The URL can be used to link to this page

010494 Planning2. 3. 4. '4.1 *4.2 *4.3 *4.4 5.1 5.2 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 1994 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS Case 93-35~B Case 94-01 Case 94-02 Case 94-03 Request for Rezoning from B-l, (Limited Neighborhood Business) Zoning District, to B-2, (Retail Business) Zoning District, or Code Text Amendment or Conditional Use Permit to Allow Laundromat/Drycleaning Businesses to Locate at 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North, Oliver Tam/Tam's Family Partnership, Petitioner Request for Site and Building Plan Review for Building Addition and Conditional Use Permit fOr Deferred Parking, 3216 Winnetka Avenue North, J.R. Jones, Petitioner Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of J.R. Jones Addition, 3216 Winnetka Avenue North, J.R. Jones, Petitioner Request for Zoning Text Amendment to Amend Off-Street Parking Requirements for Industrial Office Space, 4700 Quebec Avenue North, Jesco Industrial Supplies, Petitioner COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design and Review Committee Report of Codes and Standards Committee (a) Revisions to Gas Canopy/Gas Signage Ordinances (b) Review of Permitted/Conditional Uses in B-1 District (c) Preliminary Review of Wall Sign Study 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 1993 7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of November 22, December 8, December 13, and December 15 9. 10. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT *Petitioners are requested to be in attendance CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 93-35B Request: Request for Rezoning from B-I, (Limited Neighborhood Business) to B-2 (Retail Business) Zoning District, or Code Text Amendment or Conditional Use Permit to Allow Laundromat/Drycleaning Businesses with Processing Location: 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North PID No: 05-118-21-22-0120 Zoning: B-1 (Limited Neighborhood Business) Petitioner: Oliver Tam/Tam's Family Partner Report Date: December 30, 1993 Meeting Date: January 4, 1994 UPDATE Petitioner is requesting rezoning of property from B-I, (Limited Neighborhood Business) Zoning District, to B-2, (Retail Business) Zoning District, or code text amendment or conditional use permit to allow for drycleaning/laundromat businesses (with processing), pursuant to Sections 4.10, 4.11, 4.20, 4.23, 4.30 and 4.31 of the New Hope Code. This planning case was split into two parts at the November Planning Commission meeting, with the Commission recommending approval of "Part A" of the case to allow a graphics business as a professional office by conditional use permit in a B-1 Zoning District; and the Commission tabling "Part B" of the request to either rezone the property or approve a code text amendment to allow a drycleaning/laundromat business (with processing) and referred this matter to the Codes and Standards Committee for review. The petitioner was not present at the December 7th Planning Commission meeting, therefore the Commission tabled the request upon the recommendation of staff. Subsequent to that time staff contacted the petitioner and requested to be informed as to whether the petitioner wanted to proceed with, modify, or withdraw the request. Staff also requested that the owner of the strip center be present at the meeting and bring the prospective laundromat tenant to the meeting to answer questions. o As you are aware, a laundromat is allowed as a permitted use in the B-1 Zoning District. Laundromat is defined as follows: "Self-service washing and drying, dry cleaning. Also dry cleaning pickup and laundry station, including incidental repair and assembly, but not including commercial processing on the site." This specific tenant wants to include commercial processing on the site along with his other operations, but the existing City Code does not allow that use. The decision that needs to be made is whether to amend the code to allow the on-site processing either as a permitted or conditional use, to rezone the site to B-2, or deny the request. The Planning Consultant prepared the enclosed November 30th report regarding Dry Cleaning Facilities and the report was reviewed by the Codes and Standards Committee. It is the general consensus of the consultant and the committee that allowing processing of dry cleaning on the site would not negatively impact the neighborhood due to improved technology that reduces the emission and noise levels of dry cleaning facilities and due to the fact that existing Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and City regulations could adequately monitor the facility. The major question is whether the processing should be allowed as a permitted or conditional use. The Planning Consultant prepared the enclosed December 23rd report regarding all permitted/conditional uses in the B-1 Zoning District, including the dry cleaning processing issue, subsequent to the December Codes and Standards Committee meeting. It is the recommendation of the Committee that dry cleaning processing be allowed as a permitted use in the B-1 Zone. If the Commission is in agreement with the recommendation and if the petitioner determines to proceed with the request, the Commission has the following options: A. Deny the request Bo Recommend approval of a text amendment allowing dry cleaning processing in the B- 1 Zone. Co Table the request until the February Planning Commission meeting, at which time a variety of changes in the permitted/conditional uses in the B-1 Zone (including dry cleaning processing) will be discussed at a public hearing. Attachments: Excerpts: 12/23 Planner's Report November 30th Planner's Report Letters to Petitioner November 3rd Staff Report uNOrth, wes t, ssociat,e Consult ants, Inc. R S A P L N G DES N · U AR K E R E S E A RC H TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: New Hope Codes and Standards Committee Cary Teague/Alan Brixius 23 December 1993 New Hope B-1 Zoning Regulations 131.00 - 93.10 BACKGROUND This B-1 Zoning study was generated by the request of Mr. Oliver Tam to rezone his property from B-1 to B-2. The rezoning was pursued to make allowance for a broader range of uses within a retail strip center which exists on his property. The Planning Commission recommended that rather than rezoning the property to B-2'and create an intensification of potential land uses, the City should consider exl0anding the number of uses allowed within the B-1 zoning district. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Proposed and Existing Uses - B-1 District Exhibit B - Proposed Ordinance Exhibit C - Dry Cleaning Facilities Study ANALYSIS At 'its November 17, 1993 meeting, the Codes and Standards Committee discussed potential uses to be allowed within a B-1 zoning district. Codes and Standards reviewed an initial draft of Ordinance changes at their 16 December 1993 meeting. The following is a summary of the proposed amendment (See Exhibit A & B) as recommended by the Codes and Standards Committee: 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses allowed in the B-2 zoning district were each discussed regarding compatibility within a B-1 zoning district. The lists of permitted uses shown in Exhibits A & B are the result of uses that were thought to be compatible within the B-1 District. After the 16 December 1993 Codes and Standards meeting, mortuaries was removed as a permitted use and fabric stores and dry cleaning establiskments were added. Permitted Accessory Uses. permitted accessory uses. No change is suggested to the Conditional Uses. The following is a suggested addition to the conditionally permitted uses within the B-1 District: Professional and commercial uses were expanded to include medical facilities. The additions made are similar to those uses which are currently conditionally permitted within the R-O Zoning District. At the 16 December Codes and Standards meeting, the following changes were made. Veterinary clinics were removed from the offices conditional use permit. bo The operational limitation for convenience food take out facilities was removed. Additionally, the Codes and Standards decided that pet stores and veterinary clinics were not appropriate for B- 1 Zoning Districts. B-2 Amendment. With the removal of mortuaries as a permitted use, it becomes necessary to add this land use as a permitted use in the B-2 Zoning District. CONCLUSION The attached exhibits should be considered as initial draft documents for discussion. Any proposed changes from the Planning Commission, Council, Board of Codes and Standards, or City Staff are welcome. pc: Kirk McDonald Steve Sondrall Doug Sandstad Dan Donahue 4.10 "B-i" LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT 4.101 4.102 Purpose. The purpose of the "B-1 Limited Neighborhood Business District is to provide for the establishment cf local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer from whom the goods or services are furnished. These centers are to provide services and goods only for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community. Permitted Uses, B-1. The following are permitted uses in a "B-i" District: (1) Barber Shops. (2) Beauty Shops. (3) Essential Services. (4) Convenience, Limited Merchandise, Grocery Stores (not Supermarket Type. (5) ~!~!~ii!iii Laundromat, Laundries, Dry Cleaning, 'i'~'~'i'~'~'i~ Self-Service Facilities. Also dry cleaning pickup and laundry station, including incidental repair, assembly, (~) Mortuary. Nort we ssociated Consultants, Inc. U R 8 A P L NG · DES I G N · M AR K E T R E S E A R C N,~.-~ TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Stuart Roberson 30 November 1993 New Mope - Dry Cleaning Facilities 131.00 - 93.10 The City of New Hope has requested that NAC investigate the possible hazards that air and noise pollution generated by dry cleaning facilities may have on residentially zoned areas. The City has indicated that it is City of New Mope is interested in allowing this particular use within neighborhood commercially zoned districts. The following study should aid you with your decision. DRY CLEANING FACILITIES Introduction There are three types of dry cleaning facilities, dry to dry, transfer, and combination of dry to dry and transfer, The dry to dry is a one-machine dry cleaning operation, in which washing and drying occur within the same machine. The transfer machine system is a multiple machine dry cleaning operation, in which washing and drying are performed in different machines. For example, a washer and dryer, a washer and reclaimer, or a dry to dry machine and reclaimer(s). The dry to dry transfer system is a combination of both systems. EXHIBIT C - DRY CLEANING FACILITIES STUDY 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 Pollutants The only pollutant generated by a dry cleaning facility is an emission product known as percholorethylene (PCE), or commonly called "perc". It is considered one of the most hazardous air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, and is suspected of causing cancer. Its odor is familiar to most people, however, if handed properly, it rarely escapes its confinement. Federal law originally limited PCE emissions to 25 particles per million (ppm). However, regulations restrictions were lessen to allow 100 ppm. Minnesota State Law did not follow this change and maintain the stricter 25 ppm. It is difficult to measure ppm with regard to a dry cleaning facility, so the state measures PCE consumption. Dry cleaning consumption will vary depending on the type of facility and the size of its source. The following are the types of dry cleaning facilities, their size, and the amount of PCE and the limit of consumption (see Exhibits A-C). PCE CONSUMPTION CPIART Facility Small Area Source Large Area Source Major Source Dry to Dry 140 gall. PCE/yr. 150 - 2,100 gall. PCE/yr. 2,100+ gall. PCE/yr. Transfer Dry to Dry and Transfer Less than 200 gall. PCE/yr. Less than 140 9all. PCE/yr 200 - 1,800 gall. PCE/yr. 140 - 1,800 gall. PCE/yr. 1,800+ gall. PCE/yr. 1,800 gall. PCE/yr. PCE Control Devices Hazardous PCE emissions are controlled by two process vent control devices; the carbon absorber (CA) and the refrigerated condenser (Rc). The CA is a bed of activated carbon into which an air-PCE gas-vapor steam is routed and which absorbs the PCE on the carbon. These carbon absorbers are often called "sniffers" 2 The RC is a recently developed vapor recovery system into which an air-PCE gas-vapor stream is routed and the PCE is condensed by cooling the gas-vapor stream. RC condensers are often called "chillers" Ail additional activities are called "fugitive controls" They are used to control emissions which could not reasonably be vented through a vent, stack, or functionally equivalent device. Such activities include the detection and repair, storage of all PCE solvent product and waste in sealed containers, and the drainage of all cartridge filters in their housing, or other container, for a minimum 24 hours before removal. Safety Detection To ensure safety, there are two methods that are used to detect the levels of PCE, a colorimetric detector tube and thermometer. The colorimetric detector tube measures the PCE concentration in the exhaust of the CA. The thermometer will measure the temperature at the end of the cycle on the outlet side of the RC on the dry to dry machine, dryer or reclaimer. Safety Inspections Self inspections occur at the large area sources and the major sources on a weekly basis. Bi-weekly inspections are conducted at small area sources. Statistical documentation is kept for unscheduled official review. Any perceptible leaks detected shall be repaired in 24 hours. If required monitoring detects values that do not meet the parameters set in the standard, adjustments or repairs shall be made to the dry cleaning system or control device to meet those valves. New Technology The latest technology involving PCE emission control is performed by a specialized carbon bed, sometimes known by the product name of "consorba". This device is used in conjunction with a process vent control device which reduces ppm levels to parts per billion (ppb), which are well within state law regulations. Research A comparative investigation was conducted of several communities: Bloomington, Burnsville, New Hope, Minneapolis, and Wayzata. Four of the five allowed a dry cleaning facility as a permitted use within a neighborhood commercial, while Wayzata required a conditional use permit. Another investigation was made to determine whether or not a square footage limitation was placed on this particular use. The City of Minneapolis restricted its size to 1,200 square feet. Further information provided by dry cleaning facility owners and chemical suppliers suggests that 1,200 square feet is sufficient to meet neighborhood market demand. NOISE POLLUTION In oducfion The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Air Quality Division Noise Pollution Control regulates noise pollution for dry cleaning facilities. Standards for allowable noise pollution is based on the noise area classification (NAC), A-weighted decibels or db(A), and the time of day. NAC is a classification based on the land use activity at the location of the receiver and determines the noise standards applicable to that land use activity unless an exemption is applied. NAC's are measured by db(A)'s. A db is a unit of sound pressure. An (A) is a unit of sound level that is weighted. The allowed db(A) is limited by day time and night time standards, and it.is measured by LS0 and L10. Day time is considered as 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM; and of course night time are the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The sound level is measured by L50 and L10. The "L" refers to the sound level and 50 represents 50% of an hour, or 30 minutes, and 10 represents 10 percent of an hour, or 6 minutes. The noise classification that we are most interested in is NAC 1, which includes household units. This particular classification is the most restrictive. The following are the standards for NAC 1 and its land use description; and included for comparative purposes are the standards and land use descriptions for NAC 2 and 3. Noise Area Classification 1 2 3 Daytime db (A) Nighttime db (A) L50 L10 LS0 L10 60 65 50 55 65 70 65 70 75 80 75 80 Noise Area Classification 1 - Land Use Activities Household Units (includes farm houses) Group quarters Residential hotels Mobile home parks or courts Transient lodging Other residential Motion picture production Correctional institutions Educational services Medical/other health services Religious activities Cultural activities and nature exhibitions Entertainment assembly Camping and picnicking areas (designated) Resorts and group camps Other cultural, entertainment, recreational activities Noise Area Classification 2 - Land Use Activities Rapid rail transit Railroad terminals Airport and flying terminals Marine terminals Public assembly Amusement and parks Automobile parking Repair services Business services Contract construction services Noise Area Classification 3 - Land Use Activities Food and kindred products Lumber and wood products Chemical and allied products Stone, clay and glass products Motor vehicle transportation Airport transportation Communication Utilities Race tracks Mining activities All measurements are made using a microphone which is protected from surrounding conditions which would prevent an accurate measurement. SUMMARY When federal and state laws were enacted, standards were created for every possible scenario imagined; including the worst case scenario, close proximity to residential areas. Those standards are based on the knowledge for the preservation of public health and welfare. They are consistent with respiratory, sleep, annoyance, speech and hearing conservation requirements. RECOM3 NDATION The pollution and noise standards set forth by Federal and State Law has been specifically designed for the health and welfare for household units. Current technology has also contributed to reduce the emission and noise levels of a dry cleaning facility. Combined, they adequately protect the interest of residents in adjacent properties. Therefore, we recommend that the City aTlow the use of dry cleaning facilities within the B-1 Zoning District. However, the City must make a determination on whether to allow this particular operation as a permitted or conditional use. There are reasonable arguments for both considerations. The City could allow a dry cleaning facility within the B-1 District as a permitted use and rely on the existing MPCA and the City Code to regulate safety and design standards. Or the City could allow a dry cleaning facility as a conditional use. This would also be governed by the very same regulating bodies, however, it would also require a public hearing and site plan review. The first option offers simplicity and control, and the second option presents a time consuming effort with a great deal of control. Attached is a draft ordinance for your review and discussion. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall 6 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: #612-531 -~ Police Fax: #612-531. Public Works Fax: ~672-535-; December 16, 1993 Mr. Oliver Tam 1 160 Fireside Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Subject: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM B-l, LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT, TO B-2 RETAIL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT, OR CODE TEXT AMENDMENT OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW LAUNDROMAT/DRY CLEANING BUSINESS WITH PROCESSING TO LOCATE AT 7801-7821 62ND AVENUE NORTH, PLANNING CASE 93-35B Dear Mr. Tam: As per our telephone conversation several days ago, the New Hope Planning Commission tabled Planning Case 93-35B at their December 7th meeting due to the fact that you were not present at the meeting. Please contact me by December 27th to let me know if you will be pursing this request and want it included on the agenda for the January 4th Planning Commission meeting or if you will be modifying or withdrawing the request. As I indicated in my December 3rd correspondence to you, I would suggest that your prospective laundromat tenant also be with you at the meeting if you want continued consideration on this request. If you have questions, please call me at 531-5119, Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager : \ '. . .- Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 93-35 Property File (7801-7821 62nd Avenue North) Family Styled City ~ For Family Living 4401 Xyton Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 November 12, 1993 Telephone: TDD Hne: 612-531-51 O0 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: ~6 ~ 2.53 Pofice Fax: ~612.53 Public Works Fax: ~6~2.535- Mr. Oliver Tam 1160 Fireside Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Subject: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM B-l, LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT, TO B-2 RETAIL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT, OR CODE TEXT AMENDMENT OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW GRAPHICS AND LAUNDROMAT/DRY CLEANING BUSINESS TO LOCATE AT 7801-7821 62ND AVENUE NORTH, PLANNING CASE 93-35 Dear Mr. Tam: As you are aware, the New Hope City Council split the above requested Planning Case application into two parts, with Part A representing the request for the graphics business and Part B representing the laundromat/drycleaning business. Please be advised that on November 8, 1993, the New Hope City Council approved the request for conditional use permit to allow a graphics business as a professional/commercial office at 7801-7821 62nd Avenue North, as submitted in Planning Case 93-35 (Part A), subject to conditions: Compliance with City ordinances regarding site maintenance and dumpster enclosure. Resurfacing/repair and striping of parking lot within one year Annual Review. The City Council tabled action on Part B of the recluest ~nd referrP.~l th~ r~tt. er ~ .~ possible code text amendment to allow the laundromat/dry cleaning business (with processing) at the site as a permitted or conditional use to the Codes and Standards Committee for study. This committee, which is a sub-committee of the Planning Commission, will be meeting within the next month to discuss the issue and will also examine the larger issue of amending the City Code to possibly expand the number and type of permitted/conditional uses in the B-1 Zoning District. When their study is completed they will be bringing a recommendation back for consideration by the full Planning Commission, which will then be forwarded to the City Council. Family Styled City ~ For Family LiVing Mr. Oliver Tam Page 2 November 1 2, 1993 I will contact you when the Codes and Standards Committee has completed their review of this matter and let you know when Part B of your request will again be considered by the Planning Commission. I would anticipate that it may be as early as the December 7th Planning Commission meeting. If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator CC: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 93-35 Property File (7801-7821 62nd Avenue North) CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 93-35 Request: Request for Rezoning from B- 1, Limited Neighborhood Business Zoning District, to B-2, Retail Business Zoning District Location: 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North PID No: 05-118-21-22-0120 Zoning: B-I (Limited Neighborhood Business) Petitioner: Oliver Tam/Tam's Family Partner Report Date: October 29, 1993 Meeting Date: November 3, 1993 BACKGROUND Petitioner is requesting rezoning of property from B-l, (Limited Neighborhood Business) Zoning District, to B-2, (Retail Business) Zoning District, to allow for graphics/drycleaning/laundromat businesses, pursuant to Sections 4.10, 4.11, 4.20, 4.23, 4.30 and 4.31 of the New Hope Code. The petitioner owns the small multiple tenant commercial building at the southeast intersection of 62nd and Winnetka Avenues. The property is currently zoned B-1, Limited Neighborhood Business, which allows only 6 permitted uses and a limited number of conditional uses. The existing 4-bay building has two current tenants, a take-out pizza business and a hair salon, and two of the bays are vacant. The petitioner is requesting either a rezoning or an amendment to the permitted B-1 uses to allow two new businesses to locate at the site. One of the businesses is a graphics art business and the other is a drycleaning/laundromat business. o The petitioner states in his letter to the city that the spaces at the multiple tenant building have been vacant for some time and it is his opinion that the businesses would not be detrimental to the residential environment. He is requesting that the B-1 District uses either be expanded to allow the new tenants or that the zoning district status be upgraded from B-1 to B-2 to allow the uses. The lot area of the parcel is 38,000 square feet and the multiple tenant building contains 6,900 square feet, or covers about 20% of the site. The surrounding land uses and zoning includes R-l, Single Family Residential, to the north (Brooklyn Park) across 62nd Avenue; R-3, Medium Density Residential, townhouses across Sumter Avenue to the east; R-l, Single Family Residential, to the south; and R-I across Winnetka Avenue to the west. Planning Case Report 93-35 October 29, 1993 Page 2 o There is a detailed zoning/legal history on this property, per the enclosed memo from the Building Official. In 1954, this property along with every, lot along 62nd Avenue North was zoned commercial. By 1960, this was corrected to leave only the extreme west and east properties on 62nd Avenue as commercial, excluding the site. In 1964, the District Court ruled in favor of the Compton-Murray Development Company, finding the 1959 New- Hope Zoning Ordinance unreasonable as to the property. The City never felt that this lot, surrounded bv residential uses, was an appropriate commercial site, but the Court ruled that it be zoned commercial. The present building was constructed in 1975. The Comprehensive Plan stressed the concern about inadequate maintenance of commercial properties, including this specific site. The topography of the site is fiat because a 9 foot hill was cut down (and retained along the south) to permit construction. A few small trees exist on the site. Maintenance of the building, site and landscaping is a concern of the staff, which may be influen~:ed by the lack of income generated by a partially filled building. With the owner restricted to only B-1 uses, he appears unable to fully lease the building and reluctant to invest in maintenance of the site. 10. The parking spaces on the site total about 40 and exceed code requirements. Existing truck access is poor. No changes are expected in traffic patterns except that an upzoning to B-2 or an expansion of the B-1 permitted uses would probably fill the building and result in additional car/truck traffic. 1t. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments on the request to date. ANALYSIS The Planning Consultant has prepared a detailed analysis of this request and will be present at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss the pros and cons of the rezoning request so please refer to the attached report, as it is not staff's intent to repeat all of that information in this report. 2. The viewpoints and issues that do need to be considered include the following: A.) The input and comments, if any, received from neighboring property owners. B.) The intent off the uses permitted in, and the differences between the B-1 and B-2 Zoning Districts. C.) The two questions that are always asked in conjunction with a rezoning request: 1.) Planning Case 93-35 October 29, 1993 Page 3 Was a mistake made in the original zoning designation?, or 2.) Has the character of the area changed to warrant the rezoning? D.) If the site is rezoned to B-2 can it meet all of the performance standards for the Zoning District. E.) Is this considered "spot rezoning"? 3. The options that are available in addressing this request are as follows: mo Deny the rezoning and do not consider the graphics business a professional office as allowed by conditional use permit or consider the processing of drycleaning a permitted use. This will result in the site continuing to be only half-filled with poor maintenance continuing. Deny the rezoning and maintain the site as a Bol District, but allow one or both of the businesses to be located at the site under the existing definitions/interpretations of the code (the graphics business as a professional office CUP and the drycleaning laundromat as a permitted Use). Deny the rezoning and maintain the site as a B-1 District, but expand the uses allowed in the district through a code text amendment. Do Approve the rezoning from B-1 to B-2 to allow not only these businesses to locate at the site, but expand the opportunities in the future for a greater variety of businesses to be located at the site. The staff favors allowing these businesses, in some form, to locate at this site, whether that be accomplished through a code amendment expanding the uses allowed, through rezoning or simply through a broader interpretation of the definitions of what uses are and are not permitted. The City has taken action over the past several years to tW and strengthen/maintain the industrial base of the City, through the reduction of the green requirement, and the single/multi-family housing units in the City, through code compliance and financial assistance policies. Staff feels that the same consideration needs to be given to retail centers so that they maintain their viability, so long as the changes do not detrimentally impact the surrounding neighborhoods. Currently only 6 permitted uses and 4 conditional uses are allowed in the B-1 Zone, which severely limits the uses...but also eliminates nuisances. The B-2 Zone has 49 permitted uses and 12 conditional uses, so a rezoning of this property, would significantly increase the potential uses from 10 to 61. Some of the differences between the uses allowed in each district include a greater likelihood of odors (drycleaners, etc.), traffic increases (restaurants, boat sales, etc.): Planning Case 93-35 October 29, 1993 Page 4 including more truck traffic that may not be compatible with adjacent residential property. Thus, it is probably more prudent to consider minimally expanding the uses allowed in the B-'I Zone than to rezone to B-2. The Building Official has suggested another alternative to consider: eliminating the B-1 Zone altogether and combining these sites with the B-2 Zone. There are only 3 properties zoned B- l in New Hope: the petitioner's site and the two Tom Thumb Stores located at 7980 36th Avenue and 2720 Winnetka Avenue. Therefore, any code amendment changes to the t3-1 Zone, which was established in 1979, will basically only affect the petitioner's site because the other two are developed. The Building Official asks if there is a compelling reason to maintain such a unique zoning district, with no vacant land for future development. The two Tom Thumb stores would also be permitted in the B-2 and B-4 Zones. RECOMMENDATION The rezoning request is a policy decision that will need to be made by the Commission and Council based upon the issues outlined in these reports and upon input received from surrounding property owners. Staff could support the rezoning from B-1 to B-2, but is concerned about the numerous other non-compatible neighborhood uses that would be allowed. Staff finds that a better alternative would be to either minimally expand the uses to allow the two new businesses to locate at the site. or to allow the graphics business by CUP and allow the drycleaning/laundromat as a permitted use but deny processing at the site. Attachments: Planner's Report Zoning/Section/Topo Maps Building Official Attachments Petitioner's Letter Memo/Minutes re: Past (our) Action and Development Consultants, Inc. DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Elizabeth Stockman / Alan Brixius DATE: 27 October 1993 RE: New Hope Oliver Tam Rezoning FILE: 131.01 93.35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Mr. Oliver Tam of Tam's Family Partnership is requesting that his property located at 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North be rezoned from B- 1, Limited Neighborhood Business to B-2, Retail Business. A small strip-type retail center exists on the site which has been partially vacant for some time. His reason for the request is to allow a broader range of businesses/permitted uses which will help to fill the vacant units. Specifically, Mr. Tam desires to accommodate a graphics business which prepares film for the printing process, but does not do any on-site printing. Additionally, he desires to accommodate a dry cleaning/laundromat business. Question has been raised as to whether the desired uses are allowed within the B-1 District and what implications rezoning of the site, if necessary, may have on the surrounding area. The following provides you with the history of the site and addresses these issues. In 1956, the Tam property and every lot along 62nd Avenue North on the northern border of New Hope was zoned commercial as shown in Exhibit C. By 1961, this was changed to leave only the extreme west and east properties as commercial, which excluded the subject parcel as shown in Exhibit D. In 1964, the District Court ruled in favor of the Campton-Murray Development Company, finding the 1959 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636. Fax. 595-9~37 New Hope Zoning Ordinance unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious as to the applicants lot. The City has never felt that the parcel was suited to commercial development, but had to abide by the court's ruling. After a number of developers spoke to the City about building on the lot, the present building was constructed in 1975. Attached for reference: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Site Location Site Photos 1956 Zoning Map 1961 Zoning Map B-1 Permitted and Conditional Uses B-2 Permitted and Conditional Uses Exhibit G - Comprehensive Plan Policies for Commercial Areas ISSUF_. ANALYSIS EXISTING ZONING The B-1 zoning designation was estabiished for the site at the time the strip-center was .constructed. The purpose of the B-1 District is to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, and retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer. Such centers are to provide goods and se=vices only for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community. The permitted and conditional uses within this district are fairly limited and do not specifically provide for graphics businesses, although professional and commercial offices are allowed as conditional uses and may include graphics operations. Dry cleaning/laundromat operations are permitted provided they do not process the clothing on site (refer to Exhibit E). In consideration of the graphics business, the Zoning Ordinance does not contain a definition for professional and commercial offices, thus further study is needed to define such. In this regard, reference was made to The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions which states the following: Professional Offices: The office of a member of a recognized profession maintained for the conduct of that profession. (The major question is what is a recognized profession? The granting of a license by the State or other organization is not in itself an indication of a recognized profession.) Commercial Use: An activity carried out for monetary gain. 2 Office: A room or grouP Of rooms used for conducting the affairs of a business, profession, service, industry or government. In our opinion, based on the above definitions, a graphics business can be considered a commercial office. Therefore, if the only intent of the applicant is to fill the building vacancy with a graphics business, rezoning of the subject site is not necessary but would require that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained. Allowance of a dry cleaning/laundromat operation is also not a problem under the present B-1 zoning, provided processing of the clothing is not done on site. If, however, the intent is to provide increased opportunity and flexibility for future/changes in businesses on the site, two options may be further explored: 1) expansion of permitted er conditional B-1 uses, or 2) rezoning of the property must be considered. In either scenario, additional factors must be reviewed prior to making a decision on the matter. PROPOSED ZONING The B-2 zoning designation is intended to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts. The B-2 District contains an extensive list of permitted and conditional uses which specifically includes copy and printing services, professional/commercial offices, as well as allowing on site processing in association with dry cleaning/laundromat operations (refer to Exhibit F). JUDGEMENT CRITERIA The City of New Hope considers rezoning decisions as policy matters that are warranted only via the following conditions: 1. Has the rezoning request resulted from a past zoning mistake? No; in review of the Comprehensive Plan, existing land use patterns, and past use of the subject property, it is apparent that the current B-1 zoning designation does not represent a past zoning mistake. o Has the character of the area changed to warrant consideration of a zoning change? The character of the area in which the subject property is located has not changed since initial development of the site and adjacent lands. The surrounding area remains predominantly single family residential, although multiple 3 family development and a church are located to the east and northeast of the property, respectively. History of this site has shown that problems filling all the vacancies in the building have been present from the onset. This raises questions as to the viability of the site as a commercial use. The City may consider expanding the permitted and/or conditional B-1 uses or rezoning the site to increase its economic development potential. In evaluating the preceding conditions, the City should also review the requested rezoning within the following parameters: The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. The 1975 Comprehensive Plan indicates the continued operation of a commercial facility in this location and includes specific policies and provisions which are intended to regulate such. In consideration of the requested rezoning, the City needs to make a determination as to whether the proposed zoning would comply with the established Comprehensive Plan policies (refer to Exhibit G). be The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The expanded types and number of uses allowed on the site under the B-2 zoning designation may not all be compatible with surrounding area land uses given the potential for increased traffic, more intense uses, etc. Given the amount of B-2 commercial development in other areas of the City, successful operation of B-2 land uses on the Tam site is questionable due to the relatively isolated property location. In consideration of rezoning requests, it is typically beneficial to examine the proposed use's compatibility with surrounding land uses. The following is a listing of land uses and zoning designations which are located adjacent to the subject site: Direction Land Use Zoning North Single Family (City of Brooklyn Park Low Density Resid.) South Single Family Residential R-l, Single Family Residential 4 Direction Land USe Zoning East Multiple Family R-3, Medium Density Resid. (6-plex) Residential Northeast Church (City of Brooklyn Park, unknown) West Single Family Residential R-i, Single Family Residential de The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. The exiSting property and building conforms with the required performance standards overall, however, improvement to the fencing and screening along the east side and rear of the property and improved enclosure of the trash receptacle would be desired· The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. It is unknown whether rezoning of the subject property would depreciate the building or surrounding area in any way, although physical improvements to the site may result in an upgrade of the facility from its current state. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. The need for public services is not expected to change from the existing demand. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. The subject property is located at the intersection of a minor arterial (Winnetka) and a collector street (62nd Avenue) which were constructed at the proper size and capacity standards to accommodate the commercial traffic generated by the maximum of four businesses which could locate in the building. Upon rezoning, increases in traffic, if any, are expected to be minor and Should not overburden the adjacent streets but may impact surrounding area residential uses. RECOMMENDATION The change in land use and zoning is a policy decision that is left to City Officials. In making this determination, the City must consider a number of factors on how the rezoning will affect the site and the City as a whole. Given the complexity of issues associated with the subject property and this request, three options are available which should be reviewed by the City. Maintain the existing B-1 zoning which would allow for the establishment of a graphics business and dry cleaning/laundromat operation without on site processing. o Maintain the existing B-1 zoning, but consider amending the permitted and/or conditional uses to allow on site processing in association with a dry cleaner/laundromat or to allow additional land uses within the district. Rezone the property to B-2 to provide for a full expansion in the number and variety of land uses. In our opinion, Option 1 or 2 would provide the City with the best means of maintaining land use compatibility in the area as well as providing the applicant with increased flexibility in the types of uses allowed within his building. Given the relatively isolated location of the site and the surrounding residential character of the area presents land use compatibility problems. The opportunity to expand the B-1 District to include additional uses allows the necessary study time to determine the impacts of possible changes, rather than immediately rezoning the property and opening it up to a variety of 40+ land uses. Justification for this recommendation can be seen in the lack of change in the surrounding area in past years which does not warrant consideration of a rezoning request. The character of the area has remained predominantly low density residential since initial construction more than 20 years ago and problems filling all vacancies on the B-i site have also been present from the onset. Option 1 or 2 provides ample opportunity to accomplish the applicants goal of filling building vacancies without adversely affecting the surrounding area. 6 SUBJECT PROPERTY z N ' '3^v N O"I~.X I EXHIBIT A LOOKING SOUTH FROM 62ND AVENUE LOOKING WEST FROM SUMTER AVENUE EXHIBIT B EAST SIDE OF BUILDING FRONT OF BUILDING LOOKING WEST [cE 61S T AVE. ~1 ST AVE AVE. 6t LIND~a NURSING · 1 DICiNE Oliver Tam Tams, Inc. 1160 Fireside Drive, NE Minneapolis, MN 55432 September 28, 1993 Planning Commission and City Council City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: 7821 62nd Ave. North, New Hope, MN Dear Council Members & Planning Commission Members: Property to be considered by this application - 7821 62nd Avenue North, New Hope, MN. The property which I own at the above address has been vacant for some time. It was most recently occupied by a laundromat business. I now have a potential tenant who would like to rent this space for a graphics business. Their business is involved in prepress, preparing film for printing presses. The professional term for their service is "Stripping and Film Assembly." The equipment necessary to provide these services would include a camera, computerized scanner, film processing machine, and other miscellaneous graphics-type equipment. This firm will not house any printing presses in this space. It is my opinion that this business would not be detrimental to the residential environment. It is my request that you would expand the B-I Zoning on this property to include a tenant as I described in the graphics business. If it is possible for the City to provide the necessary clearance my tenant is prepared to move into this space November 1, 1993. Thank you for your help. Sineerely, Oliver Tam OT/slg CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 94-01 Request: Request for Site and Building Plan Review for Building Addition and Conditional Use Permit for Deferred Parking Location: 3216 Winnetka Avenue North PID No.: 20-118-21-23-0003 20-118-21-23-0011 20-118-21-23-0010 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Robert Jones/J.R. Jones Report Date: December 30, 1993 Meeting Date: January 4, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a Site and Building Plan Review for construction of a two level warehouse addition and a Conditional Use Permit for Deferment of Required Parking (Sections 4.039A and 4~O36 (13)- New Hope Code of Ordinances). J. R. Jones Fixture Company is proposing to construct a 132' x 62' (17,000 square foot) two- story warehouse addition at the east side of the existing building. 0 The present owner built the original building in 1963, with subsequent expansions in 1968, 1979, 1990 and 1992. The proposed 17,000 square foot addition, combined with the existing 80,000 square foot building, will bring the total building size to 97,000 square feet. J. R. Jones is a custom manufacturer of wood store fixtures and display racks. Major customers include the Megamall and national contracts with chain store outlets such as Foot Locker and Champs Sporting Goods. They either ship for installation or install the fixtures themselves and employ 62 persons. In the 1992 request the petitioner requested a minor green area or parking variance and the Council granted a deferred parking conditional use permit. Two facts have changed since that application: 1.) the green area requirement in the I-1 Zoning District was reduced from 35% to 20% and 2.) the petitioner purchased the two vacant lots to the north of their property (Lots 1 and 2, Pazandak Addition). The petitioner is now in the process of initiating a preliminary plat which will combine all parcels into J. R. Jones Addition (Planning Case 94-02) and any approval for this addition should include platting as a condition. The property is located in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and the setback requirements are as follows: Front yard - ,50 feet (west - Winnetka Avenue) 10. 11. Side yards - 20 feet (north & south 32nd Avenue) Rear yard - 35 feet (east - Winpark Drive) The proposed addition meets the setback requirements. Surrounding land uses/zoning include industrial buildings to the east across Winpark Drive (Crystal), multi-family residential to the south across 32nd Avenue (Crystal), single family residential across Winnetka Avenue to the west (Crystal), and I-! vacant industrial property to the north. The site slopes steeply away to the north and east at the building walls and a silt "dry" pond was created on the east side of the property with the 1990 expansion. Specific zoning requests include the following: A. Site and Buiidinq Plan Review/Approval B. Conditional Use Permit for Deferment of Required Parkino Property owners within 3,50' of the property have been notified and staff has had several comments from neighbors (all positive). ANALYSIS The plans show a new two-story (8,500 square feet per floor) warehouse addition on the east side of the existing building that will be used for the storage of bulk items and finished work. The addition will be constructed in an area that is presently used as green area, but with the acquisition of the property to the north, th~ green area requirement is easily met (46% - see site data below). Building materials will be painted concrete block to match the existing building with color clad fascia. Truck delivery will remain the same. Other improvements include an improved front entrance with new canopy facia and significant improvements to the front circular drive/entrance off of Winnetka Avenue. The most southerly curb-cut near 32nd and Winnetka will be shifted farther north, a greater distance from the intersection, and the northerly curb-cut will be shifted farther north, providing a greater distance between the entrance and exit. New concrete curb and gutter will be installed in the front drive area, with the exception that bituminous curb will be installed in the area of the deferred parking for ease of future parking expansion: Four handicapped parking stalls will be installed on the front/side of the building and the present parking in the front of the building on the circular drive is eliminated. New storm sewer/catch basins will be installed to correct drainage problems in front of the building. The Design-Review Committee met with the petitioner on December 16th and the following issues were discussed: number of employees vs. required parking, landscaping, truck delivery, storm sewer improvements, driveway entrance changes, building materials, signage, lighting, refuse and maintenance of vacant property. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. The revised plans include the following requested changes: truck turning radius is shown on site plan, all building signs and square footages are shown, additional landscaping has been added on the Winnetka Avenue vacant lots and existing landscaping is shown. Specific project data is as follows: SITE AREA 6.254 ACRES (272,403 SQUARE FEET) BUILDING/SITE AREA COVERAGE EXITING STRUCTURE: NEW STRUCTURE: 79,999 SQ. FT 17,002 SQ. FT TOTAL BUILDING AREA: TOTAL BLDNG GROUND COVER: TOTAL GREEN AREA: TOTAL PAVED AREA: (INCLUDE DEFERRED PARKING) 97,001 SQ. FT 71,519 SQ. FT (26.3%) 124,826 SQ. FT (45.8%) 76,058 SQ. FT (27.9%) OCCUPANCY WAREHOUSE/OFFICE: MANUFACTURING: OCCUPANCY SEPARATION: B-2 H-3 2-HOUR CONSTRUCTION TYPE ADDITION: PARKING TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: DEFERRED PARKING 146 92 55 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES EXISTING EMPLOYEES: 62 PROJECTED EMP. W/ADDITION: 64 Landscaping - 26 new trees/shrubs will be added to the site (12 Norway Maple and 14 Yew) and 10 existing Spruce will be relocated on the site to compliment the existing green area. As noted, 4 additional Maple were added north of the north curb-cut, per Design and Review. Si~naqe - The existing "J. R. Jones Fixture Company" wall signage on the north elevation encompasses an area of 89.5 square feet. A new canopy facia will be added over the front entrance that may or may not be considered a wall sign (it could be interpreted as a logo or just decorative facia). The new facia totals 144 square feet. The two signs together (if the front facia is considered a sign) total 233.5 square feet. City Code allows not more than two signs and the total area of each sign cannot exceed 125 square feet or a total of 250 square feet. Staff does not have a problem with the signage because it is questionable as to whether the front facia is a sign or not, and if it is considered a sign the total sign square footages meet the requirements. Parking - the total number of parking spaces required by the City COde is 146 and the plan shows 92 spaces being provided and 55 spaces being deferred (shown on the plans in a deferred parking area on the vacant Winnetka Avenue lots). The company presently has 62 employees and the projected number of employees with the addition is 64. The company clearly does not need all the parking required by the City Code. There are two options to address the parking issue: Grant a conditional use permit for the deferment required parking. The City code states that a reduction in the number of required parking stalls may be permitted by conditional use permit provided that: (1) Evidence is provided demonstrating that the parking requirements of the proposed use will be less than the parking required during the peak demand period. Factors to be considered when reviewing the proposed parking demand shall include, but not be limited to: (a) (B) Size, type and use of building. Number of employees. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (C) (D) (E) (F) Projected volume and turnover of employee and/or customer traffic. Projected frequency and volume of delivery or service vehicles. Number of company owned vehicles. Storage of vehicles on site. In no case shall the amount of parking provided be less than one-half (1/2) to the amount of parking required by ordinance. The property owner can demonstrate that the site has sufficient property under the same ownership to accommodate the expansion of the parking facilities to meet the minimum requirements if the parking demand exceeds on-site supply. On-site parking shall only occur in areas designed and constructed for parking. The area reserved as "proof of parking" shall be sodded or seeded and maintained as green space or a recreational area. No permanent buildings shall be permitted in the "proof of parking" area. The property owner shall record a restrictive covenant against the title to the property providing that additional parking shall be constructed if the site parking demand exceeds the actual on-site parking supply in the sole opinion of the City. The form of the restrictive covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney before the issuance of the conditional use permit. To qualify for a parking deferment, the site plan must comply with all current zoning standards. If a conditional use permit for the deferment of required parking is the option chosen, an additional CUP and application fee must be submitted to the City. (B) Consider a Code Text Amendment for industrial parkin,q requirements, as discussed under Planning Case 94-03. If such a code text amendment is adopted, there would not be a parking shortage on this site and a CUP would not be required. Sidewalk - The original plans showed a "future" sidewalk to be installed on the property along Winnetka Avenue and staff initially indicated that this was not necessary. Upon further review the City finds that the sidewalk installation would provide an important "missing link" (see attached type maps) and would like to work an agreement out with the property owner whereby the sidewalk would be installed. Overall staff finds this to be a very good plan and commends the petitioner for their cooperation with the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site and building plan review and the conditional use permit for the deferment of required parking for J. R. Jones Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The platting of all three lots into one parcel. 2. Hennepin County approval of curb-cut changes. o Performance bond to be submitted for improvements, amount to be determined by Building Official and City Engineer. Additional fee for deferred Parking CUP be submitted to City. An agreement to be reached between the property owner and City regarding installation of a sidewalk on Winnetka Avenue, 6. The City Engineer recommendations be incorporated in the plans. Attachments: Zoning/Section/Type Maps Site Plan Site Data Floor Plans Elevations Landscape Plan Plant Schedule Grading/Drainage/Erosion Control Plan Handicapped Parking Details City Engineer's Correspondence Sidewalk Aerial Photo -R-O ZONING DISTRICT MAP CITY of NEW HOPE ~NTIAL R-4 R-5 R-O ESS B-I B-2 8-3 77 ~ '4- N 344.0 77Z..~,. 0 35'01 z~ AV '~0 TH ,a AVE, N "i 71ol ~ ~-7~ Z Z X ,ZZ'69E ~ L \ \ ,,£g'9C. Z '-ION ':InN':lAY ¥),IL':INNIAA SITE AREA: BUILDING/SITE AREA COVERAGE EXISTING STRUCTURE: NEW STRUCTURE: TOTAL BUILDING AREA: TOTAL BUILDING GROUND TOTAL GREEN AREA: TOTAL PAVED AREA (INCL. COVER: DEFERRED OCCUPANCY WAREHOUSE/OFFICE: MANUFACTURING: OCCUPANCY SEPARATION: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: ADDITION: PARKING TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: DEFERRED PARKING PARK.) 6.254 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES EXISTING EMPLOYEES: PROJECTED EMPLOYEES W,/ ADDITION: ACRES (272,405 79,999 SQ. FT. 17,002 SQ. FT. 97,001 SQ. FT. 71,519 SQ. FI-. 124,826 SQ. FT. 76,058 SQ. FT. B--2 H-3 2-HOUR 146 92 55 62 64 SQ.FT.) 26.5% 45.8% 27.9% -1 (~W~.TE S T ELEVATION OEAST ELEVATION [ -] ~ [ (~) SOUTH ELEVATION ELEVATION (~)WEST ELEVATION @ FRONT ENTRY (~NORTH ELEVATION @ FRONT ENTRY PIERCE REESE ARCItITECTS J. R. JONES FIXTURE COUPANY ELEVATIONS A5 PAINTED COr,~c. HLOCK MA[CFi EXI.S]ING BUILDING (~) SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8'" = 1'-0" NEW CANOPY FASCIA EXISTING FACE BRICK----~'~ (~)WEST E,LoE, VATION @ FRONT ENTRY SCALE: 1/8" = '-" SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 52nd AVENUE NORTH i L.~AN?S.C.~PE PLAN PIERCE~ REESE ARCHITECTS J. R. JONES FIXTURE COklPANY LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 DURING TRANEPLANT OPERATION8 TIE UP LOWER BRANDHEE TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE TREE PRUNE BRUISED AND DEAD FOLIAGE SET .TREE PLUME AND UPRIGHT UIEER OR PLASTIC NOSE GUY WIRE8 DENTERED AROUND TREE ~1~ GAUGE WIRE GALVANED TUNNEUCKLE LAYERWOODCHIP MULCN -,~STAKED TO WITHETAND 40MPHWIND8 ~EET TREE 1' ABOVE GRADE ~--'~JN Df E TUREED EARTH WITN ORGANIC PLANTING SOIL AND THOROUGHLY WATER AND FERTILIZE IMMEDIATELY G_V:ERGREEN~TREE TRANSPLANT DETAIL; MAINTAIN TREEE NATURAL FORM BY PRUNING SRANCHEII~ FLUIN WITH BARI; PRUNE FOLIAGE ONE THIRD ,DO NOT CUT LEAOENI BTAKIMG AT OONTRACTOR8 OPTION TREE WRAP LAYER WOODCHIP MUL~ UNLESS OTHERWISE IPEC~IFIED lACK BURLAP REMOVE WIRE AND PLASTIC PLANTIG lOlL WITH FERTILIZER TREE PLA-I~TING-DETAIL IJ,Ljl-.:t'ii'i' i!j "'"'~.:'~: i!: ::ii' l:ill ~,, ljj ':ii .-':-i '--~ J GRADING. DRAINAGE J · EROSION CONTROL PLAN ~ 32ND PLACE REMOVE EXIST. CURB & GUTTER INSTALL NEW CONC. APRON / / -END CONC. ~URB & GUTTER BEGIN BITUMINOt~S ~CURB " / '"x INL 920 DO / /./4 ~END 'CONC CURB k & GUTTER , BEGIN BITUMINOUS INSTALL NEW CURB & GUTTER TO MATCH EXIST. GRADE C.B 102 (SEE DETAIL) REMOVE EXIST CONC. CURB & GUTTER INSTALL NEW CONC. APRON INSTALL NEW B-818 CURB & GUTTER TO MATCH EXIST E ~ S T',N.-'- B.J~DiN g FLO0~ ELE'~ g4~.8'~. NOTE: PRV~DE ONE SIGN FOR EACH ', INDICATED H/C PARKING ~,,,; SPACE - LOCATION TO BE · FIELD VERIFIED BY ARCH. METAL SIGN W/ LETTERING AS INDICATED PARKING" HANDICAP PARKING ONLY STEEL SIGN POST (~' ~,~N DICAP SIGN : ~ ~/2" = ~'-ct' NOTE: CENTER RAMP ON EVERY 4'-0" PAINTED ISLAND 4'-0' PAINTED ISLAND PLAN vIEW OF RAMP 6:1 SLOPE--~ "~' ''~, "Y. 3 3'-0" o" ELEVATION VIEW OF RAMP ,'~ . d' ---CURE~ 4' CONCR~ W~ SECTION OF ~ HANDICAP. o ~ RAMP Bonestroo Rosene Ander!ik & Associates Engineers & Architects December 20, 1993 Otto G. Bonesm3o. PE, HOward ^. Sanford, PE. M~chaet P R~u. PE. Mark D. W'allis. PE. RoDert ~ Rosene. PE.* KeJth A. Gordon, PE. Philip J. P/ne. RE Miles El. Jensen. Joseph C. Anderlik, RE Roden: R. Pfefferle, PE. Agnes M, Ring. A.LC.P L. Phillio Gravel IlL Marwn L. Sorvala, RE. Richard W; Foster. PE. Thomas ~ Peterson. RE. Karen L. ~X/iemerL Richard E, Turner. RE. David O. Loskota, RE. Michae~ C. Lynch. PE. Gary D. Kristof/tz, Glenn R. Cook. PE Rober~ C. Rus~k. A.I.A. James R. Maland, RE. F Todd Foster. RE Thomas E. Noyes, RE. Jer~, ^. gourdon, RE. Jerry D. Pertzsch, PE. Iceith R. Yapp. RE Robeff G. 5chunicht. PE. Mark A. Hanson, RE, ~enneth P Anderson. PE Douglas J. Benoit. PE. Susan M. Ebe~iin, C.P^. Michael T. Rautmann. PE. Mark R. Rolls. P£. Sl3awn D. Gustaf~on. *Sen~or Consultant Ted K. Field. RE. Mark A. Seip. RE, Cecilio Olivier, RE. Thomas R, Anderson. A.I.A. Gary W; Morien. PE. Char~es A. Erickson Donald C. Burgardt. RE. Daniel J. Edgerton~ PE. Leo M. Pawelsky Thomas E. Angus. RE. ~dlan Rick Schmldl:. RE. Hadan M. Olson Ismael Mamnez. RE. Philip J. CaswelL RE. James F Engelharm City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Attention: Kirk McDonald Re: J.R. Jones parking Lot Expansion File 34 gen Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the above parking lot reconstruction and recommend the following: The parking lot expansion provides for minimal additional paved surface. At this time, it's not recommended ponding be required; however, in the future as additional parking is provided, ponding will be required. The existing storm sewer manhole shall be reconstructed to conform to existing grades. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, ~S~_~OO~NE~._~ERMa~ A. Hanson LIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-46OO CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 94-02 Request: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of J. R. Jones Addition Location' 3216 Winnetka Avenue North PID No.: 20-118-21-23-0003 20-118-21-23-0011 20-118-21-23-0010 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Robert Jones/J.R. Jones Fixture Company Report Date: December 30, 1993 Meeting Date: January 4, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a Preliminary Plat Approval of J. R. Jones Addition (Chapter 13 - New Hope Code of Ordinances). The petitioner is requesting site and building plan review approval and a conditional use permit for deferred parking for purposes of constructing an addition on to the existing building, as outlined in Planning Case 94-01. The petitioner currently owns the property at 3216 Winnetka Avenue North on the northeast corner of Winnetka and 36th Avenues and this is the site where the addition will be constructed. The petitioner has recently purchased the two vacant parcels to the north of this site at 3224 and 3232 Winnetka Avenue North and these parcels are where the deferred parking area will be located. All three parcels should be combined and replatted into one lot to accommodate the development and the petitioner has initiated the Preliminary Plat of J. R. Jones Addition to accomplish this combination. HoweVer, the preliminary plat has not yet been completed or submitted to the City, therefore staff is recommending tabling the request for one month and that is agreeable to the petitioner. This item was placed on the agenda due to the fact that a public hearing legal notice was published. Although the preliminary plat request will be tabled, staff is recommending that the Commission proceed with consideration of the site and building plan review request because the platting/combination of the parcels is already in process and will be a condition of any approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tabling the request until the February 1st Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: Section/Zoning/Topo Maps Site Plan ~E. N ,/ 3440 77~,? 3~4~ c~ o .J 5qol ~----- No z~ AVl Nm ~OTt ViEWCREST AVE LANE 7108 I 'z-qlq* 2731 71ol -R-O R-I NT~AL R-3 R-5 R-O -'-SS B-I B'2 ZONING DISTRICT CITY of NEW MAP HOPE X 919.3 944.2 913.1 91 X 940.1 43 916.7 X 916. 914.7 X 919.1 / 918.0~ ~926.~ 912.2 X 916.6 X 937.6 918,5 X .~CONCRETE APRON J~ EXISTING BUILDING SITE AREA: 6.254 ACRES (272,403 BUILDING/SITE: AREA COVERAGE EXISTING'STRUCTURE; 79,999 SQ. FT. NEW S'IRUCTURE: 17,002 SO, FT. TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 97,001 $(3. Fr. TOTAL BUILDING GROUND COVER: 71,519 SQ. ~T, TOTAL GREEN AREA: 124,826 SCI. FT. TOTAL PAV~.D AREA (INCL. DEF'~RRED PARK.) 76,058 SQ, FT. OCCUPANCY WAREHOUSE/OFFICE: B-2 MANUFACTURrNG: H -.3 OCCUPANCY SEPARATION: 2-HOUR CONS'~UCTION Tv'PE: ADDITION: III-N PARKING TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 146 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 92 . DEFERRED pARKING 5,5 NUMBER OF EMPLOY[ES EXISTING EMPLOYEES: 62 PROJECTED EMPLOYEES W/ ADDITION: 64 so. Fr.) 26.3~ 45.8,'[, 27.9X )1 52nd AVENUE NORTH iSlTE PI,AN PIERCE REESE ARCHITECTS J. R. JONES FIXTURE COUPANY SITE PLAN A1 Planning Case: Request: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 94-03 Request for Zoning Code Text Amendment Location: 4700 Quebec Avenue North PID No.: 08-118-21-32-0044 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Stephen H. Saltzman/Jesco Industrial Supplies Report Date: December 30, 1993 Meeting Date: January 4, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a zoning code text amendment to amend the off-street parking requirements for office space from I per 200 square feet to 1 per 300 square feet or some other text amendment that would permit internal office expansion on the site without requiring the addition of more parking. (Section 4.036 (10m) - New Hope Code of Ordinances). Jesco Industrial Supplies currently operates out of a 29,300 square foot warehouse building at 4700 Quebec Avenue North and is requesting to convert 2,800 square foot of existing internal warehouse space into offices. The petitioner is requesting an amendmen~ to the parking ordinance for office space to allow the existing building (on a limited site) to expand the office space internally to accommodate necessary growth. The change in the building use will increase the parking demand on the site. Based on the City's parking standards, the facility after renovation would require 62 parking stalls. The parking provided on the site plan totals 50 stalls, or 12 stalls short of the requirement, and the usefulness of several of the spaces is questionable due to site constraints. Jesco has indicated that their total parking demand is far less than that required by City standards. They currently employ 27 persons and project.that they will add ,5 additional employees (for a total of 32) over the next § year period. Staff did not feel than an application for a variance from the parking requirements could be supported, therefore the petitioner requested the City to re-evaluate the City's parking standards pertaining to office space and warehousing. The Planning Consultant has prepared the enclosed report/analysis on this issue and will be present at the Planning Commission meeting to describe the proposed changes in detail. Staff is supportive of the recommendations. Due to the time constraints between the application, the holidays and the Consultant's report, there was not adequate time to present this issue to the Codes and Standards Committee prior to this meeting and the applicant did not want to delay until the February Planning Commission meeting. Hopefully the Commission will view the Consultant's recommendations as reasonable so that we can move forward on this request. The property is located in an I-2 Zoning District and is bordered on the north and south by I-2 uses, abuts the railroad right-of-way and R-1 Residential on the east, and across Quebec Avenue to the west is Sunny Side Park and R-1 Residential. 11. riginal building was constructed in 1973 and a 65' x 120' addition to the front of the .~i,.~ ng was put on in 1979. ~cific site/employee data is listed below: Analysis U se: Office Warehouse Occupancy: 32 Lot Area: 57,78.9 sq. ft. = 326 Acres 300.4 x 32.35 Parking Analysis Office Area - 3290.5 sq.ft. -10% +200 sf/space + 3 = Current Ordinance 40 Proposed Revision +300 sf/sp +3 -- 28 Warehouse Area - 23,875 sq.ft. -10% +1000 sf/space = 2--2 22 Total Parking Req'd Parking Provided: 62 spaces 50 spaces Building Data Existing Area 26,955 sq.ft. First Floor 2,354.7 sq.ft. TOTAl 29,309.75 sq.ft. Expanded Second Floor 2,718.25 sq.ft. (Proposedi Proposed Tc~;~ Area 32,028 sq.ft. Breakdown of Building Area Use Office 5,662.8 sq.ft. Conference Rooms 896.7 Warehouse & Storage 23,658.1 Showroom 1,536.5 Toilet Rooms 414.9 Employee Count Current 2 Warehouse 9, Office I Office/Part-time 12 Outside Sales 3 Service (2 of which are outside) 27 Proiected 3 - 5 Years (Additional) 2 Outside Sales 2 Office I Service Outside 5 12. Please refer to the Planner's report for specific details on the proposed amendment. 13. Staff does recommend that the Commission discuss with the petitioner minor improvements in the street frontage landscaping. Attachments: Zoning/Section/'ropo Maps Site Plans Floor Plans Site Data Planning Consultant Report Building Official Comments Previous Planning Case 79-09 DEC--50--9~ THU I 0 .' 22 0 Northwest A_sso !,,a,t ~ ,Consultants, P. 01 M AR K Il T -~ LiiiL ..... R E $ E A R C H~''', TRANSMITTAL RECORD VIA: ( ) Mail ( ) Pick Up ( ) De!ivory (/) Fax NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUD]2qG COVER: /.p__. QTY OF DATED DESCRIPTION REMARKS: JOB NO: 5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 55~5. St, Louis Park, MN 55416, (612) 595-9636. Fax. 595-9837 DEC--50--95 THU , PLUG REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: PILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius 30 December 1993 New Hope Parking Analysis 131.0~ - 94.03 PARK~G COUNT Jesco Industrial Supplies, located at 4700 Quebec Avenue North, wishes ko undertake some in~ernal alteration cf their building. Th~ proposed alternatives would consist of converting approximately 2,718 square feet of floor space from warehousing to office use. The change in building use will increase parking demand on the site. Based on the City's parking standards (below), the facility after the renovation would require 62 parking stalls: (cc) ~ar~hOusing. $~orage or ~Handlin~_of Bul~_Go~ds. That ~pace which is solely used as office shall comply wi~h the office use requirements and one space per each one thousand square fee= of floor area, plus one space for each company owned truck (if not stored inside principal building). Office Buil~ing~. Animal H09Ditals_..and Pr_ofessiona] Offices. Three spaces plus at least one space for eaC~ Cwo hundred square fee= of floor area. TABLE 1 PARKIN~ ANALYSIS Buildi.ng Space Sq~are Warehousing 23,878.5 X .9 . Office 8,290.5 X .9 ~ Net Floor Space Park!~g ~ Stan~ .r_~ 2,149.65 1/10C0 746.45 3 · /200 Required 22 stalls 40 s~alls 62 stalls 5775 Wayzata Blvd,-Suite 555. St, Louis Park, MN 55416. (61'_;) 595-9636. Fax, 595-9837 DEC--~O--9~ THU i 0 : 24 0 P . 0~ EMPLOYEE Jesco has indicated that their total parking uemand by user characteristic is far less than that required by City standards. They have indicated a currant employee count of 27 employees with a projected three to five year growth of five additional employees for a total of ~2 employees. Their employee parking demand represents 52 percent of the parking required by Ordinance. mased on their parking ex%oerlence, Jesco has requested the City to re- evaluate the City's parking standards pertaini~%g to office space and warehousing. PROPOSED S TE PLAN Jesco Industrial Supplies has submitted a site plan that shows a proposed parking layout with $0 parking stalls. Inspection of the site and review of the site plan reveals that site constraints including 1ct size, building size, and on-site traffic circulation raises question as to whether the site can appropriately provide the 50 proposed parking spaces. In !987, the Jesco site was reviewed in conjunction with the truck loading and maneuvering on site. With the sale o~ the property south of Jesco, a fence was erected along the Jesco's south property line elimtnatlng the company's ability to cross the shared proper=y line to maneuver trucks into the facii ty's loading bays. With the limited space for truck traffic at ti.a east end of the building, we would question as =o ~he ~propriateness of introducing parking stalls eas~ of the facillty's main office entrance. Section 4.037 (4) states: (4) AcCessorY .Use: Ra~rk!ugand Sto~age. A~y space allocated as a required load~n~ berth or acce ~ drive so as =o comply wi~h the terms of these zonin~ regulations shall not be used for =he a~orage of goods, i=~operable vehicles or snow and shall n~t be included as part of =he space requirements ~o meet the off street parkin~ equ~remen~s In this regard, the applicant should demonstrate adequate truck turning radius and maneuvering area for the facility's loading area ~o insure the proposed parking stalls will not further encumber a difficul~ truck circulation situation. BEC--~0--95 THU 10 : 24 0 P . 04 CITY PARKING STANDARD£ Jesco has made application requesting the City to investigate Uhe office space parking standards citing that the office standards of one per 200 square fee~ of .~loor area is too restrictive. In conversation with the City Building Official, he agrees that the City's parking standards for office use as welt as warehousing are overly restrictive citing numerous si=es havin~' an over-supply of parking compared to site actual use. '~ Reducuion of the parking standards ~o more cioscty resemble actual user parking generation will serve to benefi. New Hope in the following ways: As a near f~lly develops% con, unity, the ..~isting industrial sites may b~ given addi~...onal flexibility .~o renovate, alter or potentially expand i , place wlthou~ hxvin~ =o pursue a parking variance or text amendment. This ~lexibility should serve =o enhance the Cit .'~ economic development environmen% and help maintain the vitality and use viability of existing developed sites. From a land use perspective, an over-sup.~ly of parking is wasteful as a financial inves~men~ and ~he loss of potential green space. The City enacted Ordinance 92.-2, a parking lot deferment ~o allow some reduction in parkln~ lo~ cons=ruction through a proof of parking conditional %~e permit. Like Ordinance ~1-2, a revision of the City's pa~kln~ standard more accurately reflect actual user charact~zistics will serve to economi~e on green space and useable New Hope's fully developed character will ~educe the risk of a parking shortage in that most sites have been developed at stricter standards. in review of ~he City parking standards, the following resources were utilized for comparison: American Plannin~ Association Report No. 432, Off-Street Parking Requ/irements, 1991 Institute of Transporta=ion Engineers: Parkin~ Generation, An Interim Repor~ 1985 phone survey of commun..ties adjacent to New Hope BEC--50--95 THU 10 .' 25 0 P . 05 OFFICE PARKING The New Hope parking standards generally include al! office uses in one category, requiring three spaces plus one s~ace per 200 square feet of floor area. ' APA Comparisons The APA document (see Exhibit B) breaks the office uses down by general office, dental office, and medical office. Under general office cauegory, the example ordinances range frJm one space to 200 square feet to one space to 750 square feet o~ floor area. The general trends in this user category indicaSe that a parking requirement of less than one space per 200 squai-~ feet is typical. The most cor0a%on standard is one space per 300 sa~are feet of gross floor area. ~ The AVA document also provides nation wide examples of parking standards for dental and medical offices. Thy trends in these ordinances suggest that dental and medical offices aremore. parking intensive due =o s~affing needs as well as patients waiting for service. Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) The Institute of Traffic Engineers have conduc~d parking s~udies for various offica types and sizes. The fo!low~ table outlines their findings by buildin~ size. TABLE 2 PEAK ~ARKIN~ RATES 0fficeSize (Sq. Ft.) AY_q Less ~han 50,000 50,000 ~o 99,999 100,000 to 199,999 200,000 =o 299,999 300,000 to 399,999 Medical Offices ~loor Area Range Pe~ Stall (Sq. Ft.) 2.6 .75 4.7 382 1,333 213 2.5 .95 - 3.4 40c 1,052 ~94 2.7 1.~0 - ~.9 ~?O 769 169 2.5 1.90 - 3.0 40~ ~26 ~33 2.3 1.80 - 3.3 4~5 $$~ 303 3.1 1.50 - 5.1 322 555 196 The New Hope office parkin~ standard represents a high end standard when compared to the ITE parkin~ study informa, ion. Comparison with ITE study averages suggests that the New Hope standard is res~rictive and some adJus~men~ may be appropria~e. 4 DEC--50--95 THU 10 : 26 0 P . 06 CITY SURVEY The following table outlines the phone survey which provides a comparison of New Kope's office parking standard with those of its neighboring communities. TABLE C OFFICE ~ARKIN~ STANDARDS New Hope Brooklyn Cfr Brooklyn Pk Crystal Golden Valley Maple Grove Plymouth spaces plus i space per 200 sq. ft. floor area space per 250 sq. ft. gross floor area space per 200 sq. ft. floor area spaces plus i space per 200 sq. ft. floor area space per 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area space per 250 Sq. ft. of gross floor area space per 250 sq. ft. floor aiwa New Hope's office parking standard is similar to Brooklyn Park and Crystal but is more restrictive than other adjoining communities. In this regard, an amendment to reduce the required parking for office uses is recommended. WAREHOUSLNG The City's warehousing parking performance standards require the site to comply with the office use requirements and provide one parking space per each 1,000 square fee~ of floor area plus one space for each company owned truck. Based on observation of the New Hope Buildin~ Official, it appears ~hat the warehousing regulations may also offer some room for adjustment. APA The APA parking information, outlined in Exhibit C, illustrates various ne=ion wide performance standards for ~arehousing land uses. The example ordinances indicate that the parking is often tied to employment characteristics. The floor area requirement ranges from one space per 500 square feet to one space per 200 square feet of floor area· The one space per 1,000 square fee~ of floor area is a common standard, however, the hi~her square footage standard n%ay be considered in the City's adjustment of its current regulations. I:IE C----~. 0 $ T H U :l. 0 . 26 0 P . 07 In itute of Transportation Engineers (1TE) The ITE publication tha~ was utilized did no~ have information on parking demand for warehousin~ facilities. Specific Cornniunlty Surve TABLE 3 WAREHOUSING PARKING STANDARDS New Hope Brooklyn Ctr Brooklyn Park Crystal Golden Valley Maple Grove Plymouth R&rking $_=andard space per 1,000 sq. ft. floor area space per 80 sq. ft. gross floor area space per 2,000 sq. ft. gross floor area spaces plus 1 space per 2 employees plus 1 space per 500 sq. ft. floor area space per 500 sq. ft. gross floor area space per 2,000 sq. ft. floor area plus ! space per employee space per 2,000 sq ft. floor area A comparison Of New Hope's warehousing parkin~ standard with surrounding communities finds that New Hope falls midway within the range of parking standardsbeing imposed, in conversation with Don Manson of Plymouth, they find that the one to 2,000 square feet s~andard generally satisfias ~he warehousing use but they have had problems with the conversion of warehousing to more intense activities and the site's ability to provide parking. In the case of New Hope, a lessening of ~he parking standards should not resul~ in ~he same problems faced by Plymouth, in that mos~ of Zhe City's indus=rial land has been developed under current s~andards. The relaxing of =his warehousin~ parking standard to be reflective of actual warehousing parking demand would provide grea~er flexibility in the use viability of existing industrial sizes. RECO NDATION Based on the information available through our research and perception of ~he City Building Official, we would conclude that New Hope's parking standards for office and warehousing land use are restrictive and not representative of the parkin~ generation characteristics of these land uses. In this regard, we would recommend ~he following Zoning Ordinance amendments. 6 ~EC--~0--9~ THU 10 : 2T 0 P = 08 Office Parking Standards Current Regulation - Section 4.036 (1)(m) Off~c_e.:_Buildtn_cS~, _Animal ~ospitals_and Professional Qff%ces. Three spaces plus at least one space for each two hundred square feet of floor area. Proposed Regulation - Section 4.056 (10) (m) (m) Qff~ice Build!D~S, Animal ~jp~pita!~ .__and Pro~es~i~n$1 off~ces.~ Three'(3) spaces plus at ' ~ast one (i) space for each two hundred ~ifty (250) sc~ ~are feet of floor area. The change to one stall per 250 square feet ~ floor area still represents a conservation standard when compare to the APA and ITE information. However, the change will encom~.,.ss all office uses including high parkin~ generatin~ uses such as medical and dental offices. The conservative standard also att~ts to respond ~o mixed occupancy office buildings where employment characteristics may fluctuate significantly. The proposed urdinance is also consistent with standards held by adjoining con,nun±ties. In this light, the modification is proposed to more accurately depict parking demand and offer some site design flexlbillty for office Warehousing Parldng Standards Current Regulation - Section 4.036 (10) (cc) (cc) ~arehousing, S_t_orD~e or Handl%n= of ~'~a!k GQods. That space which is solely used as office shall comply with the office use requirements and one ~pace per each one thousand square fe~= of floor area, 'Jlus one space for each company owned ~ruck (if not stor,.~ inside principal buildin~). Proposed Regulation - Section 4.036 (10)(cc) (cc) Warehousing, $.~or~ge or H~ndling Q~ Rulk Goods. That space solely used as office ancillary to the larger warehouse facility shall provide one (1) parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area and one (1) space for each one Uhou~and five hundred (1,S00) square feet of floor area attriDuted to warehouse use plus one (1) space for each compa~ owned truck not stored inside). The proposed changes to the warehousing parking st=_dards are two fold: The office parking stanf.~rd for offices related to industrial use is proposed to be re~!uced to one space per 300 square feet of floor area. The b~ ~is for this recommendation is as follows= aJ The office activiti ~ accessory to industrial land uses are more standardized and will not include the diversity of activities tha~ may be found in other commercial or professional offic~s~ In ~his light, ~he parking demand should no= be as diverse. The industrial office uses typically do no~ involve the same level of direct public contact found in commercial offices. As a a;sult, parking genera=ion is not anticipated to be a~ great. The one space per 30 square fee= of Lloor space standard is generally consl2 ~nt with the p~3kin~ standards for general office use ound in the APA and ITE background information. The warehousing parking ~ ~andard is proposed to be discussed :o require one parking ~ ace per 1,~00 square feet of floor area. This change is int. ~ded to establish a Darkin~ standard =hat mo~e realistically reflects parkin!'~ generation from warehouse activities a i provides gre~.~ter si~e design flexibility for New Hope~ industrial pro~rties. DOUg Sandstad Sueve Sondrall I) E C -- ._% 0 --':-:-~ ~ T H U 1 0 : 2 ~ 0 P = 1 0 DEC--S:. HU 18 : 29 0 P. i i Office One space pe.~ ?50 sq.ft, of floor space (Arlington, Mass.) One space for each $00 sq.ft, of gross floor area; 40 percent may be compact; car spaces (Aurora, Colo.) One space per 300 sq.fi, of gross floor area (,Piano, Tex.) An office complex of 50,000 scl. ft. or more; one spa per 300 SCl. ff. of gross leasable area (Addison, Tex.) Four spaces per 1,000 net sq. ft. [minimum]; five spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. [maximum] (Bell~ue, Wash.) Four sr~aces per 1,000 sq.ff, of gross usable floor area up to .~0,000 sq.ff, of gross usable floor area, plus per 1,0O0 sq.ff, of gross usable floor area for gross usable floor area more than 20,000 sq. ft. (Long ~each, Calif.) One space per 200 sq. ff. of net leasable ar~a on ground floor and one space par $00 sq.ff, of net leasable area in the basement areas and on all above the ~st floor (Albuquerque, N29I.) 4.4 spaces for each ?00 SCl. ft. of gross floor area (Hilton Head Island, One space per 200 sq. ff. (FairbankS, Alaska) Office, Dental Two spaces for each examination or h'eat'ment rooM, P(MlUS one space for each dent/st and other employees ontgomery Co., Ohio) One space for each 200 sq.~. of leasable area, plus one additional space ~or each 200 sq.ft, of area used as reception area for visitors ($a~nnah, Ca.) One space for each 200 sq.ff, of floor area (Ga~nesville, Fla.) One space for each 100 sqJt. ol area (Albemarle Co., Va.) Office, Medical On~ space per B00 sq.ft, of gross floor area if over 10,000 scl. ft., then one space per 200 sq.ft, of gross floor ~rea (Orang~ Co., Calif.) One space for .~ach 250 sq.ft, of gross floor area (Columbus, Ohio) 4.5 spaces per 1,000 net ~q.ft. [minimum], five ~paces per 1,000 net scl. ft. [maximum] (Bdlevue, Wash.) O~e space per each 200 sq. ff. of floor ar~a (Bozcman, Mont.) One space per 100 sq.ff, of usable floor area, with a minimum of four.space~, plu? one space for each employee (St. Clair Shores, M~¢h.) Or~e parkin~ space for each 50 sq.ff, o~ gross floor area (Bonner Spnng~, /(ans.) One space for each four seats provided for patron u~e (Aurora, Colo.) One space ~or each employee, plus one space for each examining room (Hilton Head Island, 5.C.) Tl~ree spacms ,p. er treatment room and one for each doctor or danbs~ (Norman, Okla.) Four spaces per doctor or dentist on duty during busies~slxfft ?,Arlington, Mass.) Five spaces tot each doctor (Albuquerque, N.M.) Six spaces per practitioner (Falrfax Co., Va.) EXHIBIT B APA OFFICE PARKING i. XAMPLES DEC--~0--95 THU i 0 .' ~0 0 P . 1 2 Wazehouse One space for each two employees or one space for each 1,000 sq.ff, of floor area, whichever is greater (Piano, T~x.) One space for every 1.5 employees on the largest working shift, or one space per 2,000 sq. ft. o.f gross floor area, whichever is greater (Bay City, M~¢h.) One space per 1.5 employees on major shffi, plus one sp ace p er companyveh~cle~ plus sufficier~t $ p ace to accommodate the largest number of visitors that may be expected at any one time, but with a minimum one space per 1,000 sq.ff, of gros~ floor area (~air~x Co., One space per two employees, plus one space per each 500 sq,ff..of floor area open to the ~ribltc, for customer parking, but, in all cases, a minimum of two ~stomer park/rig spaces (Albemarle Co., Six spacesper 10 empl.oyees on the largest hiff, plus o~e space for each vehicle used in the ~usiness (Citrus Co., Fla.) One space per 2,000 sq.ft, of net leasabIe area (Albuquerque, N.M.) One parking space for each 600 sq.ff, of gro~s floor space (Northpor~, Ale.) One space per 1.8 employees, plus one space per company vehicle, but with a minimum of one space per LO00 sq,ff, of gross floor area (Fatrfax Co., Va.) Five spaces, plus one [or every one employee in the largest workh-tg shift, or one ~or every 1,700 usable floor space, whichever is greater (~t. Ctai~ Shores, Mich.) EXHIBIT C APA WAREHOUSE PARKING EXAMPLES DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: February 6, ~979 Benson/Orth Approval of Addition /Parking Variance 4700 Quebec STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 3o The petitioners.are proposing to construct a 65 foot deep by 120 foot wide addition to the front of the existing "White's" industrial building at 4700 Quebec Avenue. The property is zoned GI which has no lot coverage, green space or other similar requirements. The addition would simply be added on to the west side of the building.~in_the current large front yard. The addition would be 50.47 feet off the front lot line - 50 feet is required. While the building is well kept up there is very limited land- scaping provided -- six widely placed trees in the frontyard is all that appears to exist. At the same time, the GI dis- trict has no landscape requirement, but something additional might be requested as part of the construction approval. The building with the addition will have 28,200 square feet of building of which 2370 is office space. This should re- quire at least 38 parking spaces or 48 if the office is fi- gured separately -- 44 spaces are provided. Since there is no limitation on front yard parking in the GI, at least two more spaces could be added to the parking by Quebec Avenue. There is considerable space lost in the blacktop area because of the truck loading on the east end. Again, please note that parking is short only if the office space is figured separately. The question is if 2370 square feet of office is enough to raise a concern or should its needs be covered by the general requirement as has been done for other industrial developments when the office is limited? Design and Review may have some additional comments since they have not met to review this proposal as this is written. A revised site plan was submitted at Design and Review which shows a possible expansion of the parking lot in front of the building. This does show that the extra parking can be pro- vided if needed later. TO: KIRK McDONALD FROM: DOUG SANDSTAD DATE: DECEMBER 29, 199 SUBJECT: PROPOSED PARKING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT, P.C. 94-3 The petitioner before us was encouraged by staff to open formal discussions about relaxing our conservative parking standards in at least the office/warehouse categories, because it is our collective opinion that we recognize many of our parking ratio rules to be overly restrictive. Furthermore, the stable, fully-developed nature of our city allows us to deal with actual property experiences of a wide range,with a tiny "future issue" component,since no land is available. I will summarize my personal observations, understandings and experience regarding New Hope private-parking issues since 1975. In this case, no "hardship" exists, but the demonstrated need for the long-term occupant of the building is well met by existing parking facilities. The internal expansion, by code, requires additional parking spaces, where no lot area is available for same. However, the known staffing and visitor levels are clearly understood by a business that has been located in our city for two decades. No ordinance mechanism exists for the proposed expansion (read "investment"). The problem, here, has been the city code requiring 1 parking space for each 200 net square feet of office. Aquick review of our 1975, 1985 and 1991 aerial photos of the city show a parking shortage at fewer than 5% of our properties. One example is an apartment complex that was built with less parking than now required or another built with no garages, now required. No residential parking use problems result from code language, aside from a shortage of "Disability Parking" at "Elderly Housing" complexes. Two of our industrial sites have long had an on-street parking problem; Nordic Press at 5017 Boone Avenue and Lakeside Industries (next door) at 5001 Boone Avenue North. Both buildings have been expanded more than once and the new 1993 Lakeside addition and parking lot have solved that mess! Nordic Press is an example of building and lot combinations that resulted in a building that is inappropriately shaped for the lot,_resulting in empty parking spaces that are too far from the front door of the building to be useful. The public parks on Boone Avenue instead of down a hill and 350 feet to the west. Hindsight reveals the architects folly and city staff's lack of diligence in understanding that design flaw. It remains, today. Commercial properties range from the tiny "Grobe's Cafe" to the New Hope Mall with 476 parking spaces. None of these commercial buildings has a shortage of parking. Most of them appear to have about 30% more parking than they need at peak times. Office developments in a variety of zoning districts range from the small R-O dental office-type at 5001 Winnetka to the 4900 Highway #169 three story office building. None have a parking shortage and most appear to have a surplus of about 30%. continued... Our typical office / warehouse development is another story. Most have an incidental portion of office and the primary use is industrial. Thses uses range from the 2849 Louisiana Avenue,small building,to the 5000 Winnetka giant warehouse built by Brad Hoyt, recently. Virtually all of these have a large surplus of asphalt-covered parking areas, ranging from a 20% surplus on the former to an 80% waste of real estate on the latter. It is important to remember that their are many consequences of a parking surplus design: a. Initial construction, land, curb & asphalt costs are high..~ b. Maintenance, patching, seal-coating & striping costs follow each year. c. Snow plowing and snow storage and drainage issues are complicated by reduced green areas with each additional impervious-surface parking stall and drive. d. Aesthetic/environmental impacts result from loss of trees and plant life, increased-asphalt area "heat-sink" effect, increased rain and snow runoff, siltation and stormwater quality issues The single balancing reason for a conservative parking design is to prevent public safety hazards with vehicles parking and maneuvering on public land or adjacent private lands, a noble goal. Between the ends of the described parking spectrum, I suggest, are many options that are more realistic, affordable and reasonable. With our late 1980's effort to encourage local investment and maintenance of buildings, it has introduced a new element into staff-level planning considerations; "What arbitrary rules, procedures or codes in our city present roadblocks to a proposed project that may be old-fashioned, irrelevent or~tisdirected ideas from the 50"s, 60's or later ? When the city had a wealth of land, little experience and a concern'about what horrors might be introduced, very conservative planning made more sense. In 1994, we have a fully painted canvas, with known land uses and facilities, yielding a more precise "picture" of New Hope. In one sense, we are now merely dealing with the picture frame and its hanging on the wall. These are very manageable issues, while ensuring public safety. Among the variety of approaches explored for relaxing the office and warehouse parking standards isa change in basic square footage/per space, adding "Flexibility" language to value demonstrated employee numbers, changing the determination of land use, or a combination of these. In all cases, I prefer simpifying our cumbersome codes and streamlining, NOT expansion of sections, exceptions or prohibitions. My brief description of our office / warehouse parking situation is that virtually all of our developments have a parking surplus of about 30 Z, including both uses. I have recalculated the two plan cases before us, J.R. Jones and Jesco, both long-term local firms and recommend that we change our standards to 1/300 sf for office and 1/1,500 per warehouse,'reflecting a ratio that is very close to the actual parking needs for most of our office / warehouse sites. Without a business "license" or "permit", we can't reliably factor in employee numbers. Note that the change from 200 to 300 is a 50% decrease in parking requirements,.but most of these buildings have minor or ancillary offices, reducing the net effect to about a 30% reduction for overall parking spaces. Neither proposed change impacts other primary uses. ' I would estimate that several businesses, per year, have run into this parking "shortage" ordinance since 1985, preventing or downscaling expansion plans. Both plan cases before us comply with my proposed standards. J I .1 , I .t PLANNING CASE NO. 79-9 PLANNING CASE 79-9 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTI.O~ APPROVAL WITH PARKING VARIANCE AT 4700 QUEBEC AyENUE'NORTH L'BENSON/ORTH~'PETITiONER~ Mr. Ken Benson represented the petitioner: The plan presented to D and R has been modified, after a subsequent meeting with his client. The proposal is for a 7800 square foot addition to the existing White property. The building will match the existing building. They no longer are requesting a variance on the parking, ~hey could propose some additional landscaping and will transplant .the existing ash trees in the area between the pavement and the property line. There will be an overhead door at the front of the building, and they are now proposing to install the parking that had originally been indicated as "future." In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding the amount of truck traffic there will be through the large d~or, Mr. Benson s:ated that he had suggested that a power opener be installed for the door, but the client had said "no". He felt this indicated minimal use. The bulk of the material will still come by rail. Mr. Benson indicated they-now have 59 parking spaces. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned whether this many were needed, or whether the area could be converted to green. Mr. Benson thought this was possible. Commissioner Gundershaug also questioned the need for blacktopping on the north side of the new driveway. He would like to get away from all of the blacktop that was not necessary. Chairman Cameron asked why they needed theparking~in'front? The City Manager stated that the maximum they would need would be 48 spaces. They have provided 54 total. Suggestion was made that only the driveway be installed with the rest of the front area remaining green, but indicating the space could be used for future parking. It was the consensus of the Commission that there should be grass in the front, except for the driveway. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding additional landscaping, Mr, Benson stated they were adding six blue spruce trees within the property line, ~nd the green ash will now not need to be removed on the front. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether or not they could add some shrubs along the front of the building to break up the expanse. Mi-. Benson indicated that some shrubs could be added at the front of the building. There will be no roof top equipment, and existing lights will be moved but no additional installed. When the blacktop in the front is eliminated, it will be converted to sod. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion recommendinq approval of Case 79-9, approval of the addition to the White Company, subject to the front parking being eliminated and this area remaininq grass, unless future needs require additional par. king, and that landscapin9 will be added as discussed at this meetinq -- additional shrubs and trees. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Daly, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson ~).C Motion carried. · Plannin9 Case No. 79-9, request from Benson-Orth fo~ construction plan approval for an addition to White's Industrial building at 4700 Quebec Avenue, was considered by the Council. The petitioners are proposing to construct a 65 foot deep by 120 foot wide addition to the front of the existing building. Mr. John White, President of White's, Inc., represented the petitioner. Mr. White stated that they nu, have a se,~cus ~,~.,n§ problcn~ c~ their .... company. He reviewed the Planning Commission minutes pertaining to the commission's recommendation that the front parking be eliminated. Mr. White stated that they have 43 parking spaces listed on their plan. With the addition of the new parking area there would be 54 spaces. Mr. White noted that three of the snaces were on.a steep incline and cannot really be used for parking spaceQ. Another eight spaces are constantly being used for back-up of trucks by the loading docks. This is a total of eleven unusable spaces. Since 1971, employees ave been increased from 28 to 36 people. Business volume has doubled with increases !~ trucks and will-call customers. There are also twelve factory reps that call on a reo:,~-'' basis as well as various other sales people. Mr. White then requested that the comp 'e pe~itted to install the parking toget~e~m PLANNING CASE NO. 79-9 : ~lty ';.~,-ager eue~sed that the Planning Commission did not object to the parking spaces, :~:~ the re'.~sentative at that meeting had indicated that there was no need for the p::rking. Cunsequently, the Planning Co~rnission thought it would be better to have green area rather than unneeded parking. There is no green area requirement in this zoning district, except the three-foot setback from the street. If the spaces to the front of the building are to be provided, a parking variance is not required. No one appeared in regard to this Planning Case. Motion by Councilman Otten, second by Councilman Enck gr~antinq construction,~lan ao~rovaL for the addition to White's 4700 Quebec Avenue North, as requested under Planning_ Case No. 79-9, with the understanding that the front parkinq will be construc~ej~ Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Dtten, Plufka Voting against: None Motion declared carried. Q.O~,l (~.~.j~.--~ ~&.~ R.4 IC£ ARENA SUNNY$10E R.4 R~4 FRED SIMS PARK: ~E 4ITH AVE. · · , iCE ARENA '1 LCX:) ~ AVE. N. .. · PARK q751 !1 ( AVE N ' 46 TH : } ~ ',~ ' ~ / '~S~ FRED ~~ ~ I~I q s,~s 4~°~ I II ,I,M'b ,U~i7 AVE AVE.. ARCHITECTS, INC. ~ JESCO INDUSTRIAl. SUPPMES DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM December 28, 1993 Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Miscellaneous Issues Planning Commission Re-Appointments - At the December 13th City Council Meeting the City Council re-appointed the following Planning Commission members for three-year terms, which expire on December 31, 1996: Robert Cameron Sharon Cassen Todd Lifson Vi Underdahl Please' refer to the enclosed request and resolution. December 13th Council Meeting - At the December 13th Council Meeting the following Planning Cases were tabled: Planning Case 93-33, Request for Rezoning from R-I, Single Family Residential Zoning District, to R-O, Residential Office Zoning District, 7901 28th Avenue North, Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S., Petitioner. Per the petitioner's request, this matter was tabled for one month and will be considered at the January 10th City Council Meeting. Staff met with the petitioner in December after the Planning Commission Meeting to explain the position of the City and to discuss possible options in lieu of rezoning. At that meeting staff learned that the petitioners no longer reside at the premises, which could further complicate the issue because they are in violation of their special use permit. Planning Case 93-31 - Ordinance 93-07, An Ordinance Amending Section 4.038(3) of the New Hope City Code Regulating Permitted Home Occupations. As you are aware, three sections of this amendment were recommended for approval by the Commission and the section increasing the number of employees was recommended for denial by the Commission on a 3-3 tie vote. Per the City Attorney, the entire ordinance was presented to the Council with the Commission's specific recommendations. The City Council had strong reservations about approving all of the amendments and tabled this matter for three months for future discussion at a work session. The Council thanked the Commission for their study, but did not want to act on the recommendations until they studied them further. Please refer to the attached verbatim minutes from the City Clerk on this matter for further information. 1994 Engineering Proiects - Enclosed for your information is a draft copy of the proposed 1994 New Hope Engineering Projects which will be reviewed by the City Council in January. Desi~en and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met on December 16th with representatives of J.R. Jones regarding expansion plans. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. Codes and Standards Committee - The Codes and Standards Committee met on December 16th and continued to review the following City Code issues: Ao Revisions to Gas Canopy/Gas Signage Ordinances -The most recent reports/recommendations from the Planning Consultant and Committee on this issue are enclosed for your review and will be discussed under Committee Reports. If the full Commission is in general agreement with the recommendat.ions, the Committee is proposing to conduct an informational session on the new regulations at the February Planning Commission meeting and invite/seek input from owners of gasoline service stations. Review Permitted/Conditional Uses in B-1 District - The most recent reports/recommendations from the Planning Consultant and Committee on this issue are also enclosed for your review and will be discussed under Committee Reports. If the full Commission is in general agreement with the recommendations then a general public hearing to amend the City Code will be scheduled for the February Planning Commission meeting. Co Preliminary_ Review of Wall Sign Study - A copy of the initial "issues" report on the wall sign study is enclosed for your review. The Committee will continue discussion on this issue at a January meeting. 'OR Orlgtnati.ng Depa~ment Approved ~r ~enda ~enda Section Consent Manager ~2-13-93 Item No. Dan Donahue BT: 6.9 / RESOLUTION RE-APPOINTING PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 1996 Planning Co~issions are appointed for three-year terms. Robert Cameron, Sharon Cassen, Todd Lifson, and Vi Underdahl positions expiring December 31, 1993. All members are requesting re-appointment to the Planning Commission for three-year terms. Planninq Co~ission Members Requestinq Reappointment: Robert Cameron Sharon Cassen Todd Lifson Vi Underdahl Other Planning Commissions (not up for reappointment): Robert Gundershaug William Sonsin Doug Watschke Mary Zak MORON BY SECO~ BY TO: R~ew: ~~raUon: F~ce: ~A-O01 CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 92- RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 1996 WHEREAS, the City of New Hope Planning Commission members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council according to New Hope Code of Ordinances, Section 2.132, and WHEREAS, the appointment of the Planning Commission members is provided for in the City Code of Ordinances and would be in the best interest of the community. WHEREAS, the members of the Planning Commission consist of Robert Cameron, Sharon Cassen, Robert Gundershaug, Todd Lifson, William Sonsin, Vi Underdahl, Doug Watschke, and Mary Zak. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Minnesota as follows: Robert Cameron, Sharon Cassen, Todd Lifson, and Vi Underdahl are hereby reappointed for three-year terms expiring December 31, 1996. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 13th day of December, 1993. Mayor Attest: City Clerk PLANNING CASE 93-31 Item 8.2 Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Planning Case 93- 31/Ordinance 93-07, An Ordinance Amending Section 4.038(3) of the New Hope City Code Regulating Permitted Home Occupations, City of New New Hope City Council Page 3 December 13, 1993 NEW HOPE 1994 ENGINEERING PROJECTS December 2, 1993 36th Avenue Street Improvements - Louisiana Avenue to Winnetka Avenue (Project Nos. 437 and 486) - Prepare Feasibility Report - Public Hearing - February 1994 Includes: A. Railroad bridge reconstruction - Summer 1994 B. Street improvement - Summer 1995 1. Intersection improvements at Winnetka Avenue 2. storm sewer improvements are included in 36th Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, and Crystal Apartments driveway to comply with Northwood Lake outlet ~' improvements. Retaining Wall Project (Project No. 469) - Informational meeting - December 2, 1993 - Develop policy; review with City Council and residents Trunk Sanitary Sewer Repairs (Project No. 480) - Prepare report- February 1994 Public Works Garage Site Improvements - Salt Storage (Project No. 487) - Approve plans - March 1994 - Construction - Summer 1994 34-gcn 1 REVISIONS TO GAS CANOPY/ GAS SIGNAGE ORDINANC or west ssociat Consul ants, R B P L A N N G . DES N . M A R K E Inc. RESEARCH M~MORANDL~! TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan BriXius/Stuart Roberson 9 December 1993 New Hope - Gas Pump Canopy Signage 13t.00 93.07 Background In September 1993, the City of New Hope approved a site plan for Uno-Ven motor fuels station, located at Winnetka Avenue and Rockford Road. The property owner sought and received City approval to install three new replacement gas pumps and a gas pump island canopy. Included in their approval was four 36 inch round signs located on the facia canopy. The City Sign Ordinance limits canopy signs to 12 inches in height and requires the canopy signage to be included in calculating the maximum sign area of the permissible wall sign. While this signage did not fully comply with existing regulations, it was approved with the understanding that no other wall or ground sign would be allowed without variance. In review of this signage application, the City staff questioned whether the City's current sign regulations accommodate the needs of contemporary fuel sales facilities. Investigation of existing fuel sales facilities in conjunction with the City's gas canopy study revealed that most facilities did not fully comply with the city sign regulations. Discussing the matter with the City building Inspector and the Codes and Standards Subcommittee, it was determined that some changes to the sign regulations may be warranted to address gas sales facilities. Performance Standards Currently gas sales facilities signage is addressed in Sections 3.465 and 3.466 of the New Hope Sign Ordinance (Exhibit A). 5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416 · (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 Section 3.465 addresses signage accessory to single occupancy business uses. This section gives specific attention to the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. Front wall signs Side and rear wall signs Ground signs Roof signs Awning or canopy signs In review of this section, no changes are proposed for the first four subsections, however, we propose some modification to subsection 5 awning or canopy signs. The proposed changes are highlighted in Exhibit B. Section 3.466 addresses signs accessory to automobile service stations. Modifications to this section of the Sign Ordinance give attention to expanding its application to gas sales associated with convenience stores and address self service operations. 2 (b) 3.464 (1)(b) - (d), 3.465 (1)(a) Name Rlate, Directional and Identification Signs. 7or each apartment development there shall be permitted one identification sign or two signs on corner lots each facing a separate street, each not exceeding twenty-five square feet ~n area located near the main entrances to the building or complex of buildings, and indicating only the name and address of the building or complex of buildings, the name of the owner or manager thereof, and the phone number of the manager or owner thereof. In addition each building within an apartment development with a separate address shall be identified Dy a separate sign not exceeding five square feet in area with letters of a size and color to clearly identify the individual building. (c) New Construction or Remodelinq. In connection with the construction or remodeling of a building there shall be permitted one sign not exceeding twenty-five square feet ~n area indicating the names of any or all of the architects, engineers and contractors engaged in the construction; on corner lots two such signs, one facing each street, shall be permitted. All signs permitted under this paragraph shall be removed by the person or persons erecting the same not longer than two weeks after final inspection Dy thr Director of Fire and Safety of the structure indicated, or two years, whichever is less. (Ord. 76-17) 3.465 (d) Home Occupations. A residential unit with an aporoved home occupation requiring customer or client visits to the home is allowed, in addition to the signs in Sections (a) and (b) above, one identification sign for the home occupation, Said sign shall not exceed two square feet in size; it shall be attached to the wall of the residential unit, no higher than six feet above grade, lettering shall not exceed six inches in height and the wording shall be limited to the name and?or function of the home occupation. In addition, a sign not to exceed one square foot in size shall be permitted at the entrance to the home occupation if the entrance is not the main entrance to the building. NO illumination of the sign is permitted other than the general house illumination. (Ord. 76-17, 79-7) Siqns Accessory to Sinqle Occupancy Business or Industrial Use-. NO sign accessory to any business or industrial use shall be permitted, except in compliance with the following regulations: (1) Front Well Signs. (a) Maximum Siqnaqe. Not more than two signs shall be permitted on the front wall of any principal building. The total area of such sign or signs shall not exceed fifteen percent of the area of the front face (including doors and windows) of the principal building in Limited Business, Retail Business and General Business Districts, and ten percent in Limited Industry and General Industry Districts, provided that the total area of each sign shall not exceed one hundred and twenty-five square feet. 3-42 EXHIBIT A 072684 3.465 (1)(b) - (3) (b) Variance to Maximum Signage. Front wall signs which consist only of individual, outlined alphabetic, numeric and symbolic characters without background except that provided by the building surface to which they are affixed may be increased by twenty-five percent of the allowable sign area permitted in paragraph (a) above, except that the total of each sign shall not exceed one hundred twenty-five square feet. If illuminated, such illumination may be by internal shielded illumination, shielded silhouette lighting or shielded spot lighting, but lighting where the light source itself is visible or exposed on the face or szdes of the characters is prohibited. (c) Metal Electrically Illuminated Signs. Signs constructed of me~al and illuminated by any means requiring internal wiring or electrically wired accessory fixtures attached to a metal sign shall maintain a free clearance to a grade of nine fee~. Accessory lighting fixtures at~ached to a non-metal frame slgn shall maintain a clearance of nine feet to ground. In the event a metal sign structure or accessory fixture herein described is grounded by the use of a grounding conductor run with the circuit conductors and said structure or fixture is also grounded by belng bonded on a grounding electrode at the sign site, no clearance to grade shall be mandatory. (d) Gaseous Tube or Interior Illuminated Signs. Front wall signs may be gaseous ~ube type or may be illuminated by interior means of lighting of an intensity to prevent excessive glare and shall comply with the regulations established in Chapter 4. (2) Side and Rear Wall Signs. A sign or signs shall be permitted on the rear and/or side wall of any principal building subject to the following regulations: (a) Maximum Si~na~e. The total area of such rear or side wall sign or signs shall not exceed nine square feet. No rear or side wall signs, o~her than a sign provided in paragraph (b) below, shall make use of any word, phrase, symbol or character other than to designate delivery areas. (b) Variance to Maximum Signage. Notwithstanding the above- sta=ed provision, if the main entrance to a particular use in the principal building opens on a side wall, or if main entrance/exit (as defined in the Building Code) to al,r/ particular use in the principal building opens on a rear wall, the applican~ shall be permitted to sign the _ o rear wall in accordance with the front wall sign provisions of paragraph (a) above. In no case, however, shall either the side or rear wall contain more than one hundred and twenty-five square feet of total sign area. (3) Ground Signs. Not more than two ground signs shall be permitted .on any lot or one ground sign if the building should contain more than one wall sign over ten square feet, subject to the following regulations: 3-43 072684 3.~56 (3)(a) - (a) Metal Electrically Illuminated Signs. Signs constructed of metal and illuminated by any means requiring internal wiring or electrically wired accessory fixtures attached to a metal sign shall maintain a free clearance to grade of nine feet. Accessory lighting fixtures attached to a non-metal frame sign shall maintain a clearance of nine feet to ground. In the event that a metal sign structure or accessory fixture herein described is grounded by the use of a grounding conductor run with the circuit conductors and said structure or fixture is also grounded by being bonded to a grounding electrode at the sign site, no clearance to grade shall be mandatory. (b) Location of Metal Siqns. No metal ground sign shall be located within eight feet vertically and four feet horizontally of electric wires or conductors in free air carrying more than forty-eight volts, whether or not such wires or conductors are insulated or otherwise protected. (c) Maximum Sign Area and Height. Ail ground signs shall conform with the maximum sign area, and maximum sign height provisions in relation to the street classification, as contained in the following table: Street Maximum Area Maximum Structure Classification (Sq. Feet) Height (Feet) Collector 40 15 Minor Arterial 75 20 Principal Arterial 200 30 (Ord. 76-17, 79-14, 81-4) (d) Street Classification and Application. Street classification shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Five Year Transportation Plan for the City of New Hope. The level at which the sign control system applies is determined by the street classification, as outlined in Subsection 3.465-(3)(c), which directly abuts the subject property. In the case of subject property directly abutting more than one road, each designated by a different road type, the less restrictive classification shall apply in determining sign area and height. (e) Sign Height Application. Sign height is determined by the vertical distance between the highest part of the sign structure and the Council-approved grade of the site adjacent to its base. In those cases where the main floor elevation of the building is more than 36" above, or below, the average street curb elevation along the frontage, actual sign height is determined by the grade of the road (average curb elevation) from which the sign gains its principal exposure. (f) Sign Area Application. Sign area for ground signs applies to only one face of a two-faced ground sign, or two faces of a four-faced sign, etc. (g) Location to Property Lines. No ground sign shall be located closer than ten feet to any property line. 3 072684 3.465 (4). (5), 3,4~1g, 3.467 . 3.466 3.467 (4) Roof Signs. No part of any sign shall be maintained that projects into the air space over the roof of any building or structure. (5) Awning or Canopy Signs. Letters may be painted or otherwise affixed to any permissible awning or canopy as follows: (a) Location. Lettering or letters shall not project above, below or beyond the physical dimensions of the awning or canopy. (b) Height. Lettering or letters shall not be larger from top to bottom than twelve inches. (c) ~s_~e. Lettering or letters shall not denote other than the name and address of the business conducted therein and/or a product or products produced or sold or service rendered therein. (d) Maximum Signage. Lettering or letters shall be included in calculating the maximum sign area of the permissible wall sign. Signs Accessory to Automobile Service Stations. The following signs accessory to automobile service stations are permitted in addition to the signs permitted under Subsection 3.465. (1) Oil Racks. Racks for the orderly display of cans of engine oil for convenience in dispensing said oil may be located on or at the ends of pump islands. (Limit of two to each island) Tire Racks. Two open portable tire racks (not more than seven feet in height including signs, and six feet in length) on casters for the purpose of displaying new tire casings shall be permitted for each gasoline or tire service station. (3) Portable Signs~ Placards, Pennants. Portable signs, placards, pennants, streamers, flags (except the U.S. flag), revolving placards and all other signs not specifically permitted in this section are prohibited, except for grand openings, as provided in Subsection 3.441. (4) Gasoline and Price Sign. One sign (single or double faced) per frontage on a public street, suitable for apprising persons of the total sale price per gallon. The area of such price sign shall not exceed sixteen square feet on either side. Each such sign shall be affixed to the standard of a ground sign or light fixture, and shall state the total price. No sign posting an incomplete price Or less than the total sales price is permitted. (Code 072684, Ord. 76-17) Signs Accessory to Multiple Occupancy Business and Industrial Uses Including Shopping Centers. When a single principal building is devoted to two or more businesses, or industrial uses, a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building or shopping center shall be submitted and shall include the information required by paragraph (1) to permit a determination as to whether or not the plan is consistent with paragraphs (2) through (4) of this subsection. No permit shall be issued for an individual use except upon a determination that it is consistent with a previously or concurrently approved comprehensive sign plan. The effect of said comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the owner of multiple occupancy structures to determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of his building. As sign 3-45 072684 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 3.465 (5) facia. (d) 3.466 following signs accessory tO a~oiaobile~sei-vice'st~tions 9t~d convenience iCoFes with gae'~li~ are permitted in signs not specifically permitted in this section COMMENTS This change deletes the word ,letter' and replaces canopies This change references signs rather than letters or lettering in recognition of pictorial signs or lo~o. This change would establish a specific size standard for canopy signs. Expand £he regulations to address 9as sales at convenience stores No change Retain tire racks exclusively for automobile sel-~ice stations No change NO change New provision addressing self service facilities CURRENT ORDINANCE ~!~. Lettelin9 or letters shall not denote other than the name and address ol the business conducted therein and/or a product og products produced or sold o~ service rendeged maximum sign area of the permissible wall nigh, ~S[-~vv~,~ience in dispensln9 said si[ may be located on or at 'fire Racks. Two open portable tire racks (not more than seven suitable for apprisin9 perso,,s of EXHIBIT I STEVEN A $ONC)FIALL MICHAEL Fi LAFLE{JR MAFITIN ~ MALECHA WILLIAM C STFIAIT CORRICK & $ONDRALL, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (632) 425-5671 FAX (612) 4.25-5867 November 22, 1993 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Ordinance Amending Pump Island Canopy Regulations Our File No. 99.49308 Dear Kirk: In follow up to the November 17th, 1993 Codes and Standards Committee meeting, please find enclosed a revised Ordinance incorporating the suggestions from the meeting, Specifically, I have removed from the Ordinance I previously sent you language dealing with additional signage on the canopy. It is my understanding that the signage issue will be comprehensively reviewed so that all changes to the sign code relating to 9as station signage can be made at one time including the canopy signage issue. Also in Section 1 it was decided that prohibiting canopies inside yards not abutting public streets was not necessary. As a result, the enclosed Ordinance only limits canopies in rear yards not abutting public streets. I believe those were the only changes suggested from the meeting. Contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondral 1 slm Enclosure cc: Doug Sandstad (w/enc) A1Brixius (w/eric) ORDINANCE NO. 93-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY PERMITTING PUMP ISLAND CANOPIES AT GAS STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORES AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND ALLOWING ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON CANOPIES The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.032 (3)(k) "Pump Island Canopy" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (k) Pump Island Canopy. Canopies located over pump islands shall be allowed as accessory structures in the B-3 zoning district for automobile service stations and convenience stores with gasoline allowed by §§4.124 (1) and (2) of this Code. Canopy setbacks shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the property line. Adequate visibility both on and off site must also be maintained· ii. Canopies shall not be allowed in rear yards not abutting a public street· iii. Maximum canopy height may not exceed twenty (20) feet, and shall provide a minimum clearance of fourteen (14) feet. iv, Canopy facades may not exceed three (3) feet in height. Reflected glare or spill light may not exceed five- tenths (0.5) foot candles, as measured on the property line when abutting residentially zoned property and one (1) foot candle measured on the property line when abutting other commercial or industrially zoned property. vi. Signage may be allowed on the canopy in addition to wall and ground signage as permitted in §3,465 of this Code, Section 2. Section 4,124 (1)(o)"Canopy" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (o) Canopy. Canopies located over pump islands shall be allowed as accessory structures subiect to the specifications set out in §4.032 (3)(k) of this Code. Section 3. Section 4.124 (2)(h)"Canopy" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (h) Canopy A ~ ..t~t: · ~ -fA AA ,'.'C C:n~.Gy Canopies located over pump islands m~)' shall be allowed as :,~ accessory structures ......property .... , ..... t~d t ..... +" f t or m^-e f-mm +~A ~--~--* l--' lir,~ ..... '~ ~- .~+ ' .... ' ~ m" ,qt~i,qcd subiect to the specifications set out ~n ~4.032(3)(k) of th~s Code. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1993. Edw. d. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the , 1993.) day of U R B A P L A N G D I G N M A R K E Inc, RESEARCH TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Elizabeth Stockman/Stuart Roberson/Alan Brixius 3 November 1993 New Hope - Zoning Ordinance - Gas Pump Canopies and Motor Fuel Facilities Green Space 131.00 - 93.07 BACKGROUND In September 1993, New Hope approved a site plan for Uno-Ven Company. The site plan approval involved the Unocal station at Winnetka Avenue and Rockford Road. The development request was for the removal of existing gas fueling islands and their replacement with three new fueling islands with a canopy. In evaluating this proposal, City staff indicated that the City Zoning Ordinance lacked performance standards regulating the design and placement of gasoline pump island canopies. At the request of City staff, we have reviewed the City regulations and outlined the following ordinance changes to regulate gasoline fuel island canopies. Specific areas cf regulation include setbacks, signage, height, lot coverage, and lighting. In developing the proposed regulations, it is necessary to recognize that in New Hope, the application of these new regulations will apply most often to existing developed sites rather than new development. Under these circumstances, the ordinance must give attention 5o past development trends to avoid making existing sites become non-conforming or discouraging new site improvements. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555-St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 Gas sales are allowed by conditional use permit in association with automobile Service stations and convenience retail facilities. These uses are limited to New Hope's B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts. Canopies over gas pump islands are frequently associated with gas sales to shelter customers from the elements while they service their vehicle with gas. In this light, canopies are an attractive convenience for area consumers. ANALYSIS In addressing the performance standards for gas canopies, we have attempted to identify their land use characteristics in order to prepare appropriate performance standards. Accessory Use. Gas island canopies are accessory structures to gas sale facilities. Since gas sales facilities are already conditional uses in their respective district, it is not necessary to treat the canopy as an independent conditional use permit. We would recommend that the performance standards for canopies be included in Section 4.032.3 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance addressing accessory buildings, uses and equipment. 2. Performance Standards. ae Setbacks. Currently, there is a lack of uniformity regarding the setback requirements for gas pump canopies located at automobile service stations and convenience stores with gas. The setback rule of thumb for automobile service stations has been I0 feet, while 20 feet is the standard for a convenience store with gas. In .establishing a uniform setback for all gas island canopies, the City must consider past action. The City recently completed a survey of gas stations in the community which has been summarized in the table on the following page. Property line setbacks ranged from 6 inches to 35 feet, with the average being 20.4. To avoid establishing a number of non-conforming sites, we recommend a standard canopy setback of 15 feet. This would result in three of the 15 sites becoming non-conforming. Additionally, a stipulation which prohibits the location of canopies in rear and side yards not abutting a street was reco~.ended by City staff. It was felt that 5he impact of canopy structures should not be born by neighboring property owners. GAS sALEs CANOPY SURVEY SIIMMARY TABLE OCTOBER 1993 Location 7300 Bass Lake Rd 9400 49th Ave No 7231 42nd Ave No 3601 Winnetka No 9400 36th Ave No 3535 Winnetka No 7850 27th Ave No 9456 27th Ave No 4200 Winnetka 7820 42nd Ave No 7901 Bass Lake Rd 7900 Bass Lake Rd 6113 W. Broadway 6144 W. Broadway 7117 Bass Lake Rd AVERAGE Canopy Total % of % of Lot Area % of Front Side Area Sq. Ft. Lot Yard Yard 13,600 1,352 !0 15 -- 36,000 2,400 7 21 -- 15,600 1,344 9 23 -- 36,000 1,848 5 7 37,000 6,000 16 .... 18,750 3,300 17 .... 15,000 2,800 19 18 47 39,900 NO CANOPIES Property Line Setback 22 35 20 35 35 20 6" 5' 32,000 2,900 9 29 -- 17 23,000 1,620 7 -- 11 10 43,000 NO CANOPIES 24,000 NO CANOPIES 22,500 800 4 11 -- 15 ABANDONED FACILITY 20,000 1,500 8 16 -- 10 26,882 2,351 10.1 17.5 29 20.4 % of Bldg i00 61 75 75 !00+ I00+ I00+ !00 5O 75 90 84.2 Signage. The New Hope Sign Ordinance allows a commercial site two signs. These signs may consist of two wall signs or a combination of one wall sign and one freestanding sign. The sign area may not exceed 15% of the front wall of the principal building or 125 square feet. Frequently, the gas pump canopy is located in the front of a principal building, making it by far the most prevalent structure au a motor fuel facility. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that a business would select this structure as a primary location to identify their business. The issue is whether or not to provide additional square fcosage to accommodate a canopy sign, or limit signs to two locations and calculate it within the overall signage requirements. There are good reaSons for supporting both arguments. If the City decided to provide additional square footage for a canopy sign, it would allow for the simplification of sign review. However, it would create an additional sign location on the property which may result in a visually unattractive facility. The argument for limiting the site to two signs and calculating size within the allowable square footage is that it would prevent signage overuse. However, it would make sign calculation more difficult. We would recommend limiting motor fuel stations to two sign locations. Additionally, we have reduced the constraints on canopy signage by eliminating the provision that lettering may be no larger than 12 inches in height. Height: The regulated clearance minimum height for a gas pump canopy is fourteen (14) feet. This allows reasonable access for larger than average vehicles. However, regulations do not limit its maximum height. We have determined that the maximum height of twenty (20) feet for a 'separate or attached canopy would be sufficient to accommodate the necessary signage and roof pitch (if any), while avoiding a disproportionate size relationship with the principal structure. Given the 20 foot maximum height limitation of canopy structures, and the minimum required clearance of 14 feet, a six foot span exists within which to construct the canopy. In this regard, it is necessary to limit the size of the canopy facade. We recommend that a three foot facade be the maximum height permitted on any side of a gas station canopy. Lighting: The current ordinance allows one (I) foot candle, measured from a centertine of a public right-of- way and four (4) foot candles when measured from a residential property. We have researched other communities, and discovered that motor fuel service facilities could be illuminated sufficiently when levels were reduced to one Il) foot candle measured on the property line when such a line abuts a similar area, and five-tenths (.5) foot candles on the property when abutting a residential zone. These lowered levels of candle footage will reduce the amount of spill over light, without jeopardizing the subject property's visibility. 4 Eo Canopy Size: Limiting canopy size is a difficult issue to address for the following reasons: (~.) The canopy generally covers an area that is already paved and impervious. As such, limiting the area of the canopy offers no site drainage benefit. (2) The canopy's function is to shelter the customer servicing their automobile. Limiting the canopy size may reduce the effectiveness of the canopy's function. (3) The gas sales sites in New Hope vary in size and design and a maximum canopy size may result in non- conforming lots or lots where the canopy use becomes impractical. (4) After considering the aforementioned item, limiting the canopy size becomes an aesthetic consideration. The standard to insure,architectural compatibility and scale may not strictly relate to canopy size or function. We would recommend that the canopy size be dictated by setback and site constraints. Signage Violations. During recent inventory of gas station sites by City staff, it was noted that several locations were in violation of sign regulations. In this light, it is recommended that review of existing signage standards be pursued. It may be beneficial to establish specific regulations for motor fuel stations which address items such as gas sale price signs, car wash signs, pump operating instructions, and signs mounted on or above pumps. The potential types, sizes, locations, and quantity of these and other signs should be discussed at the next Codes and Standards meeting, as we have no5 drafted any ordinance amendments in this regard. For reference purposes, a survey of area communities was done to document the way in which gas station signs are handled. Bloomington: · One illuminated pylon, 50 square fee5 per sSree~ frontage Three auxiliary signs at 15 square feet (total) or one auxiliary sign at 40 square feet; they may be attached to the main sign or separately ground mounted One business sign, square foot requirements depend on zoning district location Brooklyn Park: · No specific regulations for motor fuel stations Golden Valley: · No specific regulations for gas station signs Two square feet of sign area per lineal foot of building frontage, may utilize long side if on a corner · 0nly one face of multi-faceted signs are counted · Allow pricing and car wash signs under the informational sign category, evaluated on a case by case basis as to size, location, etc. Maple Grove: · One pylon/pole sign at 45 square feet · Up to four wall signs at 5% of facade area · One price/car wash sign at 16 square feet, must be incorporated into landscaped area Plymouth: · One pylon sign at 64 square feet, 20 foot setback, 36 foot height · Wall signs between 5 and 20% of facade, depending on district location · Two price signs at 16 square feet each, can be attached or detached to main sign Attached are draft ordinances for your review and discussion related to gasoline island cano'~ies. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 3.465 (5) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE REGULATING SIGNS ACCESSORY TO BUSINESS OR INDUSTRIAL USES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3.465 (5) (b) "Height" of the New Hope Sign Code is hereby deleted. Section 3.465 (5) is amended to read as follows: (5) Awninq or Canopy Signs. Letters may be painted or otherwise affixed to any permissible awning or canopy as follows: (a) Location. Lettering or letters shall not project above, below or beyond the physical dimensions of the awning or canopy, (b) Use. Lettering or letters shall not denote other than the name and address of the business conducted therein and/or a product or products produced or sold or service rendered therein. (c) Maximum Siqna~e. Lettering or letters shall be included in calculating the maximum sign area of the permissible wall sign. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated this day of 1993. ATTEST: By: Edward J. Erickson, Mayor By: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post the , 1993). day of ORDINANCE NO. ~'" AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4.032 (3) AND 4.124 (1), AND 4.124 (2) OF THE NEW HOPE ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING GAS PUMP CANOPIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4.032 (3) (k), Canopy Specifications, of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is hereby added to read as follows: (k) Canopy Specifications. A protective cover located over a pump island shall be allowed as an accessory structure, and subject to the following conditions: Placement shall occur fifteen (15) feet or more from the lot line, provided adequate visibility both on and off site is maintained. Placement of the canopy shall be prohibited in any rear yard or side yard which does not abut a public street. The total height will not exceed twenty (20) feet, and shall provide a minimum clearance of fourteen (14) feet. The canopy facade may not exceed three (3) feet in height, regardless of the total height and clearance of the canopy. Reflected glare or spill light may not exceed five-tenths (0.5) foot candles, as measured on the property line when abutting residential zones and one (1) foot candle measured on the property line when such line abuts a similar zone and land. o Signage may be allowed on the canopy facade as an alternative to a wall sign or ground sign as permitted in Section 3.465 of the New Hope City Code. Section 2. Section 4.124 (i) (o), Canopy of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is hereby added 50 read as follows: (o) Canopy. A protective cover located over pump island shall be allowed as an accessory structure in compliance with Section 4.032 (3) (k). Section 3. Section 4.124 (2) (h), Canopy, of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is hereby deleted and replaced to read as follows: (h) Canopy. A protective cover located over a pump island shall be allowed as an accessory structure in compliance with Section 4.032 (3) (k). Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated this day of 1993. ATTEST: By: Edward J. Erickson, Mayor By: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post the ,1993). day of 2 TO: KIRK MdDONALD FROM: DOUG SANDSTAD DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1993 SUBJECT: GAS SALES CANOPY SURVEY & ANALYSIS I have completed a review of the properties where gasoline is sold in our city and summarized basic site data on the attachments. My"focus was canopies over gas pump islands, lot & building sizes, canopy setbacks from property line, sign problems and canopy/lot ~'danopy/building ratios. One interesting conclusion is that 4 of 15 gas station sites have no canopy (26%), so- 74% have canopies. One building was included, even though it has been abandoned and may soon be demolished for possible inclusion into an adjacent elderly housing project-Site "V". Five of the ]1 sites with canopies are less than 20 feet from the lot line. Only one is less than 15 feet, based upon a quick analysis. The average"canopy-to-lot ratio. is 10.3 %, ranging from 5 to 19%. The average canopy-to-building ratio-- is 87 %~ ranging From 50 to 110 %. Even~the'stations without canopies, had small canopy-like awnings built on top of'the gas pump islands with lights and signs present. They serve no rain/weather protection purpose since they are 4 feet wide and about 10 feet lonj directly above the concrete islands. Signage is a problem on most of these lots, since 80% of them had illegal signs or outddor sales on October 18 & i9, during my visits. The enlarged photos of most of the sites will show the scale of the canopies and buildings, along with signage or setback problems. In summary, the canopies, themselves, do not present many problems as they stand,*-today. The '~market" has kept them small. About half of them are new. Complaints are unheard of, on canopies. Every structuce, post, column,~bdildihg~and canopy, however, can be used to mdunt"si~age onto! Code language must be considered which emphasizes, clearly, the limits on advertising of any and all kinds. This is more properly a sign code issue. GAS SALES CANOPY SU~Vl~/-OCT. Ci/:y o~ N~ ~ope 81 .$ 0 x X O < - 8 .... !. ,:~_ h"T ; 7300 Bass Lake Road Murphy ItA ~1 X 879.? SCALE: 1" -- 10£ Lot Area = 13,600 sf C~NOPY = 1,352 sf; [0% of lot [5% of front yard Signs OK Setback is 22 feet f~om p.1. CANOPY IS SAME SIZE AS BUILDING V 4 ~) 916.10j 9400 49th Ave. No. Texaco ,TH Lot Area CAN0?¥ = Signs OK 36,000 sf 2,400 sf; 7% of tot 21% of front yard S~tback is 35 feet from p.1. CANOPY IS 61% OF THE ~UILDING AREA SALES ~ ~'I~V'L~. City o~ #,~.r Rope 6 9O3.9 X )06, 7231 42nd Ave. No. TOTAL SCALE: 1" = lOC Lot Area ~ 15,600 sf CANOPY- ~ 1,344 sf; 9% of lot 23% of front yard Signage OK, but illegal Outdoor displays noted. CANOPY 75 % OF BUILDING SIZE Setback is 20 feet from ~9ont p.1. L~t Area = 36,000 sf CANOPIES (2) =948 sf x 2= 1,848 sf =5% of Lot 7% of front vard Illegal signs were observed. Setbacks are 35 feet from front & side ~.I. CANOPIES EQUAL 75 % OF BUILDING SIZE 3601 Winnetka Ave. No. Unocal GA~ .~LLES CANOPI~ SUltVE~f-OC~. ~93 C~ty o~ New Rope __ 965.0 X X 967.0 ^VEN 965.6 X Mobil 9400 36th Ave. No. SCALE: 1" = IOC Built 1991 Lot Area = 37,000 sq ft CANOPY = 6,000 sf; 16% of'lot of side yard · N6te canopy position away from the east (residential Illegal portable signs 2'x3' in front oE building noted. All wall and canopy- signs removed due to change to Mobil C~NOPY LARGER THAN BUILDING Setback is 35 feet from side p.1. 900 FINA 3535 Winnetka Ave. No. II.F ~! Built 1992 Lot Area = 18, 750 sf CANOPY = 3,300 sf; 17% of lot of side yard Note: illegal signs above all 4 pump islands CANOPY LARGER T}tAN BUILDING Setback is 20 feet from front p.l. GAS SALES CAIOOt~ ~qI~VL~-OC~. ~93 C~ty of ~ Rope SCALE: 1" = 909.3 ~, 907 34002 907. 7850 27th Ave. No. Amoco Lot Area = 15,000 sf 2 CANOPIES CANOPY = 1,400 sf Each 2,800 sf total oo Illegal wall and canopy signs observed 19% of lot 18% of front yard "47% of side vard CANOPIES, together, ARE LARGER THAN Setbacks are 6 INCHES & 5 feet from p~l. X 942.0 9456 ~7th Ave. No. Sinclair 947.0 X 27TH Lot Area = 39,900 sf No Canopies Illegal signs observed. GAS S~i~ C.,~O~' SI~'E~-OC~. '93 C~Lty of. Ney Hope SCALE: 1" = lOC 4200 Winnetka Ave. 7820 42nd Ave. No. Unocal Phillips 66 Lot Area = 32,000 sf CANOPY APPROVED = 2,900 sf; 9% of Lot 29% of front yard Lot Area = 23,000 sf CANOPY = 1,620 sf; 7% of Lot 11% of side yard Illegal signs & pennant observed Illegal signs observed. Setback approved is 17 feet from front p.1. CANOPY IS EQUAL TO BUILDING SIZE Setback is 10 feet from side p.1. CANOPY IS 50% OF BUILDING SIZE GAS SALES CAM(M~ SURVEY-OC~. *93 C~t7 ~f. Mew Rope Lot Area = 24,000 sf NO CANOPY Illegal Signs observed. SCALE: 1" = i0< 7900 Bass Lake Road Amoco t~ ~! 7901 Bass Lake Road Sinclair Lot Area ~ 43,000 sf NO CANOPY Illegal signs observed GAS SALES CA~OI~ SU~V~/-OCT. CLt7 of. #~ ;[ope SCALE: 1" = 10£ ~I ~ x 6113 West Broadway Woody's ,~,t Lot Area = 22,500 sf CANOPY = 800 sf; ~%'of lot 1t% of front yard Illegal sign observed. Setback is 15 feet from p.1. NORTH X 6144 West Broadway Abandoned (Discussions underway about demolition and converting use to Residential) CANOPY IS 75% OF BUILDING SIZE. SALES ~ SURVEY-OCT. '93 City of. ~ Rope SCALE: 1" ~_~0( 3\ 7117 Bass Lake Road Total Lot Area = 20,000 sf CANOPY = 1,500 sf; 8% of lot 16% of front Signs OK Setback is i0 feet from p.!. CANOPY IS 90% OF BUILDING SI2E ": 116" ~' 126' · 136' FINA REVIEW PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES IN B-1 DISTRICT Nort west Associat Consultants, Inc. U R B A PLA N NI'NG · DES N · MARKET R ES E A RC H TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: New Hope Codes and Standards Committee Cary Teague/Alan Brixius 23 December 1993 New Hope - B-1 Zoning Regulations 131.00 - 93.10 BACKGROUND This B-1 zoning study was generated by the request of Mr. Oliver Tam to rezone his property from B-1 to B-2. The rezoning was pursued to make allowance for a broader range of uses within a retail strip center which exists on his property. The Planning Commission recommended that rather than rezoning the property to B-2'and create an intensification of potential land uses, the City should consider expanding the number of uses allowed within the B-1 zoning district. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Proposed and Existing Uses - B-1 District Exhibit B - Proposed Ordinance Exhibit C - Dry Cleaning Facilities Study ANALYSIS At its November 17, 1993 meeting, the Codes and Standards Committee discussed potential uses to be allowed within a B-1 zoning district. Codes and Standards reviewed an initial draft of Ordinance changes at their 16 December 1993 meeting. The following is a summary of the proposed amendment (See Exhibit A & B) as recommended by the Codes and Standards Committee: 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416 · (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 e Permitted Uses. The permitted uses allowed in the B-2 zoning district were each discussed regarding compatibility within a B-1 zoning district. The lists of permitted uses shown in Exhibits A & B are the result of uses that were thought to be compatible within-the B-1 District. After the 16 December 1993 Codes and Standards meeting, mortuaries was removed as a permitted use and fabric stores and dry cleaning establishments were added. Permitted Accessory Uses. permitted accessory uses. No change is suggested to the Conditional Uses. The following is a suggested addition to the conditionally permitted uses within the B-1 District: Professional and commercial uses were expanded to include medical facilities. The additions made are similar to those uses which are currently conditionally permitted within the R-O Zoning District. At the 16 December Codes and Standards meeting, the following changes were made. Veterinary clinics were removed from the offices conditional use permit. be The operational limitation for convenience food take out facilities was removed. Ce Additionally, the Codes and Standards decided that pet stores and veterinary clinics were not appropriate for B- 1 Zoning Districts. B-2 Amendment. With the removal of mortuaries as a permitted use, it becomes necessary to add this land use as a permitted use in the B-2 Zoning District. CONCLUSION The attached exhibits should be considered as initial draft documents for discussion. Any proposed changes from the Planning Commission, Council, Board of Codes and Standards, or City Staff are welcome. pc: Kirk McDonald Steve Sondrall Doug Sandstad Dan Donahue 4.10 "B-l" LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT 4:101 4.102 Purpose. The purpose of the "B-1 Limited Neighborhood Business District is to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer from whom the goods or services are furnished. These centers are to provide services and goods only for the surrounding ~eighborhoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community. Permitted Uses, B-1. The following are permitted uses in a "B-I" District: (1) Barber Shops. (2) Beauty Shops. (3) Essential Services. (4) Convenience, Limited Merchandise, Grocery Stores (not Supermarket Type. ~i~~:'ii~i Laundromat, Laundries, Dry Cleaning, :~'"~'~:'~'~'~'~:~:~ Self-Service' Facilities. Also dry cleaning pickup and laundry station, o including mncmdental repamr, assembly, ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~... . ~. -- ~ ~- .' · '"'"~2'~"~'~'~"~'?'~"~'"'~"---- ~ %. ~ -- ~' ~ ~ 4.103 4.104 Permitted Accessory Uses, B-1. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "B-i" District: (1) Floor ~Space Limited. Commercial or business buildings and structures for a use accessory to the principal use, but such use shall not exceed thirty percent of the gross floor space of the principal use. (2) Parking. Off-street parking as regulated by Section 4.036. (3) Off-Street Loading. Off-street regulated by Section 4.037. loading as (4) Signs. Signs in compliance with Chapter 3. (5) Pinball Machines Pinball machines as defined and licensed in Chapter 8 are permitted as accessory uses in commercial establishments provided that the number of devices does not exceed six in those establishments whose principal business is the serving of food or beverage, or providing recreational or leisure time activities. Other commercial establishments, including employee lounges and private clubs, may have up to three machines. Conditional Uses, B-1. The following are conditional uses in a "B-i" District: (requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20, and compliance with 4.033, Screening): (1)' Government and Utility Buildings. Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community provided that: (a) Compatibility and Set-backs. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. (b) Equipment Enclosed. Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent-type structure with no outside storage. 2 (3) (4) (b) Traffic. The traffic generated will not raise traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding streets. (c) Appearance. The architectural appearance of the building housing the office use shall not be so dissimilar as to cause impairment of property values or constitute a blighting influence within the neighborhood. PUD, Commercial. Commercial planned development as regulated by Section 4.19. unit Convenience Food Take-Out/Delivery Establishment. A convenience food take-out/delivery establishment provided that: (a) Compatibility with Surrounding Property. The architectural appearance and functiona~ plan of the building and/or site shall not be so dissimilar to existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence. (c) Street Access. The establishment must have access to a collector or arterial street. 3 (d) Parking Requirement. The establishment must have sufficient parking spaces to comply with the requirements of Section 4.036 (10),(p) of this Code, but not less than six spaces. The parking facilities must also comply with all other off-street parking requirements required by Section 4.036 of this Code. (e) Sanitation Requirement. Ail food preparation, packaging, sale and delivery shall be subject to regulation and approval by the City Sanitarian. The Sanitarian shall provide specific written sanitary requirements for such establishments pursuant to applicable state and county regulations. (f) Hours of Operation. Hours of operation may be limited as necessary to minimize the effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare. 4.11 B-2 RETAIL BUSINESS DISTRICT 4.1111 Purpose. The purpose of the B-2 Retail Business District is to provide for low intensity,, retail or service outlets which d~al directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this district are to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities a~ the edge of residential districts. 4.112 Permitted Uses, B-2. The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District: (1) Less Intensive Use District. Ail permitted uses as allowed in the B-I, Limited Neighborhood Business District. (2) Cleaninq. LaUndry and dry cleaning provided the process used meets the requirements of the Fire Prevention Code for use in buildings with other occupancies. (3) Food. Grocery stores and supermarkets providing the use does not exceed 21,500 square feet of floor space. (4) Limited B-4 Uses. Ail B-4 uses that are not marked with an asterisk(*). (5) Mortuary. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF WALL SIGN STUDY U R B A P L A ~ NG · DES N MAR K E T I~ ES E ARC H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE: New Hope Codes and Standards Committee Elizabeth Stockman / Alan Brixius 8 December 1993 New Hope Ponderosa Sign Variance 131.01 - 93.30 Background Metromedia Steakhouses (Ponderosa) has requested variance from the City's sign area requirement for front wall signs which are allowed to a maximum size of 125 square feet. Ponderosa previously constructed a 484 square foot wall mural without application for a si~n permit or prior approval by the City and it therefore remains in violation of the existin~ si~n regulations. The Ponderosa facility is located near the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Maryland Avenue and lies within a B-3, Auto-Oriented Business District. It is bordered on all sides by commercial development, with the exception of to the north where single family homes exist within the City of Crystal. The City must decide whether they will allow the requested variance from current sign standards or amend the existin~ regulations to accommodate the applicant. In consideration of Ponderosa's request, three potential options are available: 1) 2') Approve the variance which would allow the painted sign to remain at the 484 square foot size. Amend the CitY's Sign Code to include provisions for painted walls signs, the size, locational and other limitations of which would need to be reviewed in detail. 3) Deny the request for a variance and require Ponderosa to remove the illegally existin9 painted wall sign. Each of the three options raises concerns which will require in depth analysis and comparison by the Codes and Standards Committee. In this regard, we have completed a review of the issues associated with the potential outcomes, provided as follows. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416 · (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A Site Location Exhibit B Existing.Ponderosa Sign Exhibit C Wall Graphic Photos ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing New Hope Signage Standards Definition The definition of a sign outlined in the New Hope Sign Ordinance states that a sign shall be any writing (including letters, words, or numerals), pictorial representation (including illustrations or decorations), emblem (including devices, symbols, or trademarks), flag, banner, streamer, pennant, string of lights, or display designed to attract the attention of the public, whether it be attached to a structure, painted on, or in any other manner represented on a building or other structure or on the ground. City staff and consultants have reviewed and applied this definition to the Ponderosa site and found that it includes the entire 484 square foot mural, not just the lettering. Front~Wal.1 ~axim~ $igaage The section of the ordinance which regulates front wall maximum signage states that not more than two signs shall be permitted on the front wall of any principal building. The total area of such sign or signs shall not exceed 15~ of the area of the front face of the principal building ... provided that the total area of each sign shall not exceed 125 square feet. Painted Wall Signs No business or advertising sign which is painted directly upon a wall surface is permitted in the City. Roof Signs Roof signs are prohibited in the City Code when they are accessory to a single occupancy business. Therefore, since the proposed sign ewtends into the air space over the roof of the structure, the sign is not allowed. 2 Sign Ordinance Intent The City's sign ordinance was established for several reas6ns and r~mains an important device which cannot be ignored or deviated from without due reason. 1) It contains a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations, and procedures governing the type, number, size, structure, location, height, lighting, erection, use and/or display of devices, signs or symbols serving as visual communication media. 2) It is intended to establish standards that permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise. 3) It encourages opportunity for effective, orderly communication by reducing confusion and hazards resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of communication facilities. 4) It is intended to preserve and promote civic beauty and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering, or illumination. In looking at the regulations/intent of the existing Sign Code, it is apparent that it attempts to apply adopted regulations uniformly among businesses by identifying size, location and setback requirements (which are in most cases related to the scale of the building) to avoid competition and be legible from vehicles and pedestrians within the public right-of-way. It is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with adopted regulations and fulfill the intent of the ordinance. In this regard, it is mandatory that the Ponderosa sign be .safe, equitable, communicate identification of the business clearly, and demonstrate aesthetic quality. Variance The existing signage standards and the intent of the Sign Ordinance which apply to the Ponderosa site were established to be uniformly abplied across the City. The Ponderosa site is in direct violation of several aspects of the City Sign Code and is therefore not equitable in that it exceeds many limitations which have been and will continue to be enforced upon other property owners. Only through demonstration of a hardship will approval of a variance be warranted. A problem, however, with approval of the requested variance is that it will establish a precedent which may haVe to be upheld in the future to be fair to other property owners and "forces,, the approval of other similar variance requests. 3 Sign Parameters The following paragraphs outline various parameters related to P~inted wall signs/graphics which must be considered prior to decision on the requested variance and/or amended sign ordinance regulations. The information has been extracted from comprehensive sign ordinance and related files of the American Planning Association, the League of Minnesota Cities, and Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Free Speech Information conveyed by signs is free speech protected by the first amendment. Free speech law weighs the constitutional interest in free expression against the governmental interests advanced by sign regulation. A law regulating the content of speech is constitutional if it is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and narrowly drawn to achieve that end. Content According to the law, all signs must be content-neutral and viewpoint-neutral. Content-neutral means that the subject matter is not regulated. Viewpoint-neutral means that the regulation does not discriminate against one point of view and does not suppress ideas. Ail businesses clearly need to identify the premises on which they are located, however, the means of communication does not necessarily have to include graphic expression. Height/SiZe/Setbacks The height, size and setbacks of signs which are allowed can have a significant aesthetic and safety impact on neighboring properties and the City in general. Generally standards are established to provide uniformity, prevent competition among businesses, and preclude signs from dominating the landscape. Sign size, in particular, presents the greatest challenge- with regard to painted wall graphics. It must be clarified as to what constitutes the entire sign, the graphic portion, background, and the identification or lettering portion. The material and message which fills the space can make this determination very complicated. It is possible to regulate the overall size of the sign as a whole or specifically define the size of the lettering versus the graphic features. The Ponderosa mural raises question as to whether the graphic portion of the painted sign is related to the business identification intent of established regulations. Quality/Appearance The aesthetic interests of signs are both psychological and economic. The character of the environment affects the quality of life and the value of property in both residential and commercial areas. The necessary medium of expressing messages and identifying businesses (signs) can have an adverse impact on the appearance of 4 the landscape if not properly handled. Visual blight is something that is not a by-product of signs, but is created by the medium of expression itself. Location The location of painted wall signs, or any signs for that matter, becomes an important issue because of the affect they may have upon neighboring properties or passersby, both physically and visually. Signs such as the Ponderosa wall sign are such a predominant part of the building that they tend to dominate it and may drown out neighboring signs or even other structures. Number of Signs Regulations which limit the number of signs allowed on-premise have been upheld in past court cases with few problems. The Court considers traffic safety concerns and the intrusive nature of signs justified by a numerical limitation if the regulations are'applied no greater than necessary to further the governmental interest. Lighting Sign lighting becomes a related issue since wall murals cannot be self lit. The New Hope Sign Code does not currently address this issue. Restrictions on illumination have also been upheld in past court cases if they serve to protect the municipality-from safety, aesthetic, or other concerns. Lighting wall signs may be accomplished in one of two ways: utilizing general lighting or a spot light(s) directed specifically at the sign area. When utilizing, general lighting, the sign itself is neither lighted internally nor has a specific source of light directed on it. The sign depends on the general illumination of the area for its lighting. Maintenance The New Hope Sign Code does not contain adequate regulations for the maintenanCe of painted signs. Such standards must specify what constitutes a poorly maintained sign (ie: no longer clearly recognizable from a distance of 20 feet, or if signs are flaking or peeling over 25% of their surface they must be replaced or removed). Removal, in the case of painted wall signs may mean a complete repainting of the background on which the sign was painted or sandblasting of the surface so that no part of the sign is any longer recognizable. B~ilding Change The Ponderosa sign which is painted directly upon the building represents a change in the originally approved building appearance, color, materials, etc. In this regard, the City has the option to review and subsequently re-approve or deny the change. Case Studies S~. Paul, Mi-~esota The City of St. Paul allows painted murals as Wall signs which must be within the gross surface display area allocated in the business zoning districts. Their definition of gross surface display area states that ... When signs are painted on or applied directly to a building, the perimeter shall include all elements of the sign together with the background of a different color than the natural color of the building. The sum of the gross surface display area of all business signs may not exceed one times the lineal feet of lot frontage or 75 square feet, whichever is greater. Minneapolis, Minnesota The City of Minneapolis lacks definitive standards for the regulation of wall murals or painted signs. Each request is reviewed on a case by case basis by the Zoning Department. 0nly the square footage of logos, words, names, etc. are counted towards the requirements for business signs. Wall murals for the sake of art or aesthetics are allowed unconditionally. Several photos were taken within the City for your reference and have been included as Exhibit C. Rochester, Minnesota The City of Rochester allows painted wall signs, defined as graphics which must be an integral part of the building facade, in other words, painted directly on, carved in, or otherwise permanently affixed/imbedded in the facade. Signs in shop windows also fall under this definition, unless they qualify as auxiliary signs. The sign area is calculated by a rectangle drawn around all words, letters, figures, emblems, and other elements of the sign message. The height of the graphic sign is measured from the grade adjacent to the wall to the top of the sign area, although no height limitations are imposed with in commercial districts. Ail non-residential districts are allowed two signs: one free standing and one other primary sign is permitted for each 20 feet of frontage. The maximum size allowed is 50% of a wall area. Maintenance of the graphic signs requires that all signs be kept nea~ly painted or posted at all times. The repainting, changing of parts and sign repairs are not considered alterations requiring a permit.' The City exempts fr°m sign ordinance regulation works of art that do not include a commercial message and specifies that any sign, display or device allowed under the ordinance may contain, in lieu of any other copy, lawful non-commercial messages which do not direct attention to a business operated for profit or to a commodity or service for sale, provided it complies with all size, spacing and lighting requirements of the ordinance. 6 Portland, Oregon The City of Portland allows painted wall signs in addition to other signs with no numerical limit, up to 50 percent of a wall. In lg86, when the City encountered problems with regulation of painted wall graphics, two new definitions were created. Painted wall highlights are painted areas which highlight a buildings architectural or structural features. Painted wall decorations are displays painted directly on a wall and are designed or intended as a decorative or ornamental feature. Painted wall decorations and highlights are exempt from the sign regulations. Concord, Massachusetts The City of Concord as well as many other metropolitan communities have adopted Art in Public Spaces Programs which are intended to encourage a variety of art forms in downtown areas and typically include painted wall graphics. In Concord, Public (painted) Art means all media including portable and permanently affixed works, such as murals and frescoes which are located on any public or private property which is accessible or visible to the general publ i c. Amendment Options If the City chooses to approve the requested variance from business sign size requirements, the Sign Code must be amended to allow others ample opportunity to construct the same types and sizes of signs within the community. The following items provide an idea of the types of things which may need to be addressed. Definition The definition of a wall sign must be changed to specifically include wall graphics and painted wall signs and must differentiate between public art and advertising. It may be beneficial to differentiate between wall signs and wall decorations/highlights which are strictly aesthetic or architectural in nature as the City of Portland did. Means of Regulation In determining what means of regulation are most appropriate, several options are possible: li No Change - Stay Within Existing Square Footage Requirements of Business Signs 2) Expand the total size requirements to allow painted graphics in association with letters/words/logos, potentially up to 50 percent of a wall area. 3) Limit the letter/wording size within the painted graphic through use of a designated square footage requirement. 4) Allow wall graphics in association with business identification signs, but exempt the background space when calculating the area of the sign. 5) Allow painted wall ~igns as public art with no commercial intent/relation to on-premise businesses. Lighting The type, size and location of lights permitted to illuminate the wall signs or graphics.. Maintenance Addition of a maintenance clause which defines at what point painted signs are considered to be poorly maintained, aging, or deteriorating and what the repair and replacement options are. CONCLUSION The issue at hand, which is whether to approve the requested variance or amend the City Sign Code to appropriately define and regulatepainted wall signs given the existing circumstances on the Ponderosa site (or deny the request all together), is'an extremely complicated and somewhat perplexing problem. The completion of this report is intended to identify issues and options associated with the variance request and general existence of painted wall signs, whereupon review and discussion by City Staff will give further direction so that outstanding questions may better be responded to and specific ordinance language drafted. The City must determine if the sign in itself enhances or improves the appearance or operational characteristics of the site. If it does not and the City decides not to accommodate the Ponderosa sign, with the other forms of communication which are available, the existing sign regulations are considered constitutional as written. An important conclusion which has been applied in past court decisions, is that aesthetics in commercial areas (or generally) and traffic safety issues are substantial government interests that justify the burden sign ordinances place on free speech. In other words, regulations established for purposes of limiting sign size and setbacks in order to preserve the natural beauty of the City and promote traffic safety is considered by the courts to be a substantial government interest which is content-neutral. ST T~4E qE S,& R.¢ $C~00~ S U#N't' $1D E 1 EXHIBIT A "1" (70sf) text STG~I "2" (/sl~sf) p~ctor~al ?TH STREET NORTH & IST AVENUE ISI AVLNUF & 6It1 SIRL~I NORIH 'UtE CI 22'~TH STREE1 NORTH 51H SIREEI NOHIH (ACROSS PARKING AHEA FROM ROSENIRAI 500 BLOCK OF 1ST AVENUE BROADWAY & FREMONT PLYMOUTH & EMERSON CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: December 28, 1993 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS FOR 1994 Section 2.134 of the New Hope City Code, Planning Commission - Organization, states that "the Planning Commission shall elect one of its members as Chairman, one as Vice-Chairman, and another as Secretary, each of whom shall hold office until December 31st following their election". It appears to be the intent of the City Code that Planning Commission officers are to be elected on an annual basis. Staff recommends that the election of officers be conducted at the January Planning Commission meeting. As most of you are aware, three years ago we discovered that an election of officers had not been conducted since 1984. An election was conducted and it was determined that thereafter the election of officers would be conducted at the first meeting of the year on an annual basis so that the elections could be officially recorded in the minutes and be in conformance with City Code. Excerpts from the City Code pertaining to this matter, previous minutes regarding 1991, 1992, and 1993 officer elections, and a list of current Planning Commission members is enclosed for your information. Current officers include: Robert Cameron, Chairman Robert Gundershaug, Vice Chairman William Sonsin, Third Officer Bob Gundershaug serves as the Chair for the Design & Review Committee and Bill Sonsin serves as the Chair for the Codes & Standards Committee. C~AIR~ Cameron, Robert CITY OF NEW HOPB PLANNING COMMISSION 9117 34-1/2 Avenue North, 55427 MEMBERS~ Codes and Standards Lifson, Todd 4688 Flag Avenue North, 55428 Sonsin, William 3308 Gettysburg Avenue North, 55427 Underdahl, Vi Zak, Mary 7706 53rd Avenue North, 55428 8100 28th Avenue North, 55427 DesiGn and Review Cassen, Sharon 8040 60-1/2 Avenue North, 55428 Gundershaug, Robert 6141 Utah Avenue North, 55428 Watschke, Doug 3600 Gettysburg Avenue North, 55427 ManaGement Assistant/Community Development CoordinatoF Kirk McDonald 4401 Xylon Avenue North 545-6531 (W) 533-2781 535-3461 (W)342-0805 545-4401 (W)525-0258 533-5913 545-4808 537-5193 (W) 553-1810 537-2608 (w) 535-4788 545-6570 (W) 920-9020 (W) 531-5119 Planning Consultant Alan Brixius) David Licht ) Northwest Associated Consultants 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555 Minneapolis, MN 55416 595-9837 (Fax No.) 595-9636 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETS THE FIRST TUESDAY OF EACH MONTH AT THE CITY HALL AT 7:00 P.M. 2,:3, 2.1.31. 2.~.32. 2,~.$3. 2,234. 2.~.35 2.L32 :ol~oe:~Lon. ¢2) Tits. UnLace sooner teeoved by a four-fLfthe vote of chi Counc~ n~na of cbs members iball serve · ~etm of three yeats, the year appoLnted. ~11 aemeets appointed and qval~Led I~all serve unc~ cne~t I~CCiIiOtl (3) Counc~lman Mi~ Be ?ebOn Member. Tho CouncL1 uy appoLnt a member (Code 072684) (4) RelLdenc¥ RecjuLrelont. All Mmbets of the PlannLng ¢omnLssLon (Ord. 89-~9) 2.1.33 in advLeoty ~dy to the Council. lC Lo beteOy authorLzed and dLtected to catty on CLay PLanning actLv~tLee and to adopt a plan for the regulation of tbs future p~yeLcal developaent o! the CLOy, and to exLic:flg Lands and p~blLc spaces, and the future develoGmeflt o~ unpl&tted pcope~cLee and ehaXl recomaend approval or dAeapp~oval o~ s~bdLvLaLons of Land. ?he Comn~siLofl shiLL ma~e a study of future developments of the CLay, Lnclud:flg proposed p~b~Lc buXl~Lngl, street a~rangelents and taproveneflts, p~blt¢ ut~ltty eervLcea, per~l, playgroundl, and o~er cailler develo~aen~e. ?he results of aXX i~udxel lade ~y the CoemXIl~On~ ~ogether vL~ t~e recommendations o~ the C~oJaXSo~on o~aXX be eumA~ted to t~e Counctl. ?~e plannLng t~e C~mcLL tegitdAn~ lathers affectLng son~ng, platting, chi la~Lng presen~ deve~oplan~ of tbs c~ty. bold o~fLce uncLl OecemOer 3~et, fo~lovLng tboLr eLactLon. (Cede 072684) 2.13S Heet~ntl. TWe Planning CamLeeAofl shall hold one regular leetLng req~ee~ hOC ~te ~an cvo ~y8 a~cet teceLp~ ~y one ChaSten or Secretary o~ a vt~c:en t~aeic ~ot a epee:al Meting iLgfl~ by t~tee cee peach.re o~ ch~s s~on. (COde 072684, Ord. IS-IL) 2-0 ~.~36 ~na~l oe ~e~ve~ed ~o ~he cle~ same II ~e Co,hex4, and ~e ~e~ s~al~ ~e¢o~d ~e o! ~e C~¥. 2 NEW BUSZNESS(6) UT~mCTZON OF OFFICERS MOTION O~her commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with the looks of the K-Mart prOpOL~Cy and the lack of cooperation to spruce it up and McDonald agreed to contact K-Marc and pursue tho issue. Chairman Cameron offered the suggestion 2o consider establishing a Commission policy 2o grant verbal recognition to businesses and industries in the City that keep their properties in good condition. Commissioner Zak noted to the Secretary that she was the one who excused herself from Planning Case 92-36 instead of Commissioner Underdahl. The December 1, 1992, Planning Commission minutes stand corrected. No questions or comments on other minutes. Chairman Cameron noted that officers are to be elected at the beginning of each year and called for nominations for officers for the coming year. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, with unanimous second, to re-elect the three current officers for another year: Presidsnt~ Robert Cameron Vice Chairman: Robert Oundsrshaug Third Off£cerz William Sonsin Voting in favor: All Voting against~ None Absent: Gundershaug Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMB~TS(~ Commissioner Gundershaug will be absent from meetings for the first three months of the year. ADJOURNMENT(8) Meeting unanimously adjourned at 8~20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -10- OLD BUIZIflII Delign & Reviev re~o~ed ~hey h&d me~ on ~he ~led Calll. Codel & S~andardl reported ~hey will bibring~gChe outdoor dining ·nd corner loc fence hearingl in March, no~g chaC t'hele illume wre let ~aiide until the adult intetCain~tnC ~llUe ~1 heard, cache= ~han have 3 public hearings on ocd~nincl chef ~n one ~nCh. Co~ilsioner SOnlin 9Uiltioned the continued ule of the special blurter on the Norvilt lank and )~c. McDonald offered to bring iC Co a=tenCion of the InlpeCtiOnl Dept. Coliil£Oner Callen~eltioned the status of C. he Hontellori School I£nce there il no activity ~here, &nd~c. McDc~lld repl£ed thaC the Development Contract h~s ~en dc~f~ed and Mn~ ~o ~h~ w~h a c~el~ for a lubl:an~ia1 ~nd ~un=. No corrlctioni noted fo= Planning Co~iiliOnl~.~Utal of Decembe= 4, 1991. No co~lnt on other minUtll. Chairman Cameron was unanimously elected al Chairman fo= one more year. CommilliOna= Gunderlhaug Wal unanimously elec=ed al Vice-Chai~an =o con=inue for one more year. ~lssioner Sonsin was unan~usiy .lac=ed ~ Third Office= for on~ ~r~ N~ c~iC=ee ailig~e.~i were made. C=liione= Wa~ichke'l ex~ile will be .dd~ =o Delign ~ Reviw, and C~iliionirs Ieee on Codel · ADJOUP~N~N~ The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Relpectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Comill~on -S- .J&nuaz~ 7, 1992 COMMITTEE Chairman C~meron welcomed the petitioner =o New Hope. Delign & Review Committee met on the camel reviewed. Codes & Standards will be meeting prior to next Planning Comm£ss£on meeting to discuss flood plain ordinance and shopp£ng center parking requirements. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Motion by Commislioner W&tschke, second by Commiss£oners Oja, Sonein, and Zak, that in rec~ition of their good leadership and ~o their respective Voting in favor: Voting against: Motion carrie~. Sak~ Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, watschke None Gundershaug Kirk McDonald co~nted that the Code calls for a Secretary =o be appoince~ that would fill in as Chairman in case both CAe Ch&£rman and Vice Chairman were a~eent. Chairman Cameron suggested that in lieu of the title of "Secretary", cae appointment be COnl£dered a "Third Officer". MO~ION There were no further nominations and cae Chairman proclaimed Commissioner Sonein elected by acclamation. MINUTBS (6.2, 6.3, 6.4, &.S) PLanning C~ieeion minutes of J~nu~ 2, 1991 were approved as print~ and all other minutes receiv~ no comments. The ~eeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully eu~itted, LucLlle Butler, Secret~