Loading...
030294 Planning AGENDA PLANNINGCOMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1994 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 2. 3. 4. *4.1 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS Case 93-32 Oridnance by Permitting Pump Island Canopies at Gas Convenience Stores as an Accessory Structure Additional Signage on Canopies and Ordinance 94-03, Amending the New Hope Regulating Canopy Signage and Other Signage Gas Sales at Service Stations and Convenience Gas Sales No. 93-08, Amending the New Hope Zoning Code Stations and and Allowing Sign Code Accessory to Stores With *4.2 Case 94-02 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of J.R. Jones Addition, 3216 Winnetka Avenue North, J.R. Jones, Petitioner *4.3 Case 94-05 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage at 4990 Highway 169 North, Collins Electric, Petitioner 5 5.1 5.2 o COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design and Review Committee Report of Codes and Standards Committee OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues 7.1 7.2 7.3 NEW BUSINESS Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of February 1, 1994 Review of City Council Minutes of January 24, January 31, and February Review of EDAMinutes of November 22, 1993 and February 14, 1994. 14, 1994. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT *Petitioners are requested to be in attendance CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 1994 TO: All Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/COmmunity Development Coordinator SUBJECT: March Planning Commission Meeting As you are probably aware, staff just discovered this week that the Tuesday, March 1st, Planning Commission meeting is on the same date as Precinct Caucuses. While State Statutes do not prohibit holding the Planning Commission meeting on that evening (no school board, county board of commissioners, township board, or city council may conduct a meeting after 6:00 p.m. on the day of a major political party precinct caucus) and after conferring with Chairman Cameron, we felt it would make sense to change the meeting date to accommodate any commissioners that wanted to participate in the caucuses. Therefore, the meeting date has been changed from Tuesday, March 1st, to Wednesday, March 2nd. In our telephone calls to you this past week, we found that three commissioners cannot be in attendance at the March 2nd meeting (Cameron, Sonsin and Underdahl). We need five commissioners for a quorum, therefore, I hope that the rest of you can be in attendance at the meeting. If I do not hear from you prior to that time, I will assume you will be present on March 2nd. If you do have a conflict (other than the three noted above), please contact me at 531-5119 prior to the meeting. If we do not have a quorum in attendance, we will have to meet briefly and reschedule the meeting for another date. We will only have three cases for the March meeting, as listed below, and they are all routine in nature. * J.R. Jones Preliminary Plat * Ordinance re: Gas Canopies * CUP for Outdoor Storage Thanks for your cooperation! Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 93-32 Ordinance No. 93-08, 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 and Ordinance No. 94-03, Amending the New Hope Sign Code Regulating Canopy Signage and Other Signage Accessory to Gas Sales at Service Stations and Convenience Stores With Gas Sales All B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts All B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts City of New Hope February 22, 1994 March 2, 1994 BACKGROUND This is the public hearing 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. The Codes and Standards Committee, the Planning Consultant, City Attorney and City staff have been reviewing/discussing options for code amendments for the past four 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 Planning Case 93-32 March 2, 1994 Page 2 o addressed/presented to the 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. 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 the February meeting, but no gas sales facility owners/operators were in attendance. The Planning Consultant has reviewed these recommended changes with the Commission in detail over the past several meetings and the Commission has indicated support for the revisions. Public notice for this hearing was published in the official newspaper of the City and the changes would be effective in all B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts. ANALYSIS Ordinance 93-08 - Gas Pump Island Canopy Regulations The City Zoning Ordinance lacks performance standards regulating the design and placement of gasoline pump island canopies. The following ordinance changes to regulate gasoline fuel island canopies are being proposed and specific areas of regulation include setbacks, signage, height, lot coverage, and lighting. In developing the proposed regulations, it was 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 existing sites become non-conforming or discouraging new site Planning Case 93-32 March 2, 1094 Page 3 improvements. 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. 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. Staff is recommending that the performance standards for canopies be included in Section 4.032.3of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance addressing accessory buildings, uses and equipment. Specific regulations being proposed are listed below, with an explanation for the recommendation: A. Setbacks 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. Canopies shall not be allowed in rear yards not abutting a public street. 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. 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, staff recommends a standard canopy setback of 15 feet. This would result in three of the 15 sites becoming non- conforming. Additionally, a stipulation which prohibits the location of canopies in rear yards not abutting a street is recommended by staff, as it was felt that the impact of canopy structures should not be borne by neighboring property owners. B. Height and Facade Maximum canopy height may not exceed twenty (20) feet, and shall provide a minimum clearance of fourteen (14) feet. Planning Case 93-32 Mamh 2, 1994 Page 4 Canopy facades may not exceed three (3) feet in height. The regulated clearance minimum height for a gas pump canopy is 14 feet. This allows reasonable access for larger than average vehicles. However, existing regulations do not limit its maximum height. Codes and Standards have determined that the maximum height of 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, staff feels it is necessary to limit the size of the canopy facade. Codes and Standards recommends that a three foot facade be the maximum height permitted on any side of a gas station canopy. C. Lighting Reflected glare or spill light may not exceed five- tenths (0.5) foot candles, as measured on the property line when abutting residential!v zoned property and one (1) foot candle measured on the property line when abutting other commercial or industrially zoned property. 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. The Planning Consultant has 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 (0.5) 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. D. Si~gnage Signage may be allowed on the canopy in addition to wall and ground signage as permitted in §3.465 of this Code. 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 Planning Case 93-32 March 2, 1994 Page 5 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 identity 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. 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. Staff is recommending that the signage allowed on the canopy be in addition to what is allowed for ground and wall signs in order to simplify the review/calculation process (see proposed signage revisions under Ordinance 94-03). E. Accessory Structures Canopy. Canopies located over pump islands shall be allowed as accessory structures subject to the specifications set out in §4.032 (3) (k) of this Code. Canopy. A ,,,-~,~*: .......... Canopies located over pump islands may- shall be allowed as aa- accessory structures ~- subject to the specifications set out in §4.032 (3) (k) of this Code. The above minor amendments would be made to allow canopies as accessory structures, as discussed under //2. There was considerable discussion among the staff and committee as to whether the actual size of gasoline canopies should be restricted. Limiting canopy size is a difficult issue to address for the following reasons: Planning Case 93-32 March 2, 1994 Page 6 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. 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. 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. Staff and Codes and Standards recommend that the canopy size be dictated by setback and site constraints, not by specific area or size standards. Ordinance 94-03 - Amending Gas Canopy and Gas Sales Signa__oe Reeulations 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. Currently gas sales facilities signage is addressed in Sections 3.465 and 3.466 of the New Hope Sign Ordinance. Section 3.465 addresses signage accessory to single occupancy business uses. This section gives specific attention the following: Front wall signs Side and rear wall signs Planning Case 93'32 March 2, 1994 Page 7 C. Ground signs D. Roof signs E. Awning or canopy signs In review of this section, no changes are proposed for the first four subsections, however, the Codes and Standard Committee and staff are proposing some modification to subsection 4 - awning or canopy signs. The proposed changes are outlined below: Awningor Canopy Signs. Letters Signs may be painted or otherwise affixed to any permissible awning or canopy as follows: This change deletes the word "letter" and replaces it with "sign" to allow for graphic display or logo on canopies. Bo .......................... s ....... t-,,. Signs shall be limited to one (1) sign per canopy facia fronting onto a street The change will allow one sign per canopy facia. ~nc~c~. The canopy sign shall not project above or below the physical dimensions of the awnings or canopy facia. This change eliminates letter size and restricts the sign height to the canopy facia. Use. Le~er:'ng ar letters Si_e~s shall not denote other than the name and address of the business conducted there and/or a product or products produced or sold or service rendered therein. This change references signs rather than letters or lettering in recognition of pictorial signs or logo. Eo .~x: "~ ~: ...... ~,+k ..... :~:m .....n ~:..~ Awningand canoov sienage shall ,'l"I,.,.~ 1,.',,,...~ o.~, ............ .t- ................. ~,..,., _ _ _ _ not exceed ~ixteen (16) square feet per sign. Awning and canopy signs shall be permitted in addition to maximum sign area of permissible wall or ground signs. This change would establish a specific size standard for canopy signs. Planning Case 93-32 March 2, 1994 Page 8 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. Ao Sions Accessory to Gas Sales in Conjunction with Automobile Service Stations or Convenience Stores. The following signs accessory to automobile service stations and convenience stores with gas sales are permitted in addition to the signs permitted under Subsection 3.465. This change expands the regulations to address gas sales at convenience stores. 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). No change. 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 .... u..~ automobile or tire station. This change retains tire racks exclusively for automobile service stations. Do Portable Signs, Placards, Pennants. Portable signs, placards, pennants, streamers, flags, (except the U.S. flag), revolving placards and all other signs not specifically permitted in this section are prohibited, except for grand openings, as provided in Subsection 3.441. No change. Eo Gasoline and Price Sign. One sign (single or double faced) per frontage on a public street, suitable for apprising persons of the total sale price per gallon. The area of such price sign shall not exceed sixteen square feet on either side. Each such sign shall be affixed to the standard of a ground sign or light fixture, and shall state the total price. No sign posting an incomplete price or less than the total sales price is permitted. No change. Fo Informational Signage. Si_mas denoting operation instructions associated with self service gas facilities including oas pump, air supply and car washes are exempt Planning Case 93-32 March 2, 1994 Page 9 from the maximum sign area standards of section 3.465 of this Code. This change establishes new provision addressing self service facilities. Signage Violations. During the recent inventory of gas station sites by City staff, it was noted that several locations were in violation of sign regulations. It is staffs intent, if these ordinance revisions are adopted, to again mail out copies of the new and existing regulations and to request voluntary compliance with the sign code regulations. Staff will be informing all owners/operators that a City-wide inspection will be made this spring to check compliance. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Codes and Standards Committee recommend approval of Ordinance No. 93-08, 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 and Ordinance No. 94-03, Amending the New Hope Sign Code Regulating Canopy Signage and Other Signage Accessory to Gas Sales at Service Stations and Convenience Stores With Gas Sales. Attachments: Ordinance 93-08 Ordinance 94-03 Public Hearing Notice Correspondence to Gas Sales Facilities 12/9 Planner's Report -Gas Pump Canopy Signage 11/2 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 ORDINANCE NO. 93-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY PERMITTING ..PUMP ISLAND CANOPIES AT GAS STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORES AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND ALLOWING ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON CANOPIES The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.032 (3)(k) "Pump Island Canopy" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (k) Pump Island Canopy. Canopies located over pump islands shall be allowed as accessory structures in the B-3 zoning district for automobile service stations and convenience stores with gasoline allowed by §§4.124 (1) and (2) of this Code. Canopy setbacks shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the property line. Adequate visibility both on and off site must also be maintained. ii. Canopies shall not be allowed in rear yards not abutting a public street. iii. Maximum canopy height may not exceed twenty (20) feet, and shall provide a minimum clearance of fourteen (14) feet. iv. Canopy facades may not exceed three (3) feet in height. Reflected glare or spill light may not exceed five- tenths (0.5) foot candles, as measured on the property line when abutting residentially zoned property and one (1) foot candle measured on the property line when abutting other commercial or industrially zoned property. vi. Signage may be allowed on the canopy in addition to wall and ground siqnage 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 (o) Canopy· Canopies located over pump islands shall b~ al.lowed as accessory structures subiect 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 · ~ . ......... cc.r, cpy Canopies located over pump islands m.--y shall be allowed as an accessory structures frc,,~ thc frc,~t lct . ~ ~d sub ect to th~ 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 STEVEN A $ONORALL MICHAEL R L~FLEUR MARTIN P MALECHA WILLIAM C STRAIT CORRICK & SOND~L~., P.A. A?ToRsZYS Ar LAw Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE {6121 425-5671 FAX (6121 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: In follow up to the November 17th, 1993 Codes and Standards Committee meeting, please find enclosed a revised Ordinance incorporating the suggestions from the meeting. Specifically, I have removed from the Ordinance I previously sent you language dealing with additional signage on the canopy. It is my understanding that the signage issue will be comprehensively reviewed so that all changes to the sign code relating to 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. I believe those were the only changes suggested from the meeting. Contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slm Enclosure cc: Doug Sandstad (w/enc) A1 Brixius (w/eric) ORDINANCE NO. 94-03 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE REGULATION CANOPY SIGNAGE AND OTHER SIGNAGE ACCESSORY TO GAS SALES AT SERVICE STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORES WITH GAS SALES .) The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 3.465 (5) "Awning or Canopy Signs" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (5) Awning or Canopy Signs. otherwise affixed to any follows: Signs may be painted or permissible awning or canopy as (a) Location ' ..... ; .... ' '' .... ~-'' --' prcj--t c, bc, ve uA, ...... ~ ..... ~ .~_ _~,,A,^~, 4.. .... .. .... ~ th ...... -'r.~ cc. ncpy. Signs shall be limited to one (1) si.qn per canopy facia fronting onto a street. (b) · __ ._ ~_.+~_ +~_ . .... ,,.~ .._~A~ The canopy sign shall not project above or below the physical dimensions of the awnings or canopy facia. (c) ......... = ......... Signs shall not denote other than the name and address of the business conducted therein and/or a product or products produced or sold or service rendered therein. (d) Maximum Signage '-**--' .... '-** .... ~-'~ "~ -'--'"~ .... ~,.~.,.~ ,,,~ ~,,~. ,,,~^ ,,,,..,,, ...=,, .~, ~.~. .~ ~,,.. ~ O ........~, ~,~,,.-~-- Awnin~ and canopy signage shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet per sign. Awnin~ and canopy signs shall be permitted in addition to maximum sign ~rea of permissible wall or 9round signs. Section 2. Section 3.466 "Signs Accessory to Automobile Service Stations" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.466 Signs Accessory to Gas Sales in Con~unCtion with Automobile Service Stations or Convenience Stores, The following signs accessory to automobile service stations and .convenience stores with gas sales 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) Ti.re 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 .... ~c automobile casings shall be permitted for each = ....... or tire station. (3) Portable Signs, Placards, Pennants. Portable signs, placards, pennants, streamers, fla9s (except the U.S. flag), revolving placards and all other signs not specifically permitted in this section are prohibited, except for grand openings, as provided in Subsection 3.441. (4) Gasoline and Price Sign. One sign (single or double faced) per frontage on a public street, suitable for apprising persons of the total sale price per gallon. The area of such price sign shall not exceed sixteen square feet on either side. Each such sign shall be affixed to the standard of a ground sign or light fixture, and shall state the total price. No sign posting an incomplete price or less than the total sales price is permitted. (5) Informational $ignage. Signs denoting operation instructions associated with self service gas facilities including gas pump, air supply and car washes are exempt from the maximum sign area standards of section 3.465 of this Code. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1994. Edw. d. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in t'he New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the , 1994, ) day of STEVEN A SONDRALL MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR MARTIN P MALECHA WILLIAM C STRAIT CORRICK & SOND~LL, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) a25-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 January 28, 1994 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Proposed Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code Regulating Gas Station Signage Our File No: 99,49403 Dear Kirk: In follow up to our January 27th t.elephone conversation and the City Planner's December 9th, 1993 memo please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance amending the signage re9ulations for canopies and other signs accessory to gas sales at service stations and convenience stores. This Ordinance incorporates the proposed changes in the City Planner's December 9th memo. I will take responsibility for publication of the public hearing notice regarding the Ordinance dealing with our Zoning Code amendment on pump island canopies as accessory structures and the OrdinQnce enclosed in this letter. Please contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slf Enclosure cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager (w/enc) Valerie Leone (w/enc) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE TO PERMIT PUMP ISLAND CANOPIES AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN B-3 ZONING DISTRICT City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 2nd day of March, 1994, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose 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 permitting canopies as accessory structures over gas pump islands at gas stations and convenience stores in the B-3 zoning districts. 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 lOth day of February, 1994. s/ Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 16th day of February, 1994.) 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 Xyion 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 staudards/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 Nor wes ssoci ed U R B P L A N G · O I G N Consultants, Inc M A R K E T R E S E A R/"'~H TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius/Stuart Roberson 9 December 1993 New Hope - Gas Pump Canopy Signage 131.00 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. 595-9-' Section 3.465 addresses signage accessory to single occupancy business uses. This section gives specific attention to the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. Front wall signs Side and rear wall signs Ground signs Roof signs Awning or canopy signs In review of this section, no changes are proposed for the firsu 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. 3.46~ (l)(b) - 3.465 ([)(a) (b) Name Plate, Oirec%ional and Identification Siqns. For each apartment development %here shall be permitted 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 comp]ex of buildings, and indicating only the name and address of the building or comp]ex of Dui]dings, the name of the owner or manager thereof, and the phone number of the manager or owner thereof, in addition each building within an aoartmen% development with a seoarate 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) New Construction or Remodelinq. In connection with the construction or remodeling of a Oui]ding there shall ~e permitted one sign not exceeding twenty-Five square Feet .- area indicating the names of any or all of the architects engineers and contractors engaged in the construction; ~ corner Tots two such s~gns, one facing each street, sba]3 Ce permitted. All signs permitted under this paragrap~ sma]] ~e removed Dy the person or persons erecting the same not ~onger than two weeks after final inspection Dy thr Oirector of Fi~e and Safety of the structure indicated, or two jeers, whichever is less. (Ord. 76-17) 3.485 (d) Home Occupations. A residential unit with an approved home occuDation requiring customer or client visits to ~he home 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 attached to the wall of the residential unit, no higher than six feet above grade, lettering shall not exceed six inches ~n height and the wording small be limited to the name and/or function of the home occupation. In addition, a s~gn not to exceed one square foot in size shall be permitted at the entrance to the home occupation if the entrance is not main entrance to the building. NO illumination of the s~gn permitted othem than the genera] house illumination. (Ord. 78-17, 79-7) $iqns Accessory ~O Single Occumancy Business or Industrial Use-. NO sign accessory to any business or industrial use shall De permitted, exoe~ in compliance with the following regulations: (1) Front WQll $i~n~. Maximum $iqnaqe. 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 percen~ of ~he area of the front face (including doors and windows) of the principal building in Limited Business, ~etail Bus,ness and General Business Districts, and ten percent in Limited Industry and General Industry Districts, provided that the total area of each sign sha]l not exceed one hundred and twenty-five square feet. 3-42 EXHIBIT A 072684 3.465 (1)(b) - (3) (b) Variance to MaXimu~ 5i~na~e. Front wall signs which consist only o~ individual, outlined alphabetic, numeric and symbolic characters w~thout 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-f~ve square feet. If illumlnated, such illumination may be Dy internal shielded illuminatlon, shielded silhouette lighting or shielded spot lighting, but lighting where the light source itself is visible or exposed on the face or s~des of :he characters is prohibited. (c) Metal Electrically Illuminated Signs. Signs constructed of metal a~d illuminated by any means requiring internal wlring or electrically wired accessory fixtures attached to a metal sign shall maintain a free clearance to a grade of nine feet. Accessory lighting f~xtures a~tached to a non-meual frame slgn shall main=aln a clearance of nine feet to ground. In the event a metal sign s%ructure or accessory fixture herein described is grounded by the use of a grounding conductor run w~th the circuit conductors and said structure or fixture is also grounded by belng bonded on a grounding electrode at the s~gn si=e, no clearance to grade shall be mandatory. (d) Gaseous Tube or Interior Illuminated SiGns. Front wall s~gns may be gaseous tube type or may be ~lluminated by interior means of lighting of an intensity =o preven~ excessive glare and shall comply with the regulations established in Chapter 4. (2) Side and Rear Wall Signs. A sign or signs shall be permitted on the rear and/or side wall of any principal building subject %0 the following regulations: (a) Maximum Si~na~e. The total area of such rear or side wall sign or signs shall not exceed nine square feet. No rear or side wall signs, other :hah a sign provided in paragraph (b) below, shall make use of any word, phrase, symbol or character other than to designa:e delivery areas. (b) Variance to Maximum Si~nage. Notwithstanding the above- stated provision, if t~e 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 a particular use in the principal building opens on a 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 =otal sign area. (3) Ground Signs. No~ more than two ground signs shall be permitted on any lo% or one ground slgn ~f the building should contain more than one wall sign over ten square feet, subject to the following regulations: 3 07268a 3.456 (3)(a) - (g) (a) Metal Electrically Illuminated Signs. Signs constructed of metal and illuminated by any means ~equiring 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 HeiGht. Ail ground signs shall conform with the maximum sign area, and maximum sign height provisions in relation to the s~reet 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) Street Classification and Application. Street classification shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Five Year Transportation Plan for =he 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 =he site adjacent to its base. In those cases where the main floor elevation of the building is more than 36" above, or below, the average street curb elevation along the frontage, actual sign height is determined by the grade of the road (average curb elevation) from which the sign gains its principal exposure. (f) Sign Area Application. Sign area for ground signs applies to only one face of a two-faced ground sign, or two faces of a four-faced sign, etc. (g) Location to Property Lines. No ground sign shall be located closer than ten feet to any property line. 3 '44 072684 3.465 (4), (5), 3.466, 3.467 (4) Roof SignS. NO part of any sion shall be maintained ~hat ~roj$cts into the air space over the roof of any building or structure. (5) Awning or Canopy Signs. Letters may be painted or otherwise affixed to any permissible awning or canopy as follows: (a) Location. Lettering or letters shall not project above, below or beyond the physical dimensions of the awning or canopy. (b) Height. Lettering or letters shall not be larger from top to bottom than twelve inches. (c) Use. Lettering or letters shall not denote other than the ~a--~e and address of the business conducted therein and/or a product or products produced or sold or service rendered therein. (d) Maximum Si~nage. Lettering or letters shall be included in calculating the max[mum sign area of the permissible wall sign. 3.466 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 Signs, Placards, Pennants. Portable signs, placards, pennants, streamers, flags (except the U.S. flag), revolving placards and all other signs not specifically permitted in thin section are prohibited, except for grand openings, as provided in Subsection 3.441. 3.467 (4) Gasoline and Price Sign. One sign (single or double faced) per frontage on a public street, suitable for apprising persons of the total sale price per gallon. The area of such price sign shall not exceed sixteen square feet on either side. Each such sign shall be affixed to the standard of a ground sign or light fixture, and shall state the total price. No sign posting an incomplete price or less than the total sales price is permitted. (Code 072684, Ord. 76-17) Signs Accessory to Multiple Occupancy Business and Industrial Uses In¢l~din~ 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 %he 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 a~ove or below ~ha physical dimensions or ihs almiflgm or canopy Zacia. id) 3.466 [ollowin9 signs s¢cessor~ ~o i~to//obilS-serVice' stations oil ~y ~ located on or a[ :he e~m of p~ the U.S. flag), rlvolvi~ placards and all other provided tn Subsection 1.441. COMMENTS 9raphic display or lo9o on canopies The change will allow one sign per canopy lscia or logo. CURRENT ORDINANCE EXHIBIT Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N P L A N N I N G DES I G N M A R K E T R E S E A R C H 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 -I9~93,~ 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 cfuen to existing developed sites rather than new deveiccment. Under these circumstances, the ordinance must give attention to past development trends to avoid making existing sites keccme non-conforming or discouraging new site improvements. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636. Fax. 595-9~$7 Gas sales are allowed by conditional use permit in association with automobile service stations and convenience retail facilities. These uses are limited to New Hope's B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts. Canopies over gas pump islands are frequently associated with gas sales to shelter customers from the elements while they service their vehicle with gas. In this light, canopies are an attractive convenience for area consumers. ANALYSIS In addressing the performance standards for gas canopies, we have attempted to identify their land use characteristics in order to prepare appropriate performance standards. Accessory Use. Gas island canopies are accessory structures to gas sale facilities. Since gas sales facilities are already conditional uses in their respective district, it is not necessary to treat the canopy as an independent conditional use permit. We would recommend that the performance standards for canopies be included in Section 4.032.3 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance addressing accessory buildings, uses and equipment. 2. Performance Standards. 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. --Additionally, a stipulation whic-h--p~hibits the location c~--~-in rear and side yards not abutting a street was recc~cndcd by- City s~aff. I~ was-f~l~--t.h~t, the -impac~ of uanopy structures should-- not--~=--b~r~ by -~i-~Lng-.pr~zp~Ly~ owners. GAS SALES CANOPY SURVEY SUMMARY TABLE OCTOBER 1993 Location 7300 Bass Lake Rd 9400 49th Ave No 7231 42nd Ave No 3601 Winnetka No 9400 36th Ave No 3535 Winnetka No 7850 27th Ave No 9456 27th Ave No 4200 Winnetka 7820 42nd Ave No 7901 Bass Lake Rd 7900 Bass Lake Rd 6113 W. Broadway 6144 W. Broadway 7117 Bass Lake Rd AVERAGE Canopy Total % of % of Property Lot Area % of Front Side Line Area Sq. Ft. Lot Yar~ Yard Setback 13,600 1,352 10 15 -- 22 36,000 2,400 7 21 -- 35 15,600 1,344 . 9 23 -- 20 36,000 1,848 5 7 -- 35 37,000 6,000 16 .... 35 18,750 3,300 17 .... 20 15,000' 2,800 19 18 47 6" - 5' 39,900 NO CANOPIES 32,000 2,900 9 29 -- 17 23,000 1,620 7 -- 11 10 43,000 NO CANOPIES 24,000 NO CANOPIES 22,500 800 4 11 -- 15 ABANDONED FACILITY 20,000 1,500 8 16 -- 10 26,882 2,351 10.1 17.5 29 20.4 % of B!dg Area 100 61 75 75 100+ !00+ 100+ I00 5O 75 9O 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. 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. Lightings 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 (i) 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: 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 5 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 P L A N N G O N M A R K T R S E A R C H FILE COPY 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 existing sites become non-conforming or discouraging new site improvements. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 Gas sales are allowed by conditional use permit in association with automobile service stations and convenience retail facilities. These uses are limited to New Hope's B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts. Canopies over gas pump islands are frequently associated with gas sales to shelter customers from the elements while they service their vehicle with gas. In this light, canopies are an attractive convenience for area consumers. 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. 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 recommend a standard canopy setback of 10 feet. Be 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. 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 (t4) 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: 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 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 A P L A N N G DES N M A R K E R ES E A R C H 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 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. ~eight: 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. Lightin~: 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 (i) 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. '~reen Spacm: A green space percentage is regulated only in the I-l, Limited Industrial District. All 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: si~nage, height and lighting warranted amendments to the City Ordinance. If you have any questions or co~ents 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 ~as 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-Sitm "V". Five of the ~1 sites with canopies are less than 20 feet from the lot line. Only one is less than 15 feet, based upon a quick analysis. The average'canopy-to-lot ratio. is 10.3 Z, ranging from 5 to 19%. The average canopy-to-building ratio-- is 87 Z, ranging ~rom 50 to 110 %. Even'the'stations without canopies, had small canopy-like awnings built on top of'the gas pump islands with lights and signs present. They serve no rain/weather protection purpose since they are 4 feet wide and about 10 feet lon~ directly above the concrete islands. Signage is a problem on most of these lots, since 80% of them had illegal signs or outd6or 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 structute, post, column,~bdildihg"and canopy, however, can be used to m6unt-si~age onto! Code language must be considered which emphasizes, clearly, the limits on advertising of any and all kinds. This is more properly a sign code issue. SALES GAItOI~ SlrIV~-~CT. C~.ty of Ne~ Rope 81.5 ~ x x ~ ( × 7300 Bass Lake Road Murphy flA t~ 879.2 SCALE: 1" = 10( 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.1. CANOPY IS SAME SIZE AS BUILDING //90 V L i 4 ,~ 916.10j 9400 49th Ave. No. Texaco ITH Lot Area = CA~NO?Y = 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 B~ILDING AREA 903.9 X )06.9 7231 42nd Ave. No. TOTAL GAS SALES CA~H~ ~FE~-OCT. '93 City o~ M4~ Rope SCALE: 1" = I(~ LoC Area ~ 15,600 sf CANOPY- = 1,344 sf; 9% of lot 23% of front yard Signage OK, but illegal Outdoor displays noted. C~NOPY 75 % OF BUILDING SIZE Setback is 20 feet from f~ont p.1. L~t Area = 36,000 sf CANOPIES (2) =948 sf x ~= 1,848 sf =5% of Lot 7% of front yard Illegal signs were observed. Setbacks are 35 feet from front & side C~NOPIES EQUAL 75 % OF BUILDING SIZE 3601 Winnetka Ave. NO. Unocal GAS SALES CANOPY SURVEY-OCT. '93 City o~ New J:[ope 965.0 X AVENUI i~ 965.6 X Mobil 9400 36th~ AVe. No. SCALE: 1" = 1OO Built 1991 Lot Area = 37,000 sq ft CANOPY = 6,000 sf; 16% of of side · Ndte canopy positipn from the east (residential Illegal portable signs 2'x3' in o~ building noted. Ail wall and signs removed due to chan~ to Mebil CANOPY LARGER THAN BUILDING Setback is 35 feet from side p.!. FINA 3535 Winnetka Ave. No. l(F ri Built 1992 Lot Area = i8, 750 sf CANOPY = 3,300 sf; I7% of of side Note: illegal signs ~ all 4 pump islands CANOPY LARGER THAN BUILDING Setback is 20 feet from front GAS SALES CAJK)PY ~]IFE~-OCT. '93 C/ty o~ ~ Rope SCALE: k ~'~909 · 3 ,~, 907, 34002 907.6i 7850 27th Ave. No. Amoco /! 6 'f Lot Area = 15,000 sf 2 CANOPIES C~MOPY = 1,400 sf Each 2,800 sf total 19% of lot 18% of front vari "47% of side yard Illegal wall and canopy signs observed CANOPIES, together, ARE LARGER THAN BI~ .... ~ Setbacks are 6 INCHES & 5 feet from p/1. X 942.0 9456 ~7th Ave. No. Sinclair 947.0 X 27TH Lot Area = 39,900 sf No Canopies Illegal signs observed. I. 000 w GAS $ILg_~ CANOI~ SURTEY-OCT. '93 City of Rev Rope I SCALE: 1" - I04 4200 Winnetka Ave. Unocal Lot Area = 32,000 sf C~NOPY APPROVED = 2,900 sf; 9% of Lot 29% of front yard Illegal signs & pennant observed Setback approved is 17 feet from front p.1. C~NOPY 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 CAM(M~ SUP. VEY-0CT. '93 City ef #ew Rope Lot Area = 24,000 sf NO CANOPY Illegal Signs observed. 7900 Bass Lake Road Amoco t~ '! !.0/8. 7901 Bass Lake Road Sinclair ,,~.'~ Lot Area = 43,000 sf NO CANOPY Illegal signs observed G&S SAI,~S CANOPT $1~iVE~-OCT. '93 CLt7 of. lI~w Rope SCALE: 1" ~ i0~ I ~UE X 875.~ I 1° I [~X 875. ~ 6113 West Broadway Woody's ~,~'~ Lot Area = 22,500 sf C~OPY = 800 sf; 4% of lot 11% of front yard Illegal sign observed. Setback is 15 feet from p.1. CANOPY IS 75% OF BUILDING SIZE. 6144 West Broadwav Abandoned "/~,~ (Discussions underway about demoli~io~ and converting use to Residential) G~ I~ES CAIO~ $~R~-<)Ct. '93 o o SCALE: l" = i00 7117 Bass Lake Road Total Lot Area = 20,000 sf CANOPY = 1,500 sf; signs OK I6% of ffr.~z Setback is i0 feet from p.i. CANOPY IS 90% OF BUILDING t~l~ q ".- 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 B-4 Community Business Zoning District at the northeast intersection of Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue and is surrounded by B-4 uses: District //281 Admini.~tration 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 Wimaetlea and Louisiana was rezoned to B-4 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 f'mds 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 per/meter. 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. 4. 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. 5. Revised plans were submitted by the petitioner and include the following changes: -a canopy lighting photomeu'ics graphic has been added to the plan. - -a detail of the canopy light f~xtures 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 revised plans have been changed to a conventional engineering scale, 1" = 20', as requested by staff. -the 2~5' 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 tram~rt 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 ?, 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. /~- .~..rev~Pla~_~l~ess~2~un~u~.i_g.n& Review Co ittee a d staff. 6. The City Code presently only establishes conditions for gas pump canopies for convenience stores with gasoline, which require a conditional use permit. Staff recommends that (separate from this case) an ordinance change be initiated that estabhshes guidelines for future requests 7. The canopy signage is proposed to be four (4) 36-inch round signs and technicall~ the Cit~ Code only allows signs 12-inches in height and 6-feet in length (6 square fee0. Due to the limited amount 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 plan~, 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. - RECO~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 ilhmination conwur be submitted. Attachments: Zonlng/Section/Topo Maps Petitioner Letter Revised Plans Building Official Exhibit Original-Site Plan -Canopy Elevations -Canopy Layout Plan -Canopy Lightin/Plan Certified Survey DESIGN-REVIEW STAFF REPORT .MEETING DATE: PETmONER: PLAN CASE: VALUATION: $ OW~qER: RECOMMENDATIONS: PERSON: DEPT: PLANlq~N~/ZONIN~/BtlXLD~NG; The single major community enhancement thaC is included in this request is the new ~RKKNPKRIHKTKR. This could be wonderful, if curbinl is installed on both sides to protect sod & }lintinss,-with- undrground sprinklers instatle~l'These narrow strips of green are extremely difficult to maintain without water. The private improvement, a large angled canopy is routine as long as detailed 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 dumpster 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 sisnage 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 tha north, and Port Arthur, to the east, use the easement along the east 25' of this lot. Mowever, the north driveway is confUsing, used by Port Arthur customers, people who bypass the sitnal at 42nd & Winnetka, and few others without an~ 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.-=~ea~JLe~th~ee_~_~.~ri~i~25_~~h_~e--nor_R~h~lot line establishing a few conditions for these gas pump canopies, tha~ ', exist, today, only for a convenience store with ~asoline CUP. We should establish a few guidelines for-future requests, such as; * De~ached canopies ~s~ no~ exceed 25% of ~he yard area. ~ Canopies may' be installed in a front or side yard ad~ace~ ~o a street. * Canopy signage muse noC exceed 12" in height and 6' fee~ in lensth on each face (6 square fee~). * Canopies'~sc be sec back 20 feet from the property lines. * Canopy illumination must be Kraphically illustrated so as to prevent excess lishC levels. 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: February 24, 1994 Meeting Date: March 2, 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 willbe 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 willbe located. Allthree 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 proposed the Preliminary Plat of J.R. Jones Addition to accomplish the combination and said plat was submitted to the City near the end of January and was 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 21st and comments were not yet returned to the City by the February 1st Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended tabling the request until the March 1st Planning Commission meeting and the petitioner agreed with that recommendation. The Commission tabled the request for one month at the February meeting. Planning Case No. 94-02 March 2, 1994 Page 2 o 10. The property is located in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and the set back requirements are as follows: Front yard - 50 feet (west - Winnetka Avenue) Side yards -20 feet (north & sough 32nd Avenue) Rear yard -35 feet (east -Winpark Drive) The proposed addition meets the setback requirements. Surrounding land uses/zoning include industrial buildings to the east across Winpark Drive (Crystal), multi-family residential to the south across 32nd Avenue (Crystal), single family residential across Winnetka Avenue to the west (Crystal), and I-1 vacant industrial property to the north. The site slopes steeply away to the north and east at the building walls and a silt "dry"pond was created on the east side of the property with the 1990 expansion. The plat includes what is currently known as Lots 1 and 2, Pazandak Addition, and the existing J.R. Jones property. These three parcels would be combined into one parcel which would be known as Lot 1, Block 1, J.R. Jones Addition, and said plat would contain 6.254 acres or 272,403 square feet. The zoning codes states that "ifthe preliminary plat is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, the subdivider must submit the final plat within 100 days after said approval. Copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission during their review of the preliminary plat". The petitioner is requesting that the Planning Commission waive their review of the f'mal plat to expedite the approval process. Due to the simple nature of the plat, staff has no problem with the request and recommends that the Commission agree to waive it's review of the final plat. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comment. ANALYSIS Section 4.032 of the New Hope Zoning Code, General Building Requirements , Subsection 2, Platted and Unplatted Property, (A) Platting Required states that '~No building shall be constructed on unplatted property or an outlot ...except for the addition of accessory structures or additions to existing buildings." Due to the fact that this building addition requires additional parking which willbe deferred onto the newly acquired property, all of the parcels need to be replatted into one plat. The total area of the plat is 6.254 acres or 272.403 square feet and the parcel has a length of 827.31 feet on the west (Winnetka Avenue) and a width of 573.12 feet on the south (32nd Planning Case Iarch 2, 1994 Page 3 94-02 Avenue). The plat combines all three (3)properties into one (1)parcel. The lot area and lot width requirements for the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District are compared below: I-1 Requirement Minimum Lot Area = 1 acre Minimum Lot Width = 150 feet Preliminary Plat Lot 1, Block 1 = 6.254 acres Lot 1, Block I = 573.12 feet The proposed plat meets the Zoning Code lot area and lot width requirements for the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District. The Minnesota Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Division, responded that since the plat is not adjacent to an existing or proposed stale trunk highway and has no apparent impact on the state's transportation system, MN/DOThas no comments regarding development oft his property. 5. The City Engineer reviewed the plat and made the following comments/recommendations: The right-of-way dedication along Winnetka Avenue (C.S.A.H. 156) shall be in accordance with Hennepin Co. It's expected an additional 7' of right-of-way shall be dedicated where the existing half right-of-way is only 33'. Bo A minimum 10' wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along all side and rear lot lines. 6. The City Attorney reviewed the plat and made the following comments/recommendations: Ao The east line of the plat running down the middle of Winpark Drive needs to be labeled with some identification information to tie it in with the metes and bounds legal description for that property, i.e. the east line of the west half of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter. Winnetka Avenue adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Pazandak Addition, includes a 40 foot easement dedication measured from the middle of the roadway. The roadway dedication for the southerly portion of the proposed platted property, that described by the metes and bounds legal description, shows a roadway dedication of 33 feet. If the County or the City Engineers consider it appropriate, now would be the time to require a full 40 foot dedication for that southerly portion of Winnetka Avenue adjacent to the existing building. C. Title evidence showing ownership of the property will be necessary at the time of the final plat. 7. Hennepin County Department of Public Works reviewed the preliminary plat and made the Planning Case 94-02 March 2, 1994 Page 4 following comments/recommendations: The developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right-of-way, for a total of 40 feet of right-of-way from and along the CSAH 156 centerline, from 32nd Avenue to a point approximately 320 feet north. The existing 40 feet of right-of-way from 320 feet north of 32nd Avenue to the north limits of the plat is adequate. The proposed access revisions (to approximately 185 feet north of 32nd Avenue and opposite 32nd Place) as shown on the Site Plan dated December 22, 1993, are acceptable t°Hennepin County. The existing driveways to CSAH 156 must be removed. All proposed construction within County right-of-way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access construction driveway removal, drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. The developer must restore all areas, within County right-of-way, disturbed during construction. o Northern States Power Company reviewed the preliminary plat and made the following comments/recommendations: NSP is requesting a 15 foot easement along the north lot line of the existing lot due to the fact that this line feeds most of the commercial Park along Winpark Drive (a copy of the plat showing the easement required is enclosed). The Building Official reviewed the plat and found it to be routine, except for the fact that he questioned the need for the additional right-of-way that was requested by Hennepin County and recommended by the City Engineer. 10. No comments were received from utility companies other than NSP on the plat. 11. Staff finds that the only major revisions needed in the plat are the addition of the NSP easement and the additional right-of-way recommended by the City Attorney, City Engineer and Hennepin County. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of J.R. Jones Addition, subject to the following conditions: Recommendations of City Attorney, City Engineer, NSP and Hennepin County be incorporated into the final plat. Planning Case ~Iarch 2, 1994 . age 5 94-02 The Planning Commission agrees to waive it's review of the final plat so the final plat can proceed directly to the City Council, due to the simplicity of the plat and the minor revisions requested. Attachments: Zoning/Section Maps Preliminary Plat Site Plan Petitioner Request-Final Plat Waiver City Engineer Plat comments City Attorney Plat Comments MN DOT Plat Comments Hennepin County Plat Comments NSP Plat Comments Building Official Comments Staff Correspondence Planning Case Report 94-01 ZONING DISTRICT MAP CITY of NEW HOPE N ~440 [ LJ ~5'o1 z; AVl N. ~OTH · $OTI t .i VIEWCRE*ST AVE. N I ~-qlq. ~ : ?..73/ 7roi ENCdNEER~4G ~ ~ J.R. JONES ADDITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The South 352.7 feet of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 118, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, PAZANDAK ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subject to easements, reservations and restrictions of rzcord, if any. OWNER AND DEVELOPERS Jones Company Properties A partnership consisting of Douglas J. Jones and Robert M. Jones c/o J. R. Jones Fixture Company 3216 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55427 PROPERTY ADDRESS 3216, 3224 and 3232 Winnetka Avenue North Ne,.,,' Hope, Minnesota 55427 ZONING' I-i Limited Industrial District NOTE: This map was compilec mation, as-built utility pta Hope topographic maps. For this map or field verificati~ BUILDING SETBACK: Front Yard = 50 feet Rear Yard = 35 feet Side Yard = 20 feet PARKINQ SETBACK 20 feet adjacent to residential district 10 feet adjacent t° other zoning district LOCATIOt' I II I~11111 ' , I I ]AI~IO ~YdNI~A ! I! HJ.~ON ]nN"4AY Y~.I.3NNI,~ January 20, 1994 MESSERLI ~t IK~RAMER P. ATTORNEYS AT /AW 1800 FIFTH STREET TOWERS I=0 SOUTH FIFTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA (61Z) 67a-3600 FACSlMILE(~Ia) 67~-3777 672-3698 ,J O~ J'I=H w. 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 wdll be forwarded to your attention shortly. In addition, I would like to formally 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~SSERLI & KRAMER P.A. /~W. Lawyer cc: Bob Jones Walt Gregory of Merila & Associates J~L:jas:66418_1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderflk & Ass°elates Architects ?':ebruary 14, 1994 ~? :f New Hope · , .{ylon Avenue N. t.=, lope, MN 554118 ~- '?'ior: Kirk McDonald ~e: J.R. Jones Prelimina~ Plat File 34 gen Dear Kirk:' .~ ~.~ve reviewed the above preliminary plat and recommend the followinj: The right-of-way dedication along Winnetka Avenue (C,S.A.H. 156) shall be in aocordance with Henncpin Co, It's e~peoted an ndditional 7' of right, of-way shall be (! ~.dicated where the existing hal~ right-of-way is only 33'. A minimum 10' wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated alon8 all side ;,n.:! rear lot lines. ~ ~;~r h~.ve any questions please contact this office. ; ?TROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATF_.~, INC. STEVEN A. SONDRALL MICHAEL R. L~FLEUR MARTIN P MALECNA WILLIAM C. STRAIT February 1, 1994 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assr. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 CoRPuc~[ & SOND~U~L, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 LA~ONNE E KESKE SHARON D DERBY RE: J.R. Jones Addition Preliminary Plat Our File No: 99.15038 Dear Kirk: I have reviewed the preliminary plat of J.R. Jones Addition and have a few comments to make. 1. The east line of the plat running down the middle of Winpark Drive needs to be labeled with some identification information to tie it in with the metes and bounds legal description for that property, i.e. the east line of the west half of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter. 2. Winnetka Avenue adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Pazandak Addition, includes a 40 foot easement dedication measured from the middle of the roadway. The roadway dedication for the southerly portion of the proposed platted property, that described by the metes and bounds legal description, shows a roadway dedication of 33 feet. If the County or the City En9ineers consider it appropriate, now would be the time to require a full 40 foot dedication for that southerly portion of Winnetka Avenue adjacent to the existing building. In addition, you may wish to remind the property owners that title evidence, showing their ownership will be necessary at the time of the final plat. If you have-any questions or comments, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha s3t2 CC: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Steven A. Sondrall, Esq. Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 January 26, 1994r- Kirk McDonald City of New Hope ~01 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Dear Kirk McDonald: Preliminary Plat Review $.R. Jones Addition East of Winnetka Avenue, north of 32nd Avenue North New Hope, Hennepin County Thank you for submitting the $.R. Jones Addition preliminary plat for our review. Since the plat is not adjacent to an existing or proposed state trunk highway and has no apparent impact on the state's Wansportation system, Mn/DOT has no comments regarding development of this property. As you may know, preliminary phts adjacent to state trunk highways must, in accordance with state statutes, be submitted to Mn/DOT for review prior to local approval of final plats. It is not necessary, however, to submit propo.~ls which are not adjacent to a state trunk highway and clearly do not have an impact on the state trunk highway system. For those projects that are not within the normal preliminary pht review process but that are adjacent to or that will affect the trunk highway system, we welcome the opportunity to review and discuss the preliminary' plans with you in order to prevent traffic problems before they If you have ~questions, please call me at 582-1386. Sincerely, Ruth Ann Sobnosky Principal Transportation Planner An Equal Opportunity Employer HENNEPIN Jl [irk McDonald ~ Co.unity Develop~nt Coordinator City of Sew ~ope 4401 lylon gvenue ~orth ~ew 8ope, M~ 55428-4898 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South 55343-8468 Hopkins, Minnesota PHONE: [6~2] 930-2500 FAX [6~2] 930-25~3 TDD: [6~2] 930-2696 February g, 1994 RE: Proposed Plat - J.R. Jones CSAH 156, northeast quadrant of CSAH 156 and 32nd Avenue North Section 20, Township 118, Range 21 Hennepin County Plat No. 2117 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. McDonald: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: · The developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way, for a total of 40 feet of right of way from and along the CSAH 156 centerline, from 32nd Avenue to a point approximately 320 feet north. The existing 40 feet of right of way from 320 feet north of 32nd Avenue to the north limits of the plat is adequate. · The proposed access revisions (to approximately 185 feet north of 32nd Avenue and opposite 32nd Place) as shown on the Site Plan dated December 22, 1993 are acceptable to Hennepin County. The existing driveways to CSAH 156 must be removed. · All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access construction driveway removal, drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for permit forms. The developer should contact Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548 for anyquestions concerning access. · The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, homas O,~/Johnso_n, P.E. Transpof~tation Planning Engineer HENNEPIN COUNTY TDJ/DBM an equal opportunity employer Northern States Power Company Brooklyn Center Area 4501 68th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429-1798 Telephone (612) 569-0200 February 8, 1994 Mr. Kirk Mc Donald Community Development Coordinator City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4843 RE: Plat for IR Jones Addition - 3216 Winnetka Avenue Dear Kirk: This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conversation on February 1 1, regarding NSP request for a 15 foot easement along the north lot line of existing lot. This line feeds most of the commercial Park along Winpark Drive. I have enclosed a copy of the plat showing the easement required. Please call me at 569-0208 if there is any questions. Sincerely, Jim Elling Customer Service Design Representative NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Brooklyn Center Area Office Attachment ~ J Ix'?= .' TO: KIRK McDONALD FROM: DOUG SANDSTAD PLAT I have reviewed the J.R. Jones preliminary plat and find it all routine, except for one item. I noticed that the width of Hennepin county right-of-way varies throughout the neighborhood from 33' to 40'. Since about 60 % of the lots along this stretch of Winnetka are adjacent to a 33' right-of-way (to centerline), I question the need for acquiring the 7' along this plat to result in the 40' ideal situation. We already have a signalized intersection at 32nd Avenue and anticipate no addition to the four lane roadway that exists. The 2,170 sq. ft. of lot area may not seem like much to the county, but it clearly hits a hot button for this long-standing property owner and investor. As drawn, the plat does not grant additional street right-of-way. I recommend approval. cc: file CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: January 21, 1994 Hennepin County Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnegasco Northern States Power Co. U.S. West Telephone King Cable Television New Hope Director of Public Works New Hope Director of Finance/Administrative Services New Hope City Attorney New Hope City Engineer New Hope Building Official FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Coordinator Assistant/Community Development SUBJECT: 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. 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: #612-531-513c Police Fax: #612~31-517- Public Works Fax: #6 f~3- 765~ January 28, 1994 Mr. Bob Jones J.R. Jones Fixture Company 3216 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, MN 5542? 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 De~r 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 plsnning 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 Ist meeting. The preliminary plat will be considered at the March 1st Plnnnin~ 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 thc preliminary pL~,al~ a&rees to waive their review of the f'mal plat, the preliminary plat would proceed to the City Council for ~on/approval on March 14th. If the Council approves the preliminnry plat on March 14th, you should the~~ to prepare the filial plat and incorporate the Commission/Council recommendations. The t'mal plat could then be considered by the Council at either the March 28th or April 1 lth Council meetings, depending on how fast the fiaal 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 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, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator KMD/prs Enclosure: 1994 Planning Commission Schedule cC: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrail, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Joseph Lawver, Messefli & Kramer, P.A. Walt Gregory, Merila & Associates Property File (3216 Winnetka Avenue North) Planning Case File 94-02 January 14, 1 994 4401 Xylon A venue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 612-531.5109 City Hall Fax: ~612-531-~' Police Fax: #612-531-5 ~ Public Works Fax: ' ~t612.533- 7~ 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 appr~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. o 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: Plattinq - 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 A.qreement/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 Parkinq 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 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 94-01 Request: Request for Site and Building Plan Review for Building Addition and Conditional Use Permit for Deferred Parking Location: 3216 Winnetka Avenue North PID No.: 20-118-21-23-0003 20-118-21-23-0011 20-118-21-23-0010 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Robert Jones/J.R. Jones Report Date: December 30, 1993 Meeting Date: January 4, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a Site and Building Plan Review for construction of a two level warehouse addition and a Conditional Use Permit for Deferment of Required Parking (Sections 4.039A and 4.036 (13)- New Hope Code of Ordinances). J. R. Jones Fixture Company is proposing to construct a 132' x 62' (17,000 square foot) two- story warehouse addition at the east side of the existing building. The present owner built the original building in 1963, with subsequent expansions in 1968, 1979, 1990 and 1992. The proposed 17,000 square foot addition, combined with the existing 80,000 square foot building, will bring the total building size to 97,000 square feet. ., J. R. Jones is a custom manufacturer of wood store fixtures and display racks. Major customers include the Megamall and national contracts with chain store outlets such as Foot Locker and Champs Sporting Goods. They either ship for installation or install the fixtures themselves and employ 62 persons. In the 1992 request the petitioner requested a minor green area or parking variance and the Council granted a deferred parking conditional use permit. Two facts have changed since that application: 1 .) the green area requirement in the I-1 Zoning District was reduced from 35% to 20% and 2.) the petitioner purchased the two vacant lots to the north of their property (Lots 1 and 2, Pazandak Addition). The petitioner is now in the process of initiating a preliminary plat which will combine all parcels into J. R. Jones Addition (Planning Case 94-02) and any approval for this addition should include platting as a condition. The property is located in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and the setback requirements are as follows: Front yard - 50 feet (west - Winnetka Avenue) 10. 11. Side yards - 20 feet (north & south 32nd Avenue) Rear yard - 35 feet (east - Winpark Drive) The proposed addition meets the setback requirements. Surrounding land uses/zoning include industrial buildings to the east across Winpark Drive (Crystal), multi-family residential to the south across 32nd Avenue (Crystal), single family residential across Winnetka Avenue to the west (Crystal), and I-1 vacant industrial property to the north. The site slopes steeply away to the north and east at the building walls and a silt "dry" pond was created on the east side of the property with the 1990 expansion. Specific zoning requests include the following: A. Site and Building Plan Review/Approval B. Conditional Use Permit for Deferment of Required Parkinq Property owners within 350' of the property have been notified and staff has had several comments from neighbors (all positive). ANALYSIS The plans show a new two-story (8,500 square feet per floor) warehouse addition on the east side of the existing building that will be used for the storage of bulk items and finished work. The addition will be constructed in an area that is presently used as green area, but with the acquisition of the property to the north, the green area-requirement is easily met (46% - see site data below). Building materials will be painted concrete block to match the existing building with color clad fascia. Truck delivery will remain the same. Other improvements include an improved front entrance with new canopy facia and significant improvements to the front circular drive/entrance off of Winnetka Avenue. The most southerly curb-cut near 32nd and Winnetka will be shifted farther north, a greater distance from the intersection, and the northerly curb-cut will be shifted farther north, providing a greater distance between the entrance and exit. New concrete curb and gutter will be installed in the front drive area, with the exception that bituminous curb will be installed in the area of the deferred parking for ease of future parking expansion. Four handicapped parking stalls will be installed on the front/side of the building and the present parking in the front of the building on the circular drive is eliminated. New storm sewer/catch basins will be installed to correct drainage problems in front of the building. The Design-Review Committee met with the petitioner on December 16th and the following issues were discussed: number of employees vs. required parking, landscaping, truck delivery, storm sewer improvements, driveway entrance changes, building materials, signage, lighting, refuse and maintenance of vacant property. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. The revised plans include the following requested changes: truck turning radius is shown on site plan, all building signs and square footages are shown, additional landscaping has been added on the Winnetka Avenue vacant lots and existing landscaping is shown. Specific project data is as follows: SITE AREA 6.254 ACRES (272,403 ~SQUARE FEET) BUILDING/SITE AREA COVERAGE EXITING STRUCTURE: NEW .STRUCTURE: 79,999 SQ. FT 17,002 SQ. FT TOTAL BUILDING AREA: TOTAL BLDNG GROUND COVER: TOTAL GREEN AREA: TOTAL PAVED AREA: (INCLUDE DEFERRED PARKING) 97,001 SQ. FT 71,519 SQ. FT (26.3%) 124,826 SQ. FT (45.8%) 76,058 SQ. FT (27.9%) OCCUPANCY WAREHOUSE/OFFICE: MANUFACTURING: OCCUPANCY SEPARATION: B-2 H-3 2-HOUR CONSTRUCTION TYPE ADDITION: PARKING TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: DEFERRED PARKING 146 92 55 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES EXISTING EMPLOYEES: 62 PROJECTED EMP. W/ADDITION: 64 Landscap n.q - 26 new trees/shrubs will be added to the site (12 Norway Maple and 14 Yew) and 10 existing Spruce will be relocated on the site to compliment the existing green area. As noted, 4 additional Maple were added north of the north curb-cut, per Design and Review. Si.qna.qe - The existing "J. R. Jones Fixture Company" wall signage on the north elevation encompasses an area of 89.5 square feet. A new canopy facia will be added over the front entrance that may or may not be considered a wall sign (it could be interpreted as a logo or just decorative facia). The new facia totals 144 square feet. The two signs together (if the front facia is considered a sign) total 233.5 square feet. City Code allows not more than two signs and the total area of each sign cannot exceed 125 square feet or a total of 250 square feet. Staff does not have a problem with the signage because it is questionable as to whether the front facia is a sign or not, and if it is considered a sign the total sign square footages meet the requirements. Parkin,q - the total number of parking spaces required by the City Code is 146 and the plan shows 92 spaces being provided and 55 spaces being deferred (shown on the plans in a deferred parking area on the vacant Winnetka Avenue lots). The company presently has 62 employees and the projected number of employees with the addition is 64. The company clearly does not need all the parking required by the City Code. There are two options to address the parking issue: Ao Grant a conditional use permit for the deferment required parkinR. The City code states that a reduction in the number of required parking stalls may be permitted by conditional use permit provided that: (1) Evidence is provided demonstrating that the parking requirements of the proposed use will be less than the parking required during the peak demand period. Factors to be considered when reviewing the proposed parking demand shall include, but not be limited to: (a) (B) Size, type and use of building. Number of employees. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (C) (D) (E) (F) Projected volume and turnover of employee and/or customer traffic. Projected frequency and volume of delivery or service vehicles. Number of company owned vehicles. Storage of vehicles on site. In no case shall the amount of parking provided be less than one-half (1/2) to the amount of parking required by ordinance. The property owner can demonstrate that the site has sufficient property under the same ownership to accommodate the expansion of the parking facilities to meet the minimum requirements if the parking demand exceeds on-site supply. On-site parking shall only occur in areas designed and constructed for parking. The area reserved as "proof of parking" shall be sodded or seeded and maintained as green space or a recreational area. No permanent buildings shall be permitted in the "proof of parking" area. The property owner shall record a restrictive covenant against the title to the property providing that additional parking shall be constructed if the site parking demand exceeds the actual on-site parking supply in the sole opinion of the City. The form of the restrictive covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney before the issuance of the conditional use permit. To qualify for a parking deferment, the site plan must comply with all current zoning standards. If a conditional use permit for the deferment of required parking is the option chosen, an additional CUP and application fee must be submitted to the City. (B) Consider a Code Text Amendment for industrial parking requirements, as discussed under Planning Case 94-03. If such a code text amendment is adopted, there would not be a parking shortage on this site and a CUP would not be required. Sidewalk - The original plans shoWed a "future" sidewalk to be installed on the property along Winnetka Avenue and staff initially indicated that this was not necessary. Upon further review the City finds that the sidewalk installation would provide an important "missing link" (see attached type maps) and would like to work an agreement out with the property owner whereby the sidewalk would be installed. overall staff finds this tO be.a very good plan and commends the petitioner for their cooperation with the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site and building plan review and the conditional use permit for the deferment of required parking for J. R. Jones Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The platting of all three lots into one parcel. 2. Hennepin County approval of curb-cut changes. Performance bond to be submitted for improvements, amount to be determined by Building Official and City Engineer. Attachments: Additional fee for deferred parking CUP be submitted to City. An agreement to be reached between the property owner and City regarding installation of a sidewalk on Winnetka Avenue. The City Engineer recommendations be incorporated in the plans, Zoning/Section/Type Maps Site Plan Site Data Floor Plans Elevations Landscape Plan Plant Schedule Grading/Drainage/Erosion Control Plan Handicapped Parking Details City Engineer's Correspondence Sidewalk Aerial Photo -R-O ~LDEN ~-I :NTIAL ~i ~ R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O ESS 8-2 8*3 ZONING DISTRICT MAP CITY of NEW HOPE 771~ 3440 77~,. #. &¥ N. TN ~OT ,a v~EWCRE. S' AVE N L. ANE 7108 : a731 7Iol 40. I 944.2 X 919.~ 918.0~ ;926.4 916.7 × X 937.6 9~6.6 918.5 X X 914.~ 912.2 zI' H.L~ON 3nN3AV '~)t/':INNIM 0 Z g Z L I E :::ION ]nN':l^¥ ¥}I.L':INNIM Z CD "U 0 0 ::P' 0 ('") ~ ~ o~z~© ~-~ ~ oz~> moo ~ ~ ~_m z ]3 r-- r-- Z Z -< °' 0 Fq~-O Z _< Fq ]>ZZ rn "~ C) O,O 0 '-- 0 ZEi ED Z C,~ N,) --.' 0 0 ~) 0'3 U') O0 U"] O0 CO ~>  L- [' tt PAIIq[LD COLIC. HLOCK I . ~ I MARCH f-.XIR11NC BUILDING (~) SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/1~' = 1 '-0" 24' -0" 13' .~)" ~ 2," -~" / NEW CANOPY FASCIA __ ~ _ _. _- -EXIS11NG FACE BRICK ..... I (~WEST E,LoE. VATION @ FRONT ENTRY SCALE: 1/5' = '-" SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL g:¥ERGR;E~,t~REE TRANSPLANT DETAIL Z 7 V. 7 TREE PLAJJ'I'ING DETAIL EXISTING BUILDING <,//X/X/..:.'/ ~. PROPOSED ADDITION~'; 32nd AVENUE NORTH '1 © ® RLANDSCA~PE PLAN PIERCE REESE ARCHITECTS J. R. JONES FIXTURE COMPANY LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 DURING TRANSPLANT OPERATIONS TIE UP L,OWER RRARCHER TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE TREE PRUNE BRUISED AND DEAD FOLIAGE SET ,TREE II/UMI AND UPRIGHT JSSER OR IIL,AETIG HOle $ GUY WIRES CENTERED AROUND TREE ~.lt GAUGE WIRE GAL. VANED TURN SI, J CK L,E LAYERWOOOCHIll MULCH //,,,~ETAKEE TO WITHITAND 40MFHWINDI ~EET TREE 1' AIOVE GRADE EARTH IACKFILL WITH ORGANIC SOIL AND THOROUGHL,Y WATER AND FERTIL,IZE IMMEDIATELY E._VERGREEN'=ITREE TRAN'SPL~NT DETAIL- FL,USH WITH BARK PRUNE FOL,IAGE ONE THIRD ,DO NOT CUT I, EADERG IT&~me AT CONTRACTORS OPTION TREE WRAP L,AYER WOODCHllI MUL,G~ UNLESS OTHERWISE DPECIFIED REMOVE WIRE AND PLASTIC WITH FERT~IZER TREE PLA'hi'rlNG--DETA IL fi 32ND PLACE REMOVE EXIST. CURB & GUTTER INSTALL NEW CONC. APRON ND CONC. ~::~URB & GUTTER 'J BEGIN SITUMIN('~S \CURB C,8. ~oI SEE DETA~ c. I CONC ~URS ,, & GUTTER BEGIN BITUMINOUS CURB' .-, / ) I t / / INSTALL NEW CURB & GUTTER TO MATCH EXIST REMOVE EXIST CONC. CURB & GUTTER INSTALL NEW CONC. APRON GRADE ,l~ C.B 102 (BEE DETAIL) INSTALL NEW B-~IS CURB & GUTTER TO MATCH EXIST, (~' ~ANDICAP : .-IANDICAP PARKING ONLY NOTE: PRV1DE ONE SIGN FOR EACH INDICATED H/C PARKING SPACE - LOCATION TO BE FIELD V1ERIFIED BY ARCH. METAL SIGN W/ L~'rFERING AS INDICATED STEEL SIGN POST PARKING" SIGN 'I '] '~, 8:1 SLOPE--~ '( '" / 3'-0" ~. 3'-¢ c" ; ELEVATION VIEW Of RAMP 4.' CONCRETE WALK-~ ' ] - ' SECTION OF RAMP (~ HANDICAP. o ~ RAMP NOTE: CENTER RAMP ON EVERY 4:-0" PNNTED ISLAND 4.'-0' PAINTED ISLAND Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects December 20, 1993 Otto G. &orte~oo. PE Howa~ A. Sanfo~. PE M~ P ~u. PE. Ma~ O. :offi C. ~flik. PE. ~ R. ~e. PE. ~nes M. Ring. A.ICP L Phlllio Gr~f IlL PE Ricna~ E, TuTor. EE. O~ Q ~s~a, PE. M~h~ C. Ly~n. PE. ~ O Kr~stoti~, PE Glenn R. C~, PE ~ C. Rus~k. A.IA. Ja~ R. Ma~. RE. F T~ ~. PE. Thomas E. N~S. PE. Jer~ A. ~u~n. PE. Je~ O. ~h. RE. ~ R. Yapp, PE ~ G. ~hun~ht. PE. Mark A Han~n. PE. ~n~h P ~. FE. ~ou~as J. ~nog. ~n M E~in. C.~A M~h~l [ ~u~nn. RE. Mark R. ~E[ PE. ~n ~. Gu~a~n. PE *~n~r Consu/Mnt T~ K. F~. ~E. ~rk A ~P. PE. C~il~ Olivet Thomas R. A~. A.I.A. ~ ~ Mo~n. PE. Charles A. ~na~ C. ~ RE. Dan~ J. E~on: PE. L~ M. P~lsky Tho~s E. An~[ PE. Allan R~k ~hm~. PE. Hadan M. Israel Ma~nez. ~E. P~ilip J. Ca~ll. PE James F. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Attention: Kirk McDonald Re:J.R. Jones parking Lot Expansion File 34 gen Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the above parking lot reconstruction and recommend the following: The parking lot expansion provides for minimal additional paved surface. At this time, it's not recommended ponding be required; however, in the future as additional parking is provided, ponding will be required. The existing storm sewer manhole shall be reconstructed to conform to existing grades. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, ~~O~E~~ERLIK & ASSOCIATES,Ma~ A. Hanson INC. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: 1. The petitioner 94-05 Request CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage 4990 Highway 169 North 07-118-21 23 0013 I-1 Limited Industrial Collins Electrical Systems, Inc. February 22, 1994 March 2, 1994 BACKGROUND is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage, pursuant to Sections 4.144 (1) and 4.21, New Hope Code of Ordinances. Collins Associates-Minneapolis/Collins Electrical Systems, Inc. is in the process of purchasing the Standard Iron building at 4990 Highway 169 and is requesting a conditional use permit to store company trucks, trailers and equipment in the rear yard. The existing lot contains 163,000 square feet, with the building size being 13,800 square feet and occupying eight percent of the property, the rear storage area consisting of 18,200 square feet and occupying 11 percent of the parcel, and the remainder of the lot (86,000 square feet or 53 percent of the parcel) being green area. The property is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial and is bordered on the north and south with I-1 properties, on the east by a DNR regulated wetland, and Highway #169/City of Plymouth are located to the west. The Comprehensive Plan stresses the maintenance of industrial properties in this area and highlites the importance of buffering the residential areas south of 49th Avenue. The zOning Ordinance requires 33 parking spaces for this property/use and 36 spaces are provided. The topography of the property is flat with a ditch crossing the northeast comer of the property draining into the adjacent wetland at the east (rear). Several large Cottonwoods exist along the ditch. Many trees were planted when the building was constructed in 1975. Property owners within 350' of the site have been notified and staff have received no comments on the request. Planning Case 94-05 March 2, 1994 Page 2 ANALYSIS Open accessory' outdoor storage is allowed as a conditional accessory use in the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District provided that: mo Screened from Residential Uses. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses. B. Surfacing. Storage area is greased or surfaced to control dust. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health and safety. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider possible adverse effect of the proposed conditional use. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit, the City Council and Planning Commission shall find that: Ao Comprehensive Plan. 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 Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. Do No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts: In Industrial Districts (I-l, I-2): a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing and future development in adjacent areas. Planning Case 94-05 March 2, 1994 Page 3 Economic Return. The use will provide an economic return to the community and commensurate with other industrial uses that the property could feasibly be used for. In considering the economic return to the community, the Planning Commission and City Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. The petitioner met with the Design and Review Committee on February 10th and explained that the company is a commercial/industrial electrical contractor who has expanded into outdoor construction, including the installation of traffic lights, light standards, etc. The company desires to store up to 20 vehicles, 18 trailers and 11 bobcats/ditch-witches/backhoes and other miscellaneous equipment, such as light standard storage in the rear of the building. The petitioner stated that 95 percent of the time the majority of the equipment/vehicles are staged at the job site and employees drive to and from the job site. The exception would be when a vehicle is in for maintenance. Issues discussed by Design and Review included screening of the equipment, surfacing of the site, the wetland/drainage issues, track design radius, trash enclosure, snow storage, number of employees, landscaping, lighting and curbing. Design and Review and staff directed the petitioner to check with the Watershed District on the wetland issue. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the Design and Review meeting, which include the following changes: Curbing has been added along the south side of storage area "C" (see Building Officials attachment) to preserve green area. B. Snow storage gates have been added between storage areas "B" and "C". The track maneuvering area has been revised to show adequate semi-track turning room. D. Trash storage area is shown on the southeast comer of the building. Eo A seven foot chain link fence with visual barrier slats is shown along the north street side. F. A proposed future ponding easement is shown on the northeast side of the lot. A landscape plan has been submitted showing significant existing landscaping around the perimeter of the site and the petitioner has shown an a~:ea in the front of the building labeled "future landscaping and planting to be determined in this area after snow melts." Planning Case 94-05 March 2, 1994 Page 4 The City Engineer had reviewed the plan and recommends that the easement per the enclosed diagram. New asphalt paving is shown in storage areas "B" and "C"and staff recommends that curbing not be required in these areas to accommodate street drainage. A proposed future easement for possible future ponding is denoted on the plan. Three new pole lights with cut-off hoods are shown on the comers of the storage yard area and a new wall light is shown on the east wall of the warehouse. area be expanded, RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: for outdoor storage, Installation of landscaping (to be determined by Commission), screening and partial curbing/asphalt within eight months from date of approval. Easement area to be expanded, per City Engineers recommendation, with revised lot survey showing new easement area and legal description to be submitted to City within 90 days of approval. Attachments: Topo/Zoning/Aerial Maps Site Plan Landscape Plan Building Official Attachment City Engineer Correspondence and Easement Diagram Vehicle/Equipment List R'O Ro4 i IR-4 R.4 -F~-O SAINT[ , ST PAUL. o. 81 .- SAULT ~]017 49 TH NEW HOPE ATHLETIC FIELD AVE. AVE. 48 TH AV~ i 0 3~N3AV 0~08S1] ~ x ~ x ~r x o~x in AY NHOSS9 SOTH AVENUE NORTH '-FA C ; / / ' / ;N St-ALE: ~' · 30' .(=OLLLSYS _ . j~ HOW~L ,~ICHITICTS ,GID ASSOC~TIS, ~ _18.202 MI~ETOt4C& BLVD. SUITE 202 WAYZATA, ~N. S53~1 449-9303 . hu 449-0S52 .~=i~L 9, 1004 SIT[- 1 $OTN HORTH ¢ · p I '1 _COLLISY$ _ mmvmm I-~.~:.: ..... .~ 0. ,, F E ]~--24-- 94 T H U I ~ : 28 ]~ 0 N E S T R 00 & AS $ 0 C I A T E S P 02 Bonestroo Rosene A nderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects February24, 1994 Mr, Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. N. New l tope, MN :5:5428 Re: ()utlot B - Olson Industrial Park (C':oilisys Site Plan) Our File No, 34 Gen Dear Kirk: We have received the above referenced site plan and recommend t~e following: The DNR Wetland located on the east side of the property sl~all be delineated and defined by a pond easement at the I00-year HWL. The lp0--~-year HWL for tile wetland is 890.1 (SC-P6.8) per New ltope's recently completed Surface Water Management Plan. ' The 36" RCP located on the south side of $0th A, venue conv~ys drainage front TH 169 and the City of Plymouth. New Hope s reoently o~mpleted Surface Water Management Plan proposes a water quality pon,d (sedi~nent trap) in t.his area to treat stot~water from TH 169 and the City of'Plymouth before · discharging into the DNR Wetland. The attached sketch identifies the recommended ease .lllent needed to construct the pond in ac~tdanc.e, with the Management Plan, It's recommended the easement be .requ~ed at this time to allow for construction of the ponding area in the future, as determined by the · City of New Hope and Shingle Creek Watershed, If you have any questions~ please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENF., ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAll:pr x REVISED DECEMBER 31~ 1~3 Veh. # Description HAXIMUMPROPOSED "OUTDOOR STORAGE" AT 4990 HIGtI~AY ~ 169 [Worst-case scenario] License # Serial # Purch. Purch. Date Garaged At Driver GROSS WT 98 1987 FORD F250 VAN 99 1986 FORD F250 VAN 105 1979 FORD 1-TON STAKE 109 1978 1-TON FORD DUMP- 113 1979 CHEVOLET 3.5 TON 116 1985 3/4 TON CHEV PU- WHITE 117 1983 1-TON CHEV VAN - WHITE W/AERIAL DEVICE 119 1993 DODGE PU CB-030 W/UTIL.BOX/AERiAL LIFT 120 1979 FORD STEPVAN 121 1~3 CHEV I TON, #C350(] 122 1979 FORD 3/4 TON LIFT TRUCK 123 1990 DODGE PICKUP 124 1978 2-TON CHEV BOOM (65' NAT'L BOOM,5~TON 126 1987 FORD AUGER (PCUFLDI PITMAN, POLE CAT 127 1979 FORD 2 TON STAKE 129 1983 3/4 CHEV SKYVAN 130 1978 CHEV CBL60 DUMP 131 1978 2-1/2 T CHEV C50 132 1978 2-1/2 T CHEV C65 133 1985 GMC 3/4 T PICKUP WHITE 58(] AZN 1FTFE24Y4HHA50209 7,500 JUL. '91 WHITE 229 HJH 1FTFE24Y9GHA5~10 4,5(](] JUL. '91 ' YS 82519 F37HCEJ1270 2,5(](3 MAR. '79 MPLS. VARIOUS BLUE YS 82520 F37HKAH3175 5,691 MAR. '78 MPLS. VARIOUS WHITE YS 82182 C170E9V157902 15,572 JUL. '~N] MPLS. VARIOUS 231 HJH 1GCFC24H5FF358424 8,280 JUL. '85 YS 82518 2GCGG35MXD4136362 8,~ MAR. '83 MPLS. VARIOUS 10,000 WHITE YX ~809 1B6NE36C60S181485 21,335 JAN. '93 MPLS. WHITE YM 32286 P60GVEF~17 3,50(] AUG. '91 MPLS. WHITE YM 87060 1GBKC34FIPJ108572 25,4(]0 JUN. '93 MPLS. DELIVERY WHITE 233 EBT F25HPEBO~5 4,~1 JUL. '89 MPLS. VARIOUS WHITE 406 EJD 1B7JE26Z3LS626531 12,965 DEC. '89 MPLS. VARIOUS WHITE YU 82580 CE678V103143 33,500 JUL. '85 MPLS. VARIOUS CAP.) 12,(](](] WHITE YU 24896 1FDPR80USHVA31285 43,(](](] FEB. '90 MPLS. VARIOUS CAT BOOM TIP, WINCH CH WITH AUGER) WHITE YX 87724 R70BVEG7283 4,50(] OCT. '89 MPLS. VARIOUS WHITE YS 82517 2GCGG35M4D41361~ 8,8~ MAR. '83 MPLS. VARIOUS WHITE YU 44658 CCE618V133481 5,40(] NOV. '88 MPLS YX 97271. CCE668V128104 5,350 MAY '92 MPLS. VARIOUS YX 972~ -CCE~8V127179 5,350 MAY '92 MPLS VARIOUS 411HAF 2GTFC24H9F1535550 4,2(](] AUG. '92 MPLS. VARIOUS 9,500 23,160 7,200 FEB REVISED DECEMBER 31, 1~3 veh. # Description License # JOB SITE TRAILERS Serial # Purch. Purch. Date Garaged At Driver GROSS WT 165 40' TRAILMOBILE SEMI 40' FRUEHAUF SEMI 40' BROWN SEMI 40' SEMI 4(]' TRAILMOBILE SEMI 35' STORAGE TRAILER 25' OFFICE TRAILER OFFICE TRAILER AIRSTREAM '78 BECK - BOBCAT BT12 HYD DITCHWITCH '80 HOMEMADE '87 HOMEMADE '79 DITCHWITCH FLATBED TRAILER '86 FELL FLATBED }'7 DTC TRAILER 1948 1963 1976 1970 CTT 8783 CTR 8504 ZG 29035 V 59846 CTD 4205 CTX 5037 CTP 2541 135648 AV'F?50 636695 763803 F30746 EQUIPMENT TRAILERS P259 (]010526 DPSMN794636 10569 Eb5241345T K1300E197 65O 340 250 SEP. '77 50(] MAR. '88 JUN. '82 FEB. '91 2,1(](] FEB. '92 1,850 AUG. '78 3,5(]0 OCT. '79 50(] MAR. '88 825 JUN. '87 4(2(] MAR. '8(5 1,1(](] JUN. ,7/ 4,0(]0 MAR. '88 267 APR. '93 MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. BRND MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. BRAINERD REVISED JUNE 15, 1993 DESCRIPTION YEAR COLLISYS EQUIPMENT LIST MODEL LOCATION PRICE SERIAL # MELROE BOBCAT DITCH WITCH DITCH WITCH DITCH WITCH VERMEER BOB CAT BACKHOE COMPRESSOR COMPRESSOR 1-UPRIGHT LIFT 1-FLASHER TRAILER 1993 1981 1990 1984 1985 1991 1978 1990 1989 1975 853H J20 5010D 4010D 1453 843 MELROE FORD INGERSOL 160 SULLIVAN XL-24 WARNING LITES MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. MPLS. 30441.00 3000.00 49670.00 36000.00 52100.00 34662.00 13800.00 9800.00 8200.00 16500.00 1300.00 75189 6F1042 40862 205914 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM February 23, 1994 Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Miscellaneous Issues Development Coordinator February 14th Council Meeting - At the February 14th 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 Council unanimously adopted a "Resolution Considering Planning Case 93-33 Rezoning Request for Property at 7901 28th Avenue North and Denying Same." The resolution, which was prepared by the City Attorney, details the reasons that the Planning Commission and City Council opposed the rezoning from R-1 to R-O and the resolution is enclosed for your information. You will also recall that the City Council had requested that staff review and comment on zoning classifications and the rezoning issues and research alternate options for this situation. Staff met with the Planning Consultant and City Attorney on this matter and developed a list of options, as outlined in the enclosed Request for Action and Planner's memo. If it is the intention of the Planning Commission or City Council not to allow total office occupancy, but to allow the existing split use to remain, several of the options would accommodate the present situation. Per the 2/14 Council minutes, the majority of the Council recommended that the applicants pursue a PUD rezoning and it is staff's understanding that the Wrobels will be submitting another planning/zoning application in the near future. Planning Case 94-04, B-1 Zoning District Uses Study, Ordinance 94-02, An · Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Expanding Permitted Conditional Uses Within the B-1 Limited Neighborhood Business District. The City Council approved this code text amendment, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and the code revision will be effective upon publication. Planning Case 93-35B, Request for Rezoning from B-1 to B-2 Zoning District or Code Text Amendment to Allow Laundromat/Dry Cleaning Business with On-Site Processing to Locate at 7811-7821 62nd Avenue North, Oliver Tam, Petitioner. The City Attorney advised staff to request a letter of withdrawal on this application from the petitioner in the event that the code text amendment proposed under Planning Case 94-04 was adopted. The petitioner did submit the requested letter stating that he would withdraw the rezoning request if the code text amendment allowing dry cleaning processing on-site was approved. Following the approval of Planning Case 94-04, the Council accepted~ the withdrawal of Planning Case 93-35B. Miscellaneous Issues February 23, 1994 Page 2 J.R. Jones Conditional Use Permit Site Improvement Agreement and Declaration of Covenants for Deferred Parking - The required documents for the J.R. Jones building expansion and site improvements have been executed and filed with the City, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Wall Sign Study - The Codes and Standards Committee met on February 8th to continue discussion on a variety of options for sign code text amendments to address the Ponderosa wall sign issue. Enclosed is the most recent report from the Planning Consultant. The Codes and Standards Committee suggested that City staff and representatives of the Committee meet with Ponderosa to discuss possible options to reduce the area of the sign prior to making final recommendations to the full Commission. Staff is now in the process of scheduling the meeting. Cooper Senior High School Football/Track Facility Improvement Study - Last summer Independent School District No. 281 presented very preliminary plans to the City regarding the possibility of a football/track facility improvement at Cooper Senior High School. The City reviewed the plans and responded to questions regarding the zoning process, zoning requirements, etc. last November. The City staff, Planning Consultant and City Engineer recently met with school representatives to review the points contained in the City's correspondence. Although the sale of Mielke Field is not yet finalized, it appears that District No. 281 will be proceeding with plans to construct a facility at Cooper High School this summer/fall. Staff is anticipating an application this spring, therefore, we are forwarding this information generated to date to you so that you can begin to familiarize yourselves with the issues. Attachments: Resolution Denying Wrobel Rezoning Request Planner's Memo -Options for Planning Case 93-33 Letter of Withdrawal -Planning Case 93-35B J.R. Jones CUP Site Improvement Agreement Wall Sign Memorandum Site Utilization Study for Football/Track Facility at Cooper High School City Correspondence re: Cooper Field Plans ~ REQUF_~T FOR ACTION Originating Depa]-tment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Development City Manager ~/, Plannin~ /~ 2-14-94 Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: , $ 1 Management Assistant ' RESOLUTION CONSIDERING PLA ING CASE 93-33, REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY AT 7901 28TH AVENUE NORTH, AND DENYING SAME This mr/er was discussed at the January 10th Council meeting, at which time the Council directed the Ci~ Attorney to prepare findings of fact for the February !4th Coun/:il meeting and ~ s~ff to review and comment on zoning classificafions/issue~ and research alternate options that could resolve this issue without a rezoning from R-1 to R-O. ,11~ Cit~.:Atwmey has Pretm~ the enclosed "Resolution Consideri~ Planni~ Case 93-33, Rezoni~ Request for Property at 7901 28th Avenue North, and Denying Same" and staff recommends approval of the re~olution. As previously discussed, time petifiouer is requesting the rezouin8 of this parcel of property from R-I, Sin$1e Family Residential, to R-O, Resideutial Office, to allow tot~i professioual office occupancy of the building. The property is currently zoued R-I, Single Famit~ Residential, and a special use (conditional use) permit was granted by the City"l'~t-'i94'~'ti~ allow a portion of the home to be used as a ~ of'fief. Currently the main floor of th~ hon~ is utilized as a resideur.~ and tbe walkout besemeui is used as a den, s{ off~.e. Tl~ ~ is m expand the existin8 dental off~.~ to bo~h floors of the building wh/le e~ rime residemial use and abandoning the pre,us livin~ quarters. In his petition the applicam stated that the location of this building on Winnetka Avenue and immediately adjacent to the Midland Shopping Center makes the entire building more useful for professional business rather than residential. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: I RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Planning Case 93-33 Page 2 The Planning Commission considered this request at their November and December meetings and was unanimously opposed to the rezoning for the reasons outlined in the staff and consultants reports, the minutes of those meetings, and the findings contained in the attached resolution. City staff did meet to discuss alternate options. If it is the intention not to allow total office occupancy, but to allow the existing split use to remain, staff recommends that the petitioner pursue one of the following options: Rezone to a PUD District, which would allow the existing mixed use to remain, but not expand. Rezone to an R-2 District, with the entire building being converted to residential dwelling space. Rezone to an R-2 District and amend the City Code to allow a dental office in the R-2 Zone by conditional use permit. 4. Amend the R-1 District.to allow dental offices as a conditional use permit. 5. Make no changes and enforce the Code as written. February 10, 1994' Daniel d. Ddnahue City Manager City Of New Hooe 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Wrobel Rezoning Request/planning Case 93-33 Our File No; 99.40058 Dear Dan: Please find enClosed a prooosed Resolution Considering Plannit9 Case 93-33 Rezoning Request for Property at 7901 28th Avenue North and Denying Same. This reso]ut~orl establishes Findings of Fact to deny the rezonin9 request fOr the referenced property. The enclosed resolution is for consideration at the FeOruary 14, 1994 City Council meeting. Basically, the resolution concludes the following: 1. A past zoning mistake was noL maOe when the property was designated aa R-1 Sln91e Family Residential. 2. The use o¢ the property as a dental office has not changed the character of the property from single family red,dented3 to warrant a rezon~ng. 3. The current zoning designation iS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a rezoning to R-O would be detrimental to ~he heallh~ safe~y and welfare of the surrounding properties. ~f the Council wishes to adopt the enclosed resolution, a majority vote is necessary. HOWever, if the Council wishes to rezone the property to R-O which in effect would be a text amendment to the Zoning Code, a 4/5'e vote of the City Council wou3d be required. ~r. Daniel d. Donahue February 10, 1994 , ~age 2 Contact me-if you have any questions, Very truly yours, ~teven A. $ondr~ll s1~2 Enclosure CC' Kirk McOonald Management Asst. (w/enc,y~_._~r'-'- .... ~- ,:.. Valerie Leone (w/eric) ..,' RESOLUTION NO. 94- RESOLUTTON CONSIDERING PLANNING CASE 93-33 REZONZNa REQUEST FOR PROPERTY AT 7901 28TH AVENUE NORTH AND DENYING SAME WH~REA~, Minn. Stat. Chap, 462 authorizes the City Council wtth the aid and assistanc~ of the City Planning Commission to carry on municipal planning activities which guise future development and improvement o~ ~he City, end WHEREA~, Minn. Stat. §§462.355, 356 and 357 provide the City with specific authorization to adopt a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning orainances establishing uses within d~fferent zonin~ districts, and WHEREAS, the City in 1960 approved a Comprehensive Municipal Plan, and enacted a zoning ordinance and established permitted uses and ~pecia] use permits and variances for the individual districts and is attempting to plan and guide future d~ve3opmQnt of the community, and WHEREAS~ the New Hope City COuncil, after severe3 years of study and numerous hearings, acting upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission~ adopted a revised Comprehensive Municipal Plan on the 22nd day of May~ 1978~ pursuan~ to Minn. St_at. §&62.355, and WH___~F.~_F,_~, Again after long study and numerous hear'ings~ ~he City .Counci~ on June 11~ 1979, adopted a new zoning ordinance ~ ~m~lement the revise~ Comprehens~¥e Plan, said ordinance be~9 Ordinance 79-11 of the City, and WHE__~, Or. Pau] Wrobe] (hereinafter Applicant), the fee owner of property located at 7~01 2~th Avenue North ~n the City of New Hope and ~eg~3y described as follows (hereinafter Property)' Lot 17, Block 3, Twin Terra Linde petitioned the City to rezone the Property from "R-I" to "R-O", said matter.being cleaignated as Planning Case No. 93-33, and WHEREAS, pureuant to duly maile~ and published notice, the petition was considered at meetings of the New Hope P3anni~9 Commission on November ~ and December 7, 1993, with all intereste~ Der$on~ being given the opportunity to be heard, an~ ~~F~.~.FA, the Planning Commission had before it the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, the Findings and Comments of the C~ty Staff and the Northwest Associated ConsuTtants Ptannin§ Reports dated October 27, November 5 and December 3, 1993 and ~, the P~anning Commission recommended that [he C~ty Council deny the petition for rezoning, and ~, at a public hearing on January 10, 1994, the City Council heard a17 persons interested who wished to Be heard on the matter, and W__H.F.J~, the City Council had before iL the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, minutes of ~he Planning Commission, the Findings and Comments of City Staff, the Northwest Associated Consultants Planning ReDorts, the comments of the petitioner, members o¢ the Council, and any interested citizens who were present, together with lon~ familiarity wi~h the site in question and its zonin9 history, and ~, khe Comprehensive Plan of the City identifies residential neighborhood and housing preservation ~nd maintenance, enhancement of commercial vitality, prevenlion o? str~p pattern of commercial deYe~opmer~t and ~anQ use compatibility a~ important i~sues to De addressed by the City, and ~, the Comprehensive Plan in response to these issues sets out general~ residentia~ and commercial land use goals policies used to provide a dec~sion-makine framework to guide at1 public and private actions and developments within the City. Further, said policies and goals also function aa evaluation criteria for development and change which subsequently occurs, and ~, the land use policies and goals mo~t pertinent to the applicant's rezoni~g aDo~ication in light of these issues are follows: i) DeYelop a cohesive land use pattern which ensures compa~ibi l~ty and functional relationships among activit ie~. EstaDlish planning districts within the community based umon homogeneous or compatible land use charactcristios and/or d~vlsion Of Dhysica~ barriers. iii) Prevent over-intensification Of lan~ use development~ in ot~er words, ~evetoDment which is .) not accomoanied by a sufficient loyal of supportive services and facilities (utilities parking access, e~c.). ' , b. ' Gen~.ral Land Use Policies i) Ensure that intensification of land use activity and development is accompanieU by sufficient corresponding increases in related supportive and service faci]ities such as off-street parking. ii) Accomplish transitions between distinctly different types of land uses in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative (economic, social or physical) impact on adjoining developments. iii) Protect integrated use districts (e.9. residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, industrial oark) from penetration by through traffic. Where through traffic problems are identified, correct suc~ problems as opportunities ~rise. c, ~esiaential Goals/Policie~ 4) Provide safe, healthy and attractive residential environments which off.r a broad and full choice of housing types. Maintain and where necessary, strengthen character of individual neighborhoods' Comm~r'uial G,oals/Polici.es the i) ii) Strongly discourage any further spot uncoordinate~ linear commercial development favor of a unified development pattern, Or When opportunities arise, consolidate existing spot and u~cOordinated linear commercial developmer~t into more functional patterns. iii) Ensure that develoOment of any scattered open - D&rcel~ along existing commercial ~[rips is accomplished in a fashion whtc~ helps to establish more functional development patterns [for example, utilizing shared acce$~ and parking, etc,), ~, ~n keeping w~Th these goals and pelicies of the Comprehensive Ft~n and the City's housing policies and objectives, the subject property was zoned "R-1 Low Density Residential", ~REFO the Cit Council of the Cit ~_L~_~_~_._~m~e' ~inne t find~ as fOllow~: ~]ND[NG~ OF FACT 1. The recitation~ above are incorporated herein by thi~ referenced. 2. The property i~ currently zoned "R-1 ~ingle-Family ~esidentiaI" and improved with a dual-Purpose building containing a single-family residence oriented to 28th Avenue North and ~ professional Qen~a] office oriented to Winnetka Avenue NOrth. 3. This dual-purpose building was constructed in 13~4 Pursuant to a home-occupation special use permit 9ra~ted on November 5, 1963 by the New Hope City Council conQitiona~ uoon the following: That the special use permit is renewable a~ three year intervals; That no more than one non-resident employee may work at the dental office; That the sDec~el use permit was subject to the Severance of paragraph El! (E)(3)(a) of the 1963 New Ho~e Zonin9 Code, and 4. The Zoning Code was amended in Prohibiting the issuance of home occupation ]979 and thereafter like the one receiveQ by applicant for the special use ~ermits rendering the building'~ dual-purpose a legal subject property and non-conforming use if ComPliance with the terms of the original ~963 special use permit are maintained, an~ 5. The 197~ New Hope Comprehensive Plan holds that property abuttin9 28th Avenue North should be developed with low and medium density residential housing and property immediately south of the subject should be developed w~th commercial land uses in recognition of the Midland ShOpping Center, and 8. The-subject property and Propertiee surrounding it have developed consistently with the 1978 Comprehensive Plan, Specifically, ~he properties east, west and north of the subjec~ have Dean developed with single and two family residences as cal]e~ for by the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the Midland ~hopping Center to the south of the subject has been commercially develope~ as called for i~ the Comprehensive Plan as 7. The property's existing ~-I zoning designation promotes t~e general and residential land use Scale of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, m~intalning the Property as low density residential strengthens the neighborhood'a residential character, strengthens cohesive land use patterns and ensures ]an~ use compatibility. 8. Rezoning thn property to "~-0", allowing for high density residential and low density business Or commercial use, will be contrary to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it witl result in over-intensification of land use development unsupported by ~ufficient Services a~d facilities s~ch as parking and access. The applicant's proposal for ~ dent~l office proposes staggered off-street parking in the residential garage stalls and driveway to meet Parking space minimums. This arrangement will result In prohibited access to required parking stalls and inadequate parking circulation, Further, cars using ~hese driveway and garage stalls'will be forced to back out onto ~Sth Avenue North. Both conOitions are also contrary to the Zoning Code. g. The proposed der~tal office will also result in cars from said office utilizing residentially or~ented ~Sth Avenue North as welt as Winnetka Avenue North. This will weaken rat~er than strengthen the residential character of t~e neighborhood. Further, allowin~ R-O status to the Property encourages rather than discourages SPot or uncoordinated linear commercial development light of the numerous other R-O commercla~ uses the property be subject to in addition [0 t~e denta~ office use if rezoning, 10, The ~roperty's initial primary use was a residential use with a secondary home occupation use. The property's physical appearance and characteristics still indicate a primary residential use, Maintaining the R-1 zoning i~ consistent with t~e property'~ Orimary residential use whtle the requested rezoning would be directly contrary to said use. The applicant' primary use of the property has changed only because of his abandonment of t~e residential unit as his personal ~iving Quarters. These circumst&nces do not warrant a rezoning in that the dent~l allowed as a home occupation has not changed the character of the ~roDerty from single-family residential. 11. ~y- vacating the property's residential quarters, applicant is in violation of the home occupation special pnrmit. ~pecifically, applicant now has more than on~ employee living off-site working at the dental office in violation of the special use Permit conditions, As result, the seconOary use of the Property a~ a dental office is in violation of the Zoning Code, Basea on the foregoing Findings, the City Council hereoy makes the following: 1, That the PrOPerty's zoning designation as ~-1 migtake and should De maintained. 2. That the property's residential use is consistent w~th the Comprehensive,.ptan. 3. That the dental offfce permitte~ ~y the 1963 spec~T use ~ermit as a ho~e occupation hag not change~ residential C~aracter of the property. 4. Rezoning the Property ~o R-O would be inconsistent w~th the ¢omprehensive,P~an and would be detr~menta] to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. That maintaining .the residential character of the prooerty Drovides an adequate and reasonable use of the Property notwithstanding rezonfng the property to R-O may ~ncreaee the resale, va~ue of the property, Rezon~ng proper~y Purely for economic ~ain bene?ic~a~ only to private individual with' no cOrresDonding value to community is ~nagpropr~ate, There?ore, the City Council hereby ~EN~ES Petitioner'3 rezoning aDPlicat~on designated as Planning Case No, 93-33, Dated the_.__._.__ day of Edw, j. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk MEMOR.~'~DU~ TO: ;ROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius iI February 1994 New Hope Wrobel Land Use 131.01 - 93.33 On 7 February 1994, City staff met to discuss c)tlons ~or dealing wi~h ~he Wrobel dental office located at 7901 2sth Avenue. This property is zoned R-l, Single Family Residentt%l District. The site contains a dental office and a single f~mily home. This combination of land uses does not qualify as a iaome occupation in that the pro~er=y owner does not live on th~ site and has an employee count that exceeds New Hope's home occupation standards. The use does not quali~y as a !e~al non-conform£~[~ use property owner changed the site use from its a~...~oved 1963 special use permit. The New HoDs City Council is not in favor of chatting the zoning on the Wrobel site from R-1 to R-O to accommclate an ex~anded commercial office on the site. However, the Cou.~cil has requested staff ~O consider alternative options for deal_.n~ with this land use issue. The following options were discussa_.: Option No. 1 No change, the site would remain R-1 and the uss would have to be converted to a single family home and potentially a home occupation. . The property owner con,ends =hau investment in the property ma~es the conversion to a single family home un=enable. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9~7 Option No. 2 Rezone =he property =o R-2. While this option would not accommodate the exis=in~ office use, i= would allow =he existing single family home =o be converted to a two family home. This would provide, the property owner an expanded reuse of =he property. The R-2 Zoning Dis=tlc= is consistent with New Hope's Comprehensive Plan for this area cf =he City. The R~2 zoning is also compauib!s with zoning and land uses a~u==ing =he site on the wes=. Option No. 3 To accommodate =he Wrobel office use, =he City staff discussed rezoning =he property =o R-2 and amending the R-2 District =O allow dental and medical offices as a conditional use within =his zoning district ~ · ,..e use would be narrowly defined and conditions for approval would be established co res=rio= =he use opera=ion and potent!al locations for such uses· Staff concerns with reqard to 0pt!on No. 3 include: The R-2 Zoning Dis=rio= uses generally roll over =o =he more intense zonln~ dis~ric~s. In =his re~ard, =he office CUP would =hen be allowed not only in =he R-2 Distric~ but also =he ~-3, R-4, and R-5 Zoning Dis=rlc=s. We are concerned =nat this type of ordinance change may present similar land use problems over an expanded geographic area of =he City. Staff is also concerned about narrowly defining =he use to just medical and dental offices. Other office usesmay claim ~o be a less intense ac=ivizy and wish =o be included in thes residential districts. Equity and uniform ~reatmen~ c similar land uses su~es~ =hat =bm City may no~ be able t.~ specifically limi= uhe conditional use =o den=al and medical clinics· The Zoning Ordinance attempts =o separate different land use activities from one another =o establish compatible land use pa=terns. The City would have to de=ermine that medical and dental offices are compiimen:ary and compatible uses in residential neighborhoods. FE~-- 11 --94 FR ~ 11 ~ ~5 0 P- 04 Optio, No. 4 The C'lty~"~, New Ho~e has ordinallce language =ha= doet accommodate a mix~.l~use ~1o~=. Section 4.19 of =he New Hope Zoning Ordinance is the Planned %mit Development District (PUD). The purpose of =~is district is as follows: 4.191 ~urDose and in~$n$. The purpose of =his section of =he Zoning Code is =o provide for =he grouping of land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach =o development. This sec=ion is in=ended =o introduce flexibi!i=y of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities. It is fur=her in=ended =ha= Planned Unit Deve!opmenus are =o be characterized by central management, integra=ed planning and architecture, joint or common use of parking, maintenanc.~ of open space and o=~er similar facilities, and harmonious se!ac=ion and efficient distribu=ion of uses. Through the PUDsoning, the City may permit =he mixe~l use o-fEice/ residential divelopmen= on the eite~ The uses may be limited-in Size and s¢o~e ~hrou~h an ap;=QYeai PtrD li~e pl~ ~ ~forced Through :he P~ Zonin~ Dis=r/c=, =he Ci=y can be ~eograph!c and land use specific in its con=to! of =he proposed use. ~he PUD/CUP has been used for shopping cen%~rs and apar%men= complexes where a!l the land uses are permit=ed in the base zoning district. Since =he City has no= utilized the ~UD Zonin~ Dis=riot in the past, staff has noted some concern over =he process for establishing a PUD Zoning District. The City's rezoning crizeria establish a clear unders=andin~ as =o where and '~hen ~he PUD Zonin~ Dis=rio= may be appro~ria=ely used in the f_~ure, staff would recommend ou=linin~ some additional PUD zoni,~ criteria. This would allow the City to evaluate similar zonin%~ requests on their own terms rather ~han esZablishing an undesirabl~ zoning precedent. Conclusion - If'the City wishes =o accommodate the WrobeI lan~ use arrangemen:, accommodate =he mixm~ lan~ use arrogant. ~ditionally, thi~ zoning mechanism does provide =he City with conurol over the land use =~es, location, size and scope. 3 zoning criteria for the PUD Zoning Di,s~rict f6r evalua=ing future ~-~ potential PUD zoning requests. Dan D onal-.ue Stevm Scndrall To: Prom~ TAM'S INC. 1160 Fireside Driv~ Minneapolis, M. innesota 55432 (612) 784-4402 Fax (612) 784-1827 New-Hope City Councix Members Oliver Tam Feb. 11, 1994 If the Code Amendmen~ is approved for the B - 1 District t',,~'~ wculd include Dry Cleaning with Processing, I will ~ i,~:;':l":.zw my request to have the property rezoned to B - 2 .. ~ ~. ['£C~. CITY OF NEW HOPE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by J.R. JONES FIXTURE CO., Minnesota corporation (hereinfter "Developer") and the City of New Hope (hereinafter "City"), this day of , 1994. WHEREAS, on January 12, 1994, by Resolution No. 94-11, the City Council approved Developer's request for a Conditional Use Permit (hereinafter the "CUP") for certain real property located in the City of New Hope, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota known as 3216 Winnetka Avenue North, legally described as: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Pazandak Addition; The South 352.7 feet of 'the West One-Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 118, Range 21; (hereinafter "Property") to allow deferred parking in an I-1 Zoning District, and WHEREAS, on January 10, 1994 by Resolution No. 94-11 the City Council approved Developer's site development plans for the Property. as set forth in Planning Case 94-01 (hereinafter "Plans"), and WHEREAS, the CUP was granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The Property be platted into one lot. 2. Hennepin County approve the curb cut changes. A performance bond be submitted for the improvements, in an amount to be determined by the Building Official and City Engineer. An additional fee for deferred parking CUP be paid to City.- Installation of sidewalk on Winnetka Avenue, with City to pay one-third of the cost. City Engineer recommendations be incorporated into the plans· NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows: 1. INCORPORATION incorporated herein by conditions of the CUP. OF RECITALS. The recitals above are reference, specifically including the 2. THE WORK. The Work shall consist of the site improvements described in the Plans, including the Secure Work as described below, and including any amendments to the Plans which are approved by the City Council. The Work shall be performed by the Developer to the City's satisfaction and in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, standards, and policies of the City. 3. THE SECURED WORK. The Secured Work includes all on-site exterior amenities shown on the Plans that are listed below. Quantity 2,650 SF 460 L.F. 1,000 SY 32 EA Item Sidewalk · $2.00/sq.ft. Concrete curb · $5.00/lin. ft. Bituminous pavement a $8.00/sq. yd. Boulevard trees a $150/ea + 50% Increase $ 5,300.00 2,300.00 8,000.00 4~800.00 $20,400.00 10~200.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE: $30,600.00 The Developer unconditionally guarantees to the City all of the Secured Work for a period of one year subsequent to the Completion Date of the Secured Work. This guarantee shall include failure of the Secured Work due to poor material, faulty workmanship, or any other cause. This guarantee shall continue whether or not all of the financial guarantee shall have been released by the City. 3. COMPLETION. The Developer agrees that the Work shall be completed in its entirety on or before the 30th day of September, 1994 (the Completion Date), except as this period of time is 2 extended by resolution of the Council, or by'the City taking no action to require completion hereunder on a timely basis. [t is understood and agreed that failure of the City to promptly take action to draw upon the bond or other security to enforce this Agreement afte~ the expiration of the time in which the Work is to be completed hereunder will not waive, estop or release any rights of the City and the City can take action at any time thereafter to require compl.etion of the Work, and payment for same. Furthermore, the term of this Agreement shall be deemed to be automatically extended until such time as the City Council declares the Developer in default thereunder, and the statute of limitations shall not be deemed to commence running until the City Council has been notified in writing by the Developer that the Developer has either complied with this Agreement, or that it refuses to for any reason. These provisions shall be applicable to any person who shall give a financial guarantee to the City as required below. 4. COST OF WORK. The Developer shall pay for all costs of persons doing work or furnishing skill, tools, machinery or materials, or insurance premiums or equipment or supplies and all just claims for the same, and the City shall be under no obligation to pay the Developer or any subcontractor any sum whatsoever on account thereof, whether or not the City shall have approved the subcontract or subcontractor, and the Developer and its surety shall hold the City harmless against any such claims, and provide the City with all necessary lien waivers. 5. DEFAULT. [n the event of default by the Developer as to any of the Secured Work to be performed hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the Secured Work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred therein by the City, provided the Developer is first given written notice by United States Mail of the Secured Work in default and required to be done by the Developer, not less than ten (10) days being given thereby to the Developer to remove the default status, said notice being addressed to the Developer at the address set forth below. Notice given in this manner being sufficient as described, by agreement of the parties hereto. Notice to the Developer shall also constitute, without further action, notice to any contractor or subcontractor, whether they are approved and accepted by the City or not. [n the event of emergency, as determined by the City Engineer, the ten (10) days notice requirement to the Developer shall be and hereby is waived in its entirety by the Developer, and the Developer shall reimburse the City for any expense so incurred by the City in the same manner as if mailed notice as described above had been given. [t is understood by the parties, however, that the responsibility of the Developer is limited by strikes and force majeure. 3 6. REVOCATION OF CUP. The City Council approved a CUP for the Property subject to certain conditions including completion of the Work. As an additional remedy separate and independent from any other remedy available to it, upon breach of this Agreement by Developer, the City may revoke the CUP for the Property. Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City may also revoke the CUP for failure of the Developer to satisfy any of the other conditions of the CUP. 7. ADMINISTRATION COSTS. Developer agrees to reimburse the City for the actual costs to the City associated with Planning Case 94-01, the CUP, and this Agreement, including but not limited to, engineering and attorney's fees. Developer agrees that the financial guarantee shall not be released until all such costs have been paid to the City. 8. HOLD HARMLESS. The Developer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents and employees against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages and expenses (including attorney fees) arising out of or resulting from the Developer's negligent or intentional acts, or any violation of any safety law, regulation or code in the performance of this Agreement, without regard to any inspection or review made or not made by the City, its agents or employees or failure by the City, its agents or employees to take any other prudent precaution. In the event any City employee, agent or representative shall come under the direct or indirect control of the Developer, or the City, upon the failure of the Developer to comply with any conditions of this Agreement or the CUP, performs said conditions pursuant to the financial guarantee, the Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its employees, agents and representatives for its own negligent or intentional acts in the performance of the Developer's required work under this Agreement or the CUP. 9. COST OF ENFORCEMENT. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in the enforcement of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, including court costs and reasonable engineering and attorney's fees. 10~ FINANCIAL GUARANTEE. The Developer shall furnish the City with a financial guarantee acceptable to the City in one of the following forms: a) cash escrow; b) a performance bond issued by an approved corporate surety licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, and executed by the Developer as the principal; c) an irrevocable letter of credit; d) an automatically renewing certificate of deposit in Developer's name but assigned to the City; e) other financial instruments which provide equivalent assurance to the City. Said financial guarantee shall be furnished to the City as security to assure completion of the items of Secured Work as set forth above, and payment of the costs of administration as set forth above. The financial guarantee shall be in an amount of 150~ of the cost of the Secured Work as estimated by the City Engineer. The financial guarantee provided shall continue in full force and effect until the City Council approves and accepts all of the Secured Work undertaken and releases the surety and/or the Developer from any further liability, and until all administrative costs are paid in full. The City Council may reduce the amount of the financial guarantee upon partial completion of the Secured Work and payment of all outstanding administrative costs. 11. NOTICE. The address of Developer, for purposes of this Agreement is as follows, and any notice mai]ed by the City to this address shall be deemed sufficient notice under this Agreement, until notice of a change of address is given to the City in writing: J.R. JONES FIXTURE CO. 3216 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 12. SEVERABILITY. If any portion, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. 13. SUCCESSION. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns as the case may be. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals. CITY G~/NEW HOPE / I t s MAyor By Its City Manager 5 J.R. JONES FIXTURE CO. By STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1994, by EDW. J. ERICKSON and DANIEL J. DONAHUE, the Mayor and Manager, respectively, of the City of New Hope, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said municipal corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The f..oregoing instrument was acknowledqed before day, of. ~Dor,..~ , 1994, by ~J,-',~'~ ~ respectively, of d.R. JONES FIXTURE M~nnesota corporation, on behalf of ~a~d ~orporat~on. [~ J~RRY P HEL~E~__. ~~ExPt~ NO a~Publ ~ me this CO. , DRAFTED BY: CORRICK & SONDRALL, P.A. 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, #203 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 (612) 425-5671 c:\wp51\cnh\~ones.cup and and a 6 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS This declaration is made this day of , 1994, by J.R. Jones-Fixture Co., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Dec]arant. WHEREAS, the Declarant is the fee owner of the following described real estate located in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, hereinafter called the subject property: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Pazandak Addition; The South 352.7 feet of the West One-Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 118, Range 21, and WHEREAS, the Declarant has submitted an application identified as Planning Case 94-01 to the City of New Hope, hereinafter referred to as the City, for Site and Building Plan Approval for a 17,000 square foot warehouse addition on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance of the City calls for 146 motor vehicle parking spaces on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has requested that it be permitted to build, at this time, additional parking spaces so that the subject property will have a total of 92 constructed parking spaces with 55 additional parking spaces to be constructed at some time in the future; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on the lOth day of January, 1994, gave preliminary approval to the Declarant's request, conditioned, inter alia, upon the execution of a guarantee for the future construction of 55 additional parking spaces. NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant hereby declares that the subject property shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions which are for the purpose of providing 55 additional parking spaces in accordance with the ordinances of the City of New Hope, and which shall run with the land described herein and which shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the land so described, or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and which shall inure to the benefit of such parties and the City. Construction of Parking Facility., The Declarant hereby agrees to construct 55 additional parking spaces upon the subject property, the location, design and construction thereof being in accordance with the Site Plan submitted with Planning Case No. 94- 01. Timing of Construction. The additional 55 parking spaces shall be constructed within one (1) year after written notice by the City to commence construction. Payment of Costs. Responsibility for payment of the costs of construction of the 55 additional parking spaces shall be borne entirely by the Declarant, its heirs, successors or assigns. Duration. The covenants set forth herein shall run with the land and shall be binding on all persons claiming ownership thereunder for a period of thirty (30) days from the date this declaration is recorded. Thereafter, the covenant shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years, but shall expire, in any event, upon construction of the parking spaces by the Declarant and inspection and approval thereof by the City. Amendment or Dissolution. No amendment or dissolution of this Covenant shall be effective without the written consent of the City. Enforcement. In the event the Declarant, its successors or assigns, fails to construct 55 additional parking spaces within one year after notice by the City described herein, the City may proceed to enforce this covenant by appropriate legal or equitable Court proceedings and the Declarant, its successors or assigns, agrees to pay all costs of such enforcement, including reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses of any kind in connection with the enforcement of these covenants. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant hereto has executed this declaration on the day and year indicated below. J.R. JONES FIXTURE CO. It Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me, ~ Notary Public within and for said County, this day of '-'..'.~- '~':. , _ , 1994, by -~'--- '~ and ~. .,i ~ , the and --, , respectively, of J.R. Jones Fixture Co., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of s~id corporation. The foregoing Declaration of Covenants is hereby accepted as of the date hereof. CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA '-Its M~yor By Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 1994, by Edw. J. Erickson and Daniel J. Donahue, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of New Hope, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said municipal corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT 'DRAFTED BY: CORRICK & SONDRALL, P.A. 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, #203 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 (612) 425-5671 c:\wp51\cnh\jones.dec Nort we ssociated Consultants, Inc. U R B A P L N G · D E S I G N · M A R K E T R E S E A R C~-4 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: New Hope Codes and Standards Committee Alan Brixius 1 February 1994 New Hope Sign Ordinance - Wall Murals 131.00 - 93.09 At our 20 January 1994 Codes and Standards meeting, the committee studied and discussed the 8 December 1993 planning report that addressed Sign Ordinance regulations and wall murals. In review of this planning report, the following findings became evident: 1. The Ponderosa wall sign is not allowed under the City's current Ordinance. A variance from the sign regulations is not appropriate in that a hardship would be difficult to define and an undesirable precedent would be established. with these findings, the City can either enforce its c~rrent regulations or amend its regulations to accommodate wall murals. In the Codes and Standards discussion, they felt that they should return to the balance of the Planning Commission with at least two options. Option #1, as discussed by Codes and Standards, is no change. In view that Sign Ordinances must be content neutral and the City must limit its signa e restrictions to size location, height, quality of appearance, number, lighting and maintenance, the committee believes that the current regulations provide a fair and uniform opportunity for business identification throughout the City. Additional concerns that supported Option #1 include: Concerns that increased sign areas will create a visual blight within the City's commercial and industrial areas. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 The expansion of the sign requirement would contribute to inequity in business advertising° The lack of content control could result in aesthetically unattractive signs or derogatory messages. The change of the Sign Code would be in response to an illegally established sign. This course of action would serve to reward a code violator. This is an undesirable precedent for the City. Option #2. If the City chooses to change its ordinance to expand commercial signage like Ponderosa, Codes and Standards would recommend precautions to reduce the City's exposure to these types of signs. The following brainstorming ideas are being investigated for the 8 February 1994 Codes and Standards meeting: Colors and art that serve or highlight the building design should be exempted from the sign regulations. The building design elements must be defined to exclude them from communicative signage. The commercial signage requirements will be further broken down by zoning district. Wall murals would be allowed only in the B-3 and B-4 commercial districts. By limiting wall murals to the City's more intense commercial zoning districts, it will reduce its geographic exposure to these type of signs. Wall murals would be defined as graphic displays that are unrelated to business identification or product advertising. The limitation of signage content to this extent may be defendable. Other content restrictions are not recommended. The wall mural size restriction would be limited to 50 percent of building facade not to exceed 500 feet in area. This type of size restriction provides some regulation on sign size. Wall murals must be located on a building facade fronting a public street. Business identification signs for a commercial building may be separate from the wall mural or integrated into the wall mural. The business identification sign will be limited in size to 1~ percent of the wall facade or 125 square feet, whichever is less. We are in the process of researching these performance standards more thoroughly for preparation for the 8 February.meeting. 2 U R B A P L A N G . D N · M A R K E T R E S E A R C~''~ TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE: Kirk McDonald Elizabeth Stockman / Alan Brixius 4 February 1994 New Hope - Wall Murals 131.00 93.09 At the 20 January 1994 Codes and Standards meeting, the committee studied and discussed the 8 December 1993 NAC Planning Report that addressed potential sign ordinance regulations both in general and as they relate to the Ponderosa site. After review of the report, it was decided that two options were viable and should be presented to the Planning Commission, these were: O~tion No change to the current Sign Ordinance. Option #2: Amend the Sign Ordinance to include wall murals. The 1 February 1994 NAC memo directed to the Codes and Standards Committee identified arguments for and against both options and discussed related concerns/issues. From this data, we have progressed further to establish a wall mural definition and a set of draft regulations which reflect the previously highlighted issues/concerns and which may be appropriate for adoption as part of the City's Sign Ordinance. The information is intended, again, to be for the Codes and Standards Committee review at which time further discussion, modification, and/or additional ordinance provisions may be implemented. The draft ordinance amendment has been attached for your reference which addresses various regulatory components, outlined as follows: Definition. Wall murals have been defined as graphic or pictorial displays unrelated to business identification or product advertising, which serve to enhance or accent a structure. The definition is intended to serve as the sole means to control the content of signs, so as to uphold the content neutrality required under the First Amendment. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555-St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 In an attempt to classify the background of the Ponderosa sign as a wall mural and by distinguishing wall murals as non-commercial signs, the City cannot control mural content. We note this to identify the potential ramifications of modifying the New Hope Sign Ordinance to accommodate wall murals. An alternative ~ay be considering the expansion of commercial sign standards for New Hope's commercial and business districts. Location. The draft ordinance allows wall murals only in the B-3 and B-4 Districts as a way of limiting this type of signage to the more intense commercially zoned areas of the City to reduce the geographic exposure of the signs. The Committee may also want to consider the possibility of allowing wall murals within the industrial districts of the City, given their similarity in use intensity and regional significance to the B-3 and B-4 Districts. The potential benefits of this option should be weighed against the drawbacks. Further discussion of separating the wall murals into select zoning districts raises the following concerns. Expanding the opportunity for non-commercial signage in select zoning districts may have property owners in excluded zoning districts challenging the ordinance as an infringement of their First Amendment rights and inequitable treatment under the Ordinance. To avoid this dispute, the City could treat the entire Ponderosa sign as a commercial sign and just expand the commercial sign parameters to accommodate it in the B-3 and B-4 Districts. Size. The attached ordinance amendment limits wall murals to 50 percent of a building facade or no more than 500 square feet. whichever is less. This limitation is exclusive of wall murals and does not include business identification if it integrated with the wall mural. Quantity. The number of wall murals have been limited to one per building facade which faces a public right-of-way, not to exceed two signs per building, the sum of which does not exceed the 50 percent or 500 square foot limitation discussed above. Orientation. Business identification signage may be integrated into the wall mural, but in no case may exceed the size limitation already establi§hed of 15 percent of the building facade or 125 square feet, whichever is less. The mural portion of the sign is calculated separate from the business identification portion. Setbacks. The draft ordinance requires that the principal building upon which the wall mural is to be located be in compliance with the setback standards from adjacent public rights-of-way. This provides some assUrance that the sign will not negatively affect 2 the community by being located closer to public areas or neighbors than necessary and will not tend to distract drivers as much. It may also be beneficial to establish a special setback from residential areas. Lighting. Wall murals may either be lighted by the general area illumination or by spot lights. If spot lights are to be used the draft ordinance states that they should not shine or create glare on'neighboring properties or public rights-of-way. More specific' regulations could also be established in this regard if the City feels it's appropriate, i.e.: location, type, or size of lights. Maintenance. It is important to define parameters for the maintenance of wall signs, particularly when painted signs are allowed, as deterioration of such is usually more rapid than other types of materials. If more than 25 percent of the original sign surface is deteriorating, the draft ordinance states that the sign be repaired, replaced,, or removed. ODtion ~3. A third option to be considered would be to define wall murals as non-commercial art or building highlights that may be allowed throughout the City. This would prevent the City from establishing Ordinance language that .may be challenged under the First Amendment. The third option would interpret the commercial sign area as the smallest geometric configuration that identifies the business or advertises a product. Option three could be used to accommodate the Ponderosa sign. CONCLUSION The more we investigate the regulation of non-commercial signs, the harder it becomes to define defendable regulation parameters. We hope to offer further insight at our Tuesday Codes and Standards meeting. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall ORDINANCE NO. 94- CITY OF NEW HOPE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE BY ALLOWING PAINTED WALL MURALS WITHIN THE B-3 AND B-4 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3.422, Definitions, of the New Hope Sign Code is hereby amended,to add the following: (23A) Siqn, Wall Mural. Graphic or pictorial displays which do not serve as business identification or advertising devices, but rather provide aesthetic, visual enhancement or accent of a structure. Section 2. Section 3.452, Painted Wall Signs, of the New Hope Sign Code is hereby deleted. Section 3. Section 3.465 of the New Hope Sign Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.465A Signs Accessory to Single Occupancy Business Buildinqs in the B-1 and B-2 Zoning Districts. No sign accessory to any business shall be permitted, except in compliance with the following regulations: (1) Front Wall Signs. (a) Maximum Storage. Not more than two (2) signs shall be permitted on the front wall of any principal building. The total area of such sign or signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the area of the front face (including doors and windows) of the principal building in Limited Business and Retail Business Districts, provided that the total area of each sign shall not exceed one hundred and twenty-five (125) square feet. (b) Variance to Maximum Signage. Front wall signs which consist only of individual, outlined alphabetic, numeric and symbolic characters without background except that provided by the building surface to which they are affixed may be increased by twenty-five (25) 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 (125) 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 Siqns. Signs constructed of metal and illuminated by any means requiring internal wiring or electricallywired accessory fixtures attached to a metal sign shall maintain a clearance of nine (9) 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 Siqns. 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. (2) Side and Rear Wall Signs. A sign or signs shall be permitted on the rear and/or side wall of any principal building subject to the following regulations: (a) (b) Maximum Signaqe. The total area of such rear or side wall sign or signs shall not exceed nine (9) 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. Variance to Maximum Signage. Notwithstanding the above stated provision, if the main entrance to a particular use in the principal building occurs on a side wall, or if the main entrance/exit (as defined in the Building Code) to a particular use in the principal building opens on a rear wall, the applicant (3) shall be permitted to sign the side 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 twenty-five (125) square feet of total sign area. Ground Signs. Not more than two (2) ground signs shall be permitted on any lot or one (1) ground sign if the building should contain more than one (1) wall sign over ten (10) square feet, subject to the following regulations: (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 (9) feet. Accessory lighting fixtures attached to a non- metal frame sign shall maintain a clearance of nine (9) 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 ground 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 (8) feet vertically and four (4) feet horizontally of electric wires or conductors in free air carrying more than forty-eight (48) ~olts, whether or not such wires or conductors are insulated or otherwise protected. (c) Maximum Sign Area and Height. Ail ground signs shall conform with the maximum sign area, and maximum sign height provisions in relation to the street classification, as contained in the following table: Maximum Street Maximum Area Structure Classification (Square Ft.) Height (Ft.) Collector Minor Arterial Principal Arterial 40 15 75 20 200 3O (4) (5) (d) Street Classification and Application. Street classification shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Five Year Transportation Plan for the City of New Hope. The level at which the sign control system applies is determined by the street classification, as outlined in Subsection 3.465 (3) (c), which directly abuts the subject property. In the case of subject property directly abutting more than one road, each designated by a different road type, the less restrictive classification shall apply in determining sign area and height. (e) Sign Height Application. Sign height is determined by the vertical distance between the highest part of the sign structure and the Council approved grade of the site adjacent to its base. In those cases where the main floor elevation of the b~ilding is more than thirty- six (36) inches 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 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 (10) feet to any property line. Roof Siqns. No part of any sign shafl be maintained that projects into the air space over the roof of any building or structure. Awning or Canopy Siqns. 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 (12) inches. 4 3.465B (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. -(d) Maximum Siqnaqe. Lettering or letters shall be included in calculating the maximum sign area of the permissible wall sign. Signs Accessory to Single Occupancy Business Buildings in the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts. No sign accessory to any business shall be permitted, except in compliance with the following regulations: (i) The regulations outlined under Section 3.465A above shall apply to Auto-Oriented or Community Business Districts. (2) Wall Mural Signs. (a) Limited to fifty (50) percent of a building facade not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet in area, whichever is less. (b) One (1) sign per building facade which faces a public right-of-way, not to exceed two (2) signs per building, the sum area of which does not exceed that outlined under item (a) above. (c) Business identification signage for the commercial building may be separate from or integrated into the wall mural, provided that in either cause the business identification portion of the sign does not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the building facade or one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet in area, whichever is less. (d) The setback(s) of the principal building from public rights-of-way are in compliance with those required in the underlying zoning district. The sign(s) may be lighted utilizing the general illumination of the area or lighting may be provided via a spot light(s) which direct light onto the wall mural, but which do not shine or create glare on neighboring properties or public rights-of-way. 5 3.465C (f) Wall murals must be maintai~ed in excellent condition at all times. If ~ ue than twenty- five (25) percent of the orig~.,~ll sign surface is deteriorating, the sign must be repaired, replaced or removed. In the case of painted wall signs, this means a complete repainting of the entire sign or sandblasting of the surface so that no portion of the sign is any longer recognizable. Signs Accessory to Single Occupancy Industrial Buildings in the I-1 or I-2 Zoning Districts. No sign accessory to any industry shall be permitted, except in compliance with the following regulations: (1) The regulations outlined under Section 3.465A above shall apply to Limited or General Industrial Districts. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. Dated this day of 1994. ATTEST: Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the 1994.) day of 6 ANDERSON-JOHNSON ~ ASSOCIATES, INC. Land~cape Architecture · Sitt Planning · Civil Engineering July 20, 1993 Mr. James Dahlee Business Manager Independent School District No. 281 Robbinsdale Public Schools 4148 Winnetka Avenue New Hope, Minnesota 55427 Re: Football fi'rack Facility Improvement Study Cooper Senior High School Dear Mr. Dahlee: Attached find submitted three (3) copies of the "Football/Track Facility Improvement Study" prepared for Cooper Senior High School. We have appreciated the opportunity to serve the Robbinsdale School District on this important project. We stand ready to serve the District in the preparation of actual construction documents when the time is appropriate. Sincerely, Roy A. Anderson, ASLA RAA:Ijm Enc. VALLEY SQUARE OFFICE CENTER · SUITE 250 · 7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD . MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55427 PH (612) 544-7129 · FAX (612) 544-0531 ROBBINSDALE PUBLIC SCHOOLS SITE UTILIZATION STUDY COOPER SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL Contents Introductory Letter Purpose Methodology The Site Site Analysis Topography Utilities Access and Parking Soils Site Constraints Site Development Program Site Development Studies Conclusions Consu'uction Cost Opinions Exhibits: Preliminary Site Study Preliminary Grading and Drainage Study Geotechnical Evaluation Report Page 2 3 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 10 11 13 15 Sheet 1 Sheet 2 (1) PURPOSE This study was prepared to provide a preliminary analysis of the existing football/track facility and to determine the most efficient method of achieving: · A high quality "varsity standard" football/track complex; · Bleacher seating for spectators; · Concession, toilet and storage facilities; · Efficient use of the land area immediately north of the football/track facility. (2) METHODOLOGY The development potential of the subject site was evaluated through the following sequence of tasks: · The site was inspected and analyzed to identify opportunities and constraints to the development of intended facilities and uses. The site's topography, turf, drainage, street access, walk access, and utility availability were evaluated. · A detailed topographic survey was prepared by Clark Engineering Company to accurately record existing site conditions and to serve as the base for design and engineering studies. · A subsurface soil exploration study was conducted by Braun Intertec Engineering. The exploration study was to determine the composition and thickness of the existing track and the soil conditions beneath the track and to evaluate the impact of these conditions on the development of the desired facilities. · Various alternatives were studied in an effort to salvage segments of the existing facility. The studies were tested and a conceptual plan was prepared to illustrate site development potentials. (3) The concept plan was critically evaluated with representatives of the District administration and the Cooper High School staff and minor modifications were suggested. The concept plan was subsequently refined, a preliminary drainage and grading study was conducted, and preliminary construction cost estimates were prepared. The result, conclusions and recommendation of the preceding tasks are briefly summarized in the following sections of this report. (4) THE SITE A track and football field facility presently exist on the site generally west. of the school building complex. The site is bounded on the east by the school service area and by a softball field and a baseball field; on the south by a paved parking lot; on the west by Zealand Avenue with single family housing; and on the north by 49th Street, also with single family housing. (5) SITE ANALYSIS Toooitraph¥: The site slopes approximately 20 feet from its highest point.at the parking lot entrance and Zealand Avenue to a catch basin at the north end of the site near 49th Street. The football/track complex is situated on a plateau midway between high and low points and is generally level from north to south A wide drainage swale exists between the Zealand Avenue right-of- way and the west side of the running track. The swale is very flat and standing water occurs at its northerly end. The grade drops decidedly east from the east side of the track meeting the slope from the softball/baseball fields which drain to the west. Standing water occurs in this swale as well. The existing football field is not adequately crowned to provide proper drainage. This condition causes difficulty in maintaining an even playing surface and quality tuff. Utilities: A trunk storm sewer traverses the site from south to north generally along the path of the easterly drainage swale. The storm sewer serves a network of catch basins in the south parking lots. The sewer also serves six catch basins existing at the inside edge of the (6) track and a center drain tile system that served the original cinder track. A 6-inch watermain also traverses the site from south to north lying parallel to and approximately 50 feet east of the storm sewer trunk. Three fire hydrants exist along the route of the watermain. Lateral water lines extend from the main line serving yard hydrants within the track oval. Access and Parking: Vehicular and pedestrian access is available from both the south and southeast. The large parking lots which form the south edge of the site provide convenient parking access to the football/track facility. The site is located near locker room facilities which exist at the southeast comer of the site, providing convenient access from the school building. Soils: Fill was encountered to the termination depth of 6 feet in three of the four boring locations. In the fourth boring, the fill extend~:i to a depth of 1 1/2 feet and was underlain by a sandy lean clay soil which was either natural or fill. Based on the boring, it could not be determined if it was fill or natural soil. The surface in each of the borings consisted of 4 to 4 1/2 inches of bituminous (7) surface over approximately 8 inches of cinder. Below the cinder silty sand, which was fine to medium grained with some gravel and cinders mixed in, was encountered. This layer varied in depth from 1 1/2 to 2 feet below the ground surface. The fill and natural soils below this layer consisted of a sandy lean clay. Penetration resistances in all the boring locations varied between 7 and 13 blows per foot (BPF). Penetration resistance in the soils varied between 7 and 13 BPF, indicating the soil is relatively loose to moderately compacted. Groundwater was not encountered at any of the boring locations. This suggests that the water level lies below the penetration depth of the borings. Groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate. The soils on the football field consist of 6 to 8 inches of sandy loam topsoil over hard clay subsoil. The composition of the existing topsoil may require some modification to improve drainage and tuff development. Site Constraints: The unconventional dimensions of the existing track present constraints on the layout. The parking lot on the south, the steep slopes surrounding the track, and the proximity of the baseball and football fields on the east combine to restrict the (8) flexibility for efficient facility design. Existing utilities which do not compliment current design standards in terms of location and capacity further limit design flexibility. Because of the existing slope, the area north of the football/track facility cannot be efficiently used for active recreational purposes without grade modifications. (9) SITE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The site development program established by administration and representatives of the Cooper Senior High School athletic staff includes the following facilities/uses: · An 8-lane, 400 meter resilient running track. · A lighted varsity football field within the track oval. · Bleacher seating for 2000 home spectators. · Bleacher seating for 500 visitor spectators. · A concessions, toilet, and ticket building. · An equipment storage building. · Facilities for field events including a high jump apron, long jump and pole vault runways, and shot put and discus pads. · Total site automatic irrigation.. · Scoreboard and flagpole. · S~urity fencing on all sides. · Landscape planting to enhance the visual impact of the football/track facility to the adjacent residential neighborhood. ~(10) SITE DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc. was directed to study the potential for improving the existing football field and track into a facility conforming to current varsity standards while retaining as much of the existing facility as possible. Investigation of the existing facilities prior to the preparation of design and engineering studies revealed: · Pavements in advanced stages of deterioration. · Poorly drained soils under the track, requiring replacement with flee-draining granular material. · A substandard crown on the football field. · Topsoil conditions which are not conducive to the development of quality turf. · A storm sewer system which is not adequate to provide proper drainage to protect the track and to maintain good turf and field conditions. Deteriorated fencing. · Under-utilized land area north of the track because of existing grades. ~(11) With the findings of this investigation in mind, Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc. studied various design alternatives which would salvage portions of the existing facility. Through careful evaluation of these alternatives, it was determined that significant salvage of existing facilities would not be feasible. Design alternatives for the development of a completely new football/track complex on the site of the existing facility were then evaluated. These design studies culminated in the preparation of a schematic plan which was presented to the school administration and the coaching staff in June 1993. The schematic plan was approved with only minor modifications, and Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc. was directed to refine the site development plan, to prepare a preliminary grading and drainage study, and to prepare preliminary construction cost opinions. (12) CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of the studies described in the preceding paragraphs are ~ follows: It is considered imprudent to salvage the existing track and segments of the sub-surface drainage system because they do not meet current standards and will restrict the design flexibility of a new facility. The site can accommodate the development of a high quality football/track complex within the basic footprint of the existing facility while significantly improving its functional characteristics. Regrading of the north portion of the site will provide a large, relatively level area for field events and other active recreational activities. The recommended new facility, as illustrated on the Preliminary Site Study contained herein, will provide: · An attractive introduction to the facility as spectators approach from the south parking lot. · A convenient and well-deEmed spectator movement pattern through the entrance control point to the home and visitor bleacher areas. -(13) Spectator control fencing between the playing facilities and the spectator bleachers and service areas. Security fencing at the perimeter of the site. A compact building containing ticketing facilities, concessions, and toilets at the main entrance to the complex. A conveniently located building for the storage of football and track equipment. Lighting for the football field. An arrangement of facilities which will maximize flexibility and safety for track and field events. Landscaping to soften the visual impact of the facility from the adjacent residential area and to accent the entrance. It must be emphasized that the proposed plan for site redevelopment must be approved by governmental agencies before any construction can proceed. At the request of school representatives, the preliminary plans have not been presented to the City or other regulatory agencies. CONSTRUCTION COST OPINIONS The following cost opinions are based on preliminary design and engineering studies. Because they are preliminary in nature, they are intended for planning purposes only. More detailed design will be required before final cost opinions can be made. Total Construction Cost $1,272,660 The preceding figures include design, engineering, and administrative fees. The opinion does not consider the impact of inflation which may be experienced if construction is phased over several years. The preceding figures are further broken down into elements of work. Comparison figures are provided for both Cooper and Armstrong High School Improvements: _(15) ELEMENTS OF WORK I COOPER I ARMSTRONG Removals 18,235 4,000 Earthwork and Drainage 178,126 150,000 Irrigation~ 30,000 30,000 Modular Concrete Wall 8,640 25,000 Paving - Asphalt and Concrete 147,575 162,000 Fencing and Goals 51,495 35,000 Bleachers 187,500 225,000 Field Lighting 115,000 110,000 Scoreboard 13,500 0 Flagpole 6,750 0 Tuff 46,107 34,000 Planting 16,000 0 Buildings 280,000 295,000 1,098,928 1,070,000 5% Contingency 54,942 53,500 · 1,153,870 1,123,500 Mobilization - Bond - Testing 30,000 30,000 Total Construction Estimated Cost 1,183,870 1,153,500 Fees: Design, Engineering, 88,790 86,500 Construction Documents, Observation 7.5% Total 1,272,660 1,240,000 ~(16) 4401 Xylon A venue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD £ine: 612-531.5100 512-531-5109 City Hall Fax: =612-53 ~ ..~ , - Police Fax: =612.53 t -5' - Public Works Fax: 61 November 19,.t993 Mr. James Dahle Acting Superintendent Independent School District No. 281 4148 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 SUBJECT: Proposed Football/Track Improvements at Cooper High School Dear Mr. Dahle: The City of New Hope is in receipt of the October 19th correspondence from Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc. and the two-sheet plan set, including the preliminary site study and the preliminary grading and drainage study, for the proposed football/track improvements at Cooper High School. This letter is intended as a brief overview of the staff's review of the preliminary concept plans. As you may or may not be aware, public and educational buildings and related facilities are a "conditional use" in the R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning District, in which the Cooper High School facility is located. This means that the use is allowed if certain conditions are met, as set forth in the Zoning Code. By definition, the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effeCt upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health and safety. Because the High School is already located at the site, the specific zoning procedure you would be requesting would be an amendment to the existing conditional use permit and site/building plan review/approval. The specific conditions that would need to be addressed and met include the following: Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Mr. James Dahle Page 2 November 19, 1993 Section 4.0545 Conditional Uses, R-l, (1) Public and Educational Buildinqs: (a) Side Yards. Side Yards shall be double that required for the district, but no greater than thirty feet. (b) Parkinq. Adequate off-street parking and access ~s provided on the site or on lots directly abutting directly across a public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with Section 4.036 and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 4.033 (4). (c) Off-Street Loadin.q: Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 4.037. Section 4.21 2, Criteria for Decision: The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit, the City Council and Planning Commission shall find that: (1) Comprehensive Plan. 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 Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. (2) Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. (3) Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance'standards contained in this Code. (4) No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (5) Zoninq District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meetS' the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. (6) In Residential Districts (R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O): (a) Traffic. Non-residential traffic is channeled into thoroughfares or onto a street abutting business or industrial uses leading directly to thoroughfares, and not onto minor residential streets. Mr. James Dahle Page 3 November 19, 1993 (b) Screening. The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be materially depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (c) Compatible AoDearance. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. In general, it is difficult for the City staff to respond in detail to the concept plans that were submitted due to the lack of specific information. We would request that more specific plans be submitted, along with a narrative, that address the following concerns/issues in addition to those outlined in the Zoning Code. Concerns/Issues The Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc. October 19th correspondence referenced a copy of a report titled "Football/Track Facility Improvement Study, Cooper Senior High School". The City did not receive this report, we only received three (3) copies of the two-sheet plan set. It would be appreciated if several copies of the report were submit'ted to the City, as it may address some of the concerns listed below. The City will require a professional traffic study/analysis of the area delineated on the enclosed map that describes in detail the impact that the proposed field will have on neighborhood traffic patterns, on-street parking, and the need for any major improvements such as additional signalized intersections and/or the possible construction of turn lanes or the widening of existing streets. The traffic analysis should also address on-site parking issues. Currently the New Hope Zoning Code requires at least one parking space for each eight (8) seats of the design capacity of the field stadium as it appears that the proposed 2,500 set facility could easily meet that requirement. However, in reviewing American Planning Association criteria, it appears that New Hope's stadium parking requirements are Iow (most cities require one (1) parking space for 3 or 4 seats) and the City Manager has indicated that he may initiate a review of the ordinance based on this data. The City would either want to select the independent traffic consultant or have input on who was selected and the cost of the analysis would be the responsibility of the School District. Mr. James Dahle Page 4 November 19, 1993 10. 11. 12. A detailed landscaping plan and planting schedule needs to be submitted and the City has a concern that no additional landscaping is proposed along 49th Avenue. Detailed fence plans need to be submitted showing type and height of the proposed perimeter fence. Detailed elevation drawings need to be submitted for the bleacher facilities showing height, materials, and type of construction. Detailed plans and elevation drawings need to be submitted for the concession building including details on health/sanitation issues. Detailed plans should be submitted for the other proposed track and field facilities, i.e., the pole vault, shot put pads, discus pads, open play fields, long jump/triple jump and running track. Detailed lighting plans need to be submitted, as no specifics are shown on the plan, showing height and type and number of fixtures. Also, illumination contour drawings need to be submitted having no more than one foot candle overflow onto adjacent residential properties. Bus parking and loading/unloading issues should be addressed on the plans. In light of the fact that the facility will be located in the middle of a residential neighborhood, the following issues not necessarily related to the physical plan facilities also need to be addressed: A) Number, frequency and times of field usage. B) How will noise concerns be addressed? c) How will litter/trash concerns be addressed? On-site trash receptacles should be shown on the plan. D) Property damage and/or vandalism concerns should be addressed. E) It would be beneficial if data was submitted showing the impact that a facility such as this will have on surrounding property values. Mr. James Dahle Page 5 November 19, 1993 In conclusion, the preliminary concept plans are in general compliance with setback, parking and other zoning requirements, but more specific detailed plans are needed to effectively determine if a number of other conditions are met. The City staff would be pleased to meet with you and other school officials to further discuss these or future plans with you at your convenience. I have also enclosed a Planning Commission application and 1994 meeting schedule for your information. Please contact me at 531-5119 if I may be of further assistance. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator CC: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Douglas Sandstad, Building Official Mark Hanson, City Engineer Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Shari French, Director of Park & Rec Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File #93-13 Ray Anderson, AJA // "COOPli'R ST/IIDIUI~I" Prt,,~,ry Traffic Study Area