of ten people who want to open a retail busi- ness are looking for a permanent retail shop. Mr. Drechnik said had he known he had to have a fire door, etc., which the inspector did not tell him, he would not have spent the money for the application. He said he had been under the impression that he did not need to meet all the codes for a temporary permit,d~°; ~-=~3 ~;~ ItChes,pointed out to Mr. Drechnik that, when he was operating out of the New Hope Center~? it would have been unfair to him to have permitted another business to operate without / meeting code as to parking, etc., all of the things that a retail merchant has to meet. / In.the same manner, it would be unfair to allow Mr. Drechnik to operate from his home with a retail sales business. This would be an injustice to the merqk~n~ts,i~n_~e.jci~¥. ! F. ~(cont'd) ~.~c,~ ~ ~,~ ~TY The city manager presented a letter from Glen Ramsborg, 4848 Virginia Avenue, opposing the location of this retail b~-ines~-i~-~-~'£denti~l-area on th~ basis that ir'would contribute to increased congestion and traffic flow problems. ~9__t_i_pp by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Daly %o acc~gt th~_lD~%e~ from Mr. Ramsborg and to make it part of the file. Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Williamson Voting against: None Absent: Otten ~otion declared carried~ Mr. Drechnik asked why he was not informed of code requirements before he made this application. The mayor sa'id that while meeting code was one consideration, another main consideration is the setting of precedent--zoning as opposed to building. Discussion followed as to whether there was a misunderstanding with staff on this matter. Councilmember Enck commented that staff did not have to go through all of the codes when an application is being filed. The fee is to cover that process, to cover staff expense, as opposed to the petitioner obtaining all the information prior to payment of the fee. Further comments were heard from Mr. Drechnik relative to his position on the matter of paying the fee without being advised of the problems with code. He said if he had known what improvements would be necessary, he would not have started the process. Councilmember Williamson suggested that the petitioner discuss this issue with the in- spection department. The mayor again commented that even though the building codes were met, he would still oppose the conditional use permit for retail sales in a single family home because of the precedent that would be set. He said permits could not be given that would change the residential atmosphere of a neighborhood. If this permit were granted, how would you stop the person next door from wanting the same concession, and so on. City Manager Donahue advised that the petitioner was advised on two occasions by himself and by staff of the general problems involved prior to Mr. Drechnik making the applica- tion. Mr. Drechnik then said that they do have inventory that they have to liquidate. He said they had a sale last Friday to get rid of some of the inventory, a basement sale--like a garage sale. He said he was told to take down his sign. Mr. Drechnik said that he does have to liquidate the inventory and that he would like permission of the Council to do that. He would like to put up a basement sale sign, like the signs they put up for garage sales. Upon question, Mr. Drechnik said that he could not run the sale from his garage because he has other things in the garage. I{e said he has 300 square feet of clothing to iiqu~d- ate. Lots of the stuff will be given to charity but he would like to try to sell it · first. He would like to try three or four sales. It was suggested to Mr. Drechnik that he should try to work out a tent sale from one of the shopping center lots. Councilmember Daly suggested that a garage sale was a good way to get rid of the inven- tory. He said he thought two garage sales were allowed per year a,ld that he should check -~7 with staff as to the requirements. Discussion followed as to the difference between the garage sale and the basement sale. Mr. Drechnik stated that all of the goods was not consignment goods, but a lot of it belonged to him. He again stated that he would like to have a couple, three sales, at least, to see what happens. He said he would have a sale tomorrow, and then every two weeks. He would be operating a.garage/basement sale, but not a retail shop. Alternative methods of disposing of the inventory were reviewed, such as consignment shop,, or having a non-profit organization handle the sale for so much on the dollar. · Mr. Drechnik said that he wants to try to sell it first himseif.~-f~u~'~-~-~-~-'~ ~f~'[~"~ F. ~. (cont'd) Councilmember Enck asked how the used clothing shop came to handle new clothing. Mr. Drechnik said that in the consignment business they have taken people's clothing, they have bought samples for resale, etc. '~L~ t~%~; - ~B~_~ zifg . Councilmember Enck spoke.in opposition to the request. No one else appeared regarding this matter. Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Cduncilmember Daly to deny the request for a under Planning Case No. 83-20 and to deny any further stays of enforceme~ and urging the petioners to find other means of disposing of the inventory. Mr. Drechnik said that he was just asking for three sales. Question was raised as to whether a basement sale was in the same category as a garage sale. Mr. Drechnik was advised that he must come in to talk to the city manager regarding whe- ther a basement sale would qualify as a garage sale. Vote Was then taken on the question. Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Williamson Voting against: None f~f~-i ~'~ ,,~,f~ Absent: Otten~ ~ ~ ~"0~ ~ ~; Motion declared carried. (Conditional Use per~it denied.) DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: August 6, 1985 85-2O Richard and Donna Kranz Sideyard Variance for Addition to the Home 3240 Ensign Court R'i STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: The petitioner is seeking a variance in order to construct an addi- tion to a single family on the non-garage side that would be located five feet from the property line.. Code requires that this side of the single family home be not less than ten feet from the property line. 2. The adjacent home to the north has living area near the property line. Comments of that neighbor at 3236 Ensign Court will be important. A potential hardship to justify the variance may be given by the petitioner because of the in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard. This appears to prohibit any expansion of such a family room any where else on the site. The addition does not appear to conform to the design of the existing home. It has a flat roof and does not appear to be architecturally compatible. This should be evaluated very carefully. 5. If a variance is granted, the petitioner should be informed of the need for a lot survey. Staff would recommend approval if a better and more compatible design for the addition were presented. This is similar to other requests that have been granted but not for such a design that does not work with the rest of the building such as this. i l F~W DECIMAL, FRACTIONAI~'r REVISIONS ., I DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: LOCATION: ZONING: August 6, 1985 85-20 Edina Properties and H. T. Lund Conditional Use Permit for Retail Sales in Industrial Zone and Parking Variance. 4730 Quebec Avenue North I-2 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 2e 5o The petitioner is seeking to install a small retail outlet for day old and excess bakery goods. This is a conditional use under 4.144 (6). The site is a triangular shaped piece on the curge in the roadway of Quebec Avenue North and was developed in 1972 with an office/warehouse. In 1979 the building was taken over by Lunds and converted to a bakery with major interior remodeling at that time. Careful consideration of the conditional use section of the code, 4.211 and 4.212 is necessary. Staff has concerns about the traffic, parking and general safety. As for traffic, the site is located across the street from a park. It is on a curve and staff believes there is a need for a traffic impact study. The proposal presents significant traffic and parking problems. The traffic becomes a problem because the site does not have enough space for parking and therefore vehicles will be on the street. At this time, there is inadequate parking on the site. In the past there have been complaints from Lunds because people using the park across the street are parking in the Lunds' parking lot. Because of this, staff is fully aware of parking and traffic problems. Staff is also convinced that the site has a maximum intensity of development at this time and that anything additional such as this retail store would overload both the site and the vicinity with vehicles and traffic. The comprehensive plan has a land use goal which states "prevent over intensi- fication of land uSe development,"in other words, development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (uti- lities, parking access, etc.). A transportation policy in the comprehensive plan also states "eliminate and prevent any on-street parking which conflicts with moving traffic or creates hazards" Staff believes that the traffic and parking will violate these two comprehensive plan statements. This site is a classic example of an irregular shaped industrial lot with a building that is 39% of the lot size "code requires 35%" and the code required 'parking cannot even be squeezed in at this time. In 1973, the original plan showed 33 spaces on the site. In 1979, 20 feet of asphalt was added along the frontage to gain spaces for a total of parking spots. That asphalt appears to have gotten too close to the property line so that we do not have our minimum three foot landscaped strip between the parking and the property line. Calcu- lations.based on our current zoning ordinance for this building, tell us that 55 parking spaces are needed on the site, as opposed to the approximate 40-43 spaces now in place. It is also interesting to note that no loading berth exists on the site with sufficient room for trucks to maneuver on private pro- perty to serve such a dock. This further impacts on parking and traffic in that trucks are and will be maneuvering on the public roadway to serve the site. - 2 - 9. With the addition of the retail outlet, eight additional parking spots are re- quired by c ~e. Therefore, there should be 63 spaces on the site, so they will be 20 under. 10. Staff recommends that there be a traffic impact study required of the petitioner in order to adequately address the parking, traffic, and safety issues that will be generated. SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, July 30, 1985 7:30 a.m. There will be a speci.~l meeting of tae 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. Sections 4.233 - Performance Bonds for Variances 4.202.- Termination of Special Zoning Approval 3. Sections 4.037 - Off-Street Loading 4e 5o Section 4.032 - Garage Location Limitation, and Section 4.034 (3) - Setback Standards - R-1 and R-2 Districts Section 4.032 (3) '- Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment Section 4.035 - Area and Building Requirements Section 4.036 - Off Street Parking 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. WILLIAM Jo CORRICK STEVEN A. SONDRALL 1~4ARTIN p. MALECHA (~ORRICK & SOI~IDRALL CHARTERED 3811 WEST BROADWAY ROBBI~SDALE, ~II~I~ESOTA 55422 TELEPHONE 1612) 533-2241 LEGAL ASSISTANT 5ANDR.A 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 e e 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 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~ 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 6nd drainage and which is subject to the approval of the City. *(h) Loading Berth. Adequate space shall be provided on the site for a loading berth to accommodate the parking and 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 **(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. Stacking~ 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. e Use of Street. No part of the public street or boulevard may be used for stacking of automobiles. 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) (§) 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 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. William Corrick Mr. Steve Sondral Attorneys at Law 3811W. 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, NORTNWEST 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 CITYOr v VNEIV HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 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 ordihance, 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 eric. 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 Signs. (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. ~IALECHA CORRICK & SOI%IDRALL CHARTERED L ~ary~RS 3811 WEST BROADWAY TELEPHONE (612) 533-~41 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 Re: ~lanning and Zoning Our File No. 4607 Dear Dave: In response to your letter cf May 15, we feel that re~uirin? 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. However the requirement for identification of the shopping center or corc~ercial area pre~ents 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 policy standpoint. OR~Gi~A~ By WILLIAM J. CORRIC~ William J. Corrick klthul cc: Daniel~ Donahue~ IHIS COPY FOR ~ Doug ~andstad ~ ~-- 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~S~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 Li ch t '~']1'~/ 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 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 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-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~" 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 i0 .J.~ne 1985 P.a~e 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) 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 fire 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 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. 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 lO'~une 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-l" (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. July 30, 1985 Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager City Administrative Offices 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 RE: New Hope Zoning Ordinance Revision - Self Storage Facilities File No: 131.01 Dear Mr. Donahue: Based upon the discussion held at the Codes and Standards Committee meeting on 30 July, our office has drafted Zoning Ordinance Provisions which treat self storage/mini warehouse facilities as a condition use permit within the Industrial Zoning Districts. To be emphasized in this regard is that this approach as compared to that of a new transitional district offers a lesser degree of control and decision-making to the City. Also to be noted is that the inclusion of a transitional zoning district into the ordinance is not a new concept. The R-O District is a provision currently in the ordinance which is intended for a transition between residential and commercial. The suggested T-1 District follows this same concept only as a transition between residential and industrial. We will be available at the Planning Commission meeting on 6 August to discuss this subject in more detail and to respond to questions which may be raised. Very truly yours, Presid~t~' ..... , INC. DRL/sm cc: Ken'Anderson Steve Sondral Doug Sandstad 4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420 NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA SELF STORAGE/MINI WAREHOUSE FACILITIES INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROACH I-1 Limited Industrial District 4.144 (11) Self Storage (Mini Warehouse) Facilities provided that: ae The development is located adjacent to a residential district. bo No two facilities shall be located closer than one- half (½) mile to each other. 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. do Building coverage shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot area. eo No buildings shall be located closer than thirty-five (35) feet to each other to allow for parking, loading, driveway and fire lanes. fe No building shall be greater than one hundred fifty (150) feet in length. g. Adequate space is provided for snow storage. ho 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. ke 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. De- signated snow storage space is to be provided to insure ade- quate 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. me 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. No retailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, repair, or other such activity other than storage is to occur within the self storage, mini warehousing facility. (Conditional uses in the I-1 District automatically carry over into the I-2 District.)