010792 PlanningAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p,m.
CALL TO ORDER
7, 1992
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 Case 91-37
Request for Two Conditional Use Permits to Allow a Convenience Store
with Gasoline and Outdoor Sales, A Rear Yard Setback Variance, and
Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Construct a New Service Station at
6144 West Broadway, Super America, Petitioner (to be tabled)
3.2 Case 91-42
Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval, Conditional Use Permits,
and Variance from Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Redevelop-
'ment of a Convenience Store with Gas Station and a Carwash, 3535
Winnetka Avenue North, Finn Daniels Broussard/Fina Serve, Inc.,
Petitioner (to be tabled)
3.3 Case 92-01
Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Fast Food Restaurant in a
B-4 District, 3546Winnetka Avenue North, Carab, Inc. (Subby's), Petitioner
3.4 Case 91-15
Request for Consideration of Ordinances Pertaining to Adult Use Zoning
and Adult Use Licensing in New Hope
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
4.1
4.2
Report of Design and Review Committee
Report of Codes and Standards Committee
5. OLD BUSINESS
5.1 Miscellaneous Issues
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1
6.2
6.3
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 4, 1991
Review of City Council Executive Session Minutes of November 25, 1991, City Council Work
Session of December 2, 1991, and City Council Minutes of November 25 and December 9, 1991
Review of EDA Minutes of November 25 and December 9, 1991
7. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURN1V~NT
PC 91-42
3535 I~innetka
(to be tabled)
PLANNING CASES
J~YUARY 1992
91-37
West Bdwy
(to be tabled)
(PC 91-15
Adult Enter. )
ZONING DISTRICT MAP
CITY of NEW HOPE
PC 92-01
3546 Winnetka
Planning Case: 91-37
Request: Request
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
for Two Conditional Use Permits to Allow a Convenience Store
with Gasoline and Outdoor Sales, A Rear Yard Setback Variance, and
Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Construct a New Service Station
Location: 6144 West Broadway
PID No.: 05-118-21-21-0035
Zoning: B-3 (Auto-Oriented)
Petitioner: Super America Group
Report Date: January 3, 1992
Meeting Date: January 7, 1992
UPDATE
1. Since the December 4th Planning commission meeting, staff has outlined the following
issues that need to be addressed in regards to this case:
A. Staff to conduct survey - hours of operation at other stations in New Hope
B. Research Woody's Planning Case -hours of operation and outdoor sales/storage
C. Sales merchandise block windows? How high stacked?
D. Closeness (distance) from new building to residential
E. Addition of fencing on south side for sight and noise buffer
F. S.A. to provide traffic data
G. S.A. to meet with residents on concerns
Staff has completed items A, B, and D. Super America is expected to address the other
issues.
2. The Design and Review Committee requested that Super American attend the December
19th Design and Review meeting to discuss traffic data, discussion with surrounding
residents, etc. however Super America was unable to attend the meeting. The Design
& Review Committee and staff will be recommending that this case be tabled for one
month (until February 4th) due to the fact that Super America was unable to attend the
December Design & Review meeting to discuss the issues that were raised at the
December Planning Commission meeting.
3. The petitioner has been so notified (see attached letter), as have surrounding property
owners (see attached notice).
4. The City may be receiving comments on this case from the City of Brooklyn Park prior
to the next meeting.
5. All data, including the staff survey and research correspondence received, and
information received form Super America willbe presented at the February 4th Planning
Commission meeting. The City has also notified the petitioners that a representative
from Super America should be in attendance at the February 4, 1992, meeting.
RECOlVIlVlE~A~ON
The Design & Review Committed and staff recommend that the Super America request be
tabled for one month until the February 4th Planning Commission meeting.
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope. Minneso~ 55428
Phone.'531-5100
FAX ,6~2 55' 5'--:
December 30, 1991
Mr. Michael O'Donnell
Super America Group, Inc.
1230 West 98th Street
Bloomington, MN 55431
SUBJECT: Planning Case 91-37, Proposed Super America Store
Location at 62nd Avenue North/West Broadway Avenue in New
Hope
Dear Mr. O'Donnell:
It is my understanding that Doug Sandstad, New Hope Building
official, has informed you by phone that the SuperAmerica planning
case will be tabled at the January 7th Planning Commission meeting
and I wanted to confirm that by letter. The Design and Review
Committee will be recommending that the case be tabled for one
month due to the fact that you were unable to attend the December
19th meeting of that committee to discuss issues that were raised
at the December 4th Planning Commission meeting. In light of the
fact that the request will be tabled and no discussion will take
place, it is not necessary for you to be in attendance at the
January 7th meeting. The City has notified surrounding property
owners that the case will be tabled until the February 4th Planning
Commission meeting.
I have attached a short summary of issues that were raised at the
December Planning Commission meeting and excerpts from the minutes
regarding your application for your information. City staff has
completed items $1, #2, and $4. The City is requesting that you
attend ~he ~emuar~ 1Gth (at 3:45 p.m.) meeting to discuss the
remaining issues: outdoor sales, additional screening, traffic
data, and your meeting with surrounding residents.
Super America's request would then proceed and be consi~ere~ again
by the full Planning Conission on February 4th at 7:00 p.m. It is
my understanding~hat a representative from Super America will also
be in attendance with you at that meeting to address questions from
the Commission and audience.
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
4.
5.
6.
7.
SUPZR~C~ ~SSU~S
Staff to conduct survey - hours of operation at other stations
in New Hope
Research Woody's Planning Case - hours of operation and
outdoor sales/storage
Sales merchandise block windows? How high stacked?
Closeness (distance) from new building to residential
Addition of fencing on south side for sight and noise buffer
S.A. to provide traffic data
S.A. to meet with residents on concerns
4401 Xyton Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55~28
Phone:531-5100
FAX ~'612~53r-5¢-4
December 30, 1991
NOTICE REGARDING PLANNING CASE 91-37,
PROPOSED SUPER AMERICA STORE LOCATION
AT 62ND AVENUE NORTH/WEST BROADWAY AVENUE,
CITY OF NEW HOPE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Planning Case 91-37, proposed construction of a Super America Store
at 62nd Avenue North and West Broadway Avenue in New Hope, which
was originally presented at the December 4, 1991, New Hope Planning
Commission meeting and continued until the January 7, 1992,
Planning Commission meeting, will be tabled at the January meeting
and oontinued until the February 4, 1992, Planning Commission
meeting. No discussion on the case will take place in January, as
the City is waiting for the petitioner to respond on several issues
previously discussed. Discussion on the proposal will continue at
the February 4, 1992, 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting and you
are invited to attend the meeting and express your opinion on the
proposal at the time if you desire to do so.
Please contact Kirk McDonald at the City of New Hope (531-5119) if
you have any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
KM/jf
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
o
o
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
91-42
Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval, Conditional Use
Permits, and Variance from Side Yard Setback Requirement to
Allow Redevelopment of a Convenience Store with Gas Station and
a Carwash
3535 Winnetka Avenue North
19-118-21-11-0001
B-3 (Auto-oriented Business)
Finn Daniels Broussard/Fina Serve
January 3, 1992
January 7, 1992
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting site/building plan review approval, conditional use permits
to allow a convenience store with gasoline and a carwashi and a variance from the side
yard setback requirement to allow redevelopment of the convenience store and gas station
(Sections 4.124(2), 4.124(4), 4.034(3), 4.039A - New Hope Code of Ordinances).
In September, 1991, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a request for
an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow a convenience store with gasoline and
interior remodeling and expansion of the retail sales area for Fina Mart at 36th and
Winnetka Avenues.
Fina Serve, owner of the Fina Mart, is now proposing to icompletely redevelop the site,
raze the existing structure and construct a new building.
Petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee on November 18th and a number
of site plan revisions were discussed. Petitioner requested that the Commission table their
request for one month to allow them sufficient time to obtain a traffic analysis, etc. and
the case was tabled at the December Planning Commission meeting.
Petitioner met with Design & Review again on December 17th with revised plans. The
discussion focused on the number of curb cuts from the property on to Winnetka and 36th
Avenues. There presently are 4 curb cuts and staff, Design & Review, the City Engineer,
and Hennepin County all would like to see the number of curb cuts reduced. It is the
City Attorney's opinion that, with the redevelopment of the
to require the elimination of curb cuts. Staff presented
concept plan for their consideration.
Petitioner is requesting that the Commi~ion 'again table
site, the City has the authority
the petitioner with a revised
the case for one month, until
February 4th, so that site issues (curb cuts) can be resoh red.
Property owners originally notified for the case have been~ent the enclosed notice stating
that the case will be tabled until the February Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Case Report 91-42
January 7, 1992
Page -2-
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Planning Case 91-42 be tabled for one month until the February 4th
Planning Commission meeting.
Attachments:
Request to Table
Fina Site Plan
Staff Concept Plan
Notice to Property Owners
~ 612-6~1-01~9 FINN-D~tH&~-B~. 90? P01 J~N 82 ~92
FINNIDANIEL,S
BROUSSARD
2324 UNIVERSiI'V AVENUE
5UIl1~ 109 b"L PAUL, ~ $6114
612.641-1339
Project #: ~1 ~,+~
Fax Transmittal Sheet
oral pages including cover sheet:.,
lease notify us immediately at (612)641-1339 ff enclosures are not as
oted.
WlNN~'TKA AV~N!J~ × /
-I
FINAMAR?
~ ~ fvl',l'~SOTA
FINA REDEVELOPMENT
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope. Minnesota 55428
Phone: 531-5100
FAX (612) 531-5174
January 3, 1992
NOTICE REGARDING PLANNING CASE 91-42,
PROPOSED FINA SERVE STORE'LOCATION
AT 36TH AVENUE NORTH/WINNETKA AVENUE,
CITY OF NEW HOPE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Planning Case 91-42, proposed construction of a Fina Serve Store at
36th Avenue North and Winnetka Avenue in New Hope, which was
originally introduced at the December 4, 1991, New Hope Planning
Commission meeting and continued until the January 7, 1992,
Planning Commission meeting, will be tabled at the January meeting
and oontinue4 untll the February 4, 1992, Planning Commission
meeting. No discussion on the case will take place in January, as
the petitioner is making additional site plan revisions.
Discussion on the proposal will continue at the February 4, 1992,
7:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting and you are invited to attend
the meeting and express your opinion on the proposal at the time if
you desire to do so.
Please contact Kirk McDonald at the City of New Hope (531-5119) if
you have any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
KM/jf
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case:
Request:
92-01
Request for A Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Convenience/Fast
Restaurant in a B-4 Community Business Zoning District
Food
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
3546 Winnetka Avenue North, Winnetka Commons Shopping Center
20-18-21-22-0012
B-4 (Community Business)
Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership
January 3, 1992
January 7, 1992
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a convenience/fast food
restaurant in a B-4 Community Business Zoning District, pursuant to Sections 4.124(3)
and 4.134(1) of the New Hope Code.
Carab Inc./Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership is proposing to open a 900 square
foot SUBBY'S convenience food establishment in the Winnetka Commons Shopping
Center. The food establishment would be located in tenant space 14, which has vacant
spaces 13 and 15 on either side of it and the closest occupied spaces being Gung Ho
Oriental to the west and Emerald Cleaners to the east.
The use would be eat-in and take out (no delivery) for consumption on and off the
premises. The dining area would provide seven booths and seat approximately 26
persons. The food type would include submarine sandwiches of approximately 15
varieties, soups and soft drinks.
The tenant space would be finished with tile throughout and contain the usual restaurant
equipment including sinks, refrigerators, condiment and prep tables.
5. Hours of operation would be from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. seven days per week.
J
Employee parking would be in the rear with the area in front to be used for customer
parking.
o
The managers of the fast food restaurant currently own and operate multiple Dairy
Queens in the metro area and desire to operate a SUBBY'S in New Hope because they
feel it offers a good opportunity to service a wide variety of customers for soup or
sandwich for the healthy/lighter appetite.
Restaurants are allowed as a permitted use in a B-4 Zoning District, however "drive-in
and convenience food" establishments require a Conditional Use Permit. By City
Ordinance definition, this use is convenience food which is defined as "an establishment
Planning Case Report 92-01
January 7, 1992
Page -2-
which serves food in or on disposable containers...for consumption on or offthe premises.
Customers are generally served at a pick-up station by clerks rather than served at
tables...by waiters or waitresses".
Ten conditions are listed for "Drive-in and Convenience Food". No drive-thru is possible
or proposed. The conditions that are applicable to this use include:
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Compatibility architectural appearance of building to be compatible with
surrounding uses so property owners are not impaired,
qlreen strip - at boundaries of residential district, a 5-foot green strip to be
landscaped,
Curbing -parking areas and driveways to be curbed,
Vehicle access -accessed points to be limited so there is a minimum of conflict
with through traffic,
Drainage -entire area to have drainage system subject to City approval,
Surfacing -entire area other than occupied by buildings/plantings to be surfaced
to control dust/drainage,
R,filse storage - refuse to be stored in containers, which shall be screened and
enclosed by a fence.
10. Other issues to be considered for conditional uses in Business Districts include:
Ao
Ce
Traffic - the use should not cause traffic hazards or congestion,
Nearby residences - adjacent residentially-zoned land should not be adversely
affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare or other nuisance
characteristics,
Effect on other businesses -existing nearby businesses should not be adversely
affected because of curtailment of customers trade brought about by intrusion of
unduly heavy non-shopping traffic or general unsightliness.
11. Property owners within 350" of the subject property have been notified.
ANALYSIS
The Design and Review committee decided not to meet with the petitioner due to the
routine nature of the conditional use permit application.
The majority of issues and conditions listed under //9 and #10 above were addressed in
Planning Case 89-11 when the Winnetka Commons Shopping Center PUD was approved
(August 14, 1989) and are met. While drainage, curbing, landscaping, surfacing, and
traffic would be important considerations if this was a new free-standing business, these
matters were previously addressed for the entire shopping center development and
SUBBY'S is a tenant in the center.
Planning Case Report 92-01
January 7, 1992
Page -3-
o
No drive-in window is proposed and no outdoor dining area is proposed,
The Building Official reports that the shopping center is now approximately 70% full with
this tenant. Three other conditional use permits have been approved for convenience
food eating establishments in the center: Bruegger's Bagels, Gung Ho and Frankie's
Pizza.' Eight other tenants occupy the center with permitted uses.
The City Code requires one parking space for each 15 square feet of gross service and
seating floor area excluding the kitchen, but not less than 15 spaces for drive-in and
convenience food establishments. The code would be applicable if this was a free-
standing establishment, however, the parking requirements for shopping centers were
applied at the time of the PUD approval and tenants and included in that number. A
total of 246 spaces are provided at the center.
Items that might be noted by the Planning Commission include the following.
Parking - It should be emphasized that employee parking must be in the rear of
the building and overnight parking of cars/trucks is not allowed unless a
conditional use permit for outdoor storage is applied for and granted.
Be
Outdoor Dining - No outdoor dining area on the front sidewalk is being proposed
or requested at this time. Codes and Standards is currently reviewing an
ordinance amendment that will address the issue on a City-wide basis and it
should be emphasized that this CUP does not include approval for outdoor dining.
~- The approved comprehensive sign plan for the center allows for a 16
foot x 3 foot (48 square feet) tenant sign for this space. As of this date the
applicant has not submitted a sign plan. Any signage must comply with the
approved comprehensive sign plan and other ordinance requirements pertaining
to window signs, etc. must be met.
D. Trash Storage
Recur - a 6'x 6" high wood screened trash enclosure with wood gates is
shown on the plan at the rear of the Gung Ho Oriental food establishment
several tenant spaces to the west of the proposed SUBBY'S and details are
provided.
Interior - trash storage should be clarified for the interior of the building
because it is a food establishment - no trash containers are shown on the
floor plan.
Front sidewalk -the previously approved front sidewalk trash receptacle
plan for the center is enclosed for informational purposes.
Planning Case 92-01
January 7, 1992
Page -4-
o
o
Plan review/approval by the City Sanitarian is required if this request is approved by the
Planning Commission/City Council.
The City is requiring the developer of the center to rebuild the southwest service entry
drive and retaining wall to match the approved plans. Semi-trucks cannot enter that
driveway because the neck of the entrance was narrowed at the Winnetka property line
due to the location of an NSP power pole. NSP has agreed to eliminate the pole and the
City will not release the performance bond on the center until the drive is reconstructed.
Any approval should be conditioned on the drive being reconstructed by spring/1992.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a SUBBY'S
convenience food establishment in a B-4 Zoning District, subject to the following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Clarification of inside trash storage.
Signage to comply with approved comprehensive sign plan.
Employee parking to be at rear of building and no overnight parking.
No outdoor dining unless approved under future CUP.
Review/approval by City Sanitarian.
Annual inspection by staff.
Rebuilding of retaining wall and driveway entrance at southwest comer by June 15, 1992.
Attachments:
Section/Zoning Map
Site Plans
Floor Plan
Petitioner Letter
Comprehensive Sign Plan
Trash Enclosure Detail
Sidewalk Trash Receptacle
Site/Building Statistics
H
REZONED FROM R-O to B-4
August 14, 1989 (Res.89-153)
LIONS
PARK
II
WINNETKA
COMMON,S
~3'6tE"&'WiNNETK-A~
SUBBY'S RESTAURANT
SPACE 14
~l~klH THU9
O01'T
PRC~
BIG WHE
NORTH
SITE PLAN
1"-50'
DECEMBER 13, 1991
~I I~1
PROPOSED '
BIG WHEEL/ROSSI
I I
~I~C, ELOW VIDE(
SITE
DECEM~
SPACE 15
i'UBLIC ENTRY
SPACE 14 '-?
SPACE
SUBBY'S RESTAURANT
WINNEKTA COMMONS SPACE 14
3546 WINNEKTA AVENUE
SEATING FOR 26 -
SERVICE ENTRY
NORTH
FLOOR PLAN
1/4" - 1 '-0'
DECEMBER 13, 1991
SUBBY'S
A brief discription.
SUBBY"S is a fast food orientated restaurant
,specializing in the sale of Submarine sandwiches
of approximately fifteen varieties ,soups and soft
drinks we will seat approximately twenty
customers and provide take out service. Our
packaging will consist mainly of a flat 12x12 waxed
sandwich wrap, carry out bags, two sizes of waxed
paper cups.
The space we intend to occupy will be finished with
cory tile throughout ,wanes coating in dineing
area, glass board in all kitchen /food prep areas,
equipment will consist of three sinks, one three
compartment with drain boards, one hand
washing sink, convenient to employee customer
service area, mop sink, two -three door
refrigerators one sandwich / condiment table one
stainless steel prep table assorted small wares..
All equipment will be NSF approved.
Management will consist of Mr. & Mrs. Tom
Michaud and Mr. Marcus Plaisted. The Michauds
currently own and Operate multiple Dairy Queens
in the twin cities. Mr. Plaisted has been involved
in the management of multiple Dairy Queens.
Both are well trained in the food service industry,
and have an on going success in this area.
The above parties regularly consult with Mr.
Richard Plaisted. He has thirty years of
experience in Franchise food related businesses
,DAIRY QUEEN, TACO Johns, SUB WAY.
We have chosen the city of New Hope because we
feel it offers a very good opportunity to service a
wide variety of customers for soup or sandwich for
the healthy as well as the lighter appitite.
Thank for your consideration off this request.
hope to soon be a part of the New Hope
community.
We
Sincerely
Tom Michaud
SEP 2 6 1990
WINNETKA
COMMONS
36th & WIdNE11CA
~ITl+
JACKSON-SC01-1' ~ ASSOCIATES, INC.
3433 Broadway Street N.E., Suite 150
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
(612) 623-0153 FAX # (612) 623-4813
Shopping Center Management;' Leasing and Development
January 9, 1991
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN §§428
Winnetka Commons Trash Receptacles
Dear Mr. McDonald:
I am enclosing a copy of a sheet from a brochure that describes the
type of trash receptacle I am proposing placing at Winnetka Commons
Shopping Center. I em proposing a brown Rubbermaid container with
a hood and doors for our customers use. I am also enclosing a site
plan indicating the locations I am proposing to place these on the
sidewalk. The containers will have plastic liners and will be
emptied as required on a weekly basis by our Janitorial service
company.
Please advise if the above is acceptable or feel free to give me a
call if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from
you.
Yours very truly,
Jackson-Scott & Associates
GWJ:al
Enc.
Member of
International Council of
Sllol~Dlng Centers
Ranger~ and
WeatherGard® Ranger~
containers take on the
elements·
The Ranger® containers are built
to withstand summer's heat and
winter's cold. The seamless Dur-
arnold® construction won't rust,
corrode or warp.
Our 45 gallon WeatherGard*
Ranger* containers are de-
Glutton® containers can
handle a crowd.
Glutton* containers are perfec~
for areas that handle large
crowds. Holds 56 gallons, so
it needs to be emptied less
often. It can withstand extreme
weather and handling without
rusting, denting, losing shape
or color. The practical hooded
top features Trimeld"" rainshields
for extra strength under tough
conditions.
· Easy to clean, needs no
maintenance.
container has 45 gallon capacity,
rainshields to complement
decorative woodgrain panels
and permanently attached
hinged tops to prevent loss.
· Ranger· containers available
in 35 or 45 gallon capacity.
No. Oe,3cri0tlo~ Cotor Pack
· '8430 3S gal. ~n 1
19~'SCl.x39.~"h.
· '8432 35 gal. 8age, I
19~"SCl.x39'%"h. Brown
w/decoralor panels1'
~:3566 Rigid Liner, Gray
35 gal
16¼ "sq.x28~"h.
Tuffmad® Ik31yliner = Bag 200
No. 5015
· '8440 45 gal Be~je, 1
21~"SCl. x40~"h. Brown
signed for outdoor use ~n all
kinds of weather-ideal for
municipal street corners, parks, :1:3567
playgrounds, stadiums and
fast food restaurants. Tops are
permanently attached to prevent
loss or theft, and rainshields are
available to match the decora-
tive woodgrain panels.
· Good for all kinds of outdoor
uses.
· WeatherGard® Ranger®
Put A Great Name
to Work?
· '8442 4S gel. Be.]e, 1
21~"SCl. X40~"tt Brown
w/decorator oanetsT
Rigid Liner, Gray 4
45 gal.
18¼ "SQ. x291,~"h.
'ruffmade Pot¥flner; Big 200
No. 5016
· 8450 ~rs gal. Beige,
w/Brown Brown
Rainlhieide
21
No. Descno~on Color Pac~<
'256B
56 gel. Brown,
25~"x22~'4"x31 V~"h. Oyster
White
256V Heeded Toe Brown,
256X Needed Toe Brown.
wtdcx~s Red,,..--- j
256K Rigid Li~er Gray
256W Held dowa Black
~ gravel)
21 ~"x 18'xS"h.
Tuffmade R~l¥11ner = aa~ 100
No. 5013
U.S. PaL No. D-233,127 (256B. 256V. 256X1
256B "Riled-la" Standara ~ s~amDea
-55 desagn evadable,
2 sa:les, green ~mpnnt
2568 Stanctarcl elk screened clesK:Jn
-94 avalaD~e:
KEEP OUR CITY CLEAN
KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL
BE A WASTE WATCHER
I:~ DON'T UTTER
*Custom irnDrinbng avallaDle. Contact your
Rubbermaid representative for cietaHs.
C
· 8452 45 gel. BeK~e,
w/Decorator Brown
Plnelet &
Brown
Rlinlhietda
21 ~"sa.x40:~"h.
3567 Rigid Line~', Gray 4
45 gal
18~ "~.x29V~ "h.
'ruffmad® Rolyiiner"' Bag 200
No. 5016
Contact your RubDermaicl representative
for details.
U.S. PaL No. D-217,248 (8452, 8450)
tColors for decorator panels: walnut or teak
woodgram.
Examc)le of order: #8432-beige (color of
container), walnut (color of banal)
Example of order: #8452 be;ge (color),
walnu~ (color of panel), (rarest, eld writ ~
brown).
· Th~s product has i:)een approved ~y the
Califorma State Fire Marsl~all (CSFM)
pursuant to ,~ 13144.1 of the Calitorma
Health and Safely Code. Se~ CSFM Listing
No. 4480-460:104 (8430, 8432); 4480-
460:102 (8440, 84421 material 13resentect
in th~S c~ocurnent. It is subiect to re-exarmn-
ation, revisions and Ooss~ime cancellation.
.fLirter rnee{s CSFM apb'oval when used rn
conlunctlon wdh CSFM approved Ranger·
contamers.
· Custom ~mDnnting available. Conlact your
RuOl:)erma,3 representative for dermis.
WINNETKA
36th & WI,4NETKA
COMMONS
NEW HOi~, N~INESOTA
22
~algzeens
BigeZow
Video
I 4200 Tires Plus
2 1844
3 1400
4 1400 Chiropractor
§ 2800 Haytag :
7 1200
8 1200
9 1200
10 1200
11 1812 Gung Ho Oriental
13 1488
14 900
15 900 Shoe Repair/Tailor
16 900 Emerald Cleaners
17 900 New Hope for Hair
18 900
19 1670 Frankte's Chicago-
Style Pizza
20 1930 Bruegger's Bagels
21 2820 Bigelow Video
22 11890 Walgreens
Z~
-~,l%
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
91-15
Request for Consideration of Ordinances Pertaining
Zoning and Adult Use Licensing in New Hope
City of New Hope
City of New Hope
January 3, 1992
January 7, 1992
BACKGROUND
to Adult Use
City staff is requesting consideration of ordinances pertaining to adult use zoning and
adult use licensing in New Hope.
The Planning Commission conducted a work session on November 21st to discuss a
preliminary draft of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance and an Adult Use Licensing
Ordinance (minutes included with December 10th memo for insertion into the three-ring
binders). Per the direction of the Commission, the following schedule was established:
Planner to prepare revised ordinances pertaining to adult use zoning and adult use
licensing as a follow-up to the items that were discussed at the work session. This
has been completed and the revisions are outlined in the cover memo of the
November 27th Planner's Report (sent to the Commission on December 10th for
insertion into the three-ring binders).
B. Revised ordinances to be reviewed by Codes & Standards Committee on
December 17th and to be distributed to full Commission for review (completed).
Moratorium on Adult Entertainment Uses to be extended for an additional six
months...completed through Council action on December 23rd.
Informal discussion of the ordinance revisions by the full Planning Commi~ion
at the January Planning Commi~ion meeting.
Formal public hearing by the Planning Commission on the Adult Entertainment
Use Ordinance at the February 4th Planning Commission meeting.
o
One of the proposed changes to the ordinance recommended at the work session was to
expand the list of incompatible land uses to include specialty schools, training schools, and
commercial recreational facilities.
Planning Case Report 91-15
January 7, 1992
Page -2-
The only major change discussed by the Codes & Standards Committee on December 17th
was a concern that the existing "300 foot distance" maps did not take into account the
Northland Gymnastics Center located on International Parkway south of Bass Lake Road
or the recently approved Grand Slam complex on 31st Avenue east of Louisiana. Codes
& Standards recommended that thc ordinance text be changed to eliminate training
schools from thc protected uses and to include that only specialty schools and commercial
recreational facilities whose majority of customers are minors arc protected uses. The
Planner has revised the ordinance to reflect this change and has made the change to the
opportunity area maps for adult use (December 24th memo attached). These changes
reduce the overall available area from 145.2 acres to 109.2 acres, or 3.5% of the City.
These changes and any other concerns with the proposed ordinance should be discussed/
reviewed by the Commission in January. The City Attorney and Planning Consultant will
be in attendance at the meeting to assist in the discussion.
If consensus is reached on the ordinance by the full Commission, a formal public hearing
will be scheduled for February. Please bring your three ring binders to this meeting for
reference.
Attachments:
November 27th Planner's cover page (with notation)
December 24th Planner's Memo and Maps
U RB A PL NG · DES N · MAR K E R S E A R C H
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Alan Brixius
27 November 1991
New Hope Adult Use
131.00 - 90.10
Attached please find the revised ordinances pertaining to adult
use zoning and adult use licensing in New Hope. The following
items that were discussed at our 21 November 1991 Planning
Commission workshop have been addressed in these ordinances:
Zoning:
The adult use accessory is allowed in each of the commercial
and industrial zoning districts.
Adult use principal is allowed only in the B-3, B-4, I-l,
and I-2 Zoning Districts.
The Zoning Ordinance establishes a 300 foot setback for
adult uses from all incompatible land uses.
4. The list of incompatible land uses was expanded to include
specialty schools, ...... =z~n~ =~h~Is, ~ -- and commercial
recreational facilities.~ ~,~~\~ _.~.~,i~£~ t,~,,~
Licensing:
The licensing fees section was changed to allow the City to
recoup its expenses incurred during review of the
application even if the application is denied.
My staff is researching the administration inspection and
law enforcement costs associated with adult uses to develop
a proposed licensing fee for the City.
5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837
P L N G DES N . M A R K E T
Inc.
RESEARCH
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE;
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Allan Hunting/Alan Brixius
24 December 1991
New Hope - Adult Use
131.00 - 90.10
Based on discussions at the Codes and Standards meeting, we have
made the changes to the Ordinance text and to the opportunity
area maps for adult use.
Excluding lands within 300 feet of Munsinger's Gymnastic Center,
the new Grand Slam complex, and the Science Industry Park reduces
the overall available area from 145.2 acres to 109.2 acres, or
3.5 percent of the City. The maps identify the location of the
gymnastic center and the Grand Slam along with the opportunity
areas. The maps also illustrate the lots which were eliminated
from the opportunity area with the inclusion of the gymnastic
center, the Grand Slam, and the Science Industry Park.
The Ordinance text has been changed tQ eliminate training schools
from the protected uses and to include that only specialty
schools and commercial recreational facilities whose majority of
customers are minors are protected uses.
If you need further information, please advise.
pc: Steve Sondrall
5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555. SI:. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837
~,~"1' R~.g[ARCH CENT/R ROAD
K.U
MUNSINGER GYMNASTIC CENTER
S¢;ENC£
INDUSTRY
R.4
,L
OPPORTUNITY AREA
OOPPORTUNITY AREA LOST
SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE
PAUL. · 5AULT
PARK
ST. AVl[:.
SAINTC I~ARI
IEWCREST
LANE
AKE mm ROAD
GRAND SLAM~M ~'--~_~ 30 H N
COUNTY ROAD NO.
1"= 500'
OPPORTUNITY AREA
OPPORTUNITY AREA LOST
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM'.
SUBJECT:
January 2, 1992
Planning Commission Members
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development
Coordinator
Miscellaneous Issues
SHED VARIANCE
The shed variance to locate in a drainage/utility easement in
Plufka Addition, which the Commission recommended denial of,
was tabled at the November 12th Council meeting. The
applicant agreed to remove the shed and withdraw the request
and the Council indicated that they would consider giving the
applicant until next spring/summer to move the shed, pending
a report back by the City Engineer on any negative drainage
factors that may result from leaving the shed in place foe the
next 6 months.
The Council considered this issue again on December 9th. The
City Engineer and City Attorney both addressed this matter in
written correspondence (attached), with the Engineer stating
that he did not see any problem with leaving the shed in place
until next spring and the Attorney pointing out liability
issues. The Council determined that they would give the
petitioner until June 1, 1992, to move the shed to meet
setback requirements and that the City would refund the
variance application fee once the shed was moved.
K-MART SIGNAGE
The City Council approved K-Mart's request for a variance to
the sign ordinance at the December 9th Council meeting. The
Council indicated that while it understood the concerns of the
Planning Commission regarding lack of cooperation on overall
site improvements, they felt that the sign variance request
was a separate matter and that the proposed new signage was an
improvement over the existing signage.
DAY CARE PARKING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
The ordinance amendment regarding parking standards for Day
Care Centers was approved by the Council on December 9th and
the new standards is now in effect.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TIME CHANGE
Don't forget...starting with this January meeting, Planning
Commission meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m., one-half hour
earlier than the previous meeting time of 7:30 p.m. The time
change has been incorporated into the public hearing legal
notices and the sign in the window on the front of the City
Hall has been revised.
Se
E~TENSION OF MORATORIUM ON ADULT ENTERTAINMENT USES OR
ESTABLIS}~fENTS
As you are aware, the Interim Ordinance Temporarily
Prohibiting Adult Entertainment in New Hope was due to expire
on February 25, 1992. The Planning Commission and staff had
recommended that the moratorium be extended an additional six
months until an ordinance could be adopted after the public
hearing process. At the December 9th Council meeting the
Council adopted an Ordinance Extending the Moratorium Deadline
to August 25, 1992. A copy of the moratorium extension was
mailed previously to all Planning Commission members.
6. CREAMETTE VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION
On January 14, 1991, the City Council approved a variance and
conditional use permit for Creamette Company to modify a
portion of the existing building and to construct an addition
at 7300 36th Avenue North.
The Zoning Code states that if work authorized by a Special
Zoning Procedure has not been implemented within a year after
approval, the procedure shall terminate unless a petition for
extension of time to implement the use or complete the work
has been granted by the City Council. The extension request
must be submitted to the City Manager at least 30 days prior
to the termination deadline, otherwise the permit shall
automatically terminate. The petitioner shall include a
statement of facts explaining the circumstances necessitating
the extension.
Don Litterer, Operations/Plant Engineer for Creamettes, has
submitted the enclosed petition dated December 13, 1991,
requesting a one-year extension on the approval. Creamettes
has purchased the Valspar warehouse on Winpark Drive and is
utilizing it as a finished product warehouse and distribution
center. While engineering drawings for the New Hope plant
expansion are completed, the expansion is on hold at this time
until an evaluation can be made as to how much additional
capacity will be needed. Said analysis will be completed next
spring.
The Creamette's extension request was considered and approved
by the City Council on December 23rd and the special zoning
procedure will now terminate on 12/23/92 unless an additional
extension is requested and approved.
-3-
O~)OOR DINING/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REGULATIONS
The Codes & Standards Committee, Planning Consultant, City
Attorney, and staff have reached agreement on an ordinance
that would regulate outdoor dining. The ordinance and
Planner's report are enclosed for your information. Due to
the fact that we will be discussing the Adult Entertainment
Ordinance in both January and February, Codes & Standards has
recommended that the Planning Commission public hearing on the
outdoor dining ordinance be delayed until the March 3rd
meeting. Prior to that public hearing, all eating establish-
ments that serve food outdoors will be notified and invited to
the hearing for comments/input.
CORNER IX)T/FENCE LOCATION
Work is still progressing on an ordinance amendment regarding
fence locations on corner lots. The ordinance was revised for
review but the Building Official has some concerns that need
to be addressed. Once a consensus is reached, the ordinance
will be reviewed by Codes & Standards and then presented to
the full Commission.
Attachments:
Shed Variance Correspondence
Creamettes Extension
Outdoor Dining
SI-IED VARIANCE
4401 Xylon A venue North
New Hope. Minnesota 55428
Phone.'531-5100
FAX
December 10, 1991
Mr. LuVerne Kramer
4764 Erickson Drive
New Hope, MN 55428
Subject: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO THE ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK
REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A UTILITY SHED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN
A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT, PLANNING CASE 91-36
Dear Mr. Kramer:
Your variance request, which was tabled by the City Council on
November 12, 1991, was considered at the Council meeting on
December 9, 1991, and this letter is to inform you that the Council
officially accepted your withdrawal of the requested based on the
following conditions:
1. You will be allowed to leave the shed in place this winter,
but it should be moved to comply with the proper setback
requirements by June 1, 1992.
2. If you are unable to have the shed moved by that date, due to
unforseen conditions such as weather, you should contact me so
we can arrange for an extension of time.
3. The City will refund your $75.00 variance application fee as
soon as the shed is moved.
If you have and comments of questions, please contact me. I will
look forward to hearing from you in the spring. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Donahue
City Manager
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
cc:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Valerie Leonet City Clerk
Planning Case File 91-36
Property File
Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda A~genc~a Section
t'~anmng &
City Manager r-",,, Development
12-9-91 Item No.
Kirk McDonald
By: Management Assistant By:d/ 8.3
PLANNING CASE 91-36-REQUEST Fpi~A VARIANCE TO THE ACCESSORY BUILDING
SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A UTILITY SHED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT, 4764ERICKSON DRIVE (PIE)#07-118-21-32-0065),
MR/MRS LUVERNE KRAMER, PETITIONERS
The petitioners are requesting a variance to the accessory building setback requirement to allow
an existing accessory storage building to remain in place, pursuant to Section 4.032(3d) of the New
Hope Code. The petitioner has constructed a 10' x 12' (120 square foo0 storage shed 3 feet from
the rear yard property line and 2.4 feet from the side yard property line and is seeking an after-
the-fact variance to allow the shed to remain in place. The shed is constructed on a concrete slab
located within the 5-foot side yard and 10-foot rear yard drainage and utility easement. City Code
states that accessory buildings shall be five (b') feet or more from all lot line and shall not be
located within a utility or drainage easement. The variance request is the result of an order form
the Building Official to remove the shed from the drainage easement in response to a neighbor's
complaint. The petitioner claims he was given inaccurate information from the Building
Inspections section of the Fire and Safety Department about requirements for shed locations. Staff
finds no hardship for the granting of the variance and recommends that the shed be moved to
comply with code requirements. The Planning Commission reviewed this case on November 5th
and recommended denial.
This matter was considered and tabled at the 11/12 Council meeting. The petitioner was
agreeable to moving the shed to comply with code requirements and withdrawing the variance
request if adequate time was provided to relocate the shed. Petitioner also requested that the $75.
variance application fee be returned. The Council discussed allowing the shed to remain in place
until summer 1992 and directed the City Engineer to review potential drainage problems and the
City Attorney to review liability issues.
Mo or nv sEco
Review: AdmlmstraUon: l~manee:
RFA-O01
Request for Action
Planning Case 91-36
December 9, 1991
Page -2-
The City Engineer inspected the site, reviewed the existing drainage in the area, and does not feel
that the building needs to be relocated at this time. The Engineer recommends that the building
be relocated during the 1992 construction season. The City Attorney has reviewed the liability
issues and it is his opinion that the City may likely have some exposure to liability if it fails to
enforce the zoning ordinance in this particular case and damage to property results from the shed
obstructing the drainage easement. The Attorney recommends that the shed be moved as soon
as is reasonably possible. Relative to the refund of the application fee, no outside consulting
expenses have been incurred as a result of this request except for brief reviews of the situation by
the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Staff recommends that the request for the variance be withdrawn by the petitioner and that the
variance application fee be refunded. Taking into consideration the viewpoints of both the City
Attorney and City Engineer, staff recommends that the petitioner be required to move the shed
to meet code requirements as soon as possible and no later than June 1, 1992, so as to minimize
the City's liability. If spring weather conditions do not permit the shed to be moved by June 1,
1992, then the petitioner can request an extension on the relocation date.
DEC-- 3--9 I TUE 14 : 49 BONESTRO0 ~ ASSOC I ATES P 82
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
?~.Ka, nale. No~ P.e.
~ M, ~rgn,
Dccemher 3, 1991
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 554285
Arm: Kirk McDonald
Accessory Building
4764 Erickson Drive
Our File No. 34-Gen.
Dear Kirk:
I recently inspected the location of the accessory building at 4764 Erickson Drive. The
building is presently constructed within the 10' drainage and utility casement located along
the east and south property line. The property owner intends to relocate the building
outside the easement this spt'ins After reviewhag the ex/sting drainage in the area, I don't
ace uny reason why the building needs to be relocated at th/s time, It's recommended the
building be relocated during the 1992 construction season,
If you have any questions please contact me at this office,
Yours very truly,
BONESTROO, ROSF. NF.,, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATE, S, INC.
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:dh
2335 West Highway 36 · St, Paul, Minnesota S5113 · 6t2-636-4600 * 3Sth Anniversary
CoR,qK:;K LAW OFFIGES, P.A.
WILLIAM J, CORRICK
STEVEN A. SONDFIALL.
STEV~N A.SONOI:L4,U.
MICHAEL R.
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM G. STI:IA~T
COR~CK & SONDRAU.,
A PA/~/TNEFt~HIP QF ~F~ ~T~
~b~ ~u~e O~ce P~
8525 ~b~k C~si~
S~ t203
B~ ~ M~n~o~ 5~3
LAVONNE E. KF,~qKE
SHA~ O. DImitY
December 4, 1991
Daniel J. Donahue
City Manager
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Liability for Temporary Non Enforcement of Zoning Code
Planning Case No. 91-36
Our File No. 99.11091
Dear Dan:
The above referenced Planning Case involves a request for a
variance to the accessory building setback requirement that will
allow an utility shed to be located within a drainage and utility
easement at 4764 Erickson Drive. The shed is located 7 feet into
the 10 foot rear drainage easement and 2.6 feet into the 5 foot
wide side yard drainage easement. The shed is located on a cement
pad. The owner would like to wait until after the spring thaw to
move the shed. The City is concerned about potential liability on
its part for failure to enforce the zoning ordinance. In this
case, we cannot say the City will be immune from all liability.
As a general rule, the City has no liability for failure to enforce
its ordinances. But this general rule must be reasonably applied,
and a City may be liable if its failure to enforce its ordinance
results in the creation of a nuisance. (See Mcquillan, Municipal
Corporation, Section 53.22d.) You should note that, in addition to
violating the setback provisions of the zoning code, an obstruction
of a drainage easement is a nuisance under §5.07 of the City Code.
The City may also have liability as a result of the public duty
doctrine. A governmental unit generally has no liability toward
anyone injured by a duty owed to the public at large, but in
certain circumstances may have a duty to a particular individual.
The governmental unit may owe a particular individual a duty of
care when its officer or agent, in a position and with authority to
Mr. Daniel J. Donahue
December 4, 1991
Page 2
act, has or should have had knowledge of a condition that violates
safety standards prescribed by statute or regulation, and that
presents a risk of serious harm to the individual or his property.
When such injury is reasonably foreseeable, the government unit has
a duty to exercise reasonable care for the individual's safety.
In this particular case, the shed in its present location violates
the Zoning Code, as well as §5.07 which prohibits obstructions of
drainage easements. The obvious purpose of §5.07 is to prevent
flooding caused by obstructions of the drainage flow. The City and
the Building Official are aware of the violation at 4764 Erickson
Drive, and have authority to prevent and remove such obstruction.
If the obstruction causes flooding, such flooding may cause serious
harm to a number of houses in the area. Such damage by flooding is
reasonably foreseeable, especially at this point in light of a
winter of potential record snowfall and spring runoff.
Liability on the City's part is also supported in analogous
situations involving a City's duty to keep its sewers in repair and
free of obstructions. Liability has been found on the part of
cities for failure to exercise reasonable care in that regard.
Lawin v. City of Long Prairi.~, 355 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. App. 1984).
Finally, in the event that the City failed to act and damages
resulted, the City and its employees would not likely find any
relief under the doctrine of discretionary immunity. As you may
know, a municipality is protected from liability for planning level
decisions, which are also known as discretionary acts, which
involve the balancing of complex and competing factors comprising
a discretionary choice between alternatives. A City will have
liability, however, for decisions made at an operational level, or
decisions that involve professional judgment, such as an engineer
deciding whether or not to place a guard rail along a highway. The
decision of the City to not enforce the City Code in this
particular instance would be more like a ministerial or operational
decision, rather than a planning or discretionary act.
In conclusion, the City will likely have some exposure to liability
if it fails to enforce the zoning ordinance in this particular case
and damage to property results from the shed obstructing the
drainage easement. The City Engineer may be able to evaluate the
risk and extent of any potential damage and conclude it is minimal,
but if such damage occurs, the City may have some liability.
Accordingly, the shed should be moved as soon as is reasonably
possible.
Mr. Danie3 J. Donahue
December 4, t991
Page 3
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slw3
cc: Kirk McDonald, Management Asst.
EXTENSION OF CREAMETTES ZONING PROCEDURE
GROCERY AND SPECIALTY PRODUCTS
DIVISION OF BORDEN. INC,
PASTA GROUP
December 13, 1991
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant
City of New Nope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Subject= Extension of Special Zoning Procedure Approval
Dear Mr. McDonald:
Since the approval of the site/building plans, variance and front loading
berth by the City Counci2 last January, severa/ events have occurred resulting
in our postponing the expansion of this production facility.
The purpose of the proposal was to provide needed space for finished product
storage and future production expansion. As we were proceeding with the
structural and civil engineering drawings, we learned that space in the
Valspar warehouse on ¥inpark Drive in New Hope was available to lease.
Upon further investigation and analysis of our current and future space
requirements, it was decided to pursue the option of utilizing the Valspar
warehouse as a finished product warehouse and distribution center.
Negotiations to purchase the property with Valspar and Hoyt Development
(the buildingWs owner), were completed with title transferred to Creamette/
Borden last fall. Ne are actively transferring finished product to this
warehouse facility for storage and distribution to customers. Once the
product is transferred to the ¥inpark location, it is our intent to
originate all customer shipments from that location except for full truck
loads of the sa~e product. Finished product will then be shuttled from the
production plant on 36th Avenue and Minneapolis to the Winpark distribution
center warehouse for shipment. This will greatly reduce the truck traffic
at the plant.
A new production facility in St. ~ouis, MO is just coming on-line. There
are also some small plants that are being phased out of production. Once
the new plant is in full production and the other plants are closed, an
evaluation can be sade as to how much additional capacity will be needed
and when. We hope this analysis will be completed next spring. The
engineering drawings for the New Hope plant expansion along with other
preliminary requirements have been completed. The expansion at this time
is on hold. In view of this, we would like to petition for an extension
of one year to implement the expansion.
THE CREAMETTE COMPANY - PASTA GROUP HEADQUARTERS
428 NORTH FIRST STREET, MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55401
Kirk McDonald 2 Decesber lJ, 199I
Should you have any questions or if we can he of assistance, please contact
us. Thank you for your considera£ion.
Sincerely,
Litterer
O~erations/Plan t Engineer
DWi~ds
CC:
S. Favro
J. Lawrie
K. Kallebers
~01 Xylon Avenue Nom~
New Hope, M/nnesota 55428
Phone: 531-51 O0
FAX $~2 55'-£'-~
October 21, 1991
Mr. Don Li~erer, Opera[ions Plan~ Manger
Creamette Company
7300 36~h Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55427
Subject: TERMXNATXON OF SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURE APPROVA~
Dear Mr. Li==erer:
On January 14~/1, 1991, ~he New Hope City Council approved
=he si=e/building plan review, variance =o side yard
se=back, and a conditional use permi~ =o allow loading ber=h
in ~he iron= yard in order for Creame==es =o modify
exis=ing building and cons~ruc~ a building addition a~ 7300
36~h Avenue North. I wan=ed ~o inform you ~ha= =he zoning
ordinance s=a=es ~ha= #if ~he work or use au~horiz.d by a
special zoning proc.d~e has no= ~en implem, n~ed wi=bin a
y.ar after final Council approval, ~he said proc.dure shall
au=oma=ically =e~ina=e ~less a ~i~lon for ~e~ion of
~ ~o ~1~ ~l ~e or c~le~e ~e work p~suan~ ~o
~i$ m~cial zoning pr~~e has ~en ~an~ by ~e City
Co~cil. Pe~i~ion for an e~ension shall bo made in~i=ing
and filed wi=h the Ci:y Manager a= leas= 30 days before the
e~ira~ion of ~he special zoning procedure. There shall
no charge for ~m filing of a pe:i:ion for e~ension. The
petition shall include a s~a:~en: of fac~s m~laining the
circ~s~ances necemsi=a~ing ~e m~mnsion. If a petition
for e~ension is filed, ~e Council may ~m~ina:m or m~ify
~m s~cial zoning proc~m for non-use, after a hearing or
hearings held in ~e s~e ma~mr as for =he original
considerm:ion of ~hm s~cial zoning procedure, including
no=ice ~o ~m applican~ and him successor in in=mrms:, if
any. If, after a hearing, ~e Council detm~ines =hat a
basis for approval of ~hm original zoning procedure no
longer exists, in whole or subs~an=ial par~, ~he Council may
~e~ina~m or m~ify~e authority or use previously approved
under the special zoning procedure." I have enclosed an
excmrp= of the zoning ordinance for your info~a=ion.
In shor~, if work has no~ been ini~ia~ed on =he Creame==es
addition before January 14, 1992, =he special zoning
procedure approval will Cer'ainaCe unless you file a wriC~en
reques= for an extension =hir=y days prior =o =ha~ da~e, or
by December 14, 1991.
Family Styled City ~ Fo~ Family Living
-2-
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
KM/lb
Enclosure
cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Planning Caee File 90-40
4.202 (1)(1) - (q)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
Record Before Council. The City Manager shall place the
report and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the
City Manager, on the agenda for the next regular Council
meeting after Planning Commission action, or the expiration
of 60 days after the first consideration by the Commission,
whichever is earlier. Such reports and recommendations shall
be entered in and made ~art of the permanent written record
of the City Council meeting.
Council Action. Upon receiving the report and recommendation
of the Planning Commission and the City Manager, the City
Council maY, at its option set and hold a public hearing if
deemed necessary and shall make findings of fact and impose
any condition on approval which it considers necessary to
protect the public health, safety and welfare, and shall make
its decision as to the application.
Votes Required. Approval of a request for text amendment
Shall require passage by a 4/Sths vote of the full City
Council, and a vote for a Conditional Use Permit, Variance or
Appeal off a Zoning question shall require the affirmative
vote of a majority of a quorum of the City Council present
for the vote for passage.
Notice to Applicant. The City Manager shall notify the
applicant of the decision of the Council in writing,
including any relevant resolution and findings which may have
been passed by the Council.
Reconsideration. Whenever an application for a Special
Zoning Procedure has been considered and denied by the City
Council, a similar application affecting substantially the
same property shall not be considered again by the Planning
Commission or City Council before the expiration of six
months from the ~ate of its denial and any succeeding
denials. However, a decision to reconsider such matter may
be made by not less than 4/Sths vote of the full City Council
at any time, or under Robert's Rules of Order.
Termination of Special Zoning Procedure Approval. If the
work or use authorized by a Special Zoning Procvdure has not
been implemented within a year after final council approval,
the said procedure shall automatically terminate unless a
petition for extension of time to implement the use or
complete the work pursuant to the Special Zoning Procedure
has been granted by the City Council. Petition for
extensions shall be made in writing and filed with the City
Manager at least thirty days before the expiration of the
S~ecial Zoning Procedure. There shall be no charge for the
filing of a petition for extension. The petition shall
include a statement of facts explaining the circumstances
necessitating the extension. If a petition for extension is
filed, the Council may terminate or modify the Special Zoning
Procedure for non-use, after a hearing or hearings held in
the same manner as for the original consideration of the
S~ecial Zoning Procedure, including notice to the applicant
and his successor in interest, if any. If after a hearing,
the council determines that the be$is for approval of the
original Special Zoning Procedure no longer exists, in whole
or substantial part, the Council may terminate or modify the
authority or use previously approved under the Special Zoning
Procedure.
4-96
0726 84
OUTDOOR DINING STUDY
C~ L.AW ~. PA.
CORRICK & SONDRALL
~nb~ ~u~e O~ce P~
8525 ~mb~k C~s~
S~ ~203
B~ ~ Mmn~ 5~3
~ (~1~ ~1
L.AVO#NE E. ~
9NA/~ON O. O~IBY
December 18, 1991
Kirk McDonald
Management Asst.
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Outdoor Dining Ordinance
Our File No. 99.40044
Dear Kirk:
In follow up to the December 17th, 1991 Codes and Standards
Committee meeting, please find enclosed a revised Outdoor Dindng
Ordinance.
The following changes were made to the Ordinance resulting from the
discussions at the Codes and Standards meeting:
Subdivision (h) is amended to provide a 36 inch walking
aisle. The previous ordinance provided for a 42 inch
aisle.
Subdivision (o)(i) was amended to provide a 42 inch
perimeter fencing for rooftop dining facilities. The
previous height requirement was 36 inches. My notes
indicated the Codes and Standards Committee wanted a 3½
foot high fence instead of a 3 foot high fence around the
perimeter of any rooftop dining facilities.
Subdivision (j) was amended to prohibit all storage of
furniture on the public sidewalks between November 1st
and March 31st. However, a sentence was added to exclude
from this prohibition furniture that is either immovable
or permanently fixed or attached to the sidewalk. It
also requires that if an applicant is intending to use
immovable furniture, the use of said furniture must be
Mr. Kirk McDonald
December 18, 1991
Page 2
approved through the site plan application process. As
a result, I also amended paragraph (a) by requiring the
applicant to disclose the type of furniture to be used in
the outdoor dining area.
Because of the amendment to subdivision (j), subdivision
(i) has no purpose and as a result can be deleted from
the proposed ordinance,
Please review and let me know if these changes properly reflect the
recommendations that were made at the December 17th Codes and
Standards meeting,
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondral 1
slw2
Enclosure
cc: A1 Brixius (w/enc)
In the final version that goes to Council, I will change the
lettering system to reflect the removal of subdivision (i).
It is left in at this time simply to show the amendment.
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE
ZONING CODE BY ADDING SECTION 4.125 (8)
ESTABLISHING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCEDURE
ALLOWING OUTDOOR DINING FACILITIES
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4.125 "Conditional Accessory Use, B-3" of
the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (8)
to read as follows:
Outdoor Dining, Accessory. Outdoor dining as an
accessory use for restaurants, drive-in, and convenience
food establishments, under a conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
(a)
The applicant be required to submit a site plan and
other pertinent information demonstrating the
location and type of all tables, refuse
receptacles, and wait stations.
(b)
Access to the dining area be provided only via the
principal building if the dining area is a full
service restaurant, including table waiting
service.
(c) The size of the dining area is restricted to thirty
(30) percent of the total customer floor area
within the principal structure.
(d)
The dining area is screened from view from adjacent
residential uses in accordance with Section
4.033(3)(b) of this Code.
(e)
All lighting be hooded and directed away from
adjacent residential uses in accordance with
Section 4.033(5) of this Code.
(f)
The applicant demonstrates that pedestrian
circulation is not disrupted as a result of the
outdoor dining area by providing the fo]lowing:
(i)
Outdoor dining area shall be segregated from
through pedestrian circulation by means of
temporary fencing, bollards, ropes, plantings,
or other methods, and shall be subject to
review and approval by the City Council.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(ii)
Minimum clear passage zone for pedestrians at
the perimeter of the cafe shall be at least
five (5) feet without interference from parked
motor vehicles, bollards, trees, treegates,
curbs, stairways, trash receptacles, street
lights, parking meters, or the like.
(iii)
Overstory canopy of trees, umbrellas or other
structures extending into the pedestrian Clear
passage zone or pedestrian aisle shall have a
minimum clearance of seven (?) feet above
sidewalk.
The dining area is surfaced with concrete,
bituminous or decorative paver to provide a clean,
attractive, and functional surface.
A minimum width of ~ t, "-~- fA.~
.-r" ~ ~ ,-~, thirty-six (38)
inches shall be provided within aisles of the
outdoor dining area.
Ne Storage of furniture shall not be permitted on
the sidewalk between November 1 and March 31. e~
~¢~-- mr~ ^--4' Sidewalk furniture that is
immovable or permanently fixed or attached to the
si dewal k shal 1 not be subject to the storage
prohibition of this section. However, any
immovable or permanently fixed or attached
furniture must be approved as part of the site plan
application provided for by §4.125(8)(a) of this
Code.
No outside bar or cooking facility shall be
established, only wait stations shall be allowed.
Additional off-street parking shall be required
pursuant to the requirements set forth in §4.036 of
this Code based on the additional seating area
provided by the outdoor dining area.
Refuse containers are provided for self-service
outdoor dining areas. Such containers shall be
placed in a manner which does not disrupt
pedestrian circulation, and must be designed to
prevent spillage and blowing litter.
(n)
(o)
The operation is subject to approval of the City
Sanitarian and compliance with any written
provisions he or she requires.
Rooftop dining facilities shall be permitted
provided they meet all applicable conditions as
listed herein and in addition:
(i)
Provide permanent walls of fencing around the
periphery of the dining area at a minimum
height of 8~ 42 inches to ensure the safety of
persons/property.
(ii)
Any permanent structures, including divider
walls, trellis work, etc. be included as part
of the building upon which they are located
and are subject to the building height
limitations as specified in Section 4.033 1)
of this Code.
(iii)
The submitted plans for a roof top din ng
facility as well as the building upon wh ch
the proposed outdoor dining is to occur is
subject to review by the City Building
Inspector. He/She will determine whether the
building is structurally capable of handling
the additional weight of persons and
equipment.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective
upon its passage and publication.
Dated the day of , 1991.
Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor
Attest:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post the
, 1991.)
day of
R B A P L A N G DES I G N
Consultants, Inc.
MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
PILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Allan Hunting/Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius
22 November 1991
New Hope - Outdoor Dining Study
131.00 91.12
BACKGROUND
Upon review by Codes and Standards, a number of issues were
raised regarding the possibility of allowing outdoor dining a5
shopping centers and freestanding restaurants. Three questions
were raised and needed to be addressed. These questions are:
Does sufficient parking exist at the shopping centers anh
restaurants to allow for the expanded outdoor dining areas?
Is there sufficient area on the shopping center sidewalks
to accommodate outdoor dining?
o
How should the dining area and surplus parking be divided
among the restaurants in the shopping centers?
In response to these questions, our office has conducted a suu/i
of shopping centers and freestanding restaurants to determine the
feasibility of allowing outdoor dining at these existln~
locations.
This study focuses on the City's major shopping centers, but
includes other freestanding restaurants and their site loca~Lc:L
potential for outdoor dining·
The shopping centers included in the study are:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Winnetka Commons
Midland Center
New Hope Mall
Winnetka Shopping Center
Post Haste Square
5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555 .St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837
Attached for reference:
Exhibit 1 - Study Area
Exhibit 2 - Taco Johns, Subway
Exhibit 3 - Bruegger's, Frankie's
Exhibit 4 - Gung Ho
Exhibit 5 - Kinh Do
Exhibit 6 - Circus
Exhibit 7 - Ole Piper Inn
Exhibit 8 - Country Kitchen, Port Arthur
Exhibit 9 - McDonalds, Vacant Building
Exhibit 10- Taco Bell, Ponderosa
Exhibit 11- Hardee's
Exhibit 12- Full Service Restaurant Outdoor Dining Layout
Exhibit 13- Self Service Restaurant Outdoor Dining Layout
ANALYSIS
In considering the acceptability of a request for outdoor dining,
a paramount consideration is that of off-street parking.
Regardless of the outdoor dining facility's location (within a
shopping center or otherwise), the allowance of outdoor dining is
to be treated as a building expansion comparable to the area
consumed by the dining activities.
In regard to outdoor dining facilities which are within shopping
centers, off-street parking demands differ depending upon uhe
type of dining (i.e., fast food versus full service).
Fast food establishments within a center scenario typically have
a high turnover and a clientele which likely may frequent other
center establishments. The parking turnover rates for fast food
establishments slows down with the introduction of availability
of seating and in placing dining facilities.
Full service establishments on the other hand, typically fulfill
an entertainment role and are frequented solely for dining
purposes. Full service restaurants have a significantly lower
turnover rate than self service restaurants.
Under the premise that outdoor dining is an expansion of usable
floor area, a restaurant's parking requirements should reflec~
this increase. Since shopping center standards are not based cn
specific uses, adding outdoor dining should be treated as a f!ocr
area expansion of the shopping center facility.
Consequently, a parking calculation should encompass the entire
shopping center area (including outdoor dining) and apply the
applicable shopping center standard.
2
Thus, outdoor dining should 0niY be allowed to the extent that a
shopping center's off-street parking supply may accommodate the
proposed increase in shopping center area. If a shopping center
demonstrated a parking deficit, an obvious signal is brought
forth that the" outdoor dining facility should likely be
prohibited.
Freestanding restaurants seeking outdoor dining on the other hand
should be reviewed as an expansion to the dining area and where
outdoor dining is allowed, parking must be expanded to
acco~odate the additional dining area·
According tO the New Hope Zoning Ordinance, the following parking
requirements currently apply to shopping centers:
0-20,000 square feet of building area - ten spaces per one
thousand square feet.
20,000-30,000 square feet of building area - eight spaces
per one thousand square feet.
30,000 square feet and over of building area - six spaces
per one thousand square feet.
The following table provides a list of the malls included in the
study, the size of the mall, the required parking and the
supplied parking:
Total Required Supplied Surplus/
Mall Size Parking Parking Deficit
Winnetka Commons
New Hope Mall
Midland Center
Winnetka Shopping
Center
Post Haste Square
42,554 230 246 + 16
91,800 495 450 45
70,502 380 474 + 94
92,630 500 514 + 14
22,000 158 164 + 6
As can be seen from the above table, all of the mall's suppi~,
parking is in excess of requirements except the New Hope Mall,
which has a deficit of 45 parking spaces.
The following parking requirements
service and full service restaurants:
currently apply to sel=
Self Service Establishments
feet of seating area.
one space for each 15 squat%
Full Service Restaurant
of seating area.
one space for each 40 square fee-
Any freestanding full service restaurant or self serv±ce
establisb_ment wishing to provide outdoor dining shall be required~'
to apply for a conditional use permit and conform to ail the
requirements.
In order to determine whether New Hope's parking standards
adequately address shopping center parking, a comparison was
conducted between New Hope's requirements and parking
requirements set forth in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Parking Generation and APA's Off-Street 'Parking
Requirements Study.
Some standards noted in the APA report include:
Five spaces for each 1,000 square feet of leasable area
(Savanna, GA).
Five and one-half spaces per each 1,000 square feet of gross
leasable floor area (Albemarle Co, VA).
Between 15,000 and 4,000,000 net square feet; four spaces
per 1,000 square feet.
The ITE Parking Demand Summary identifies at peak Saturday hours,
for shopping centers of 50,000 to 99,000 square feet, the peak
parking demand is 5.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The City's
current parking standards for shopping centers are consisten~
with other national parking standards.
Parking demand figures are generally developed using the highest
peak parking demand possible. This highest demand time for
retail shopping centers is typically between Thanksgiving and
Christmas. The City's current standards are based on the same
philosophy.
Based upon observations of peak parking of a shopping center
during Summer and existing parking standards, outdoor dining may
be acceptable at all shopping centers except for the New Hcpe
Mall, which experiences some daily peak over-parking demand.
OUTDOOR DINING AREA
According to a proposed Ordinance amendment relating to outdccr
dining, a minimum passage of five (5) feet must be provided fcu
pedestrians along the perimeter of outdoor dining areas. As
such, outdoor dining may be provided only if at least a minimur.
five foot width of sidewalk is retained for pedestrian
circulation.
4
As a means of determining how much sidewalk area (in width) is
required to accommodate both the outdoor dining activity and
pedestrian circulation, an investigation of typical width
allotments for outdoor dining facilities has been conducted.
In many of the shopping malls under study, the parking lot layout
is such that automobiles park perpendicular to the sidewalk. As
such, additional sidewalk area must be allotted to account for
the overhang of the parked car (typically two feet). The usable
sidewalk area of the shopping centers must account for this
automobile overhang.
Utilizing standard two and four person table sizes, as presented
in Architectural Graphic Standards (Ramsey and Sleeper, 1970),
the following minimum sidewalk widths should be considered for
full service and self service outdoor dining establishments <see
Exhibits 12 and 13 for graphic depiction).
Automobile
Overhang
FULL SERVICE SELF SERVICE
RESTAURANT RESTAURANT
Two Four Two Four
Person Person Person Person
Tab 1 e Tab 1 e Tab 1 e Tab 1 e
2 ' -0" 2 ' -0" 2' -0" 2' -0"
Minimum
Pedestrian
Passage
5 ' -0" 5' -0" 5' -0" 5' -0"
Table 2 ' - 1" 5 ' -9" 2 ' - 1" 5 ' -9"
Ser~zice
Aisle 3 ' -0" 3 ' - 0" ......
Total
Width
Required* 12'-1" 15'-9" 9'-1" 12'-9"
* Totals do not include allowance for planters, etc.
Exhibit 12 illustrates a design possibly for the dining area
layout of a full service restaurant. The illustrated servica
aisle is necessary to accommodate patron access to and from th~
restaurant. It is the opinion of our office that a 42 inch ais2,
requirement, as in a draft ordinance amendment, is wider than
necessary. A service aisle of 36 inches is more than adequate
width. Tables could certainly be up against the building with
the service aisle paralleling the pedestrian walkway. This
graphic shows a need for a sidewalk width ranging from 12 feet tr
15 feet, nine inches for a full service restaurant.
5
Exhibit 13 illustrates a design for fast food outdoor dinin{.'-~
Since the food service is all inside and the patron carries his
own food outside; we did not feel that a service aisle is
necessary. There is still adequate width in the pedestrian
walkway to allow a patron to access a table. This graphic shows
a need for a sidewalk width ranging from nine feet to 12 feet,
nine inches for a fast food restaurant.
Our office recommends that the required service aisle width be
reduced to 36 inches and that the need for the aisle itself be
reviewed based on the nature of the business and that it not be
required for all circumstances.
A detailed application of the aforementioned dimensional
standards has been applied to the City's shopping centers zo
determine the adequacy of their sidewalk widths.
SHOPPING CENTER DISTRIBUTION
As applications come in for outdoor dining, the issue of how to
equitably divide up any surplus parking for outdoor dining shculi
be a function of the shopping centers themselves. This function
should include allocation of existing parking and dining areas to
the individual restaurants located in each shopping center or ~o
identify one location which will serve as the outdoor dining area
for some or all of the restaurants. By requiring the shoppin9
centers' owners to identify outdoor dining area, the City is
involved then only in the physical characteristics of the site
and buildings and does not control tenant mix within the shoppin~
centers and therefore, should not be involved with distribution
of parking and dining areas.
Amendments to the existing PUDs would help to accomplish this
task in existing shopping centers. The shopping center owner
shall identify in the PUD amendment actual sites for outdoor
dining and the allocation of the surplus parking to the outdoor
dining areas. The City will then be involved in monitorin~
compliance with the proposed outdoor dining ordinance and review
of the general layout of each site.
Our office recommends that the shopping center provide a specif~ -
area for outdoor dining where possible and avoid scattering -he
areas along the sidewalk which may unduly disrupt pedestrla~:
traffic. Consolidating the dining areas is similar to the fcca
court concept used in enclosed malls. Ail dining and seatin~
are provided in one location, providing easy access for the
patrons and avoids disrupting traffic flows in the mall.
6
Outdoor dining at freestanding restaurants would be reviewed
through the CUP process for conformance with the outdoor dinin?
ordinance. The site is to be reviewed for such items as adequase
parking, sufficient and safe outdoor area away from parking, and
not separated by a drive lane.
Mall Studies
New Hope Mall (Exhibit 2). The New Hope Mall currently contains
three restaurant facilities Taco Johns, Subway, and Applebees.
The mall is provided a ten foot wide sidewalk around ~he
building's perimeter. Based on the previous outdoor dining area
discussion, the mall sidewalk may only accommodate self service
restaurants with two person tables. Consequently both Taco Johns
and Subway would be allowed outdoor dining activities, while the
Applebees restaurant would not be allowed outdoor dining under
existing physical conditions.
Although sufficient sidewalk area may exist to accommodate
limited outdoor dining, the mall's existing parking shortage may
present limitations upon any proposed restaurant expansions.
Win-etka Con~non~ (Ewhibit~ 3 and 4). The Winnetka Commons
shopping center also contains three restaurant type uses-
Bruegger's Bakery, Frankie's and Gung Ho. The shopping center
exhibits a 12 foot sidewalk along the entire mall frontage, i~
should be noted, however, that a planter box located in fron~ cf
the Gung Ho restaurant limits its adjacent sidewalk width ~c
seven feet. Based on a strict interpretation of the outdocr
dining area requirements, ample area exists to conduct outdocr
dining (self service/two person tables) for Bruegger's Bakery and
Frankie's. The Gung Ho restaurant does not have sufficiens
adjacent sidewalk width to conduct outdoor dining activities.
Winnetka Commons has sufficient parking to accommodate existin~
mall uses. There also appears to be an adequate parking supply
to accommodate outdoor dining.
Midland Shopping Center (Exhibit 5). The Midland Shopping Center
contains only one restaurant facility in the Kinh Do restaurant.
The said restaurant is fronted by 25 feet of sidewalk width anh
thus, may be allowed full service outdoor dining with two or four
person tables. The Midland Shopping Center currently supplies
sufficient parking supply for the entire mall demand. It appears
the existing parking is sufficient to handle outdoor dining.
7
w~.nnetka ShoDpin~ Center (Exhibit 6). The Winnetka Shopping
Center includes two restaurant facilities - Circus and Zappy's
Pizza. The mall holds a 15 foot sidewalk and thus, may
accommodate all self service outdoor dining activities and full
service activities for two person tables. The Winnetka Shopping
Center provides sufficient parking for the mall uses and can
adequately accommodate outdoor dining.
Post Haste S~uare (Exhibit 7), The Post Haste Square, which
contains the Ole Piper Inn, is an older mall with only nine foot
sidewalks. These sidewalk widths would not provide sufficient
width for seating. Thus, any outdoor dining should be
discouraged'at this facility.
Freestanding Restaurants
A survey of the existing freestanding restaurants was conducted
to determine the potential for outdoor dining at each of these
locations.
McDonald~ (Exhibit 9). The McDonalds restaurant is located at
the corner of 42nd Avenue and Winnetka Boulevard in the New Hope
Mall parking lot. The existing site layout does not lend itself
to any outdoor dining. There is no large vacant area adjacent to
the building.
Vacant Building (Exhibit 9). There is a vacant fast food
building located in the Midland Center parking lot. The iaycu5
of this area also does not provide any area for outdoor dining.
~ard~'s (Exhibit 11). Located across from the New Hope Mall,
this restaurant has existing outdoor dining.
Cott~_~ry Kitchen (Exhibit 8). Located on 42nd Avenue, it has a
large green space in t'he front yard which could accommodate
outdoor dining.
Por~ Arthur (E~hibit 8). Located across from Country Kitchen,
also has a large front yard which could accommodate outdoor
dining.
Taco Bell (Exhibit 10). Located on Bass Lake Road near Marylan~
Avenue, it currently has outdoor dining tables in front of z'z.-.
restaurant.
Ponderosa (Exhibit 10). Located adjacent to Taco Bell,
restaurant appears to have some limited space for outdoor dining.
CONCLUSION
In review, our office feels the concerns facing each shopping
center in regards to outdoor dining include adequate existing
parking, sufficient sidewalk space, and an equitable review
process for each restaurant to have outdoor dining should they so
choose. Based upon the preceding review, all of the shopping
centers appear to have enough parking to allow for outdoor dining
except for the New Hope Mall which is under supplied. The added
demand for parking may not be appropriate for this mall.
Sidewalk width is sufficient at all shopping centers except Post
Haste to allow for some type of outdoor dining.
The shopping center owners should be required, through the PUD
process, to designate the location and amount of outdoor dining
allowed so the center is in charge of determining which areas of
sidewalk and which restaurants may be the most appropriate for
this use.
pc:
Dan Donahue
Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
City
of
New Hope
WINNETKA SHOPPING CENTER
SINGL[: FAMIly R[SIOENTIAI.
SIN~.E ANO TWO FM~Y N~SIOENTIA~ ~,~
M~OW 0[NSITY R~SI0[NTIAL
HIGH O~N$1TY R~SIO~NTIAL ~-4
SENIOA CITIZEN RESIO[NTIA~
LiMIT[D N~IGHBORH~O BUSIN[5S ~-~
RETAIL BUSINESS
AUTO ORIENT~O ~U5IN~SS
COMMUNITY BUSINESS
LIMITEO INOUSTRIAL :-,
G(N(RAL INOUSTRtAL
FL~O ~AIN
W~T kANO
COMMONS
MIDLAND SHOPPING CENTER
~r"~~o~hwest
-Associated
'-~ Consultants, inc.
EXHIBIT 1 - STUDY AREA
lllR(~I'R
TACO JOHN'S
CHIROPI~
SUBWAY
EXHIBIT 2 - TACO JOHN'S/SUBWAY (NEW HOPE MALL
BRUEGGERS
FRANKIES
EXHIBIT 3 - BRUEGGERS/FRANKIES (WINNETKA COMMCt'~S~
EXHIBIT 4 - GUNG HO (WINNETKA COMMONS
HDO~I
EXHIBIT 5 - KINH DO (MIDLAND SHOPPING CENTER}
EXHIBIT 6 - CIRCUS (WINNETKA SHOPPING CENTER)
EXHIBIT 7 - OLE PIPER INN (POST HASTE SQUAREi
Il'
COUNTRY KITCHEN
PORT ARTHUR
EXHIBIT 8 - COUNTRY KITCHEN/PORT ARTHUR (CITY CENTER
McDONALDS
VACANT BUILDING
EXHIBIT 9 - McDONALDS, VACANT BUILDING
TACO BELL
PONDEROSA
EXHIBIT 10 - TACO BELL, PONDEROSA
HARDEE'S
EXHIBIT 11 - HARDEES
FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT
TWO PERSON TABLE
FOUR PERSON TABLE
PARKING LOT
AUTOMOBILE OVERRANG ~
MINIMUM
PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE
__q
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
SERVICE AISLE
L
PARKING LOT
AUTOMOBILE OVERHANG
MINIMUM
PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE
12'- 1' WII~TH REQUIRED
15'-9' ~/IDTH REQUIRED
NOTE: TABLE AREA AND SERVICE AISLE AREA MAY BE INTERCHANGABLE
EXHIBIT 1 2
SELF SERVICE RESTAURANT
TWO PERSON TABLE
FOUR PERSON TABLE
PARKING LOT PARKING LOT
9'-1' WIDTH REQUIRED
12'~9" ~(/IDTH RE~QUIRED
EXHIBIT 13
~J I~ I A p i N G · D E S · M A /~ K E ? iq E S E .& ~ C ,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Kyle Brown/Alan Brixius
10 September 1991
New Hope - Outdoor Dining Study
131.00 91.12
The City has received a number of requests from eating
establishments wishing to provide outdoor seating and service
within the City. These restaurants are located within a number
of cu~m,ercial shopping centers, including Midland Shopping
Center, City Center, and Winnetka Co~,~,ons. Ail of these
locations are zoned B-4, Community Business.
The current Zoning Ordinance allows restaurants as a permitted
use, and drive in and convenience food establishments as a
conditional use within the B-3 and B-4 Districts. However,
neither of these uses identifies outdoor dining as being allowed.
Furthermore, outdoor sales, which may possibly include outdoor
dining, is allowed as a conditional accessory use within the
Zoning District, however, not within the B-4 Zoning District.
Based on these considerations, the current Ordinance does not
provide for outdoor dining in the B-4 Zoning District at the
present time.
The a~ropriateness of outdoor dining must be considered in the
contex~ of the existing land use situation, and the zoning
district(s) intent. In light of the fact that the curren~
requests for outdoor dining pertain to existing businesses tn
existing shopping centers, the feasibility of outdoor dining mus~
be considered for these specific areas. These shopping centers
were not originally designed to accon=nodate outdoor dining cr
storage. A~ a result, the sidewalks in front of the premises are
generally narrow. Therefore, depending on the specific location
of the outdoor dining, there may not be adequate space to provide
the desired seating area.
5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555 .St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837
Ano:her issue which mus: be considered wi:h regards to existing~_~,
operations is the equity in parking provisions. Although not
expanding the size of their structure, these businesses are
expanding their operations. The existing shopping center parking
lots do not account for this expansion. Ensuring the provision
of adequate space and parking, are issues which must be
considered in determining the appropriateness of this request.
The zoning district provisions must also be considered in this
matter. Based on the zoning district purpose statements, it
appears that outdoor dining areas would be generally consistent
with the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts. However, in order for
outdoor dining to function in a manner which is compatible with
the restaurant and the surrounding facility, a number of factors
must be sufficiently addressed. These factors include the type
of outdoor service provided, the size of the dining area, a
sanitary dining environment,, screening, lighting, surfacing,
pedestrian circulation, and refuse.
With these considerations in mind, the City must make a policy
decision as to whether or not these outdoor dining activities are
appropriate as an accessory use within the B-3 and/or the B-4
Zoning Districts. If the City determines they are an appropriate
accessory use, we offer consideration of the following factors in
order to ensure co~atibility with surrounding uses and high
quality performance.
True of Service. Of central importance in regulating this
accessory use is the determination of the type of service
provided for the outdoor dining. The area may consist of self-
seating tables where patrons order and pick up food inside the
building, or the outdoor dining may be an extension of a more
formal restaurant which would provide table waiting service for
~the outdoor area. The applicant must identify the type of
service provided in order for it to be properly evaluated.
Currently only fast food establishments have inquired into the
outdoor dining areas.
~ The size of the dining area is also of concern.
the intent is that =he outdoor dining is an accessory use on
site, =he area should be smaller than the area provided
the principal structure. The Zoning Ordinance limits outdo~
sales areas in the B-3 District to a determined percentage of
gross flo~r area of the principal use. It is recommended
this fig%Ire or a similar limit be placed upon outdoor din!hr
areas. An option =he City has is to limit the outdoor area
determined percentage of =he entire principal use floor area,
30 percent of =he customer area within the principal use.
latter provision would ensure that outdoor seating
establishments which are principally take-out in nature
provide only a small customer area in the facility, did
constitute the majority of dining area for the business.
~m_~ili~y. In order for the outdoor dining to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, its potential effects muse
also be addressed. As is provided for outdoor sales within the
Ordinance, outdoor dining should be screened from adjacen~
residential uses, and any lighting which is provided must be
hooded and directed away from public right-of-way and neighboring
residences.
Another compatibility issue which must be addressed is pedestrian
circulation. Frequently, outdoor dining in shopping centers
occurs along the sidewalk in front of the principal use. The
applicant must demonstrate through a site plan and/or other
information, that the outdoor dining will not disrupt pedestrian
circulation along the sidewalk, nor does it block access to any
building entrance. A five foot wide pedestrian way is needed to
provide uninterrupted foot traffic. Additionally, the pathway
should have a clearance height of at least seven feet.
~ The surfacing of the dining area must be level and of
a material which is designed to accommodate heavy foot traffic,
tables, and chairs. It must also be a material which can be
cleaned easily and provides adequate drainage. It is therefore
recommended that the dining area be surfaced with concrete,
bituminous, or some form of decorative paver.
Dining Ar~ Desi=n. The layout of the dining area must provide
ample room for movement of people. AS such, a minimum width cf
42 inches should be provided for aisles within the dining area.
The furniture for the dining area should be movable to allow for
removal from the sidewalk in the evening, and during the winter
months. Furthermore, no cooking or bar service should be
provided outside for health and safety reasons. All requests
should also be subject to review and co~ent by the Cizy
Sanitarian.
P~kdun~. The outdoor dining area cannot utilize existing parking
spaces necessary to fulfill parking requirements for the
principal use. Furthermore, the parking requirements for the use
must be adjusted to account for the additional seating.
~efufe. If the outdoor dining area is a self-serv~ue
establishment, the applicant must demonstrate the provision
refuse containers to service the outdoor area. Such container~
must be placed in a manner which does not disrupt pedestrian
circulation, and must be designed to prevent spillage and blowzn?
litter resulting from wind.
As stated in the Analysis section of this report, the decision to
allow outdoor dining in ~New Hope is a policy matter in which the
City must consider the ability to provide outdoor seating for
existing facilities, and the appropriateness of the use within
the context of the Zoning Ordinance·
Although the current Ordinance does not address outdoor dining,
it does address outdoor sales. Many of the provisions regarding
sales are applicable to outdoor storage, however, additional
items such as access, circulation, and refuse must also be
addressed· It is therefore recommended that, if deemed
appropriate, outdoor dining be allowed as a conditional accessory
use to restaurants and convenience food establishments in the B-3
and B-4 Zoning Districts, provided the following:
The applicant submit a site ~lan and other pertinent
information demonstrating the location of all tables, refuse
receptacles, and wait stations.
Access to the dining area be provided only via the principal
building if the dining area is a full service restaurant,
including table waiting service.
The size of the dining area is restricted to a certain
percentage of the total floor area of the principal use, or
customer floor area within the principal structure.
The dining area is screened from view from adjacent
residential uses in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
All lighting be hooded and directed away from adjacen~
residential uses in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
The applicant demonstrate that pedestrian circulation is nc~
disrupted as a result of the outdoor dining area ~y
providing the following:
A. Cafe area shall be segregated from through pedestrian
circulation by means of temporary fencing, bollards,
ropes, plantings, etc.
B. Minimum clear passage zone for pedestrians at the
perimeter of the cafe shall be at least five (5) fee~
without interference from parked motor vehicles,
bollards, trees, treegates, curbs, stairways, trash
receptacles, street lights, parking meters, etc.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Ce
0verstory canopy of tree/umbrellas or other structures
extending into the pedestrian clear passage zone or
pedestrian aisle shall have a minimum clearance of
seven (7) feet above sidewalk.
The dining area is surfaced with concrete, bituminous or
decorative paver to provide a clean, attractive, and
functional surface.
A minimum of forth-two (42) inches shall be provided within
aisles of cafe.
Furniture and enclosed perimeter shall be movable to allow
for seasonal changes. Furniture shall be removed daily off
of sidewalk.
No storage of furniture on sidewalk shall be allowed between
the months of October and April.
No outside bar or cooking facility shall be established,
only wait stations shall be allowed.
Increased parking requirements shall be addressed pursuant
to Ordinance requirements.
Refuse containers are provided for self-service outdoor
dining areas. Such containers shall be placed in a manner
which does not disrupt pedestrian circulation, and must be
designed to prevent spillage and blowing litter.
The operation is subject to approval of the City Sanitarian
and compliance with any written provisions he or she
requires.
If the City desires to draft an amendment based on the above
requirements, Ordinance language can be prepared for the
amendment.