Loading...
010516 Planning1 Walker-Crawford David From:Cazin Kaeley Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2017 12:32 PM To:Walker-Crawford David Subject:RE: Planning Commission Agenda Packet Missing Attachments:PLANNING CASE REPORT 15-21.doc; PC 15-21 Application.pdf; Jimmy Johns Issues Memo NAC Dec 31 15-21.doc I couldn’t find anything . . . As far as I know, the Planning Report, Application, Plans, NAC Memo and November’s minutes would have been included in the packet (along with the agenda). However, I can only find the original plans packet. The revised plans are multiple PDFs instead of a “packet”, so I’m not sure what they gave the commissioners?? Kaeley Cazin City of New Hope | Community Development Administrative Specialist 4401 Xylon Ave N | New Hope, MN 55428  Office: 763‐531‐5126 | Fax: 763‐531‐5136  kcazin@ci.new‐hope.mn.us | ci.new‐hope.mn.us      From: Walker‐Crawford David   Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:30 AM  To: Cazin Kaeley <KCazin@ci.new‐hope.mn.us>  Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Packet Missing    Do you keep these somewhere other than LF? We’re missing January 5, 2016.    Walker Crawford City of New Hope | Administrative Specialist 4401 Xylon Ave N | New Hope, MN 55428  Office: 763‐531‐5123 | Fax: 763‐531‐5136  dwalker@ci.new‐hope.mn.us          Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 1 1/5/16  PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date:  January 5, 2016  Report Date:  December 31, 2015    Planning Case: 15‐21  Petitioner:  Dennis Batty on behalf of Morgan III, LLC  Address:  3535 Winnetka Avenue North  Project Name:  Jimmy John’s South  Project Description:  Redevelopment of the property located at 3535 Winnetka Avenue. The existing on‐ site gas station and car wash will be replaced with a Jimmy John’s restaurant  including drive through and outdoor dining.      I. Type of Planning Request  A. Site Plan Review    B. Conditional Use Permit for PUD, Planned Unit Development    C. Administrative Use Permit for Drive Through Service Lane    D. Administrative Use Permit for Outdoor Dining    II. Zoning Code References  Section(s) 4‐35 Administration – Site Plan Review   4‐34 Administration – PUD, Planned Unit Development                                            4‐16(d) (3) Uses by Administrative Permit, CB District, Drive Through Service  Lanes                                            4‐16(d) (4) Uses by Administrative Permit, CB District, Outdoor Dining  III. Property Specifications  Zoning:    CB – Community Business District  Location: The property is a corner lot located in the southwest quadrant of the  intersection of 36th Avenue and Winnetka Avenue.   Adjacent Land Uses: CB, Community Business District to the north and east. R‐4, High Density  Residential to the south and west.    Site Area:    .41 acres, 19,609 sq/ft  Building Size:  1 story, 1,555 sq/ft    Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 2 1/5/16        Lot Area Ratio:                 Impervious area: 14,934 sq/ft (76%)  Planning District: Planning District 14.  The Comprehensive Plan directs the City to encourage  and pursue redevelopment of marginal commercial sites throughout the  district.   IV. Background Summary  The applicant wishes to redevelop the site located at 3535 Winnetka Avenue by removing the majority  of the existing site improvements and constructing a 1,555 sq/ft restaurant “sandwich shop” with drive  through and outdoor dining area. The existing site contains an operational gas station with dormant car  wash. The applicant proposes to remove the car wash portion of the building, all existing pavement and  all gas‐related infrastructure. However, the primary building where the convenience store is located will  stay intact. This portion of the building will be remodeled into the new restaurant space.      Zoning Analysis  A. Plan Description  1. Setbacks (Building Placement)  The property is zoned CB, Community Business District.  The setback requirements for  commercial buildings located in this zoning district are as follows:   Required Proposed Compliance  Front (North) 10 feet 63.6 feet Yes  Rear (South) 30 feet 28.25 feet* No  Corner Side (East)               20 feet 83.2 feet Yes  Interior Side (West) 10 feet 25.6 feet Yes    *The non compliant setback relates to a portion of the building that will remain intact.  Therefore, the existing condition is legally non‐conforming.    2. Curbing and Pavement  The proposed development will remove all existing on‐site pavement and curbing. The site  plan shows the new curb line for the drive through service lane on the west side of the  property set back two feet from the property line. The minimum setback per code for this  curb is five feet. Due to the placement of the existing building that is being saved, the space  for the drive through service lane becomes constricted. In order to provide for adequate  vehicle maneuvering and turning space, the curbing in this area needs to encroach into the  required setback. The applicant is seeking PUD flexibility to allow for the setback  encroachment. Staff is supportive of granting the flexibility.    The site plan indicates that the proposed dimensions for all parking stalls and drive aisles  meet city code.     Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 3 1/5/16    3. Pedestrian Access  New Hope Design Guidelines direct that primary building entrances be designed to link to  public walkways. The site plan provides sidewalk connections from the sidewalks on 36th  Avenue and Winnetka Avenue. These sidewalk connections link to pavement striping on the  site that directs pedestrian traffic through the parking areas to the building entrance. The  design of pedestrian site access is acceptable.   4. Parking  The CB District establishes minimum parking standards for drive through restaurants based  upon the use of floor space within the building. The site plan shows a total of 22 parking  spaces that are provided, meeting the minimum requirement for the site. The following table  represents the floor area ratios and corresponding parking requirements:    Use Ratio Square Footage Required Number of Spaces  Dining Inside 1 per 40 sq/ft 319  8  Dining Outside 1 per 40 sq/ft 95 2  Kitchen 1 per 80 sq/ft 368 5  Service Center Area 1 per 15 sq/ft 102 7    TOTAL 22    5. Bicycle Parking  The site plan shows one bike rack, providing a total of five bicycle parking spaces located at  the southeast corner of the building. The amount of bicycle parking proposed is compliant  with city requirements. The applicant must provide a detail of the proposed bike rack.   6. Landscaping  The applicant has submitted a full landscaping plan. In review of the plan, staff offers the  following comments:     The use of Hostas along the west side of the drive through lane does not offer  sufficient year round screening of the area. The applicant must provide an  alternative screening option.    The landscaping plan does not provide landscaping around the entire perimeter of  the parking lot. The landscaping plan must be amended to provide screening of the  entire parking lot.    The landscaping plan places a Linden tree that conflicts with the pedestrian  connection to Winnetka Avenue. This tree should be moved.    The landscaping plan must show the proposed ground cover outside of the planting  areas.     Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 4 1/5/16   The construction details include a retaining wall detail. The site and landscape plans  do not show the location of the retaining wall.   7. Lighting Plan  The applicant has provided a photometric lighting plan. The light levels internal to the site  meet City standards for areas such as building entrance, sidewalks, and parking lots.   The proposed light poles are 25 feet tall, meeting ordinance requirements. The applicant has  submitted cut sheets for the light fixtures that demonstrate 90 degree cutoff and shielded  light sources.    The lighting plan shows four (4) freestanding pole mounted lights located on the site. The  freestanding poles are required to be set back ten (10) feet from each lot line. The location of  the proposed poles does not meet this requirement. The applicant has requested PUD  flexibility in order to encroach into this setback. Staff is supportive of this flexibility, as the  size of the lot and subsequent design limitations do not offer alternative solutions.     8. Signage  Within the CB District, single occupancy buildings are limited to two wall signs not to  exceed 10% of the building façade in which they are located. The building elevation shows  two wall signs that are compliant with city code.   The site plan shows one freestanding sign at the corner of Winnetka Avenue and 36th  Avenue. Within the CB District, freestanding signs are limited to monument signs not  exceeding 100 square feet in area per side and 30 feet in height. Permanent freestanding  signs must be set back 10 feet from any property line. The proposed freestanding sign meets  city code requirements for size, placement, and height.   The applicant has not provided any details for the menu board or any potential traffic  directional signs for the drive through service lane. The applicant will be required to provide  such details for final approval.   9. Fire Department  The City Fire Marshal has reviewed the preliminary plans submitted by the applicant and  offered the following comments:     The plans do not indicate the location of the address numbers on the building. The  address numbers shall be on both street sides of the building (north and east), and of  a contrasting color. The minimum size of the numbers shall be 6 inches. The applicant  will be require to revise their elevation plans to show the location and dimensions of  the address numbers.      The applicant will have to provide fire department lock boxes on the building.   The applicant needs to provide a utility plan showing the size and location of the  water main serving the site. The applicant has submitted a utility plan showing the size  and location of the water service. This plan has not yet been reviewed by the Fire Marshal.     Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 5 1/5/16     The site plan must show the location of hydrants serving the site. The fire department  connection (FDC) shall be located within 100 feet of the FDC. The applicant has  submitted a utility plan showing the location of a new on‐site hydrant and the FDC. This plan  has not yet been reviewed by the Fire Marshal. However, the site plan indicates compliance  with the requirements for location of the hydrant and FDC.     Fire lanes may be required depending on the location of the FDC and hydrant.    Fire Marshal comments regarding the revised plan submittals will be available at the  Planning Commission meeting on January 5th.     10. Storm water and Drainage  The property is located in the Bassett Creek Watershed, and will require a review of the  erosion plan by the watershed. The drainage patterns of the site will not be altered  substantially as part of this development.  The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary  plan submissions and offers the following comment:   The best management practice (BMP) calls for the installation of a 3‐foot sump catch  basin. The utility plan submitted by the applicant calls for the installation of four (4)  4‐foot sump catch basins located at the site entrances. These catch basins will provide  the storm water treatment required.   At the time of this report the City Engineer had not reviewed the revised plan submittals  and full set of civil plans. City Engineer comments regarding the revised plans will be  available at the Planning Commission meeting on January 5th.   11. Loading and Deliveries  For commercial buildings less than 7,000 sq/ft in area, the city may waive the need to provide  a designated loading area. This site is too small to accommodate a designated loading area;  however, the applicant must demonstrate the following:   The type and size of vehicles that will deliver to the site.     The ability to regulate delivery times to avoid conflicts with business hours and  customer parking.      Illustrate how delivery vehicles will access and circulate through the site, showing  the turning radii of the vehicles through the site.      Illustrate how the garbage hauler will access the trash enclosure and exit the site.     12. Drive Through Service Lane  Drive through service lanes are an administrative use in the CB District. The proposed drive‐ through service lane meets all the requirements of the CB District related to stacking and    Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 6 1/5/16  segregation from parking areas. The applicant will be required to submit a detail on the  menu board and external speaker system for city review and approval.   Drive through service lanes are required to be screened from residential zoning districts and  public rights‐of‐way. The applicant is requesting to bring the drive through lane within two  feet of the west lot line. Review of the grading plan reveals between three to four feet of  grade difference between the subject site and the higher apartment site to the west. This  grade difference provides some screening, however, the landscaping that is proposed is not  sufficient. The applicant must provide screening of the drive through service lane.   13. Trash Enclosure  The trash enclosure is required to be set back five (5) feet from the south and west property  lines. The enclosure is also required to be constructed of materials that match the primary  structure. The submitted plans show both the location and design of the proposed trash  enclosure. The plans comply with city standards.  14. Design Guideline Compliance   The existing building is constructed of concrete block, with the building front accented by  the doorway and storefront windows. With the proposed redevelopment, the existing car  wash will be removed and the building exterior will receive a complete overhaul.   The applicant uses a synthetic stone to establish the base of the entire building. Staff is  pleased with this general design element. However, the New Hope Design Guidelines do not  allow the use of synthetic stone. The applicant will be required to substitute the synthetic  stone with a natural stone product or equivalent. To define the middle of the building, the  applicant has used large windows. The building top is defined by signage and a continual  cornice that wraps the top of the parapet.   The New Hope Design Guidelines require that 60% of any building façade consist of primary  materials such as brick, stone, precast concrete units, precast concrete panels, or glass. 30%  may be secondary materials of decorative block, stucco, or EFIS. 10% of the exterior façade  may consist of accent materials like architectural metal work, glass block or copper flashing.   a. Building Materials. The applicant has created visual differences on the building by using  a combination of stone, EFIS, glass, and metal. The building elevations consist primarily  of stone and glass on all walls. EFIS is used as a secondary material. On each wall, EFIS is  less than 30% of the individual wall.  The metal drive through pick up window canopy  and metal fencing around the outdoor dining area are used to accent the building. The  proposed finishes meet New Hope Design Guideline criteria.      b. Building Design.  The proposed building is one story in height and uses a commercial  architectural style that is consistent with similar standalone sandwich shops. The top of  the building is wrapped with a cornice providing additional architectural dimension.     Rooftop equipment must be screened from adjacent properties and public rights of way.  The elevation drawings indicate that the building will have a parapet height of    Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 7 1/5/16  approximately 3.5 feet, or 42 inches. This parapet will likely provide adequate screening  for most rooftop equipment; however the applicant must identify the location and height  of any rooftop equipment to ensure proper screening.     15. Outdoor Dining Area  An accessory outdoor dining area is an administrative use in the CB district. The site plan  shows a proposed outdoor patio that will be used for outdoor dining. The applicant has  submitted a patio layout that includes 3 tables and 12 seats. The general design and layout of  the outdoor dining area meet city requirements. However, the applicant will have to indicate  where outdoor trash receptacles will be placed.      16. Snow Storage  The site plan designates two primary areas for snow storage along the north property line.  The proposed areas do not conflict with the required on‐site parking. However, given the  size restrictions of the site, staff is concerned that the designated areas for snow storage will  be inadequate.  The applicant will have to submit a snow removal plan explaining how  excess snow will be removed from the site when necessary.   B. Zoning Code Criteria    1. Site plan review   Modification of or additions or enlargements to a building, or buildings, accessory site  improvements, and/or land features of a parcel of land that result in the need for additional  parking or increase the gross floor area of the building by 25 percent or more require site  plan review.     Criteria. In making recommendations and decisions upon site and building plan review  applications, the staff, planning commission and city council shall consider the compliance of  such plans with the following standards:     (a) Consistency with the various elements and objectives of the cityʹs long range plans,  including, but not limited to, the comprehensive plan.   Findings. The City’s long‐range plan is for continued redevelopment, expansion,  renovation, and development within in the city. This proposal is also consistent with  specific goals of the Comprehensive Plan that direct the city to pursue the  redevelopment of marginal commercial sites throughout the city.     (b) Consistency with the purposes of this Code.  Findings. The proposal is generally consistent with the purposes of the Code.    (c) Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree  and soil removal, and designing any grade changes so as to be in keeping with the  general appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas.     Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 8 1/5/16  Findings. Preservation of the existing site conditions is not desirable as the site is  nearly completely covered by hard surfaces with little desirable landscaping. The  proposed project will improve the site in total by cleaning up and replacing the  current landscaped areas that have been neglected.  There are currently no significant  trees on the site to be removed. The designed grade changes that are proposed are  minimal and current drainage patterns will be maintained. The proposed site  improvements will keep with, and compliment the general appearance of the  immediate area.     (d) Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with the terrain  and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the proposed  development.  Findings. Staff believes the proposal for site and building improvements is adequate  and will be of a harmonious nature. The size and configuration of the lot limit the  possible layout options for the property. Staff feels that the applicant has done a good  job of working with the restrictive space.    (e) Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features  including:  1. Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and buildings on  the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the  general community.  Findings. Staff finds that the applicant has created a good internal sense of order  given the limitations of the site. The proposed site plan delivers a desirable  environment for occupants, visitors and the general community.   2. Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping  to the design and function of the development.   Findings. The arrangement and amount of open space and landscaping are  appropriate given the design and function of the proposed development and the  limitations of the site.   3. Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors, and details of construction as  an expression of the design concept of the project and the compatibility of the  same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and functions.   Findings. Staff finds the proposed building materials, textures and construction  details to be appropriate and compatible with neighboring structures.   4. Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including walkways,  interior drives and parking, in terms of location and number of access points to  the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior  circulation, separation of pedestrian, cycling and vehicular traffic and    Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 9 1/5/16  arrangement and amount of parking so as to be safe, convenient and, insofar as  practical, compatible with the design of proposed buildings, structures and  neighboring properties.   Findings. The proposed site plan provides for adequate vehicular, pedestrian, and  cycling circulation. The proposed access points to public streets are adequate in both  number and size. The arrangement and amount of parking that has been provided is  adequate insofar as practical given the size and configuration limitations of the site.   5. Creation of an energy‐conserving design through design, location, orientation  and elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use  of landscape materials and site grading.   Findings. The applicant has proposed to completely remodel the current building.  The extensive remodeling project will require that all construction activity comply  with current building code standards that relate to energy efficiency. The building  orientation is limited to the current location as the primary structure will remain  intact.   6. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions  for such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation  of views, light and air, and those aspects of design, not adequately covered by  other regulations, which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.   Findings. The proposed grading and drainage plan will maintain existing drainage  patterns and meet the requirements for surface water management. The proposed  project will not interfere with the views or limit access to light and air of adjacent  properties.       2. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development    This section is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the  conservation of land and open space through clustering of lots, buildings, and activities,  which promote the goals, outlined in the comprehensive plan or serve another public  purpose. It is further intended that planned unit developments are to be characterized by  central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint and common use and  maintenance of parking, open space and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection  and efficient distribution of uses. The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict  provisions of this Code related to setbacks, heights, lot area, width and depth, yards, etc., by  either conditional use permit or rezoning to a PUD district, is intended to encourage the  following standards:    (a) A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the comprehensive plan. (PUD           is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)      Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 10 1/5/16  Findings. The proposal is consistent with specific goals of the Comprehensive Plan.  The Comprehensive Plan states that the City wishes to promote private reinvestment,  renovation, and redevelopment of marginal commercial sites. Available land for  commercial development is limited in the city. The proposal promotes a creative re‐ use of the property given this limitation.   (b) Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of                  economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and siting of structures  and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.     Findings. Given the limited land available for new development, the proposed  project promotes efficient land use through the redevelopment of a marginal  property.     (c) The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as existing  vegetation, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion.         Findings.  Diseased and dying vegetation will be removed to accommodate new  plantings.  The overall landscaping plan introduces new types of vegetation to the  site. Site grading plans will ensure the prevention of soil erosion.     (d) A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and  orderly transition of varying land uses in close proximity to each other.    Findings. The proposed project promotes a creative use of the current site  improvements by re‐purposing the main portion of the existing building.       (e) An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby      lowering development costs and public investments.     Findings. The project promotes efficient use of land through redevelopment. No new  streets or roads will be created and no new public utilities will be extended as part of  the development.        (f) Promotion of a desirable and creative environment that might be prevented through the  strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the city.    Findings. A desirable environment will be created by granting the flexibility  requested through the conditional use permit for PUD. Such flexibility will allow the  applicant to create a more functional site plan by placing the drive through service    Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 11 1/5/16  lane and light poles in a way that works with the limitations of the restricted site and  existing building.     C. Design and Review Committee  The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant on December 17, 2015. The committee  was in favor of the proposed development and request for PUD flexibility.     D. Approval  1. Type of Approval   a. Site Plan Review – quasi‐judicial  b. Conditional Use Permit for PUD – quasi‐judicial  2. Timeline  a. Date Application Received: December 11, 2015  b. Date Application Deemed Complete: December 23, 2015  c. End of 60‐Day Decision Period: February 9, 2016  d. End of 120‐Day Decision Period: April 9, 2016    VI. Notification  Property owners within 350 feet of parcel were notified by mail and a legal notice was published in the  SunPost newspaper.     VIII. Summary  This proposal provides an opportunity for the redevelopment of a distressed commercial property. Such  opportunities for redevelopment are a priority of the city.  The proposed building and site design  generally meet the objectives of the City’s Design Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan. This project also  represents an opportunity to clean up a challenging site both aesthetically, and environmentally. Given  the limitations of the site in terms of size and configuration, staff feels that the city will not likely see a  better proposed use of this property.     IX. Recommendation         Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the site plan and conditional     use permit for PUD, with following conditions of approval:    1. The applicant must identify any rooftop equipment and meet all screening requirements for such  equipment.   2. Address numbers of a contrasting color and minimum height of 6” shall be added to the north and  east elevations of the building.    Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 12 1/5/16  3. The applicant shall enter into a site improvement agreement with the city to ensure the completion  of all required improvements (to be prepared by the City Attorney).  4. The applicant shall provide financial guarantee and performance bond for landscaping and site  improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and building official)  5. The applicant shall enter into a storm water maintenance agreement with the City (to be prepared  by the City Attorney).   6. The grading, storm water management, and erosion control plans shall be reviewed and be subject  to final approval by the City Engineer and the Basset Creek Watershed District.   7. The site utility plan shall be subject to review and final approval by the City Engineer, Fire Marshal,  and Public Works.    8. The applicant will provide record plans or as‐built drawings to the City following project  completion.   9. The applicant will secure administrative use permits for the outdoor dining area and drive through  service lane.  10. The applicant shall secure demolition permits for the removal of the car wash and canopy and  removal of fuel tanks. Tank removal must meet all State and Federal regulations and standards as  applicable.   11. The parking lot shall be screened with landscaping for the entire perimeter of the parking lot that  adjoins public streets.   12. The applicant must provide a detail of the proposed bicycle rack.   13. The applicant must provide the percentage of site area that is designated for snow storage in  addition to a snow removal plan detailing snow removal procedures.   14. The proposed tree located near parking stall number five must be moved.   15. Disability ramps must be provided where pedestrians enter the parking lot and access the building  sidewalk.   16. The applicant must provide an alternative screening method to screen the drive through lane from  residential properties.   17. The applicant must provide details on the reader board and intercom system.   18. The applicant must provide the following information:   They type and size of vehicles that will deliver to the site   Illustrations showing how delivery vehicles will access and circulate through the site,  showing the turning radii of the vehicles through the site   Show the location for proposed off‐loading of trucks.    Planning Case Report 15‐21 Page 13 1/5/16   Illustrations showing how the garbage hauler will access the trash enclosure and exit the site.   19. The applicant must replace areas of synthetic stone with natural stone or equivalent.   20. The applicant must provide details of any proposed retaining walls.  21. The applicant must identify on the landscaping plan, ground cover that is located outside of the  planting areas.   22. Irrigation plans must be submitted for new planting areas.   23. Any proposed directional traffic signs must be shown on the site plan and details of such signs must  be provided.   Attachments:   Application   Planning Consultant Memo (December 31, 2015)   Plans   MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Sargent FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: December 31, 2015 RE: New Hope – Jimmy John’s 3535 Winnetka Avenue Redevelopment FILE NO: 131.01 – 15.10 BACKGROUND The City has received an application from Morgan III LLC to redevelop an existing gas station/car wash into a Jimmy John’s fast food restaurant. The site is zoned CB, Community Business District. The CB District allows convenience food restaurants as a permitted use. The application includes the following elements: 1. Planned Unit Development to offer select flexibilities from City standards. 2. Site and Building Plan Review 3. Administrative Permit for Outdoor Dining 4. Administrative Permit for Drive Through Service Lane The applicant met with the New Hope Design and Review Committee on December 17, 2015. They have subsequently submitted revised site and building plans that attempt to address the issues raised by the Design and Review Committee and City staff. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Existing Zoning. Within the CB, Community Business District, the existing gas sales/convenience store are allowed by conditional use permit. The proposed uses are allowed as follows:  Jimmy John’s Sandwich Shop (Restaurant/Convenience Food) – Permitted Uses  Drive Through Service Lane/Window – Administrative Use  Outdoor Dining – Administrative Use  Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit 2 The change of land use is consistent with the CB Zoning District. The restaurant use is seen as being compatible with the adjoining land uses shown below: Neighboring Use/Zoning. North 36th Street – Auto Parts Store CB South Apartments (High Density) R-4 West Apartments (High Density) R-4 East Winnetka Avenue (Winnetka Commons Shopping Center) CB Demolition Issues. The change of land use will involve significant redevelopment of the site including:  Fuel Tank Removal  Removal of the Car Wash  Removal of the Canopy  Removal of the Vacuum and Air Machine  Removal of the Northeast Curb Cut Planned Unit Development. Initial review of the proposed redevelopment plan reveals that the site is incapable of meeting all of the City development standards related to setback and site design. The areas of flexibility are a result of the site size and configuration. Within the CB Zoning District, the City allows for a commercial planned unit development (PUD) by conditional use permit. The intent and purpose of the PUD process is to introduce flexibility in site design and architecture for the conservation of land to promote the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The PUD process allows deviations from the strict provisions of the New Hope Zoning Code related to setbacks, heights, and lot area. The redevelopment of marginal commercial sites is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals. The flexibilities being requested are from setbacks related to drive through lane and light fixture setbacks. The following paragraph outlines the site plan review and the PUD request. Building Setbacks. The following table illustrates the building setbacks The existing building is being retained and remodeled to accommodate the restaurant. The car wash is being removed from the west side of the building. The building meets the setbacks of the CB District except the 30 foot rear yard setback. The building is 28 feet from the south property line. This is an existing condition and may continue to exist as a legal non-conforming condition. Required Proposed Compliant Front North 10 feet 63.6 feet Yes Corner – Side East 20 feet 83.2 feet Yes Interior – Side West 10 feet 25.6 feet Yes Rear South 30 feet 28.25 feet* No * Existing non-conforming condition – grandfathered building setback 3 Parking for Restaurant. Based on the proposed uses of the restaurant, the new facility will require 22 parking spaces. The site plan shows 22 spaces, all properly dimensioned to meet City Code. Dining Inside 319 ÷ 40 = 8 spaces Dining Outside 95 ÷ 40 = 2 spaces Kitchen 366 ÷ 80 = 5 spaces Service Counter 102 ÷ 15 = 7 spaces TOTAL 22 spaces In review of the site plan, we question the location and design of Stalls 21 and 22. These parallel stalls are located along the proposed drive through lane. The applicant must demonstrate how these stalls will be accessed and egressed without interfering with the drive through lane traffic. The parking lot design provides for continuous concrete perimeter curbing, paved surface, and striped stalls. The curbing along the west side of the site is set back two feet from the property line. This is less than the five foot required setback. The applicant is requesting flexibility from this standard through the PUD. This reduced setback may be acceptable provided the applicant is capable of screening the drive through lane from the adjoining residential property. There is some grade separation between the property that increases in the southwest corner of the property. However, this is not sufficient to screen the drive through lane. The landscape plan shows a proposed row of Hosta Francee along the west lot line. Hostas are not screen plantings. They generally reach a size of 18 to 28 inches and are seasonal. In this regard, they will not satisfy the screening requirements for a drive through lane. Alternative screening, either fence or plantings, must be provided. Curb Cuts. Curb cut location meets City Code. The curb cut nearest to the intersection is being closed. Both the curb cut widths are 24 feet per the directive of the Design and Review Committee. Parking Lot Screening. The City requires all parking areas of six or more spaces to be screened and landscaped from abutting public rights-of-way. The landscape plan does not provide screening for the full length of the parking lot. The applicant wishes to utilize this space for snow storage. The landscape plan must be revised to provide the required screening. Snow Storage. The applicant’s site plan shows proposed snow storage along the north and northwest areas of the site. These areas raise the following issues: 1. The north side of the parking lot requires additional screening. The snow storage may not be conducive with landscaping in these areas. 4 2. The snow storage area extends to the public sidewalk. This area will face challenges for snow removal from the sidewalk. 3. The applicant should provide an area calculation to demonstrate the percent of lot area available for snow storage. 4. If the snow storage area is not sufficient in size, a snow removal plan will be required as part of the PUD approval. Bike Parking. The City requires bicycle parking to be provided for all commercial development and redevelopment. The proposed 1,500 square foot building will require five bike parking spaces. The applicant’s site plan provides a location at the front of the building for five bicycles. The applicant must provide a bike rack detail for the site. Pedestrian Access. The site design must provide a pedestrian sidewalk, crosswalk connect from the public sidewalk to the building customer entrance. The sidewalk shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide. Crosswalks shall be demarked through the parking lot. The applicant’s site plan shows a proposed sidewalk connection from both Winnetka Avenue and 36th Street. In review of the pedestrian connection, we offer the following recommendation: 1. The curb island along parking Stall 6 should be widen to segregate the pedestrian connection from the parking stall. 2. The Planning Commission should determine if the pedestrian way between parking Stalls 17 and 18 should be a curb island to segregate the pedestrians from the parking stalls. This improvement would complicate snow plowing within the parking lot. An alternative design option would be to relocate the Winnetka Avenue pedestrian connection to the curb island south Stall 13 and connecting the crosswalk with the disability parking access lane. This would require the curb island along Stall 13 to be widened. 3. The site plan must be revised to show disability ramps where they enter the parking lot and where they access the building sidewalk. Drive-Through Service Lane. Within the CB District, the drive through service lanes are allowed by administrative permit, provided the following conditions are met: 1. The applicant’s site plan provides the required 120 feet of automobile stacking exclusive of the required parking area and traffic circulation area. No part of the drive through lane encumbers the public street right-of-way. 2. The order board is to be located west of the building and oriented to the northwest. The applicant must provide details on the readerboard size, illumination and intercom system. 5 3. Drive through service lanes are required to be screened from residential zoning districts and public street rights-of-way. The applicant is requesting to bring the drive through lane within two feet of the west lot line. Review of the grading plan reveals between three to four feet of grade difference between the subject site and the higher apartment site to the west. This grade difference provides some screen, however, the landscaping that is proposed is not sufficient. The applicant must provide screening of the drive through service lane. Loading. For commercial buildings less than 7,000 square feet in area, the City may reduce the size or waive the need to provide a designated loading area. This site is too small to accommodate a designated loading area, however, the applicant must demonstrate the following:  The type and size of vehicles that will deliver to the site.  The ability to regulate delivery times so as not be conflict with business hours and customer parking.  Illustrate how delivery vehicles will access and circulate through the site, showing the turning radii of the vehicles through the site.  Illustrate how the garbage hauler will access the trash enclosure and exit the site. Based on the site plan, staff is concerned with truck movements entering the site and moving through the parking lot. The aforementioned information is needed to determine the types of delivery vehicles that will serve the site, whether the vehicles can move through the site without conflicts with parked vehicles, and where trucks will be off- loaded. Building Design. The existing building is constructed of concrete block, with the building front accented by the doorway and storefront windows. With the Jimmy John’s redevelopment, the existing car wash will be removed and the building will receive the new face lift. In evaluating the building against the City’s Design Guidelines, we offer the following comments:  Base, Middle and Top. The applicant accomplishes this design objective using a synthetic stone at the bottom two-thirds of the building façade, around the entire building. The applicant uses windows and entry around three sides of the building to define the middle. The building top is defined by the EFIS sign band and the foam cornice.  Ground Level Expression. This is accomplished with a 14 foot wide sidewalk patio at the building front and the provision for outdoor dining. The applicant has provided the pedestrian connections and on-site bicycle parking to the front of the building..  The building’s window and door design is improved with the building’s face lift. 6  Building Materials. The New Hope Design Guidelines call for the following building materials: 1. Primary building material at least 60% of the façade must consist of brick, natural stone, pre-cast concrete units, and pre-cast concrete panels. 2. Secondary building material not more than 30% of the façade may consist of decorative block, stucco, or EFIS. 3. Accent materials up to 10 percent of the façade consisting of door and window frames, lintels, cornices, architectural metal work, glass blocks, or similar materials. The applicant’s building elevations have been revised to reduce the amount of EFIS to 30%. The primary building material is proposed to be synthetic stone. We are not familiar with this material. The City’s Design Standards require natural stone. The applicant must provide sample materials for the City to determine if this material satisfies this City design standard. Rooftop Equipment. The building layout must include a roof design that illustrates the rooftop equipment location. The building elevations must screen rooftop equipment from adjacent properties and public streets. The applicant’s site plan shows ground mounted equipment that is to be relocated to the roof. This must be addressed in the plans. Trash Enclosure. The trash enclosure must meet the accessory building setbacks. This requires a 5 foot setback from the west and south lot lines. The trash enclosure meets required setbacks. The trash enclosure design meets City Code. The location of the trash enclosure raises issues with regard to its access and egress. The location has the potential of garbage trucks conflicting with the drive through service lane traffic and parking Stalls 21 and 22. The applicant must provide a description of garbage pick up and show how the garbage truck will maneuver on the site plan. Landscape Plan. In review of the submitted landscape plan, we offer the following comments: 1. The use of Hostas along the west side of the drive through lane does not offer sufficient year round screening of the area. The applicant must provide an alternative screening option. 2. Off-street parking lots having six or more stalls shall be landscaped and screened from the public streets. The landscape plan does not provide landscaping around the entire perimeter of the parking lot. 7 3. The landscape plan places a Linden tree in the sidewalk leading to the pedestrian connection to Winnetka Avenue. The applicant must provide a planting detail for this area that demonstrates the tree planting and an unencumbered five foot pedestrian way. 4. The construction details include a retaining wall detail. The site and landscape plan does not show the location of the retaining wall. 5. The landscape plan must illustrate the proposed ground cover outside of the planting areas. The plant details indicate that mulch will be place around the new trees and shrubs. 6. Plans must identify irrigation or maintenance plans for the new planting areas. Lighting Plan. The lighting plan shows one freestanding light along each lot line and wall mounted fixtures. The light fixtures appear to be 90 degree cut off fixtures with a shielded light source. The pole heights are limited to 25 feet. In review of the lighting plan, we offer the following comments: 1. The freestanding poles are required to be set back from the public street right-of- way and residential property lines by 10 feet. None of the pole locations can meet this standard. PUD setback flexibility is required to accommodate the current design. In light of the lot size and overall design, the reduced setbacks will not be a negative impact on the adjoining properties. 2. The light levels at the property lines, across the parking lot, sidewalks and building entrances meet City standards. 3. The plan has included on-building exterior lights that address the following areas: a. Security lights above all entrances and exits. b. The City requires a light level of 5 foot candle at the building’s customer entrance. c. The City requires a light level of .5 foot candles over private sidewalks. d. The lighting plan must show exterior building light fixtures. Signs. 1. The freestanding sign has been relocated to meet the required 10 foot setback. 2. The freestanding sign is 36 square feet and 7 feet 8 inches in height. This meets City Code. The design, location and height of this sign must be coordinated with a landscape plan to ensure its visibility. 8 3. The wall signs meet the size, location and number standards of the CB District. 4. The applicant must provide details on the menu board and any traffic directional signs for the drive through service lane. Outdoor Dining. The site plan shows an outdoor dining area. In review of this use, we offer the following comments: 1. The applicant’s plan must include refuse receptacles. 2. The site plan delineates the dining area on the site plan using a decorative wrought iron fence. 3. The applicant describes the area for dining to include only the table area of 95 square feet. This is 30% of the indoor dining area. 4. The building screens the outdoor dining area from adjoining residential areas. 5. The layout provides for proper aisle width and does not interfere with pedestrian ways. 6. The outdoor dining surface will be concrete. 7. The lighting plan addresses the store front, sidewalks, and dining area. In this respect, the outdoor dining area appears to meet City design standards. RECOMMENDATION The applicant proposes to redevelop a marginal commercial site in New Hope. The change of land use and site improvements will benefit this area of the community. Based on staff review, we would recommend that the conditional use permit/planned unit development and the site and building plans be approved provided the following conditions are satisfied: 1. The applicant secure a demolition permits for the removal of the car wash and canopy and removal of fuel tanks. Tank removal must meet all State zoning standards. 2. Parking. a. The applicant describe the access, egress, and use of parking Stalls 21 and 22. 9 b. The parking lot be landscaped/screened for the entire perimeter of the parking lot adjoining public streets. 3. The applicant provide a percentage of the site designated for snow storage. The applicant provide a plan for snow removal if the designated snow storage areas are insufficient. 4. The applicant provide a detail of the bicycle rack. 5. Pedestrian Access. a. Curb island adjoining parking Stall 6 be widened to accommodate a pedestrian way segregated from the parking stall. b. Planning Commission consideration of elevating the pedestrian way between Stalls 17 and 18. c. Disability ramp must be provided where pedestrians enter the parking lot and access the building sidewalk. d. The applicant provide a detail for the tree planting on the sidewalk next to Stall 5 in order to preserve an unencumbered five foot pedestrian way. 6. Drive Through Window. a. The applicant provide a landscape alternative to screen the drive through lane from the residential property to the west on a year round basis. b. The applicant provide details on the readerboard and intercom system. The site plan must provide traffic direction sign details and locations for the drive through lane if they are being proposed. 7. Loading. The applicant must provide the following information that demonstrates the site is capable of accommodating deliveries to the site: a. The type and size of vehicles that will deliver to the site. b. The ability to regulate delivery times so as not be conflict with business hours and customer parking. c. Illustrate how delivery vehicles will access and circulate through the site, showing the turning radii of the vehicles through the site. d. Location proposed for off-loading trucks. e. Illustrate how the garbage hauler will access the trash enclosure and exit the site. 10 8. Building Design. a. The applicant must provide a material sample of the synthetic stone to allow the City to make a determination if the product meets the City’s Design Standards. b. The applicant must illustrate the location and screening of all proposed rooftop equipment. 9. Trash Enclosure. The applicant shall provide a description of how the garbage trucks will access and egress the trash enclosure without encumbering the drive through lane and parking Stalls 21 and 22. 10. Landscape plan shall be revised to address: a. The applicant shall provide an alternative landscape plan that provides year round screening of the drive through lane. b. Provide landscape/screening along the entire perimeter of the parking lot adjoining the public street. c. Landscape detail for the Linden tree on the sidewalk next to parking stall 5 demonstrating the tree placement and an unencumbered five foot pedestrian way. d. Location of any proposed retaining walls. e. Identify ground cover outside the planting areas. f. Plans for irrigation of new planting areas. 11. Lighting Plan. All exterior lights must be 90 degree cutoff light fixtures that will shield light sources. 12. Signs as shown are acceptable. The applicant must submit a menu board detail and the location and design of any traffic directional signs related to the drive through lane.