The URL can be used to link to this page

020194 Planning2. 3. 4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 6 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1994 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS Case 94-04 B-1 Zoning District Uses Study; An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Amending the Permitted, Permitted Accessory and Conditional Uses Within the B-I Limited Neighborhood Business District Case 93-35B Request for Rezoning from B-l, Limited Neighborhood Business Zoning District, to B-2 Retail Buisness Zoning District, or Code Text Amendment or Contitional Use Permit to Allow Laundromat/Dry Cleaning Business with Processing to Locate at 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North Case 94-02 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of J.R. Jones Addition, 3216 Winnetka Avenue North, J.R. Jones, Petitioner INFORMATIONAL MEETING Case 93-32 Proposed Zoning Code Performance Standards Regulating the Design and Placement of Gasoline Pump Island Canopies and Minor Changes to Sign Regulations for Gas Sales Facilities COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design and Review Committee Report of Codes and Standards Committee OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues Continuation of Wall Sign Study NEW BUSINESS Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of January 4, 1994 Review of City Council Minutes of December 27, January 10, and January 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 94-04 Request: B-1 Zoning District Uses Study; An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Amending the Permitted, Permitted Accessory and Conditional Uses Within the B-1 Limited Neighborhood Business District Location: All B-1 Zoning Districts PID No: Zoning: All B-1 Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: January 28, 1994 Meeting Date: February 1, 1994 BACKGROUND The City of New Hope is requesting consideration of an expansion of the B-1 Zoning District Uses or an Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Amending the Permitted, Permitted Accessory and Conditional Uses Within the B-1 Limited Neighborhood Business District. This study of the uses allowed in the B-1 Zoning District by the Codes and Standards Committee was initiated as a result of a request by the owner of the neighborhood center at 62nd and Winnetka last fall to locate a graphics business and a dry cleaning establishment (with processing) at that site. The graphics business was approved as a conditional use under the professional office category and staff is recommending a text amendment that would allow the dry cleaners with processing as a permitted use. 31 These tWo' requests prompted the staff and Planning Commission to question the limited number of permitted and conditional uses allowed in the B-1 Zoning District. The petitioner had originally requested either a rezoning to a B-2 District or a text amendment. Currently only six permitted uses and four conditional uses are allowed in the B-1 Zone. These restrictive uses severely limit the potential of the site to draw a variety of tenants or to be economically viable, but on the other hand the restricted number of uses also eliminates nuisances such as odors that may be a problem for neighboring residential properties. The B-2 Zone has 49 permitted uses and 12 conditional uses, so any rezoning of any of the B-1 sites to a B-2 zoning classification would significantly increase the potential for different types of uses from 10 to 61. Some of the differences between the uses allowed in each district include a greater likelihood of odors, noise and truck.traffic that may not be compatible with adjacent Planning Case Report 94-04 February 1, 1994 Page 2 residential property. Due to possible conflicts with the variety of uses allowed, staff and the Planning Commission were not supportive of rezoning the B-1 sites to B-2 zoning classifications, however, the alternative of studying the possible expansion of permitted/conditional uses in the B-1 Zone did receive a favorable response; thus this study was undertaken. o The Planning Consultant also recommended maintaining the existing B-1 zoning, but recommended considering amending the permitted and/or conditional uses to allow additional land uses within the district. This option provides the City with the best means of maintaining land use compatibility in the B-1 areas as well as providing property owners with increased flexibility in the types of uses allowed in their buildings. The opportunity to expand the B-1 District to include additional uses allowed necessary time to study and determine the impacts of possible changes, rather than rezoning the property and immediately opening it up to a variety of uses. The prudent expansion of uses in the B-1 Zoning District accomplishes the goal of filling building vacancies without adversely affecting the surrounding areas. This code amendment expanding the uses allowed in the B-1 Zoning District coincides with other actions the City has taken over the past several years to try and strengthen/maintain the economic base of the City, such as the reduction of the green area requirement and amendment of office parking standards in the industrial zoning districts and the Code compliance and financial assistance policies the City has adopted for single/multi-family housing units in the City. Staff encourages some consideration and flexibility for retail areas so that they maintain their viability, so long as the changes do not detrimentally impact the surrounding neighborhoods. The public hearing notice for this code amendment was published in the official newspaper of the City and the amendment would be effective in all B-1 Zoning Districts in the City. Staff have received no comments on the notice. ANALYSIS At the Planning Commission's request, the Planning Consultant has, in conjunction with the Codes and Standards Committee and City staff, conducted a comparative review of uses allowed in the City's B-l, Limited Neighborhood Business District, and B-2, Retail Business District, to determine whether some additional use flexibility should be provided in the B-1 District. This evaluation was prompted by the rezoning request of Mr. Oliver Tam who requested that his property located at 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North be rezoned from B-1 to B-2. The said rezoning was being pursued basically to make an allowance for a broader range of uses within a retail strip center which exists on the property. Rather than rezone the subject property, the Planning Commission inquired as the possibility of simply amending the B-1 District provisions to provide greater flexibility in terms of allowed uses. Plannign Case Report 94-04 February 1, 1994 Page 3 2. There are currently only three (3) B-1 Zoning District sites in the City, identified as follows: Tom Thumb, 2720 Winnetka Avenue North Tom Thumb, 7980 36th Avenue North Tam's Property, 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North Two of the three sites are already developed with existing businesses in place and are located on major thoroughfares. The Tom Thumb uses would also be allowed in the B-2 and B-4 Zones. Any text changes that are made will only impact these three sites. Note that only the B-1 site on 62nd Avenue directly abuts an R-1 Zoning District (on the south). The site on 36th Avenue abuts a B-I, B-3 and R-4 zone and the rear of the property abuts a wetland. The site on Winnetka near Medicine Lake Road is adjacent to R-0, R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. Per the Planner's report, the purpose of the B-l, 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. In this regard, these centers are to provide services and good only for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community. Specific existing permitted and conditional uses in the district are listed below: Permitted Uses 1. Barber shops 2. Beauty shops 3. Essential services 4. Convenience, limited merchandise grocery stores (non-supermarkets) 5. Laundromats (self-service washing and drying, dry cleaning, also dry cleaning pick-up and laundry station, including incidental repair and assembly, but not including commercial processing on site) 6. Mortuaries Conditional Uses 1. Government and utility buildings 2. Professional and commercial offices 3. Commercial PUDs 4. Convenience food take out/delivery establishments The purpose of the B-2, Retail Business District is to provide for low intensity, retail or service outlets which deal 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 at the edge of residential districts. Specific permitted and Planning Case Report 94-04 February 1, 1994 Page 4 conditional uses in the district are listed below: Permitted Uses 1. All permitted uses in the B-1 District 2. Laundry and dry cleaning 3. Grocery stores/supermarkets 4. Limited B-4 uses ao g. h. i. j. k. 1. m. n. o. P. q. r. s. t. U. V. W. X. y. Z. aa. bb. CC. dd. ge. ff. gg. hh. ii. Antique shops Art/School supplies, book, office supplies, stationery stores Bicycle sales/repair Candy, ice cream, ice milk, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, packaged snacks, soft drinks Carpet, rugs and tile and other floor coverings Coin and philatelic stores Commercial and professional offices Copy and printing service Costume and clothes rental Office equipment stores Drug store Employment agencies Florist shop Furniture stores Furriers when conducted only for retail trade, on premises Gift or novelty stores Hobby store Insurance sales Locksmith Meat market but not including locker storage Paint and wallpaper sales Plumbing, television, radio, electrical sales and such repair Toy stores Tailor shops Jewelry shops and other similar uses Travel bureaus, transportation, ticket offices Wearing apparel Banks, savings/loans, credit unions, other f'mancial institutions Record shop Real estate sales Building material sales of retail nature in totally enclosed building Fabric stores Camera/photographic supplies Restaurant Off-sale liquor stores Planning Case Report 94-04 February 1, 1994 Page 5 jj. Medical kk. Sporting goods stores 11. Pet shops mm. Hardware stores Conditional Uses 1. All conditional uses in the B-1 District 2. Multiple family buildings 3. Commercial PUDs 4. Commercial enterprises ao g. h. i. j. Banks Electrical appliance stores Fabric stores Off-sale liquor Offset printing and copy service Restaurants Camera and photographic supplies Book stores Medical Garden novelty stores o As the Planner points out, in review of the B-1 and B-2 District provisions, permitted and conditional uses listed within the said district are directly related to their intended service area. As noted in the cited district purpose statements, uses allowed within B-1 Zoning Districts are intended to serve surrounding neighborhoods. In contrast, the B-2 District is intended to draw from a City-wide area. Generally speaking, it is believed that the listed B-1 permitted and conditional uses fulfil their intended purpose. o To determine the appropriateness of other uses within B-1 Zoning Districts, an objective set of evaluation criteria should be referenced that specifically makes note of the intended characteristics of uses allowed in the B- 1 District. The following is a listing of criteria which should be referenced in considering the appropriateness of various B-1 uses: Uses which draw from and cater to a localized area. Uses which may compatibly co-exist with nearby residential uses. To achieve such an existence, such uses should: a. Be of a physical (aesthetic) scale compatible with residential neighborhoods. b. Generate traffic which does not exceed the capabilities of streets which serve the property. c. Not include outdoor storage provisions. d. Not produce levels of noise, illumination, odor which may negatively impact nearby adjacent properties. Planning Case Report 94-04 February 1, 1994 Page 6 The Codes and Standards Committee discussed potential uses to be allowed within the B-1 Zoning District at their November and December meetings. mo 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 the attached ordinance are the result of uses that were thought to be compatible within the B-1 District. Mortuaries was removed as a permitted use and fabric stores and dry cleaning establishments were added. B. Permitted Accessory Uses. No change is suggested to the permitted accessory uses. Conditional Uses. The following were suggested additions to the conditionally permitted uses within the B-1 District: a. 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. Veterinary clinics were removed from the offices conditional use permit. b. The operational limitation for convenience food take out facilities was removed. c. Additionally, the Codes and Standards Committee 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. o The City Attorney drafted the attached Ordinance No. 94-02 Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Expanding Permitted and Conditional Uses in the B-1 Zoning District, which is a result of the recommendations by the Codes and Standards Committee. Section 1 amends the permitted uses to allow on-site commercial dry cleaning of clothing. Section 2 establishes 16 new permitted uses in the B-1 Zoning District as listed and deletes mortuary as a permitted use in said District. Sections 3, 4, and 5 amend the B-1 conditional uses by specifically allowing for medical offices and restaurants. It also eliminates the prohibition of on-premises consumption of food at convenience food take-out establishments. Section 6 expands the permitted uses in the B-2 Zoning District by allowing mortuaries in said District. The only mortuaries in the City are located in the B-2 Zoning District. Therefore, repositioning that use in the B-2 District will not create a problem. Planning Case Report 94-04 February 1, 1994 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 94-02 Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Expanding Permitted and Conditional Uses in the B-1 Zoning District. Attachments: CORRICK & SONDRALL, P.A. ATTORNEYS Ar L^W Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE /612) 425-5671 FAX 1612) 425-5867 January 11, 1994 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Proposed Ordinance Amending New Hope~,~err4ng Code by Expanding Permitted and Conditional Uses in the B-t Bi.strict Our File No: 99.49402 Dear Kirk- Please find enclosed proposed Ordinance No, 94-02 Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Expanding Permitted and Conditional Uses in the B-1 Zoning District. This Ordinance responds to Planning Case No. 93-35 submitted by Oliver Tam. The Ordinance incorporates the recommendations made by the City Planner, staff and the Codes and Standards Committee for expansion of uses in the B-1 Zoning District. Specifically, Section 1 amends the permitted uses to allow on-site commercial dry cleaning of clothing. Section 2 establishes 16 new permitted uses in the B-1 Zoning District as listed and deletes mortuary as a permitted use in said District. Sections 3, 4 and 5 amend the B-1 conditional uses by specifically allowing for medical offices and restaurants. It also eliminates the prohibition of on-premises consumption of food at convenience food take-out establishments. Section 6 expands the permitted uses in the B-2 Zoning District by allowing mortuaries in said District. Apparently, the only mortuaries in the City are located in the B-2 Zoning District. Therefore, repositioning that use in the B-2 District wilt not create a problem. Mr. Kirk McDonald January 11, 1994 Page 2 Contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, - Steven A. Sondra]] sit2 Enclosures cc: Valerie Leone (w/eric) A1Brixius w/eric) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY EXPANDING PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE 8-1 ZONING DISTRICT City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is ~ereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 1st day of February, lg94, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purDose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of expanding permitted and conditional uses in the B-l, Limited Neighborhood Business Zoning District of New Hope Code §§4.102 and 4.104. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109). Dated the 11th day of January, 1994. ,S/ Valerie J, Leone Valerie d. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 19th day of January, 1994.) ORDINANCE NO, 94-02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY EXPANDING PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE B-1 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.102 "Permitted Uses, B-I" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended by amending subsection (5)"Laundromat" to read as follows: (5) ~-a~~Cleaninq. Laundromat, Laundries, Dry Cleaninq includin~ self-service facilities v;cshing end drying, dry eq-e~¥i-~. Also dry cleaning pickup and laundry station, including incidental repair and assembly but not in¢~udi,.= ....... ~--cc-~ing An t~c ~, Section 2. Section 4.102 "Permitted Uses, B-I" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended by deleting subsection (6) "Mortuary" and adding new subsections (6) through (21) to read as follows- (6) (7) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (2O) (21) Antique shops. Art/school supplies, books, office stationery stores, Bicycle sales/repair. Candy, ice cream, ice milk, popcorn, nuts, desserts, packaged snacks, soft drinks. Coin and philatelic stores. Copy and printin9 service. Fabric store. Florist shop. Gift or novelty stores. Hobby stores. Locksmith. Toy stores. Tailor shops. Record/compact disc/video stores sales and rental. Real estate sales. Camera/photographic supplies/processin9. frozer~ Section 3. Section 4.104 "Conditional Uses, B-I" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended by amending subsection (2) "Professional and Commercial" to read as follows: (2) Medical Professional and Commercial Offices. All medical and dental offices and clinics, professional offices and commercial offices provided that: (a) ~ Street Access. Thc =cr'.'icco which crc ..... ~'~ "'~---~" - f t tho .......... The site, ........ r .~= .... related parkin~ and service entrances are served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the t'raffic which will be .o, enerated. (b) Traffic. The traffic generated will not raise traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding streets. Cc) Appearance. The architectural appearance of the building housing the office use shall reflect the building character of.the area and shall not be so dissimilar as to cause impairment of property values or constitute a blighting influence within the neighborhood. (d) Buffers. When abuttin~ R-l, R-2, R-3 or R-4 districts, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with §4.033(3) of thi,~ Code shall be provided. Section 4. Section 4.104 (4) "Convenience Food Take- Out/Delivery Establishment" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended by deleting subsection (b) "Operation Limited" in its entirety and renumbering subsections (c) "Street Access" to (b), (d) "Parkin9 Requirements" to (c), (e) "Sanitation Requirement" to (d), and (f) "Hours of Operation" to (e). Section 5. Section 4.104 "Conditional Uses, B-I" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (5) "Restaurant" to read as follows: (5) Restaurant. A restaurant provided that: (a) Street Access. The establishment must have access to a collector or arterial street. Parking Requirement. The establishment must have sufficient parkin~ spaces to comply with tho £equirements of section 4.038(10} {p) of this Code, but not tess than six spaces. The parking facilities must also comply with all other off street parking requirements required by sectior,' 4.038 of this Code. Sanitation Requirement. All food preparation, packaging, sale and delivery shall be subiect t,, regulation and approval by the City Sanitarian. The Sanitarian shall provide specific writter, sanitary requirements for such establishment~ pursuant to applicable state and county regulations. (d) Hours of Operation. Hours of operation may be limited as necessary to minimize the effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare. {e) Loading Berth. Adequate space shall be provided o~, the site for a loading berth to accommodate th,~ parking and maneuvering of semi-trailers and shall comply with the requirements of Section 4.037 oF this Code. Section 6. Section 4.112 "Permitted Uses, B-2" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (5) "Mortuary" to read as follows: (5) Mortuary. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1994. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest- Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the , 1994.) day of we ssoci Consul ants, Inc. P L N G O N . M A R K E R E S E A R C H TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: New Hope Codes and Standards Committee Cary Teague/Alan Brixius 23 December !993 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 ~6 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 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 Uhe 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: (2) Barber Shops. Beauty Shops. (3) Essential Services. (4) Convenience, Limited Merchandise, Grocery Stores (not Supermarket Type. (5) C~i~hf~h~i::~i!i Laundromat, Laundries, Dry Cleaning, ihdI~ding Self-Service Facilities. Also dry cleaning pickup and laundry station, including incidental repair, assembly, rental. o Permitted Accessory Uses. permitted accessory uses. No change is suggested to the Conditional Uses. The following are suggested additions to the conditionally permitted uses within the B-1 district: so 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. On-site laundry and dry cleaning facilities were added as a conditionally permitted use, with specific conditions outlined. The conditions are a result of a study performed by our office on the effects of on-site laundry and dry cleaning facilities (see attached). The City may wish to consider allowing on-site laundry and dry cleaning facilities as a permitted use, as the State requires very strict regulation regarding noise and pollution generated from these uses. Pet Shops and Veterinary Clinics with overnight Care and Restaurant were also added. Specific conditions which must be met are include with these uses as well. 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. The proposal will be discussed at the December 16 Board of Codes and Standards meeting. 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 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 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) (4) Essential Services. Convenience, Limited Merchandise, Grocery Stores (not Supermarket Type. (5) Laundromat. 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. ( 6 ) Mortuary. EXHIBIT A - PROPOSED & EXISTING USES - B-1 DISTRICT 4.103 4.104 Permitted Accessory Uses, B-1. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "B-l" 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) (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. (3) ~ ~:~ ~i~ ~: i: i: !: i~: i:i: i:~i:~ i~:!: i:i:i:i: ~i~i:i:i:i! i: ii!: ~i~!i ii?i iii ~iiii il iii~ ~iii~i ii ii ii ii ii iii ili ii PUD, Commercial. Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Section 4.19. (Code 072684) (4) Convenience food Take-Out/Delivery Establishment. A convenience food take-out/delivery establishment provided that: (a) Compatibility with Surrounding Property. The architectural appearance and functional 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. (b) Operation Limited. The establishment must be exclusively used as a take-out and delivery facility for over the counter food sales as defined in Section 4.022(30) of this Code. On-premises consumption of food in any form or manner shall be prohibited. (c) Street Access. The establishment must have access to a collector or arterial street. (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. 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. RECOMMENDATION 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 allow 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 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 North, west As, s0c,iated Consultants, Inc. URn& PLA NNi N~ ' 13ESl GN ' M&RK ET TO: FROH: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Bob ~irmis/Aian Rrixius 12 November 1993 New Hope Tam Rezoning 131.01 - 93.35 BACKGRO~VD At the Planning Commission's request, we have conducted a comparative review of uses allowed in the City's B-l, Limited Neighborhood Business District and B-2, Retail Business DiStrict tO determine whether some additional use flexibility should be provided in the B-1 District. This evaluation has been prompted by the rezoning request of Mr., Oliver Tam who has requested that his property located at 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North be rezoned from B-1 to B-2. The said rezoning is being pursued basically to make an allowance £0r a broader range of uses within a retail strip center which exists on the property. Rather than rezone =he subject property, =he ;lanning Commission has inquired as to the possibility of simply amending the B-1 District provisions to provide greater flexibility in terms of allowed' uses. Of s~eciflc question has been the potential allowance o: dry cleaning facilities (other than "pick-up stations#) within B-1 Districts. 5775 Wayzata Blvct., Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636'Fax. 595-9537 ISSUES ANALYSIS B-1 District Proyt4ons The purpose of the B.1, Limited Neighborhood Business District is =o provide for ~he es~ablishmen~ of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service on=lets which deal dire¢=!y with =he customer fram whom the goods or services are furnished. In =his regard, these centers are =o provide services and goods only for =he surrounding neigD-~orhoods and are no= intended =o draw customers from the entire communizy. Specific permi=zed and conditional uses in =he dis=ri== are listed below= Barber shops Beauty shops Essential services Convenience, limited merchandise ~rocery stores (non- supermarkets) Laundromats (self-service washing and drying, dry cleaning, also dry cleaning pick-up and laundry station, including incidental repair and assembly,, but not including commercial processing on si=e) Mortuaries Conditional Uses 2. 4. Government and utility buildings Professional and commercial offices Commercial ~UDs Convenience food take out/delivery establishments B-2 District Provisions The purpose of the B-2, Retail Business DistriCt is to provide for iow intensity, re=ail or service outlets which deal directly wi:h =he cue=omar for whom =he goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in =his district are to provide goods and services on a limited coaa~uni=y market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities a= the edge of residential districts. Specific permitted and conditional uses in =he district are listed below: Uses Ail permitted uses in the B-1 District Laundry and dry cleaning Grocery s=ores/superma=ke=s 2 Limited B-A uses a. Antique shops b. Art/School supplies, Book, office supplies, stationery pe CC. h.h. ii. ll. Bicycle sales/repair Candy, ice cream, ice milk, popcorn, nuts, ~rozen desserts, packaged snacks, soft drinks carpet, rugs and =ils and other floor coverings Coin and philatelic stores Commercial and professional offices Copy and printing service Costume and clothes rental Office equipment scores Drug store Employment agencies Florls= shop Furniture stores ~urriers when conducted only for retail =rads, on premises Gift or novelty scores Hobby s=ore Insurance sales Locksmith Meat marks= but no= including locker storage Paint and wallpaper sales Plumbing, television, radio, electrical sales and such repair TOy stores Tailor shops Jewelry shops and other similar uses Travel bureaus, transports=ion, ticket offices Wearing apparel Banks, savings/loans, credit unions, oUher financial institutions Building material sales of retail nature in enclosed building Fabric scores Caznera/pho=ographic supplies Restaurant Off-sale liquor scores Medical ~ardw~re scores Conditional Uses Ail conditional uses in the B-1 District Multiple family buildings Commercial PUDs ¢o~mercial ~n~erprises a4 Banks Electrical appliance scores Fabric stores 0fl-sale liq%~o= Offset printing and copy service ~esCauran=s Camera and photographic su991ies Book scores Medical Garden novelty scores In review of the B-1 and B-2 District provisions, permitted and conditional uses listed wi=bin the said dis=rio= are direc~iy related to their intended service area. As noted in the cited district purpose statements, uses allowed within B-1 zoning districts are intended =o serve surrounding neighborhoods. In con=res=, =he B-1 Dis=rio= is imzended to draw from a City-wide area. Generally speaking, i= is believed the= the listed B-! permiz=ed and condi:ional uses fulfill their intended purpose. B-1 Evaluation Criteria To determine the appropriateness of dry cleaning establishments (and other uses) wi=bin B-1 Zoning Dis=rio=s, Itte believed an objective set of evaluation criteria should be referenced. Such cri=eri& should specl:lcally ma~e note of in=ended charac=eris=Ics of uses allowed in =he B-1 Dis=riot. The following is a listing of criteria which should be referenced in considering =he appropriateness of various B-1 uses: 1. Uses which draw from and cater to a localized area. Uses which may compatibly co-exist with nearby residential uses. To achieve such an existence, such uses should: a. Be of a p~ysical (aesthetic) scale compatible with residential neighborhoods. Generate traffic which does not exceed =he capabilities of streets which serve =he property. c. No= include outdoor storage provisions. produce levels of noise, illumination, odor which may neg&tively impact nearby adjacent properties. 4 to add (or dele=m) various uses, a finding should be made :ha~ any use wi=bin =he B-1 District comDly with the aforementioned criteria. CONCLUSION AS an initial step in considering this matter, it is recommended ~hat the City conduct a comparative analysis be=ween uses permitted in =he a-1 and B-2 Zoning Dis=rlczs and the a-1 evaluation criteria cited in =his memorandum. Hopefully, such an analysis will allow conclusions to be drawn as =o =he appropriateness of =he various uses allowed in said districts. If you have any questions or comments, please ~o no= hesi=ate to call. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N P L A N N I N G DE S I G N · M A R K E T R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE: Kirk McDonald Elizabeth Stockman / Alan Brixius 27 October 1993 New Hope - Oliver Tam Rezoning 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- I, 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. 595-9837 Rope Zoning Ordinance unreaSOnable, arbitrary and capricious as .o 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 - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Photos Exhibit C - 1956 Zoning Map Exhibit D 1961 Zoning Map Exhibit E B-1 Permitted and Conditional Uses Exhibit F B-2 Permitted and Conditional Uses Exhibit G Comprehensive Plan Policies for Commercial Areas /SSUE3 ANALYSIS EXISTIN~ ZONIN~ The B-1 zoning designation was established 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 services 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 Developmen~ Definitions which states the following: Professional Qffic~$: 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 ~ 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, ~he 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 or 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 ZONIN~ 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). 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. 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: ae 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). 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 East Northeast Multiple Family Resid. (6-plex) Church West Single Family Residential Zoninq R-3, Medium Density Residential (City of Brooklyn Park, unknown) R-l, Single Family Residential 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 acco~Lodated 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. 5 / cOMM NDATION 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. 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 i 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-1 site have also been present from the onset. Option i or 2 provides ample opportunity to accomplish the applicants goal of filling building vacancies without adversely affecting the surrounding area. 6 ICE ;I ST AVE AVE. B! 6tST °t 61 S T AVE. LIN D.~ B.4 .1 NURSING DICiNE -,, I RB R,4 ,B-4 ,WlNPARK ,[;)RIVE 4.i0, 4.101, 4.102, 4.103 4.10 "B-l" LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD 8u~ZN]~ss DISTRICT 4.101 Purpose. The purpose of ~Ae 'B-i' Limited Neighborhood Business O~s~ric= is to provide for the establishmen= of local can=ers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets which deal d~rec=ly w~th 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 cus=omers from the entire community. 4.102 Perm,=ted Oses~ B-1. The following are permi=ted uses in a (1) Barber Shops. (2) Beauty Shops. (3) Essential Serv£ces. (4) Conveniencer Limi=ed Merchandiser Grocery Scores (no= Supermarke~ TYPe). Laundromat. Self-service washing and drying, dry cleaning. Also dry cleaning pickup and laundry station, including inclden=al repaxr and assembly, but not including commercial processing on =he site. (6) Mortuary. 4.103 Permit=ed Accessory Uses~ B-1. The following are permitted accessory uses in a""B-l" District: (1) Floor S~ace Limited. Commercial or business buildings and s%ruc=ures for a use accessory to the principal use, but such use shall not exceed thirty percent of =he gross floor space of the principal use. (2) Parking. Off-street parking as regulated by Section 4.036. (3) Off-Street Loading. Off-street loading as regulated by Section 4.037 (4) Signs. Signs in compliance with Chapter 3 (5) Pinball Machines. Pinball machines as defined and licensed in Crmpter 8 are permitted as accessory uses in commercial es=ablis~nents provided tha= the number of devices does no= exceed six in thole establisrunents whose priflc&pal business is the serving of food or ~everage, or providing recreational or leisure time activities. O=Aer commercial establishments, including employee lounges and private clubs, may have up to =Area machines. 4-59 072684 II II II II II II I I 1 I I I I 4.104 4.104 (i) - (4) Cond£tional Oses~ S-1. The following are conditional uses in a "n-I- Oistrkct: (requires a condi~ona~ use perm~ ~s~ ~pon Procedures se~ ~o~h ~n and ragula~ by Section 4.20, and compliance ~ 4.033 Sc=een~ag) = , (1) Government and Utility Bu£1dinq~. Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community provided that: - Ca) Compatibilit7 and Set-be=kg. Conformit7 vith the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required se=backs and side yard requirements are mac. (b) Equipment Enclosed. Equipment is complete17 enclosed £n a permanent-type structure wi=h no outside storage. (2) Professional and Commercial. All professional and commercial offices provided that: (3) (4) (a) Local Area. The services which are provided primarily are for =he local area rather =Ram She community or region. (b) Traffic. The traffic generated will not raise traffic volumes beyond the capacity of =he surrounding streets. (c) Appearance. The architectural appearance of the building housing the office use shall reflect the building character of the area and shall no= be so dissimilar as to cause impairment of property values or constitute a blighting influence within =he neighborhoo4. PUD~ Commercial. Commercial planned unit development as regula=ed by Se~tiofl 4.19. (Code 072684) Convenience Food Take-Out/Delivery Establishment. A convenience food take- out/delivery establishment provided =hat: (a) Comparability with Surrounding Property. The architectural appearance and functional 91an of the building and/or site shall not be so dissimilar to existing buildings or area as to cause imp&lrment in property v&luee or constitute & blighting influence. O~eration Limited. The establishment mum= ~ exclusively used al a take-~u= and delivery facility for over the counter food salem as define4 in section 4.022(30) of this Code. OA-premises consump=ioA of food iA any form or ~nfler shall be prohibited. (c) Street Access. The establishment must have access to a collector or (d) Parking R~quiremeflt. The establishment mumt have sufficient parking spaces to comply with the requirements of sec=ion 4.036(10)(p) of =his co~ply vita ell other off-s~rse= p~rking requirements required by section 4.036 of this Code. (e) Seflita~iofl Re~uiremeflt. All ~o~ pre~=aCion, ~ckagiflg, sale and delivery shall be subjec~ ~o regulation and approval by ~he City San~arLmfl. ~he San~ar~en s~a~L provide specific vr$~en sanitary requ~eMn~s for such es~aO~s~Mn~s pu~suafl~ ~o applicable s~a~e and coufl~y (f) Hours o~ Ope~a~Lon. HOUFS o~ ope~a~Lon My ~ l~m$~ed as necessar7 ~o m~n~mLze ~e effec~ of nu~saflce factors such As ~raf~c, flo~se and (Ord. 86-13) 4-~0 072884 4.11, 4.Lll, 4.112., 4.L14 (l) - (2)(a} 4.I1 "B-2" RETAIL BUSINESS DISTRICT 4.111 Purpose. The purpose of the "B-2" Retail Business District ~s to provide for low intensity, retail or service outlets which aaa1 01tartly 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 l~m~ted community market scale and located ~n areas which are well served by collector or arter3al street facilities at the edge of 4,~12 Permitted Uses. B-2. Olstr~ct: The follow~ng are permitted uses ~n a 'B-2" (1) Less Intensive uae o~trict. All ~ermltted uses as allowed L~mlted Ne~gnOorhood Bus,ness 01s~r~ct. (2) Cleaninq. Laundry and Ory clean~ng orovlOed the Orocess used meets the occupancies. 4.113 (3) ~ood. Grocery stores and supermarkets providing the use does not excee~ 21,500 square feet of floor space. (Code 072684) (4) Limited B-4 Uses. All "B-4" uses that are not marked w~th an asterisk(=). (Code 072584, Ord. No. 92-13) Permitted Accessory Uses. B-2. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "9-2" District: (I) Less Intensive Use District. All permitted accessory uses as allowed a "B-I" District. (2) Drive-Up. Financial. One lane drive-up service windows for federal anO state regulated fioanc~ml ~nstitut~ons, providing the facility is approved SS part o¢ the original construction approval of the bu~lO~ng. If s service window is to be added to an existing building, or if more than one lane is to bm provided, a conditional use permit ~roceOure shall be umed and t~e facility must De found to meet the criter3a of Section 4.201 and the Council shall aDDly such conditions em it deems necessary tO re&mortally control traffic, norse an~ other nuisance characteristics. (i) Conditional Uses. B-2. The following are conUitional uses in a "B-2" Dim:riot: (Requires m conditional use permit based upon procedures set fo~[~ in and regulated by Section 4.20, and compliance w~th 4.036. Of¢-Strle~ Parking and 4.037, Off-Street Loading; Chapter 3, Signing) Less [n~gnsive Uae District. All conditional uses, subject to the same cona~=~onm am allowed in the "a-l" O~strict. (2) Multiple Family. Multiple family buildings provided that: (a) Compatible. Development is comestible w~th existing and planned use of the area and conflicts are not created Oetween commercial and residential use and activities. 4-61 072684 Planning Case: 93~35B CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Request: Request for Rezoning from B-l, (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: January 26, 1994 Meeting Date: February 1, 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 drycleaninWlaundromat 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. o The petitioner was not present at the December 7th Planning Commission meeting, therefore the Commission tabled the request upon the recommendation of staff. 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. Planning Case No. 93-35B February 1, 1994 Page 2 o 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. o 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. This request led the Planning Commission to examine all permitted and conditional uses allowed in the B-1 Zone (Planning Case 94-04). Currently only six permitted uses are allowed and staff and the Committee find that the existing ordinance is unusually restrictive, doesn't encourage the economic viability of the three B-1 sites in the City, and that there are a number of additional uses that could be compatible within a Neighborhood Business District. o The Planning Consultant reviewed both the drycleaning with processing issue and the general expansion of B-1 uses issue at the January 4th Planning Commission meeting with the Commission and the petitioner. In discussions with the Codes and Standards Committee, there was an opportunity to determine what types of characteristics associated with drycleaning had the most concerns. The identified concerns were the potential for pollution emissions and noise considerations. The MPCA was contacted and it was discovered that the concern with drycleaning facilities is a pollutant generated as an emission product known as percholorethylene (PCE). The Planner indicated that it is considered one of the most hazardous air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act, but that Minnesota has a standard for emission control that is stricter than the federal guidelines and drycleaners in Minnesota are held to a higher standard than nationwide. He also stated there are emission control devices that are available, both carbon absorbers and refrigerator condensers that help monitor and relieve the emissions on these and also new technology to enhance the performance of these emission control devices. In addition, drycleaners are required to have weekly records of their emission controls so there is a record for periodic inspection by the MPCA. The Planner stated that in a survey of surrounding communities it was found that drycleaners were considered to be a neighborhood compatible activity and others have taken Planning Case No. 93-35B February 1, 1994 Page 3 a more restrictive approach by limiting size. The Planner indicated that he believes the use is compatible within the B-1 neighborhood area and recommends that a change in the zoning be made to accommodate the drycleaning with processing use. Due to the limited number of B-1 locations in New Hope, the size of the establishment could not be very large and the consensus of the Committee was that a permitted use would probably be more appropriate than requiring a conditional use permit. 10. Due to the fact that a zoning code amendment for all the uses in the B-1 Zone is being considered at the February Planning Commission meeting, the petitioner was agreeable to tabling the request one additional month. 11. At the January meeting the Commission indicated that it was generally supportive of allowing drycleaning with processing as a permitted use in the B-1 Zone. The Commission indicated to the petitioner that he did not need to be present at the February meeting. The petitioner indicated that he had a tenant that was ready to sign a lease if the amendment was approved. 12. Due to the fact that the proposed ordinance considered under Planning Case 94-04 amends all permitted and conditional uses in the B-1 Zone (including this request), that case has been placed on the agenda first. If Planning Case 94-04 is approved, the request under this case will automatically be approved, however, it is recommended that the Commission make formal motions on both cases so that the record is clear and not open-ended. Attachments: 1/5 Correspondence to Tam 11/30 Planners Report: Drycleaning Facilities November Staff Report 10/27 Planners Report: Tam Rezoning 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: #612-531-~ , 36 Police Fax: #612-531-5174 Public Works Fax: #612-533-7650 January 5, 1994 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 you are aware, the New Hope Planning Commission tabled Planning Case 93-35B at their January 4th meeting. The Commission indicated that they favored amending the City Code to allow dry cleaning procesSing in the B-1 Zoning District, but desired to wait until the February 1st Planning Commission meeting at which time they will be conducting a public hearing on the expansion of a number of uses allowed in the B-1 Zone. Your requested change will be included in that overall review. The Planning Commission indicated that they did not feel it was necessary for you to be in attendance at the February 1st Planning Commission meeting, as it is anticipated that the recommended changes will be approved with little discussion. I would recommend, however, that you make yourself available to attend the February 14th City Council meeting, in case there are questions that the Council has about your specific proposal. I will contact you after the next Planning Commission meeting to let you know if the ordinance amendmer{t changes were approved and will be proceeding to the City Council for action. If you have questions, please call me at 531-511 9. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Velerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 93-~5 ~ Property File (7801-7821 62nd Avenue North) Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. URBAN P L A N N I NG · DESI G N · MARKET R ES E A RC H TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Stuart Roberson 30 November 1993 New Hope - 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 Hope is interested in allowing this particular use within neighborhood commercially zoned districts. The following study should aid you with your decision. DRY CLEANING FACILITIF~ 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. 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 CHART Small Large Facility Area Source Area Source Major Source Dry to Dry 140 gall. PCE/yr. 150 - 2,100 gall. PCE/yr. 2,100+ gall. PCE/yr. Transfer Less than 200 gall. PCE/yr. 200 - 1,800 gall. PCE/yr. 1,800+ gall. PCE/yr. Dry to Dry and Transfer Less than 140 gall. PCE/yr 140 - 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 Introduction 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 L50 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. 4 Noise Area Classification 1 2 3 Daytime db (A) Nighttime db (A) L50 L10 L50 L10 60 65 50 55 65 70 65 70 75 80 75 80 Noise Area Classification 1 - Land Use Activities Household Units (includes farmhouses) 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. 5 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. RECOMMENDATION 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 allow 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 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-1 (Limited Neighborhood Business) Petitioner: Oliver TangTam's Family Partner Report Date: October 29. 1993 Meeting Date: November 3. 1993 BACKGROL~'D Petitioner is requesting rezoning of property from B-I, (Limited Neighborhood Business) Zoning District, to B-2, (Retail Business) Zoning District, to allow tYr 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-I, 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 rezouing or an amendment to the permitted B-I 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 drycleaningAaundromat 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 allo~ 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-1 across Winnetka Avenue to the west. Planning Case Report 93-35 October 29. 1993 Page 2 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 by 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 influenced by the lack of income generated by a partially filled building. With the owner restricted to only B-l 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. 11. 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. 13.) The intent of, the uses permitted in, and the differences between the B-I 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 pertbrmance standards for the Zoning District. E.) Is this considered "spot rezoning"? 3. The options that are available in addressing this request are as follows: 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 B-I 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 do'cleaning laundromat as a permitted use). Co 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. 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. o 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 try, 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-I 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. I: Planning Case 93-35 October 29, t993 Page 4 including more truck traffic that may not be compatible with adjacent residential propertF. Thus. it is probably more prudent to consider minimally expanding the uses allowed in the B-1 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- i in New Hope: the petitioner's site and the two Tom Thumb Stores located at 7980 36[in Avenue and 2720 Winnetka Avenue. Therefore. any code amendment changes to the B-i Zone. which was established in 1979. ,,,,'ill 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 ~'o 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 denx 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 U R B P L A N G DE S I G N Consultants, Inc. M A R K E T R E $ E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE: Kirk McDonald Elizabeth Stockman / Alan Brixius 27 October'1993 New Hope - Oliver Tam Rezoning 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- I, 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-! 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 subjec5 parcel as shown in Exhibit D. In !964, 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-~.~.~- 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 cours's ruling. After a n~mber 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 Exhibit G Site Location Site Photos 1956 Zoning Map 1961 Zoning Map B-i Permitted and Conditional Uses B-2 Permitted and Conditional Uses 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 services 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 al!owed 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 IllusTrared 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. Office: A room or group of rooms used for conducting tke affairs of a business, profession, service, industry cr goverr2nent. In our opinion, based on the above definitions, a graphics business can be considered a commercial office. Therefore, if the only intent cf the applicant is to fill the building vacancy with a graphics business, rezoning of the subject size 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 anJ flexibility for future/changes in businesses on The site, Two options may be further explored: I) expansion of permitted cr conditional B-1 uses, or 2) rezoning of the property must ke considered. In either scenario, additional factors must ke 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). JUDG~ 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. 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 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 5o 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). 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 amoun5 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 Zonin=~T North Single Family (City of Brookl!rnPark Low Density Resid.) South Single Family Residential R-i, Single Family Residential Direction Land Use East Multiple Family Resid. (6-plex) Northeast Church West Single Family Residential Zoninq R-3, Medium Density Residential (City of Brooklyn Park, unknown) R-i, Single Family Residential 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,cf 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 cf 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 lefu to City Officials. In making this determination, the City musu 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 reddest, 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. Maintain the existing B-1 zoning, but consider amending the permitted and/or conditional uses to allow on site prccessin? in association with a dry cleaner/laundromat or to ai!cw 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 ! 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 cf the area presents land use compatibility problems. The opportunity to expand the B-1 District to include additional uses allows 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 cf 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-1 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. Z SUBJECT PROPERTY EXHIBIT A LOOKING SOUTH FROM 62ND AVENUE LOOKING WEST FROM SUMTER AVENUE EXHIBIT B EAST SIDE OF BUILDING FRONT OF BUILDING LOOKING WEST REAR OF BUILDING FROM SUMTER AVENUE SIDE/REAR OF BUILDING FROM WINNETKA -i mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ;O~Nr~ &V I VILLAGE GREEN GOLF CO*JR,SE ST. THERESA NURSING imm H AVE 88~. X 62ND 42 o. o X 876 876.6 6!ST o 79. I 877.7 X 877. ICE ~1 ST AVE AVE. B! 61 S T AVE. 6t LIND~ B.4 .t NURSING III ICJNI~ · ,, I 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: January 28, 1994 Meeting Date: February 1, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a Preliminary Plat Approval of J. R. Jones Addition (Chapter 13 - New Hope Code of Ordinances). At the January 4th Planning Commission and January 10th City Council meetings, the petitioner received approval for site and building plan review 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 need to be combined and replatted into one lot to accommodate the development and platting was a condition of the approval for the building addition. The petitioner has initiated the Preliminary Plat of J.R. Jones Addition to accomplish the combination and said plat was recently submitted to the City and has been distributed to the City Attorney, City Engineer, Department Heads, utility companies, Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation for review and comment. Due to the fact that the plat was not received until January 21 st and comments have not yet been returned to the City, staff recommends tabling the request until the March 1st Planning Commission meeting and has notified the petitioner that he does not need to be present at this meeting. Planning Case No. 94-02 February 1, 1994 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tabling the request for one month. Attachments: Section/Zoning/Topo Maps Site Plan Plat & Distribution Letter Correspondence to J.R. Jones Correspondence from J.R. Jones 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Teiephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: Police Fax: Public Works Fax: #612-531-5 t2, #612-531-51 ?- #612- 533 - 765, January 28, 1994 Mr. Bob Jones J.R. Jones Fixture Company 3216 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 SUBJECT: PLANNING CASE NO. 94-01, REQUEST FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR BUILDING ADDITION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEFERRED PARKING AND PLANNING CASE NO. 94-02, J.R. JONES ADDITION PLAT Dear Mr. Jones: The City is in receipt of the preliminary plat of J.R. Jones Addition and said plat has been circulated to City Department Heads, City Attorney and City Engineer for review and has also been sent to utility companies, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Hennepin County for comments, per our routine review process. The City also is in receipt of the letter from your attorney requesting a waiver of the review of the final plat by the Planning Commission and we will process your request accordingly. I am writing to inform you that due to the fact that the City only recently received the preliminary plat, it will not be able to be considered or acted upon at the February 1st Planning Commission meeting, as all pertinent comments on the plat will not have been received by that time. Therefore, it will not be necessary for you to be in attendance at the February 1st meeting. The preliminary plat will be considered at the March 1st Planning Commission meeting and you should plan to attend that meeting. As per our routine, City staff will be preparing a report on the plat with recommendations and you will be mailed a copy of the report prior to March 1st. If the Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat and agrees to waive their review of the final plat, the preliminary plat would proceed to the City Council for consideration/approvai on March 14th. If the Council approves the preliminary plat on March 14th, you should then proceed to prepare the final plat and incorporate the Commission/Council recommendations. The final plat could then be considered by the Council at either the March 28th or April 1 lth Council meetings, depending on how fast the f'mal plat is submitted to the City (the final plat also needs to be circulated for review/comment). Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Mr. Bob January Page 2 I hope this helps to explain the approval process and makes you aware of the dates you or your representatives may need to be present for City meetings. Please contact me at 531-5119 if you have any questions. Sincerely, t'"- Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator KMD/prs Enclosure: 1994 Planning Commission Schedule cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Scndrall, City Attorney Mark ~I~:,son, City Engineer Doug Saadstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Joseph Lawyer, Messefli & Kramer, P.A. Walt Gregory, Merila & Associates Property File (3216 Winnetka Avenue North) Planning Case File 94-02 ,ii 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: #612-531-51 Police Fax: #612-531-51 Public,Works Fax: #612-533-76 January 26, 1994 Mr. Bob Jones J.R. Jones Fixture Company 3216 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, MN 55'427 SUBJECT: PLANNING CASE NO. 94-01, REQUEST FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR BUILDING ADDITION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEFERRED PARKING AND PLANNING CASE NO. 94-02, J.R. JONES ADDITION PLAT Dear Mr. Jones: The City is in receipt of the preliminary plat of J.R. Jones Addition and said plat has been circulated to City Department Heads, City Attorney and City Engineer for review and has also been sent to utility companies, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Hennepin County for comments, per our routine review process. The City also is in receipt of the letter from your attorney requesting a waiver of the review of the final plat by the Planning Commission and we will process your request accordingly. I am writing to inform you that due to the fact that the City only recently received the preliminary plat, it will not be able to be considered or acted upon at the February 1st Planning Commission meeting, as all pertinent comments on the plat will not have been received by that time. Therefore, it will not be necessary for you to be in attendance at the February 1st meeting. The preliminary plat will be considered at the March 1st Planning Commission meeting and you should plan to attend that meeting. As per our routine, City staff will be preparing a report on the plat with recommendations and you will be mailed a copy of the report prior to March 1st. If the Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat and agrees to waive their review of the final plat, the preliminary plat would proceed to the City "Council for consideration/approval on March 14th. If the Council approves the preliminary plat on March 14th, you should then proceed to prepare the final plat and incorporate the Commission/Council recommendations. The f'mal plat could then be considered by the Council at either the March 28th or April l lth Council meetings, depending on how fast the final plat is submitted to the City (the final plat also needs to be circulated for review/comment). Family Styled City'~~ For Family Living Mr. Bob Jones January 28, 1994 Page 2 I hope this helps to explain the approval process and makes you aware of the elates you or your representatives may need to be present for City meetings. Please contact me at 531-5119 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ ~omm~tRity Development Coordinator KMD/prs Enclosure: 1994 Planning Commission Schedule CC: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Joseph Lawyer, Messerli & Kramer, P.A. Walt Gregory, Merila & Associates Property File (3216 Winnetka Avenue North) Plsnning Case File 94-02 January 14, 1994 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: #612-531-51. Police Fax: #612-531-51 Public Works Fax: #612-533-7E: Mr. Bob Jones J. R. Jones Fixture Company 3216 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 SUBJECT: PLANNING CASE NO. 94-01, REQUEST FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR BUILDING ADDITION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEFERRED PARKING Dear Mr. Jones: Please be advised that on January 10, 1994, the New Hope City Council appro.v, ed the request for site/building plan review/approval and conditional use permit for the deferred parking for J.R. Jones building addition at 3216 Winnetka Avenue North, as submitted in Planning Case 94-01, subject to the following conditions. The platting of all three lots into one parcel. Hennepin County approval.of curb-cut changes. 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. Installation of a sidewalk on Winnetka Avenue, with City paying for one-third of the cost. City Engineer recommendations be incorporated in the plans. In regards to the above stated conditions, I would make the following comments/requests: Plattin.q - Please proceed to have a preliminary plat prepared for J.R. Jones Addition and submit it to the City as soon as possible. It will need to be reviewed by City Department Heads, the Building Official, City Engineer, City Attorney and utility companies prior to submittal to the Planning Commission. The timing of your submittal will determine when it can be considered by the Commission. I have enclosed information regarding the platting process for your information along with pertinent excerpts from the City Code. Note that you may request a waiver of the final plat review by the Planning Commission. Development Agreement/Performance Bond - The City will proceed to draft a Development Agreement for the site improvements, including performance bond requirements, and this agreement will be forwarded to you within the next several weeks. Sidewalk Installation - The' City has agreed to pay for one-third of the cost to install the sidewalk on Winnetka Avenue. Please contact me and let the City know if you want to assume the responsibility for the construction of the sidewalk, include it with your contract and bill the City or if you want the City to assume the responsibility, complete the work and bill you. If you want the City to install the sidewalk, you will also need to let me know if you want to pay your share in one lump sum or if you Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Mr. Bob Jones January 14, 1994 Page 2 Want to spread your cost out over a period of years in equal assessments. If you want your portion of the cost assessed, the City will forward to you the necessary documents to initiate this process and an assessment agreement will need to be approved by the City Council. Deferred Parkin.q Conditional Use Permit - As you are aware, a Conditional Use Permit for the Deferment of Required Parking was required and granted as a part of your expansion approval process. Per the enclosed zoning application, a separate fee is required for site and building plan review and a conditional use permit. In checking the records I note that you have only submitted a fee for the site and building plan review, therefore, I would request that you submit an additional $225.00 fee for the conditional use permit for the deferred parking at this time. Also, the Zoning Code required that a restrictive covenant be recorded against the title of the property providing that additional parking shall be constructed if the site parking demand exceeds the actual on-site parking supply. The City Attorney will be preparing this document for your signature and will have it recorded and the City will be forwarding this document to you in the next several weeks. The City appreciates the expansion of your business in New Hope and looks forward to cooperating with you on the above issues. Please contact Doug Sandstad, Building Official, at 531-5122 regarding the necessary permits before you begin your expansion.. Feel free to contact me at 531-5119 if you have any comments or questions on the above listed issues. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator KM/prs Enclosures: CC: Plat Instructions City Code Excerpts-Platting Application Fee Schedule City Code Excerpts-Restrictive Covenant Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Property File (3216 Winnetka Avenue North) Planning Case File 94-01 DATE: TO: CITY Of NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM January 21, 1994 Hennepin County Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnegasco Northern States Power Co. U.S. West Telephone King Cable New Hope New Hope New Hope City Attorney New Hope City Engineer New Hope Building Official ,, FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Television Director of Public Works Director of Finance/Administrative Services Preliminary Plat of J. R. Jones Addition Enclosed you will find the Preliminary Plat for J.R. Jones Addition. Please review and forward comments to me prior to 4:30 p.m. on Friday, February 11, 1994. The Preliminary Plat will be considered by the New Hope Planning Commission at their March 1, 1994, meeting. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at 531-5119. -o . tI '"'" ~ PRELIMINARY PLAT I_, I...-~- January 20, 1994 MESSERLi & KRAMER P.A. ATTO R N EMS AT LAW 1800 FIFTh STREET TOWERS iSO SOUTH FIFTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5S402-4218 (612) 672-3600 FACSIMILE(61:~) 672-3777 672-3698 ANNE I'. UOHN$ON LEANNE ~3. LITF"IN Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 RE: Lots I and 2, Block 1, PAZANDAK Addition Dear Mr. McDonald: I have advised Walt Gregory of Merila & Associates that your office needs twelve 8½ x 11 copies of the preliminary plat drawing. These will be forwarded to your attention shortly. In addition, I would like to fomally request that the review of the final plat drawing by the planning commission be waived which will help expedite this combination, If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, M~,~SERLI & !~MER P.A. ~~s~W. Lawver cc: Bob Jones Walt Gregory of Merila & Associates JWL:jas:66418_l '7"/I~ ~EtO 77~.~. 55'01 N. $OTH ViEWCREST AVE. LANE 7108 7101 ZONING DISTRICT MAP CITY of NEW HOPE R-I IAL R-:~ R-4 R-5 R-O ; B-I 8'2 _ it WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH .< Z rq Z 0 1 I "1 r I I - _._ · =o~ .,,.~ ~ ,~ ~o' ~ WINPARK DRIVE ~ [ I I I I CITY OF NEW HOPE INFORMATIONAL MEETING Planning Case: 93-32 Request: Informational Meeting Regarding Proposed Zoning Code Performance Standards Regulating the Design and Placement of Gasoline Pump Island Canopies and Minor Changes to Sign Regulations for Gas Sales Facilities Location: All B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts PID No: Zoning: All B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: January 28, 1994 Meeting Date: February 1, 1994 BACKGROUND This is the informational meeting regarding proposed Zoning Code performance standards regulating the design and placement of gasoline pump island canopies and minor changes to sign regulations for gas sales facilities. In September, 1993, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a site plan for Uno- Ven Company to upgrade the Unocal station at Winnetka Avenue at 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, along with other site improvements. At that time City staff indicated that the existing City Code only establishes minimal conditions for gas pump canopies for convenience stores with gasoline, which require a conditional use permit. Staff recommended that, separate from the Uno-Ven request, an ordinance change be initiated that established guidelines and performance standards regulating the placement of gasoline pump island canopies and the Commission agreed with the recommendation and referred the matter to the Codes and Standards Committee. o The Codes and Standards Committee, the Planning Consultant, City Attorney and City staff have been reviewing/discussing options for code amendments for the past three months. In conjunction with this study, the Building Official completed a comprehensive site survey of all gas facilities in New Hope. Due to the fact that most sites in New Hope are already developed, specific attention was given to past development trends to avoid making existing sites become non-conforming or discouraging new site improvements. When the study on gasoline canopies was completed, it was determined that gas sales signage issues should also be reviewed/updated so both items could be addressed/presented to the Informational Meeting Planning Case 93-32 February 1, 1994 Page 2 Commission at the same time. The Committee is recommending specific performance standards/ordinance amendments that will regulate the setbacks, signage, height and lighting of all gasoline fuel island canopies. The Committee is also recommending several minor revisions to the sign regulations for gas sales facilities. Both code amendments have been reviewed by the City Attorney and have been put in ordinance format. o Due to the fact that gas island canopies are accessory structures to gas sales facilities, and since gas sales facilities are already conditional uses in their respective district, the Planning Consultant does not feel that it is necessary to treat the canopy as an independent conditional use permit. The Planning Consultant has recommended that the performance standards for canopies be included in the Zoning Ordinance section that addresses accessory buildings, uses and equipment (4.032.3). The Codes and Standards Committee and staff support these proposed ordinance amendments to create some uniformity for gas pump canopies located at automobile service stations and convenience stores with gas. The Commission reviewed these recommendations at the January 4th Planning Commission meeting and directed that an informational meeting be conducted at the February Commission meeting with all New Hope gas sales facility owners/operators invited to give input on the performance standards being proposed. The enclosed letter/notice was sent to all such facilities informing them of the proposed amendments and inviting them to attend this meeting. The Planning Consultant will be present at the meeting to review the proposed standards and to answer questions. If the Commission and gas sales facility operators are generally supportive of these recommendations, a public hearing on these code amendments will be scheduled for the March 1st Commission meeting. Attachments: Correspondence to Gas Sales Facilities 12/9 Planner's Report - Gas Pump Canopy Signage 11/22 Attorney Correspondence 11/3 Planner's Report - Gas Pump Canopies 10/14 Planner's Report - Gas Pump Canopies 10/4 Planner's Report - Gas Pump Canopies Building Official Gas Sales Canopy Survey Planning Case 92-28, Uno-Ven January 27, 1994 SUBJECT: Informational Meeting Regarding Proposed Zoning Code Performance Standards Regulating the Design and Placement of Gasoline Pump Island Canopies and Minor Changes to Sign Regulations for Gas Sales Facilities Dear New Hope Gas Sales Facility Owner/Operator: The New Hope Planning Commission will be conducting an informational meeting in conjunction with their regular meeting, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 1st, in the City Council Chambers at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, to discuss proposed Zoning Code performance standards regulating the design and placement of gasoline pump island canopies and minor changes to sign regulations for gas sales facilities. All New Hope gas sales facility owners/operators are invited to attend the meeting to learn more about the proposed performance standards/signage changes and to give your input to the Planning Commission. The current City Code does not contain specific performance standards that regulate the design and placement of gasoline pump island canopies. The proposed ordinance amendments will regulate the setbacks, signage, height and lighting of gasoline fuel island canopies. Due to the fact that most sites in New Hope are already developed, specific attention was given to past development trends to avoid making existing sites become non-conforming or discouraging new site improvements. Copies of the proposed ordinance revisions are enclosed for your review, and if you have any comments or questions prior to the meeting, feel free to contact Doug Sandstad, Building Official, (531-5122) or myself (531-5119). If your schedule allows, we would encourage you to attend the meeting as the Planning Commission is interested in your input. Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator Enclosure: Proposed Ordinance Amendments cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Planning Commission Members Planning Case File 93-32 Tom's New Hope Spur 7300 Bass Lake Road New Hope, MN 55428 Winnetka Car Care 3601 Winnetka Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55427 49th Avenue Auto Care 9400 49th Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Mobil Gas Station 9400 36th Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Total Mart 7231 42nd Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Fina Serve, Inc. 3535 Winnetka Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Midland Standard 7850 27th Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55427 Sinclair Gas Station 9456 27th Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Winnetka 42nd Unocal 76 4200 Winnetka AVenue New Hope, MN 55428 New Hope Car Wash 7820 42nd Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Winnetka Standard 7900 Bass Lake Road New Hope, MN 55428 Sinclair Gas Station 7901 Bass Lake Road New Hope, MN 55428 Brooks' Foods #5 6113 West Broadway New Hope, MN 55428 Total Mart 7117 Bass Lake Road New Hope, MN 55428 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 al lowed 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 sianage 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 subject to th,~ 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) · ~ --- ~- ,'.-c cc.~,~.Gy Canopies located over pump Canopy * ~,~t~t" islands mc.y shall be allowed as e~ accessory structures fr-m +~A f t ~ * l: ib ty ..... ~^~,, c,~d off cite i~ ,'~c'-'~"~,cd, ,,,.-, subiect,, to the specifications set out in §4.032(3)(k) of this 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 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 3.465 =c..~;~--.· Ohs (l) sign per canopy facts frontin9 onto & street. fecis. (dj Aunlfl9 sod canopy slgnage shell nec exceed sixteen (16) equate 3.466 followin9 signs accessol-~ to i~tomobile'~ervice st~r ions convenience stores with gms kmle~ are permitted in COMMENTS 9raphic display or lo9o on canopies or logo. CURRENT ORDINANCE .............................. EXHIBIT U R B A P L N G . DES N . M AR K E R E S E A R C H TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius/Stuart Roberson 9 December 1993 New Hope Gas Pump Canopy Signage I31.00 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: 1. 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. 3.464 (1)(b) - (d), 3.465 (1)(a) (b) Name Plate, Directional and Identification Siqnm. For eacm apartment development there shall be permitte~ one identification sign or two signs on corner lots each facing a separate street, each not exceeding twenty-five square feet in 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 by a separate sign not exceeding five square feet in area with letters of a size and color to clearly identify the individual building. (c) Cd) New Construction or Remodeling. In connection with the construction or remodeling of a building there shall be permitted one sign not exceeding twenty-five square feet tn 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 by thr Oirector of Fire and Safety of the structure indicated, or two years, whichever is less. (Ord. 7~-17) H9me Occupations. A residential unit with an approved home occupation requiring customer or client visits to the home is allowed, in addition to the signs in Sections (a) and 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 s~gn is permitted other than the general house illumination. (Ord. 7~-17, 79-7) 3.455 Signs Accessory to Sinqle OccuPancY Business or Industrial Uses. No sign accessory to any business or industrial use shall be permitted, except in compliance with the following regulations: (1) Front Wall Signs. (a) Maximum Biqnaqe. 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 Oistricts, 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) (2) (3) (b) Variance to Maximum $ignage. Front wall signs which consist only of individual, outllned alphabetic, numeric and symbollc 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 sides of the characters is prohibited. (c) 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 a grade of nine feet. Accessory lighting fixtures attached to a non-metal frame s~gn 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 being 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 tube 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. 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 Signage. The total area of such rear or side wall sign or signs shall not exceed nine square feet. No rear or side wall signs, other 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- stated provision, if the main entrance to a particular use in the principal building opens on a side wall, or if the main entrance/exit (as defined in the Building Code) to af.r/D particular use in the principal building opens on a rearj~ wall, the applicant shall be permitted to sign the ~ or 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. 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-&3 072684 3.456 (3)(a) - (g) (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 Signs. 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 Heiqht. 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 adjacen~ 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 -44 072684 (4) (5) 3.465 (4), (5), 3.4~6, 3.46T Roof Signs. No part of any sign shall be maintained that ~rojects into the air space over the roof of any building or structure. 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) 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. 3.466 3.467 (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) (2) 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 Si~.ns, 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 Si~n. 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) S'i~ns 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 facia. A~ning and canopy sign~ge shall not exceed sixteen (16} square 3.466 following signs accessory to i~t(~bile-servi~e' stat ions ~ conventenc~ stores with gas~al~ are permitted in ~ddition to che'stgns'permitt~i"~nder Subsection 3.465. {1) 011 Racks. Racks for the orderly display of cabs oil m~y be located on or at the ends of pump displaying new tire casinte shall be permitted for each i;;;lla; ~tce~..~l~ or tire station. the U.S, flag), revolvin9 placards and all signs nsc specifically pe~itced in [his section COMMENTS graphic display or lo9o on canopies The change will allow one sign per canopy fa[ia ~he canopy facia This change references signs rather than letters or lettering in recognition of pictorial signs or lo~o. This change would establish a spa[iii[ size standard for canopy signs. Expand the regulations to address 9as sales at convenience stores No change Retain tire racks exclusively for autc~nobile sex-lice stations No change NO change New provision addressing self service facilities CURRENT ORDINANCE Id) Haximum Sisna~. l,etterin~ or letters shall be included in ~[~[lfig~he maximum sign area of the permissible wall sign. 9~[.~c~k~. Racks for the orderly display of cans of engine oil for convenience ia dispensing said oil may be located o,i or at Tire Racks. Two open portable tire racks {not more than seven Portable signs, olacard~, (41 G_!~o_l_!9_e___a~d~p£_i~l!t9' One sign (single or ) EXHIBIT STEVEN A SONDRALL MICHAEL R LAFLEUR MARTIN P MALECHA WILLIAM C STRAtT CORRICK & SOSDP~LL, p.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EdinbUrgh EXecui:i~re Offifie Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 November 22, 1993 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE- Ordinance Amending Pump Island Canopy Regulations Our File No. 99.49308 Dear Kirk: [n 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 gas 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. Z believe those were the only changes suggested from the meeting. Contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondral 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 ALLOWZNG ADDITZONAL S[GNAGE 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 b,, allowed as accessory structures subject to th~ 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 ^ p ut~ct ~ · ~ r- - ,;'c ccncpy Canopies located over pump islands mGy shall be allowed as ~.~ accessory structures ~--- thc f ....t l~t ~ ....... ,~-~ -~ ..... .~ ,,,~ · ...... . ...., ~ ....... , ~ ........ bll~ty ~- ~- cf~ ~'t~ i~ m~'ct~:,.~d subiect to the specifications set out in ~4.032(3}(k) of this 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 Nort wes ssociated Consultants, Inc. U R B A P L A N G D E S I G N · M A R K E T R E S E A R C .~_~ 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 cf existing gas fueling islands and their replacement with three n~ 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 of 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 deveicpment. Under these circumstances, the ordinance must give attention to past development trends to avoid making existing sites become non-conforming or discouraging new site improvements. 5775 Wayza~:~ 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 sez-vice 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 10 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. --~~''~ .... e4~q~ which [Pse~b~ the !ocatiom of-~c~s----in-rear and side yards not abutting a s~reet was record, ended bye-City staff. It wa~.--f.el~-tha~-the -impact of canopy structures- should-- not--be~b~r-n by -neig~~~~__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 Lot Area % of Area Sq. Ft. Lot 13,600 1,352 10 36,000 2,400 7 15,600 1,344 9 36,000 1,848 5 37,000 6,000 16 18,750 3,300 17 15,000 2,800 19 39,900 NO CANOPIES 32,000 2,900 9 23,000 1,620 7 43,000 NO CANOPIES 24,000 NO CANOPIES. % of % of Front Side Yard Yard 15 -- 21 23 -- 7 -- 18 47 Property Line Setback 22 35 20 35 35 20 6" 5' 29 - - 17 - - 11 10 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 Area. 100 61 75 75 100+ 100+ 100+ 100 5O 75 90 84.2 Bo 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 at 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 footage to accommodate a canopy sign, or limit signs to two locations and calculate it within the overall signage requirements. 3 Ce De 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 (1) foot candle, measured from a centerline 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 (1) 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 Canopy Size: Limiting canopy size is a difficult issue to address for the following reasons: (i) 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 not 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 feet per street 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 · Only 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 canopies. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall .6 U R B A P L A NG DES N M A R K E R ES E A R C FILE COF ¥ TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Stuart Roberson/Alan Brixius 14 October 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 of 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 to past development trends to avoid making ex~ing sites become non-conforming or discouraging new site improve 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. 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. 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 10 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. In using a 10 foot rule of thumb standard for automobile service stations, precedent has been established for the lesser setback. The Unocal Station maintained a canopy setback of 18' 9 from the property line. To avoid establishing a number of non-conforming sites, we reco~Lend a standard canopy setback of 10 feet. 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 at 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 footage to acco~Lodate a canopy sign, Do So 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 visual 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. 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. Lighting: The current ordinance allows one (1) foot candle, measured from a centerline of a public right-of- way and four (4) foot candle 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 (1) 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. Canopy Size: Limiting canopy size is a difficult issue to address for the following reasons: (2) 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. 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 setback and site constraints. CONCLUSION Attached are draft ordinances for your review and discussion related to gasoline island canopies. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall 4 U R B P L N G · D N · M AR K E T R S E Inc. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Stuart Roberson/Alan Brixius 4 October 1993 New Hope - Zoning Ordinance Gas Pump Canopies and Motor Fuel Facilities Green Space 131.00 - 93.07 A request has been made by the City of New Hope for the review and amendment of the performance standards regarding to gas pump canopies and the green space requirements of motor fuel stations. Enclosed is an amendment to Sections 3.465 and 4.124 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. The following items were requested for review and/or amendment to the City Ordinance: 1. Setbacks 2. Signage 3. Height 4. Lighting 5. Green Space Setbacks: We find that the gas canopy setback requirement of twenty (20) feet, provided that there is adequate visibility both on and off site, is a reasonable standard. It allows for a flexible use of the land for automobile service stations or convenience stores that provide gas, within the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. A change to the current standard would create an unnecessary disparity between existing and future developments. Signage: The City's Building Inspector has experienced some difficulties with the twelve (12) inch lettering restriction placed on a canopy's facia. Apparently, property owners are finding that this is an insufficient area to present their name and logo. This problem can be solved by eliminating the twelve (12) inch height requirement, and allowing the owner to place their name and logo within the three (3) foot high facia along the canopy. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 o It is important to mention that this will not increase the square footage or the number of signs allowed. The ordinance allows for two signs on the front wall of any principal building. The total area of these signs may not be greater than 15 percent of the principal building's facade, and may not exceed 125 square feet. Motor fuel stations will continue to be limited to two locations. Property owners may exchange a canopy for a building or a pylon sign. This would provide an owner flexibility to identify their business, while still maintaining an aesthetically pleasing structure. 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. Lighting: The current ordinance allows one (1) foot candle, measured from a centerline of a public right-of-way and four (4) foot candle 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 (1) 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. Green Space: A green space percentage is regulated only in the I-1, Limited Industrial District. Ail other districts, including the B-3 and B-4, which contain motor fuel services, are not required to have a green space percentage. However, they are required to provide a five (5) foot green buffer around their property's periphery. Growth in motor fuel facilities in New Hope has nearly reached its capacity. Therefore, to place a green space percentage on the few remaining areas that allows for the construction of motor fuel facilities while excluding all other uses would create a disparity between motor fuel and non-motor fuel uses. Of the five items that were discussed, only three: signage, height and lighting warranted amendments to the City Ordinance. If you have any questions or comments regarding this material, feel free to call. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall 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 ~i 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 Z, ranging from 5 to 19%. The average canopy-to-building ratio- is 87 Z~ ranging ~rom 50 to 110 %. EvenJthe'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 lon~ 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 & 19, 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,~bdildih~and canopy, however, can be used to mdunt"si~hage 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. G,~ SALgS CAltOt~ (::1-1:7' of. N'e~ Rope !~ 879 ~ )' x ~9.! 7300 Bass Lake Road Murphy IIA ti' SCALE: 1" = i0< Lot Area = 13,600 sf CANOPY = 1,352 sf; 10% of lot 15% of front yard Signs OK Setback is 22 feet f~om p.l. CANOPY IS SAME SIZE AS BUILDING //90 V L 4 ~) 916.1.0~ 9400 49th Ave. No. Texaco ITH Lot Area = CANOPY = Signs OK 36,000 sf 2,400 sf; 7% of lot 21% of front yard Setback is 35 feet from p.1. CANOPY IS 61 % OF THE BJJILDING AREA 6 903,9 X 7231 42nd Ave. No. TOTAL CAS SALES CA~O~ ~O~VEY-OC~. '~3 City of ~ Hope SCJ%I.E: 1"= 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 ~ont p.1. 3601 Winnetka Ave. No. Unocal Lit Area = 36,000 sf CANOPIES (2) =948 sf x ~= 1,848 sf =5% of Lot 7% of front yard Ii!e~al signs were observed. Setbacks are 35 feet from front & side CANOP%ES EQUAL 75 % OF BUILDING SIZE ~ .~LLES CANOPY SURVEY-OCT. ~93 C:l.t:y o~. New Hope 965.0 x 965· 6 X Mobil 9400 36th Ave. No. I~ ~ If 966. SCALE: 1" ~t00 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 (residentia!'~ Illegal portable signs 2'x3' in front of building noted. All wall and canopy signs removed due to chan~; to Mobil CANOPY LARGER THAN BUILDING Setback is 35 feet from side p.1. FINA 3535 Winnetka Ave. No. I(F ~! Built 1992 Lot Area = 18, 750 sf CANOPY = 3,300 sf;' 17% of lot of side v~rd Note: ille~ai signs all 4 pump islands CANOPY LARGER THAN BUILDING Setback is 20 feet from front p.l. · ~, 907 34002 907 · 7850 27th Ave. Amoco I! 6 '¢ SALES CAJfO(~ ~VEY-OCT. '93 City o~ M,m~Hope SCALE: 1" = Lot Area = 15,000 sf 2 CANOPIES CANOPY = 1,400 sf Each 2,800 sf total Illegal wall and canopy signs observed i9% of lot 18% of front yard "47% of side vard CANOPIES, together, ARE LARGER THAN BUILD!¥G Setbacks are 6 INCHES & 5 feet from p7~l. x 942.0 9456 ~7th Ave. No. Sinclair 947.0 X 27TH Lot Area = 39,900 sf No Canopies Illegal signs observed. 000 H GAS S~ CANOPI~ SURVEY-OCT. '93 C~¢y of New Hope SCALE: 1" ~I0~ 4200 Winnetka Ave. Unocal Lot Area = 32,000 sf CANOPY APPROVED = 2,900 sf; 9% of Lot 29% of front yard Illegal signs & pennant observed Setback approved is 17 feet from front p.1. CANOPY IS EQUAL TO BUILDING SIZE 7820 42nd Ave. No. Phillips 66 Lot Area ~ 23,000 sf C~NOPY = 1,620 sf; 7% of Lot 11% of side yard Illegal signs observed. Setback is I0 feet from side p.1. CANOPY IS 50% OF BUILDING SIZE GAS SALES ~ SU~RVL~.-OC~. Cit:y ef New Hope Lot Area = 24,000 sf NO CANOPY Illegal Signs observed. SCALE: 1" = lQ 7900 Bass Lake Road Amoco ~ tt 7901 Bass Lake Road Sinclair ,,~'~ Lot Area ~ 43,000 sf NO CANOPY Illegal signs observed CAS SALE~ CANOPY S~ItVEY-OCT. '93 C~.ty of. #w Rope SCALE: 1" ~ 10£ ~UE 875. ~ 6113 West Broadway Woody's ~,~! Lot Area = 22,500 sf C~OPY = 800 sf; 4% 'of lot 1I% of front yard 6144 West Broadway Abandoned "~- (Discussions underway about demolition and converting use to Residential) Illegal sign observed. Setback is 15 feet from p.1. CANOPY IS 75% OF BUILDING SIZE. SALES CANOPY SURYEY-O~. '93 C:l.t=y of N4w Hope 7117 Bass Lake Road Total SCALE: 1" = 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 ,AMOI 116" :.:, 126' .-. 136' FINA Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: o CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 93 -28 Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow New Gas Pump Island Canopy 4200 Winnetka Avenue North 17-118-21-22-0013 B-4 Community Business DLE, Inc./Uno-Ven Company September 3, 1993 September 7, 1993 BACKGROUND This is a request for site/building plan review/approval to allow the installation of a new gas pump island canopy at the Unocal Station, pursuant to Section 4.039A of the New Hope City Code. The petitioner is proposing to remove the existing fueling islands, replace them with three (3) new islands and multi-product dispensers, a new fueling canopy over the new islands, and new green area with curbing. The petitioner states in their application that these improvements will allow them to remain competitive while improving the general appearance of the comer with their new image. The proposed canopy would be approximately 120 feet in length and 28 feet in width, or cover an area of approximately 3,000 square feet and have a total height of 17 feet (including a 3- foot ridge/cap around the top). The existing site contains a one-story brick structure that is located diagonally in the center of the lot and the canopy would be located on the southwest comer of the site. The .9 acre parcel is located in a B4 Community Business Zoning District at the northeast intersection of Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue and is surrounded by B-4 uses: District //281 Administration Office across 42nd Avenue to the south, McDonalds located across Winnetka Avenue to the west, Hardees restaurant located to the north and Port Arthur Cafe located to the east. This site was zoned 'Residential in 1956, Commercial in 1960, Retail Business in 1971, General Business in 1966, and in 1991 the majority of the property along 42nd Avenue between Winnetka and Louisiana was rezoned to B4 Community Business District. The topography of the property is flat and there is minimal greenery on the site. Property owners within 350 feet of the property line have not been notified, as City Code does not require a public hearing for site/building plan review/approval. ANALYSIS Staff finds that the large angled canopy installation is routine as long as a 14' ground clearance is provided. Detailed canopy elevation and illumination contour drawings have been submitted as requested. Besides the canopy, the site plan includes a number of other significant improvements including a new green perimeter with landscaping around the entire parcel and perimeter curbing. Planning Case Report 93-28 September 7, 1993 Page -2- 3. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on 8/19 and the following issues were discussed with Design & Review requesting that revised plans be submitted: -landscaping schedule is needed. -perimeter curbing is shown on the inside perimeter, but not on the outside perimeter. The petitioner agreed to install the additional curbing and show it on revised plans. -the parking layout needs to be shown on revised plans. -canopy would be of steel construction and painted to match existing building. -canopy to be of blue/white/orange colors with the top 3/4 of the canopy to be blue and lower 1/4 white. -all lights will be downlighting. · -communication will be via an intercom system built into the fuel dispenser, with the base station controlled by the cashier. -trash enclosure needs to be shown on plan. -snow storage needs to be shown on plan. -the petitioner is not proposing to sprinkle the landscaping and there was discussion regarding possibly widening the green strip. Note that both driveway areas beyond the green perimeter on the north and east are used by adjacent businesses, although they are part of the legal description of this property. Hardees, to the north, and Port Arthur, to the east, use the easements along the east 25 feet of this lot. The easement on the north is used primarily by Port Arthur customers. Hardees has attempted to purchase this north portion of land in the past so that they could add another row of parking, but Uno-Ven has declined. Uno-Ven has chosen not to eliminate this drive and has therefore created the green strip 25 feet from the north lot line. If the existing building is replaced/redeveloped in the future, the property on the north side may be needed for the redevelopment. Revised plans were submitted by the petitioner and include the following changes: -a canopy lighting photometrics graphic has been added to the plan. -a detail of the canopy light fixtures has been provided. -hours of operation have been added to the site plan and will be: Monday - Saturday 6 a.m. to midnight · Sunday 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. -the ~evised plans have been changed to a conventional engineering scale, 1" = 20', as requested by staff. · -the 25' easement on the east has been labeled "easement for driveway access". -the 25' driveway access on the north has been labeled "driveway access (no easement)". -the parking layout on the property has been added to the plan, as requested, with 18 parking stalls identified on the site, the majority of them being 45-degree angle parking on the east side of the property -the green perimeter landscaping strip has been widened to eight (8) feet on the north and east sides and the perimeter curbing has been added to both the interior and exterior portion of the property, as requested. -the route of the delivery transport is shown on the revised plan. -the snow storage area has been added to the plan, as requested, on the north side of the property (2500 square feet). -the existing trash enclosure behind the building has been added to the plan. Planning Case Report 93-28 September 7, 1993 Page -3- -the exact setback of the canopy is shown on the revised plans: 21 feet 3 inches (at the closest point) from the west property line and 16 feet 9 inches (at the closest point) from the south property line. /~- ~l~ae.~evis~ed..Pla~e~~U~.i_g_n&Review Co ittee and staff. ,q The City Cod~ oresently only establishes conditions for gas pump canOpies for convenience v. '.-- -'... h__ ...,.:_~. .....:-~ ~ conditional use hermit Staff recommends that (separate stores wire gasoline, wttt~tx t~qu~ a . . . t- . ..' from this case) an ordinance change be tmUated that estatmsnes gumetmes mr rumre requests · which ad__dress setbacks, signa~~f_~ard covered by_ such as this, __ ~ .__~_~ _ ~_~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ -.- . ~-~~'"~< no-'"~v si~ma~e is ro osed to be four (4) 36-inch round signs and technically the C~ty 7. The canopy s~gnag p P Code only allows signs 12-inches in height and 6-feet in length (6 square feet). Due to the limited mount of signage requested, staff is recommending approval with the understanding that no other building canopy or ground signage is allowed without a sign variance, except for required safety signage in the canopy/pump area. (A total of 250 square feet of front wall signage is allowed by City Code for single occupancy businesses and canopy signage is included in that calculation.) 8. In review of the revised plans, staff requests that the following revisions/additions be made: A. The 45-degree angle parking stalls should be revised to 90-degree stalls throughout the site, as shown on Attachment A. B. The parking at the southeast driveway entrance on 42nd Avenue should be revised to move parking away from 42nd Avenue by 20 feet (also shown on Attachment A). This not only will address parking/safety concerns, but also creates a more appropriate size and shaped green area. C. A detailed landscape schedule needs to be submitted showing name, size, location, and number of existing and new plantings. D. A revised illumination contour drawing for the canopy needs to be submitted for the 27 400-watt super halide lights, as the additive foot candles are not shown on the submitted photometric detail. ' RECOMN~NDATION. Staff recommends approval of site/building plan review for the addition of a canopy over gas pumps and related site improv.emcnts, subject to the following conditions: 1. Parking be revised, per 8A and 8B of staff report. 2. Landscape schedule to be submitted. 3. Revised illumination contour be submitted. Attachments: Zoning/Section/Topo Maps Petitioner Letter Revised Plans Building Official Exhibit Original-Site Plan -Canopy Elevations -Canopy Layout Plan -Canopy Lighting Plan Certified Survey DESIGN-REVIEW STAFF REPORT PETITIONER: ~-~/~ PLAN CASE: VALUATION: $ OWNER: PERSON: DEPT: PUBLIC WORKS; POLICE; ~ FIRE; ~ RECOMMENDATIONS: PARKS /REC.; '~' LANDSCAPING; ~ ~ PLAK~ING/ZONING/BUILDING; The single major community enhancement that is included in this request is the new GRKEN PER~. This could be wonderful, if curbing is installed on both sides to protect sod & }lintings,-vith- undrground sprinklers tnstalte~l'These narrow scrips of green are extremely difficult to maintain without water. The private improvement, a large angled canopy is routine as long as deta±led elevation plans are submitted and 14' ground clearance is provided. NOTE: an illumination contour drawing should be submitted to verify reasonable light levels throughout. A trash dumpsCer enclosure must be provided and shown on plans. Snow storage and parking spaces, must be shown, exclusive of gas tanker maneuvering room around the east and north sides of the station. Detailed landscape schedule with specifics is needed. All signage including canopy must be addressed. Both driveways beyond the proposed green perimeter are used by other businesses and create some problems, although they are on this same piece of land. Hardees, to the north, and Port Arthur, to the east, use the easement along the east 25' of this lot. However, the north driveway is confusing, used by Port Arthur customers, people who b~rpass the signal at 42nd & Winnetka, and few others without an7 easement that staff can find. Hardees has attempted to purchase this strip so they can add a row of parking, but Uno-ven has declined. Unoven chose not to eliminate this drive and haa~c~zea~th~g_g~ee~..~ri_~.p_~2~th_.e-~or_~b~lot line. '~ -~ ' nit ~'--'~'~' ~'--~ty staff recommend that we i late an ordinance change establishing a few conditions for these gas pump canopies, that , exist, today, only for a convenience store with gasoline CUP. We should establish a few guidelines for-future requests, such as; * Detached canopies must not exceed 25% of the yard area. * Canopies may' be installed in a front or side yard adjacent to a street. * Canopy signage must not exceed 12" in height and 6' feet in length on each face (6 square feet). * Canopies'must be set'back 20 feet from the property lines. * Canopy illumination must be graphically illustrated so as to prevent excess light levels. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM January 26, 1994 Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Miscellaneous Issues January 10th Council Meeting - At the January 10th Council meeting the City Council took the following action on the referenced Planning Cases: 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. The City Council supported the Planning Commission's recommendation and indicated that they did not favor the rezoning request. Per the minutes enclosed in this packet, the Council approved two motions: Directed the City Attorney to prepare "Findings of Fact" and present those findings to the Council for consideration at the February 14th Council meeting. Requested staff to review and comment on zoning classifications and the rezoning issues and research alternate options for this situation. Staff will be meeting with the Planning Consultant and City Attorney on this issue within the next several weeks. Planning Case 94-01, 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. The Council approved this request subject to the conditions recommended by the Commission. The Council agreed that the City would pay for one-third of the sidewalk cost. The Development Agreement and Restrictive Covenant for deferred parking are in the process of being prepared. Planning Case 94-02, Request for Zoning Text Amendment to Amend Off-Street Parking Requirements for Industrial Office Space, 4700 Quebec Avenue North, Jesco Industrial Supplies, Petitioner. The Council agreed with the Commission's recommendation on this code amendment and approved the ordinance change. J.R. Jones Plat - J.R. Jones has submitted a preliminary plat, which has been distributed to Department Heads, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and utility companies for review and comment. Due to the submittal in the middle of the month, this matter will again be tabled and will not be considered until the March 1 st Planning Commission meeting. 4th Quarter Reports - The fourth quarter, 1993, Planning and Development, Engineering, and Housing reports are enclosed for your information. Wall Sign Study - The Codes and Standards Committee met on January 20th to continue discussion on the Ponderosa wall sign issue and had a brain storming session on possible options for code amendments. The Planning Consultant will research the options discussed and bring back more specific alternatives for the Committee to consider at the next scheduled meeting on February 8th. The Planner did conduct a short survey (enclosed) of other cities where Ponderosa is located to determine if the existing codes allowed such signage or if variances were granted. In some situations, it appears that Ponderosa proceeded without any City approval. Tires Plus Truck Signage - As a follow-up to the Commissions complaints about the Tires Plus truck signage, the Building Official sent the attached letter to the owners of Winnetka Commons Shopping Center demanding removal of the illegal signage or an application for a conditional use permit for exterior storage. Staff will update you regarding any progress made on this situation. News Article - Radio Tower - In case you missed the article in last weeks paper about the ham radio tower in Mendota Heights, it is attached for your information. Attachments: Quarterly Reports Ponderosa Survey Tire Plus Correspondence Radio Tower Article PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Fourth Quarter Report The Planning Commission reviewed the following cases during the fourth quarter:' No. of Cases Notices Sent October 2 34 November 3 112 December 3* 1 *2 cases carried over from November Month October TOTAL CASES 1993 1992 39 35 Type of Request Variance - Setback Variance - Sign Area TOTAL NOTICES 1993 1992 961 974 Number Approved Denied 1 1 i I Withdrawn Tabled November Variance - Setback Rezone Property 1 1 2 2 December Rezoning 2 1 1 Code Text Amendment 1 I _ _ _ TOTALS 8 3 2 3 YEAR TO DATE TOTALS APPROVED DENIED WITHDRAWN TABLED CUP Home Occup. CUP Open Acc. Stor. Rezone Property Comp. Sign Plan Text Amend.-Apart. Conv. CUP-Outdoor Dining CUP-Oil Ch. Facil. Var.-Lot Front Site. /Bldg. Rev. Var.-Green Area Text Amend. I-1 Green Area Reduc. Preliminary Plat Final Plat (2 Waived) Var. -Setback CUP-Radio Tower CUP-PUD Variance - Sign Area Code Text Amendment 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 7 1 2 1 3 1 1 TOTALS 33 4 1 3 PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT ISSUES a 10 foot variance to the 35 foot rear yard"~i~'¢k 'f~i~iiremem to allow the c0nstmction of ~ three-season porch at 7608 48th Circle at their October 5th meeting, subject to the condition that revised plans be submitted showing the proposed addition to be compatible with the existing dwelling and gabled roof with asphalt shingles to be added rather than shed-type fiberglass roof. The applicants submitted revised plans and the City Council approved the request at their October 1 lth meeting. ~i::~ii~i::~! ~~l - At the October 5th Planning Commission meeting, Ponderosa Steak House, 7112 Bass Lake Road, requested a variance to the sign area requirement to allow an existing 484 square foot sign to remain in place. The sign had been installed without securing the proper permits. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the request, which was forwarded to and considered by the City Council on October 1 lth. The City Council tabled the request for a six-month period and directed that the Planning Commission study the City Sign Code for possible code amendments dealing with the issue of murals and pictorial representations. ~~iii~!i!i~~~iiii~ii~~~ - At the October l lth City Council meeting the Council approved a resolution approving a 1993 amendment to Redevelopment Plan 85-1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 85-1 and making findings with respect thereto. The amendment would allow the City to expand, the redevelopment plan so that the City could utilize surplus tax increment funds from the Anthony James Project to provide City assistance to a proposed improvement project at the Broadway Village Apartments, which would include a new community center and improved lighting plans throughout the apartment complex. ............................................................ :.. ................ ..: ......................................... ~ ........................................... ~ - The Planning Commission approved a seven foot variance to the 35 foot setback requirement to allow the addition of a porch at 8309 Northwood Parkway at their November 2nd meeting. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation and approved the request at their November 8th meeting. ........................................... ~:.: ................ ...:~::~::: .............. ....:.::~ ............ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .................................. ~~ - At their November 2nd meeting the Planning Commission considered a request by Dr. Paul Wrobel, 7901 28th Avenue North, to rezone the property from an R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District, to an R-O, Residential-Office Zoning District, to allow total prgfessional office occupancy of the building. The property is currently zoned R-1 and a special use permit was granted by the City in 1963 to allow a portion of the home to be used as a dental office. After a lengthy discussion the Commission tabled the request for one month and indicated to the petitioner that they were not favorable to the request. This matter was again discussed at the December 7th Planning Commission meeting where the planning consultant presented a detailed report. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of the rezoning request to the City Council and subsequent to the December 13th Council meeting the petitioner requested that the matter be tabled for one month. The Council will consider this again at the January 10th Council meeting. e November 2nd Plmaning Commission meeting the Commission considered a request to rezone a neighborhood center site at 62nd and Winnetlm from a B-l, Limited Neighborhood Business District, to a B-2, Retail Business District, to allow, a greater variety of commercial uses at the site. The petitioner was specifically requesting that a graphics business be permitted to locate at the site and that a laundromat/dry cleaning facility (with processing) be allowed to locate at the site. The Commission did not favor rezoning the of the site from B-1 to B-2, but indicated that they would be interested in exploring the possibility of a code amendment to allow an expansion in the variety of uses allowed in the B-1 zone. The Commission split the case into two parts with Part A representing the graphics business and Part B representing the dry cleaning request. The Commission determined that the graphics business could be considered as a professional office use as a conditional use in the B-1 zone and recommended approval of that request. The Commission determined to table Part B of the request, pending further exploration of a code amendment to expand those uses. Part B of the request was tabled until the December Planning Commission meeting. The City Council considered the graphics business request at the November 8th City Council meeting and approved the conditional use permit to allow said business. ~{iii~iii~iii~iii~~~ - At the November 22nd Council meeting, the City Council considered a request by Gethsemane Cemetery representatives to delete the requirement for a looped waterline and two hydrants or a sprinkling system in the office and mausoleum buildings being constructed on the site. The petitioners did not see the need for a sprinkling of the building or the looped watermain and indicated that, in their opinion, the City's building and Fn'e codes did not require either item. The Planning Commission and City Council had previously considered these items as a condition of approval of the PUD on September 13th. The City Manager recommended waiving the requirement for the sprinkling or the looped watermain and noted that future subsequent phases of the development may require reconsideration of the fire protection plan, to which the Council agreed. ~~ii~{!i~i~~i~~- On December 7th the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a request to an amendment to the City's Home Occupation Ordinance. The Codes and Standards Committee had studied this issue and was recommending four changes: 2. 3. 4. No outside storage allowed; Clarification of sales on premises restrictions; Additional requirement that all parking be in driveway; and Additional employees to be allowed on the premises. The Commission was generally favorable to three of the recommendations, but was split on the recommendation to allow more employees on the premises. The Commission voted to approve the three recommendations and denied the recommendation to allow additional employees on the site. These recommendations were made after a lengthy review of the Home Occupation Ordinance by the Codes and Standards Committee in an attempt to address changing work trends. This matter was forwarded to the City Council and considered at the December 13th Council meeting. The City Council had numerous questions about the recommended changes and voted to table the request for three months or until a future work session. 10.' 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. ~!iii!~i!i~i~i~illi~ - During, the end of the fourth quarter the Codes and Standards Committee of the Planning Commission continued their study on the expansion of uses allowed in the B-1 Zoning District. A public hearing will be held on this issue at the February Planning Commission meeting and depending on the outcome of that hearing, the matter will proceed to the Council in March. ~::!~::::~iii~iii~!ii~ - During the fourth quarter the Codes and Standards Committee of the Planning Commission continued their study on the establishment of a code amendment that would regulate free-standing gas canopies, as there is no ordinance that currently regulates canopies that are not constructed as part of a convenience store. A public hearing will be held on this issue at the beginning of 1994 and the matter will proceed to the Council. ~i:i:~!i~i ' Per direction from the City Council, during the fourth quarter the Codes and Standards Committee of the Planning Commission initiated a study of the City's existing wall sign ordinance in connection with Ponderosa's variance request for a large pictorial sign on the front of the restaurant. The Committee will wrap up their study on this issue during the first quarter of 1994 and present a recommendation to the City Council. ~~~!i~~:-During the fourth quarter staff continued to meet with the owners of Broadway Village Apartments regarding the City's participation in the construction of a community center and the installation of new lighting throughout the complex. The final agreement is expected to be completed at the beginning of 1994 and will be presented to the City Council at that time. '...' ........................................ ~.:i: '" ............. ~:: ' ........... ~~~ the November 8th EDA meeting a ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ................................. ~:::::...:.::i~ - At presentation was made by Community Resource Partnerships, Incorporated regarding a summary report on the New Hope community business survey. The firm reviewed the summary report of data generated from 74 companies in New Hope. The purpose of the survey is to encourage business retention and expansion. During the fourth quarter the staff continued to actively participate in the business retention program and these surveys will continue in 1994. ~ii~ - During the fourth quarter development agreements were prepared for Paddock Laboratories, Lakeside LTD, Video, and the Gethsemane Cemetery expansion projects. participate on the TwinWest Economic Development Council, the TwinWest Business Development Committee, and the TwinWest Bank Consortium Committee. ~.ii~.!i~ - During the fourth quarter the City staff reviewed preliminary plans for the installation of an athletic field at Cooper High School and responded to the school district with a letter outlining the concerns about such a project and the appropriate zoning process. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator ENGINEERING PROJECTS Fourth Quarter Report Progress took place on the following major engineering projects during October/November/December, 1993: ~j~l~i~:#~!i?.3~i!ii~!!i!R~i~!~(R~0a~g- At the December 13th City Council meeting the Council approved the resolution accepting an easement for construction and maintenance of public improvement for the Soo Line Railroad bridge reconstruction on 36th Avenue North. The existing bridge adequately serves the present railroad needs, however, it needs to be replaced due to the widening of the road beneath the bridge. During the fourth quarter staff pursued acquisition of the bridge and will be presenting plans and specifications to the Council for the project the first part of 1994. quarter staff continued to work with Northern Environmental on the groundwater monitoring project at 42nd and Nevada Avenues and continues to coordinate with the MPCA on the Petro Fund Reimbursement Application. ~j~g!ilg~iii~i~~ili~~ii~fl- On December 2nd, 1993, City staff conducted an informational meeting for all residents who had retaining walls on their properties. Approximately 20 property owners were in attendance, along with the City Manager, City Engineer, and other staff. The agenda for the meeting provided a brief introduction on the history of retaining walls in the City and the quantity and number of walls, whose responsibility it was to repair the walls (City, county, or property owner or some combination thereof), the existing condition of the walls and possible scenarios for reconstruction, and new construction issues such as type of wall to be constructed, the need for temporary and permanent easements, tree removal, sod restoration, sidewalk restoration, and the final issue discussed was the cost to reconstruct retaining walls and possibly assessing the costs for the project or a portion thereof. Most residents in attendance at the meeting were in favor of the City proceeding with some type of project to replace retaining walls. Staff is in the process of making specific recommendations for each wall located in the City; whether it should be removed, replaced or reconstructed, and will be presenting information on this proposed project to the City Council during the first quarter of 1994. The Council will then determine whether it wants to proceed with the City-wide retaining wall reconstruction project in 1994 or not. ~iii~iiiiii~~iiii~!ill - At the December 13th City Council meeting the Council passed a motion approving the final pay request to Veit and Company, Inc. for demolition of the Electronic Industries Building at 7516 42nd Avenue North in the amount of $3,325.18. All work on this project has been completed. ~i~ii~!i~i~:i~)~iiiii~:.~i~!~~:~i~~i!i~:.~!~- At the October 1 l th City Council meeting the Council approved the final pay request to Suntan Landscaping for the 1992 baclcyard drainage improvement projects in the amount of $4,466.27. All work has been completed. 10. 11. 12. - On October l lth the City Council conducted the assessment hearing for the 1992 street resurfacing and sewer project. After all public comments had been received, the Council passed a motion to close the public hearing and directed staff to prepare findings of objections for consideration at the October 25th meeting. At the October 25th meeting the'staff recommended that the assessment rate per front foot for all properties be $21.90 and that the interest rate be seven percent. This uniform assessment rate addressed most of the concerns previously aired by residents. The Council passed a resolution adopting the assessment roll for this project. ~!~.i~iiii~R~ii~[i!~~O~i~ - The Phase 1 City Hall remodeling project is near completion and staff hopes to final the project out the first part of 1994. Punch list items remaining to be completed are minor in nature. of Bass Lake Road was completed during the fourth quarter of 1993. ~°j~::~9~ S~m~t~i~agemnt:.~- The Stormwater Management Plan Task Force continued to meet during the fourth quarter and conducted a meeting in October. The committee finalized the stormwater goals and policies for the City, identified/reviewed problem areas and discussed solutions, and assembled/distributed the first educational newsletter which was distributed to New Hope residents in November. The first draft of the Stormwater Management Plan will be available to committee members for review in January and the task force hopes to complete its work during the first half of 1994, with the final presentation to the City Council. essentially completed during the fourth quarter and final payment will be recommended in January, 1994. ~°l~ii~iiii~i i~iii~~iiii~ii~!~- At the December 13th City Council meeting the Council considered a resolution approving plans and specifications for the 42nd Avenue North railroad bridge repainting and ordering advertisement bids for the project. The purpose of repainting the bridge is to make it more compatible with the surrounding area and the project would be funded with 42nd Avenue tax increment funds. Estimated cost to repaint the bridge is $82,000 and the work would take three to six weeks to complete. The Council tabled this request due to the fact that neither Hennepin County nor the Soo Line Railroad will participate in funding the project, and directed staff to contact these jurisdictions to further inquire about their financial participation. ~j~ii~iii!ii~i!!!~~!ii!~~i~Oj~- At the October 25th Council meeting the Council passed a resolution approving change order #1 for the 1993 storm sewer and drainage improvement projects. The change order allowed the expansion of the project onto the property owned by the Northwest Church of Christ at 8624 50th Avenue North. Additional catch basins were added on to this property, with the church agreeing to pay the extra cost in the amount of $4,988.50. 13. Park and Recreation Department, in conjunction with the City Engineer, continued an evaluation of all City tennis courts and basketball courts to determine which facilities have major problems and may require reconstruction. These recommendations will be presented to the City Council during the first quarter of 1994. 14. W~I~ Com~ati0~ii::A~ - At the November 22nd City Council meeting the Council held a discussion on designating the City's two water management organizations to administer the Wetland Conservation Act. The 1991 Wetland Conservation Act requires that the City, designate a local government unit (LGU) to oversee the administration of the conservation act. Due to the technical proficiency that is required to administer the act, the City had two options: 1) It could designate the existing watershed management organizations to act in this capacity or 2) The City could designate itself as that body and use the two watershed management organizations and their engineering staffs to provide technical expertise and to assist the City and developers in meeting the requirements. Due to the fact that New Hope has relatively few wetlands and not much. undeveloped area, the Council was generally in favor of designating the City as the LGU to administer the Wetland Conservation Act and directed staff to prepare a resolution stating such for consideration at a December Council meeting. A resolution designating the City the local governmental unit for wetland alterations, as required by the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, was approved by the Council at the December 13th Council meeting. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Fourth Quarter Report The New Hope HRA continues to be busy with the management of housing programs and redevelopment activities in the City. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program Currently, the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program is providing assistance to 255 New Hope low income families. This is up from the 252 families ~that were being served in September. During this same time period in 1992, New Hope was providing assistance to 288 families, so overall the program is serving a lesser number of families in 1993 as in 1992. The difference is due to the new portability policy adopted by Metro HRA which allows families with vouchers/certificates to move from one jurisdiction to another. The breakdown is as follows: Certificates Vouchers Total October ! 91 60 251 November 192 61 253 December 191 64 255 The number of housing inspections has increased slightly compared to the same time period in 1992. During the fourth of quarter of 1993 a total of 167 inspections were completed, as compared to 109 for the same time period in 1992. A breakdown of housing unit inspections is contained in the following table: Year Initial Reinspect Total to Date Section 8 99 68 167 502 Metro HRA has continued conducting quarterly meetings with the local housing representatives to listen to complaints, work out procedures/problems, and to determine how clients can be served more efficiently. New Hope's representative actively participates in these meetings. Also, during the fourth quarter City staff met with Metro HRA representatives to begin discussing contract issues, including areas where the City could assume more responsibility to increase the amount of reimbursement received. Community Develooment Block Grant Program A. H~iii!i~~ - $30,000 in 1993/94 CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation became available on July 1st. All 1992/93 funds have been expended or committed. Hennepin County manages the program for the City and maintains a waiting list. The funds assist low income persons in making basic repairs to homes that they own. Three grants were approved earlier this year by the City Council. There are currently 6 rehabilitation projects in process and two on the waiting list. B. C~iiii~~i~ii!ii~iiii~i~ili:~i~i~:i::::~oj~ - During the third quarter staff submitted a warrant reimbursement request to Hennepin County for the City Hall/Removal of Architectural barriers Project and received reimbursement in the amount of $160,427.00 for Year XVII (1991) and Year XVIII (1992) CDBG monies. An additional reimbursement was received during the fourth quarter, as all labor standards issues were satisfied. ~~!ii~~~ ' At the November 8th meeting the City Council passed a resolution approving the Third Party Agreement for the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association (GMDCA) between Hennepin County, the City and GMDCA. The Council had previously approved this allocation at the annual CDBG public hearing. ~~!!iaggiii~~iii~~ ' During the fourth quarter the City continued to pursue several future projects which will be funded in part by previous years CDBG monies for scattered site housing programs. The City is in the process of purchasing the home at 5009 Winnetka, which will be demolished and a new handicapped accessible duplex constructed. The City also purchased the vacant HUD home at 7109 62nd Avenue North, which will either be rehabilitated or demolished and replaced with a new home. The objective of the program is to provide home ownership opportunities for New Hope low/moderate income residents who may or may not have specialized housing needs. Both of these projects will also be financially supplemented with other grant funds, besides CDBG, that have been awarded to the City. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Grants A. B~i!!~~iii!i~f~ii~~:.~o~ - In 1992 the city was awarded a $60,000 grant for the 62nd Avenue/West Broadway neighborhood to finance the acquisition of a blighted property and to provide gap financing for either rehabilitation or demolition/new construction to provide affordable housing for low/moderate income New Hope residents. During the third quarter staff identified an eligible property at 7109 62nd Avenue North and the City Council authorized the purchase of the property at the September 27th Council meeting. The City acquired the site and closed on the property in November. During the first quarter of 1994 specifications for rehabilitation of the property will be completed and bids sought for the work. This project will be financed with MHFA and CDBG grant funds. B. ~~i~~ii!~!i:~i~a~ - On August 30th, staff was notified that the MHFA had awarded the City funding in the amount of $45,000 for a Land Trust Grant Application which had been submitted this summer. The MHFA drafted a loan commitment document which was approved by the City Council at the November 22nd EDA meeting. These funds, in conjunction with HOME and CDBG grant funds, will be utilized to acquire the property at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North. Acquisition of the property was approved by the EDA on November 8th and the closing will take place in February. Multi-Family Housing Financial Assistance Policies At the July 26th EDA meeting a consultant agreement was approved with Public-Private Ventures, Inc. to assist staff in formulating policies to address requests for funding assistance for building rehabilitation/renovation work from owners of multi-family buildings in the City. Staff worked with the consultant throughout the third quarter and the policies were presented to and approved by the EDA on September 13th. In conjunction with the development of theses policies, staff and the consultant also met with the owners/managers of two complexes seeking assistance during the third and fourth quarters: New Hope Apartments and Park Square Apartments. Staff will be presenting a loan proposal to the EDA for the New Hope Apartments in February, 1994. Broadway Lanel Multi-Family Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds On August 9th the New Hope City Council and EDA approved a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of Multi-Family Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds for Broadway Lanel, who are the owners of the Anthony James Apartments at 61st and West Broadway. The project was built as a tax increment project and housing bonds were utilized. The purpose of the refunding was to refinance the bonds to allow the developers to obtain a lower interest rate. During the fourth quarter staff continued to meet with the developers on a loan/grant agreement to assist with a senior community center project and final plans and documents will be presented to the EDA for consideration in February, 1994. CO-OP Northwest A. ielO~:.iiiii~ - During the 3rd quarter staff was notified that Hennepin County has approved a $274,100 5-City grant application for Federal HOME funds. New Hope will utilize its portion of the funds, in conjunction with other grant monies, to acquire the property at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North and demolish the sub-standard home and construct a new duplex that will accommodate special housing needs. The goal is to provide home- ownership opportunities for low/moderate income new Hope residents with specialized housing needs on a scattered site basis throughout the City. Staff continued to coordinate the grant during the fourth quarter. ~S?:a~~i?:~~:~Fmati~n - During the fourth quarter staff continued to assist with formation of the CHODO Board of Directors by encouraging a variety of sectors of the community to apply for positions. At the July 26th New Hope EDA meeting, City Manager Dan Donahue was appointed as the City's representative to the Board. The Board will oversee the expenditure of the HOME Grant funds. An additional $10,000 was also received to assist with the staffing/administration of the CHODO and staff is assisting in delineating City/consultant responsibilities. The first 5-City CHODO Board meeting was held in December. - Staff continues to participate in the 5-City Multi-Jurisdictional Housing/Human Services Group, which is seeking programs to integrate human services with multi-family housing complexes. Seven action groups have been formed and staff serves as Co-chair for the Housing and Family Services Action Group, which is in the .process of formulating a 1993/94 work plan. Besides serving on this Action Group and reporting to/attending Executive Committee meetings, staff also continues to serve on the Planners' Sub-Group, which meets on an informal basis to coordinate housing programs and new initiatives. Bo Co RemodelinR Fair During the fourth quarter New Hope staff cooperated in a joint effort with the cities of Crystal, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale to sponsor the second annual Remodeling Fair, which will bc held at the Crystal Community Center on March 19th. The purpose of the fair is to encourage homeowners in the five cities to remodel/upgrade existing homes, with over 50 local contractors in attendance with booths. The local banks will participate by providing financial information for home improvements and each City will provide information on zoning codes and building code requirements. The 5-City police and fire departments will also be represented. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator uNOrth, wes. t..,..A, ssoci;ast,e d C3nsult, ants, Inc. 1 .o.o .. ? TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE: Kirk McDonald Elizabeth Stockman / Alan Brixius 1! January 1994 New Hope Ponderosa Sign Variance 131.01- 93.30 As requested, we have contacted other cities in the metro area which have Ponderosa restaurants in their communities and have come up with some interesting data. In all cases, an individual within the Planning/Zoning Departments were spoken to. Bloomington (881-5811). Metromedia Steakhouses spoke with the planning staff in Bloomington about constructing a painted wall mural. The applicants were told that the request would require a variance because of it's deviation from the Sign Ordinance and given the degree of non-conformity, it was doubtful a variance would be approved. Metromedia Steakhouses have never formally applied for a variance nor have they constructed a sign without prior approval. Brooklyn Park (424-8000). and gone out of business. The Ponderosa here has recently closed its doors Columbia Heights (782-2800). Metromedia Steakhouses has recently applied for a variance to the City Sign Ordinance in order to construct a painted wall mural, but were denied. The desired sign was never constructed, but the existing signage on the site is already non-conforming. For wall signs, Ponderosa is allowed 2 square feet of sign area per lineal foot of building frontage (without looking at the file, the person thought the Ponderosa limit was at about 100 square feet). The applicants are now working to change both the wall sign and the freestanding sign to incorporate the desired graphic, but at a reduced scale in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. To date, no plans have been submitted for review by the City. Spring Lake Park (784-6491). A painted wall mural, presumably like the one in New Hope, was constructed here without prior approval. Metromedia Steakhouses have never requested a building permit or variance from the Sign Code. City Staff were somewhat nonchalant about the issue and are not sure if the sign is in violation of their Sign Ordinance, although given the requirement of 30 percent of the front building facade, it is suspected that the sign is non-conforming. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: 612-531-5100 TDD Line: 612-531-5109 CityHallFax: #612-531-51j Police Fax: #612,'''-~-51 ? Public Works Fax: #612-~3-765 January 18, 1994 Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership c/o Jackson Scott 5500 Wayzata Blvd. .. Mpls., MN 55416 RE: Ordinance Violations-Ongoing- 3520-3560 Winnetka Avenue North Dear Property Owner, This letter will serve as a FINAL WA~NING of code violatioms at the Winnetka Commons Shopping Center. Please take the necessary steps to bring your use, and your tenant's, into'compliance with city code in order to avoid legal action. The three attached photos illustrate the zoning and sign code violations, that are resulting in complaints: * Remove all banners, pennants streamers, etc. (Tenant Tires Plus has repeatedly violated city code and lost their right to erect "temporary special event signs" for one year. Still, 3 banners are visible on the west side wall on January 13th, 1994. Remove immediately and enforce your own property owner commitments that tenants would comply with this code. Inform us of your lease language and sanctions for noncompliance. City code section is 3.441. * Remove all exterior truck storage from the premises within 2 days. Daytime parking of vehicles in use is appropriate and approved by the city. Overnight and / or all-day storage of trucks is illegal based upon city code section 4.134 (1) [CUP required for outdoor storage] On January 13, 1994 both tenants "Maytag" and "Tires Plus" were in violation of this code. Please call me, if you have any questions, at 531-5122. DO3~las S ~-nd S-t aE~ Bui~iding Official / Zoning Administrator cc: McDonald complainants file Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living Woman wins! new hearing on plans radio tower By Maureen M. Smith StaffWritcr Some people fight City hall for oi~ i- ous reasons, like raising property es. Sylvia Pentel has battled city officials for three years for refusing to allow her to erect an antenna tower atA~r Mendo~a Heights home. The h~ radio operator wants the 68-foot tow- er to help form a network to pro,de emergency communications du~ng disasters. ~ .~. On Tuesday, the Minnesota Courts. of Appeals ruled that city officials failed to provide reasons for denying '~her request. Federal law reqt/ires "strik- ing a balance" between local govL~- ment interests and amateur radio bp- erations, according to the decision:~y a three-j udge panel. "Our decision does not mean thaf~e city necessarily, must grant Pent~el's application ... but that the city.mtjst make a reasonable accommodati~," the ruling said. "We exhort the par- ties to work together to arrive a~ a satisfactory solution to this cont$o- versy." Pentel, who is a volunteer member of several emergency preparedness ~ works, asked city officials in 199 l'/to allow the tower. A city zoning o(~li- nance limits the height of all str~c- tures to 25 feet, and city officials denied her request. Thc ordinance exists to protect [he nearby scenic bluffs from intrusi.~n by buildings and other structures, and to prevent soil erosion and ot~cr environmental problems, said Mayor Charles Mertensotto. Mertensotto said Pentel was unable to provide city officials with inforr~a- tion about her experience level arid how the tower would enhance her communication system. Pentel said the 68-foot tower would provide more reliable communi~a"'- tions over longer distances, by ris]hg above tree level and allowing the signal to be aimed in a specif'[C direction. :,.~ Eric Nystrom, an attorney represefit- lng Mendota Heights, said city offi- cials now will determine whether to ask Pentel to file a new application.