Loading...
060292 PlanningAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 92-07 Request for Variance to Expand Non-Conforming Building and Variance to Rear Yard Setback to Allow Garage Expansion, 3910 Boone Avenue North, Craig Allen Hall, Petitioner 3.2 Case 92-13 Request for Site/Building Plan Review to Allow Warehouse Addition, 9000 Science Center Drive, West Pac, Petitioner 3.3 Case 92-14 Request for Variance to Allow Air Conditioner in Side Yard, 8401 Hopewood Lane North, John Leigh, Petitioner 3.4 Case 92-15 Request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to Allow Exterior Storage/Parking of a Multi-Transportation Vehicle on Premises, 4800 Boone Avenue North, House of Hope Church, Petitioner 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 6.4 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 5, 1992 Review of City Council Minutes of May 11, 1992, and City Council Special Meeting Minutes of May 18, 1992. Review of EDA Minutes of April 27 and May 11, 1992 Review of HRA Minutes of January 27 and May 11, 1992 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJO~ JUNE PLANNING CASES PC 92-13 , ~ :. ..... ~'~ i-:i '"'! -- 9000 Sc. Ct~i.1)r-7 '~~ "' '~L ~ ~ ~ 4800 Bmne ~ - ZONING DISTRICT MAP CITY of NEW HOPE PC 92-14 8401 Hopewood Lane Planning Case: 92-07 Request: Request Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT for Variance to Expand Non-conforming Structure and a Rear Setback Variance to Allow a Garage Addition 3910 Boone Avenue North 18-118-21-42-0070 R-1 (Single Family Residential) Craig Allen Hall May 29, 1992 June 2, 1992 UPDATE This case was considered at the April 14, 1992, Planning Commission meeting and the Commission was generally agreeable to approving the request, however, the case was tabled due to the fact that the petitioner had not presented a certified lot survey. Staff and the Commission both felt that a survey was necessary to determine the exact setback distances and so informed the petitioner. As of the May 5th Planning Commission meeting a survey had not been provided, therefore the case was tabled for one month. As of the date this report is being prepared, a survey still has not been presented to the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this case be tabled for an additional month, unless a certified survey is submitted prior to the meeting. Attachment: April Planning Commission Report Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: o o o CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 92-07 Request for Variance to Expand Non-conforming Structure and a Rear Setback Variance to Allow a Garage Addition 3910 Boone Avenue North 18-118-21-42-0070 R-1 (Single Family Residential) Craig Allen Hall April 10, 1992 April 14, 1992 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a variance to expand a non-conforming structure and a rear yard setback variance to allow a 14'x 32' garage addition to existing structure, pursuant to Sections 4.031(10) and 4.034(3), New Hope Code of Ordinances. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the south side of the existing attached garage. The proposed addition would be 14 feet wide and 32-1/2 feet in length and contain 455 square feet. The existing garage contains 440 square feet, thus the total square footage of the existing garage and the proposed addition would be 895 square feet (which is close to the 900 square foot maximum allowed by code). The proposed garage addition would necessitate two variances: a variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement and a variance to expand a non-conforming structure. The property is located on a coruer lot in an R-1 Single Family Residential District at the southwest intersection of Boone Avenue and Hopewood Lane. The property has a 90-foot frontage on Hopewood and a 127-foot frontage on Boone. The zoning ordinance defines lot frontage as the boundary abutting a public fight-of-way having the least width, therefore the setback requirements North (fronting Hopewood) West (fronting Boone) South East for this lot are as follows: front yard- 35-foot setback side yard - 35-foot setback rear yard - 35-foot setback side yard - 10-foot setback Petitioner is proposing to construct a garage addition that would be located 7 feet from the south rear yard property line, thus a 28-foot variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement is needed. Due to the fact that this is a corner lot, a portion of the existing garage is located outside the buildable yard area which makes the existing structure non-conforming. The zoning ordinance states that normal maintenance of a structure containing a lawful non- conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alterations which do not physically extend or intensify the non-conforming use. This is a structural alteration which would physically extend the non-conforming use, thus a variance to expand a non-conforming structure is also required. Planning Case Report 92-07 April 14, 1992 Page -2- 7. The property is surrounded by single family families and is in close proximity to Northwood Park. 8. The applicant has stated a need for more garage space as the reason for the request. 9. The topography of the property slopes from the north to the south. 10. Property owners within 350' of the site have been notified of the request. Staff has received at least one anonymous complaint about the petitioner's "hobby car" storage and firewood piles. ANALYSIS 1. Detailed plans have not been received from the petitioner and staff recommends that the request be tabled until a lot survey and elevation drawings have been submitted. 2. The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 3. This is one of many problem corner lots where the home was built facing the wrong street as far as ordinance interpretation is concerned. Defining the front yard on a corner lot usually leaves a large (deep) .rear yard where most activities take place. Staff's "Attachment A" shows that this. lot only has a 27-foot (east) side yard and a 21-foot (south) rear yard and the hashmarks define the "buildable yard~ area. 4. The hardship may be that the corner lot setback restrictions do not allow reasonable room for a garage addition, however the setback reductions are substantial. 5. The proposed garage addition would reduce the existing 21-foot rear yard setback to 7 feet, or take a setback that is 60% of the requirement and reduce it to 20% of the required 35 feet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tabling the request until detailed drawings are submitted that address the aesthetic compatibility of the addition and a new survey obtained to confirm exact lot lines. Any driveway changes, which are currently not shown on the site plan, also need to be addressed as well as the scope of the intended garage use. Attachments: Section/Topo Maps Site Plan Staff Exhibit A - Setbacks GETHSEMANE CEMETERY hq??- e)'ll~~1 .Iql,4, NORTNWOOO PARK NORTHWOOO PARK $& 1.4 WAY ~3 89:3.0 % 43 ..,.~ ~3 ~3 925 ~3 .J SITE PLAN OECLAfiATiON j .,""~T:I~V t'~' ' OWNER, O~ ~,'"'" ..... ..~,~,,~c~b REP~ESENT'A. TiVE & THIS~N IS COMP~TE AND ACCURATE: / ~EQUIP. ED "P, EA~" EXISTING SETBACK PROPOSED SETBACK ! CERTt~ THAT I AM THE PROPERTY I OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE & J THIS ~N tS COMP~T6 AND ACCURATE: j _L F ......................................................... ,I ~ / .SOUTH SIDE. I/4 - I APR 0 I~;; WEST ..SIDE. I' 12 NORTH._ .$HGL5 15'~ FELT 7/16 W,R WAFER 13D-WITH TRUSSES- 24 (TRUSS DESIGN BY SUPPLIER) CLIPS APR CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: o 92-13 Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Warehouse Addition 9000 Science Center Drive 06-118-21-34-0011 I-! (Limited Industrial) West Pac/D.J.Kranz, Inc. May 29, 1992 June 2, 1992 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting site/building plan review/approval to allow a warehouse addition pursuant to Section 4.039A(1) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. West Pac, a food products printing and packaging manufacturer, is proposing to construct an 18,700 square foot (approximately 120' x 150') warehouse addition to the northwest comer of the existing building. The existing building contains approximately 55,000 square feet of combined office/ manufacturing warehouse, as outlined below, and this addition would bring the total building size to 73,556 square feet: Existing building: Total existing: Proposed addition: Total with addition: office manufacturing warehouse 7,208 sq. ft. 13,200 sq. ft. 34,375 sq. ft. 54,783 sq. ft. 18,773 sq. ft. 73,556 sq. ft. The property is located at the northwest comer of the intersection of Science Center Drive and International Parkway in an I-1 Limited 'Industrial Zoning District and the building setback requirements are as follows: Front yard 50 feet Side yard 20 feet Rear yard 35 feet The petitioner is only requesting site/building plan review/approval for the addition, as all setback requirements are met and no variances or conditional use permits are necessary. Surrounding land uses/zoning are all I-1 Limited Industrial with Custom Mold & Design across International Parkway to the east, Cinch Cylindrical across Science Center Drive to the south, National Connector to the west, across the railroad spur, and Spectrum Colors to the north. Planning Case Report 92-13 June 2, 1992 Page -2- The topography of this 5.3 acre site is flat and the site drains to the west ditch along the rail spur. There is a berm to the north and a variety of healthy young trees around the perimeter of the property. No notification to surrounding property owners is required for a routine site/building plan review/approval. ANALYSIS The I-1 Zoning District contains special requirements for all uses regarding lot coverage, lot area, green area, etc. and these requirements are met with this plan, as illustrated below: City Code West Pac Plan Lot area - not less than 1 acre 5.326 acres Lot coverage - not more that 40% Building = 32 % of lot area shall be covered Green area - not less than 35% Green area = 38% of lot area of the parcel shall remain as green area A total of 114 parking spaces are required based on the usage, as outlined below, and 120 parking stalls are provided: Office 6,487 sq. ft. 1 car/200 sq. ft. 32.4 Manufacturing 11,880 sq.ft, i car/350 sq.ft. 33.9 Warehouse 47,833 sq.ft. 1 car/i,000 sq.ft. 47.8 Total stalls required = 114 Total stalls on plan = 120 This warehouse addition is noteworthy because it is 15 feet taller than the existing building to provide interior high storage racks. Design and building materials are 90% consistent with the original architecture. Loading facilities meet the required standards. The only non-conforming detail on the property is the lack of curbing on the westerly border of the site, a condition that was approved when the site was developed in 1967. The City Engineer will be reviewing the drainage over this area into the existing ditch and making a recommendation. The driveway in this area is also too close to the side yard property line, along the same ditch. Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on May 20th and the following issues were discussed: plans to be signed by architect, building materials to match existing, rooftop equipment, lighting, screening of compactor, rear parking lot striping/dimensions, no additional signage, truck maneuvering/loading, additional landscaping, drainage review by Engineer, and Fire Department issues. New plans were submitted as a result of the Design & Review meeting, which include the following general details and requested changes: Planning Case 92-13 June 2, 1992 Page -3- A. Existing truck maneuvering area shown on west side of building, B. Existing chain link fence to be removed on northwest side of building and new parking area created with new striping with parking stall and aisle dimensions shown on plan, C. Snow storage area -- 10% of asphalt area shown on north side of addition, D. New 8' high wood screen wall shown on plan to screen existing compactor from street - details provided, E. New lights mounted on new addition on east/west sides, F. Rooftop unit on new addition (low roof portion) to be screened to match existing, G. 8" underground drain from new addition shown to existing underground storage tank, H. Existing gravel drive on east to International Parkway to be removed and replaced with sod, I. New parking lot striping in front lot. J. The revised plans show the addition of 21 shrubs and trees (12 shrubs/9 trees) in the front and rear of the building (8 of the trees are 4-foot spruce). K. Floor plans show 14' x 14' overhead door in northwest corner of new addition..."door required for access into building only for the delivery of and removal of large printing press equipment", L. The addition will contain a small 20' x 39' ink transfer room with floor trench and explosion relief wall panels, M. The exterior of the addition will be break-off concrete block that matches the existing building except on the south elevation where the building height changes, painted metal wall panels will be used that match the exterior building color. N. Plans have been signed by architect. 7. Petitioner has indicated that some new employees may be hired with the completion of this new addition. West Pac currently employs about 75 employees (office and manufacturing) and operates 3 shifts. 8. Staff finds that the revised plans are complete and include all recommendations requested by Design & Review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site/building plan review for West Pac to construct an addition, per plans submitted and dated 6-2-92, subject to review/approval of existing site drainage by City Engineer. Attachments: Section/Topo Maps Site & Landscaping Plan Grading/Drainage/Utilities Floor Plan Elevations/Sections Planting Schedule Screen Wall Detail Plan I ,/ I. 1 · / I~ ~ I I / I~r--~INDUSTRY I w[s~ R~S[a.C. CE.TlR ROAD ~ ~CH C[N~[R ~D I II ' - ~"'[ I I [ - PuBLic' ~ II ;' I / / .os wORKs -II~ ~ ~ SCIENCE ST PAUL 51 ST AVE, , 56TH. NOR i-H RIDGE CARE CENTER CENTER DRIVE SAULT SAINTE MARIE ~] I01 ~"lOO RAILROAD 54 TH. X 910.8 9O] X 905.1 X "~ t. x 9os. s 902.8 X 897.2 DRIVE C x 898.7 900 7 x ~ ~ -- "~,~l~ ~ "~ ~ ~__,.~. . . ~ .~'' ~ Planning Case: Request: Ix>cation: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: ge CITY OF NEW HOPE pLANNING CASE REPORT o 92-14 Request for Variance to Allow Air Conditioner in Side Yard 8401 Hopewood Lane 18-118-21-42-0080 R-1 (Single-Family Residential) John Leigh May 29, 1992~ June 2, 1992 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow an air conditioner in the side yard pursuant to Section 4.032(3i) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. This is an after-the-fact application, as an air conditioner was installed in the east side yard of the John Leigh residence at 8401 Hopewood lane between April 20th and May 5th, 1992. The contractor, Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditioning, applied for and received a permit for the installation on April 20th. The permit clearly states in "Remarks" section that all air conditioning condensers must be placed in the rear yard (see attached Permit//3461). On May 5th the contractor requested a routine inspection and that is when the Building Official discovered the problem and indicated that the air conditioner must be moved to the rear yard or an application made and approval of a variance granted to allow the unit to remain in place. The petitioner submitted a variance application to retain the air conditioner condenser on the side of the house rather than relocate it to the rear of the house and states on the application that "the only other homeowner possibly affected by this variance has no objection to the current placement of the unit". The adjacent neighbor to the east at 8317 Hopewood Lane (most impacted by the side yard air conditioner location) has submitted the enclosed statement indicating that "the current placement of the air conditioning condenser at the Leigh residence causes me no discomfort or irritation. The previous condenser did not create a noise problem and the new condenser is much quieter. I see no reason for this unit to be moved". The property is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and is surrounded on all sides by single family homes. The existing structure meets setback requirements for this zoning district, as the house is set back 30 feet from the front yard property line, 8 feet from the west side yard property line ( attached garage side), and 10 feet from the east side yard property line. The air conditioning unit appears to be located within the 10-foot setback area on the east side of the home. 1Planning Case Report 92-14 June 2, 1992 Page -2- 10. · 11. 12. City Code states that certain structural elements or equipment shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements and air conditioners in rear yards are permitted encroachments. However, air conditioners are not allowed as encroachments in side yards, thus a variance is required. Section 4.032(3)of the Code, "Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment" further states that "no accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a required side yard except for side yards abutting streets and in such case the equipment shall be fully screened from view. This property is an interior lot and the side yard does not abut a street. The topography of the property slopes downhill at the house to the rear yard. Property owners within 350" of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments to date except from the adjacent neighbor. ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make ·findings that the proposed action will not: A. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connection. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. The petitioner has indicated to staff that this was not a new, first-time installation of an air conditioner in this location, but that the unit that was installed replaced a previous unit. Petitioner also has indicated that the new unit is placed in the same location as the old unit -the side yard. Planning Case Report 92-14 June 2. 1992 Page -3- The petitioner stated that they were unaware of the ordinance prohibiting air conditioning condensers in side yards and left the installation up to the contractor and that the contractor did not make the owner aware of the notice on the mechanical permit regarding placement in rear yards only. There is an existing 5-foot privacy fence on the east side of the home that extends from the mid-point of the side of the house into the rear yard around the patio. The air conditioning condenser is located within the fenced area. The west side of the neighboring structure contains garage space and the estimated distance from the condenser to the nearest window on the neighboring house is about 50 feet. 8. Arguments can be made in support of and against the granting of the variance: The following factors could be taken into consideration in support of granting the variance: -there was a condenser unit located in the side yard prior to the installation of the new unit in the same location, -the unit is screened from the street and side yard with a 5-foot privacy fence,-the adjacent neighbor has no objection to the unit,-the condenser is adjacent to the neighbor's garage - not living space,-there is a 50-foot distance between the condenser and the nearest window on the adjacent structure -it is doubtful that the granting of the variance would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood Factors that could be considered againM the granting of the variance include: -the permit clearly states that air conditioning condensers must be placed in the rear yard, -although aesthetics are addressed with the privacy fence already in place, noise being projected toward the neighbors is a significant concern, -although the affected neighbor has submitted a consent letter, owners and neighborhood relationships change over time, -it is possible to shift the unit from its' present location around the house to the rear yard so that code requirements are met, -the air conditioning unit not only is located in the side yard, it encroaches on the 10-foot required side yard setback, -what is the hardship for the granting of the variance, as the property is not unique in size or shape? Planning Case Report 92-14 June 2, 1991 Page -4- RECOMMENDATION Due to noise concerns, the Building Official recommends denial of the variance and would prefer to see the unit moved to the rear yard. Staff would prefer to listen to the petitioner and affected neighbors before recommending approval or denial. While the permit clearly states that air conditioning condensers should be placed in the rear yard, staff feels that the privacy fence, consent letter from the neighbor, and previous location of a similar unit in the same place also need to be taken into consideration. Attachments: Section/Topo Maps Survey Site Sketches Mechanical Permit Letter from Adjacent Property Owner ,t )OD~. OD 'WAY PH'S ~LIC ~H GETHSEMANE CEMETERY OFFICE] SCHOOL BUS ~ $~oo CIRCLE 58 933.8 ..3 43:3 ZEALANI x -- 933.8 931.6 43 · 929.3 x 923.3 925.1 924 '925.1 .7 NORTH ~J07.3 k. ~1 2 908.7 CASWlELi . ENGINEERING Registered Professional Engineers and Land Surveyor~ I~ERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For BUtLDt f',IG%~'q:S,P~'CTOR VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE · ':~z,,~.; - . ' '"'"'" - - --~ hee~by certify that this is a- true and corr~cl repre~ntation of a s;,rYey of the boundaries of the land described above. not purport to show improvemerrt.~, o~- encroachment,, if an)*. As surveyed by. mb, this . day of ., 19. CASWEL& ENGINEERING"~O. Minnesola Ilegi,sJyatiofl~.~l~Jo~ ~ "'~ ~;, ~ SCALE: 1":: 20' CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 (612) 531-5127 PERMIT PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number: Date Issued: ~"~_ L r'.~r, _ (-:AL SITL ,DDRESS: F'.i.N.: :-':~:) 1 HOPEW000 L.A LOT: ii E:LOCK: 4 HiPP'S HOPE~OOO Hi t:3- t I,:,'-'-':' I~. - a.':.'-~:~:::~:~~ .... DESCRIPTION: .:.¥ ::.T~H :[ HEATING '- ....... i AIR CONF~!TIONING HE., ._-,~ c,z L. EN 1R~.~ AC MAKE LENNOX MOOEL ,_.,- '~NOX ~'~'"~'-" MAKE ~' ...... REMARKS: ALL AC ~_.uNOEN.:,ER..~ MU._T BE PLACED IN REAR YARO! ..MLL FOR iNSPECTiON ,,,-,~,--,-,,,,,,,--,--, ~-.,,,,, ~ =.T "rue !NSF'ECTnR IN::iIDF_ FEE SUMI~.~':"'. ................. VALUAT I ON Base Fee $88.42 Surc ha~ge .__~_Z,.~2 Tc, t.a 1 Fee $90.11 ':' :374 WHEN CONTRACTOR: - Applicant - SEDGWICK HTG & AIR 891E~ WENTWORTH AVE S MPLS MN SS42(~ ( 612 ) 88 t i OWNER: LEI GH JOHN :34~) l HOPEWO00 LA C -'- MN ~ ,- ,,i-:.,,:, NEW H.~- k TO WHOM i} -iS 'GRAN'T~O,:-~N~)TC(iNi'-RACTORS, AGENTS, WORKERS ANO EMPLOYEES SHALL COMPLY IN ALL RESPECTS WITH THE ORDINAI~:ES~ OF. IHE CITy OF NEW HOPE. INSPECTION RECORD ~-Cl'r*¥ OF NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 (612) 531-5127 PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number: Date Issued: MECHANICAL 04/20/92 SITE ADDRESS: LOT: 8401 HOPEWOOD LA HIPP'S HOPEWOOD HILLS BLOCK: PERMIT SUBTYPE:. HEATING SYSTEM AIR CONDITIONING APPLICANT: oEDGWICK HTG & (612) 881-90~)0 AIR TYPE OF WORK: DESCR.I PT I ON REPLACEMENT HEAT SYS/CENTRAI_ A 'FINAL ~,_~..A? ..~'"/~ "6RSAT' f K'~'M~k'~, ~1 ~AC CONDENSERS "LIST E:E PLait:ED IN-REaR yARD' ~~ INoFEC. TILN"' ' ' 7' WHEt INSIDE] May 11, 1992 To: City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. No. New Hope, MN 55428 MAY t 3 lgg This is to certify that the current placement of the air conditioning condenser at the Leigh residence (8401 Hopewood Lane) causes me no discomfort or irritation. The previous condenser did not create a noise problem, and the new condenser is much quieter. see no reason for this unit to be moved. Charles L. Patterson 8317 Hopewood Lane New Hope, MN 55427 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: 92-15 Request for Amendment to Conditional Storage/Parking of a Multi-Transportation 4800 Boone Avenue North 07-118-21-42-0036 R-1 (Single Family Residential) House of Hope Lutheran Church May 29, 1992 June 2, 1992 BACKGROUND Use Permit to Allow Exterior Vehicle on Premises The petitioner is requesting an amendment to conditional use permit to allow exterior storage/parking of a multi-transportation vehicle on premises pursuant to Sections 4.054(1), 4.,211,4.212(6), 4.036(6), and 4.033(9) - New Hope Code of Ordinances. House of Hope Lutheran Church is requesting an amendment to their conditional use permit to allow the outdoor storage of one (1) school bus on the property. The request is being made as a result of several citations from the City ordering that the bus be removed from the property, as the original CUP did not include outdoor storage. The City's citations are a result of following up on complaints from surrounding property owners about the bus being parked on the property. On the application the petitioner states that "the congregation needs, owns, and uses a multi-person transportation vehicle on a regular basis to transport youth, members of the congregation, and especially senior citizens from Chardon Court, North Ridge, and St. Therese to worship services and other activities". The vehicle is currently a converted, painted school bus. Petitioner states that the request should be granted because the use is complimentary to the needs of the community. They indicate that the property is well- planned, landscaped and maintained and that "the parking of this transportation vehicle is only a very minor distraction to the appearance of the property". House of Hope Lutheran Church received approval for an amendment to their CUP and site/building plan review in 1990 to allow the construction of a building addition (Planning Case 90-11), but no outdoor bus storage was proposed or discussed at that time. The Church Council has accepted three options for presentation to the ~Planning Commission/City Council (two other options were discussed) as follows and is requesting approval of Option #1: Option #1: Amend CUP to authorize parking of multi-person transportation vehicle at any location within the hard-surfaced parking lot. Option #2: Amend CUP to authorize parking of multi-person transportation vehicle at a "specifically designated" location on the hard-surfaced parking lot. · Planning Case Report 92-15 June 2, 1992 Page -2- 10. Option //3: In the future, have the church and Homeward Bound work together to mutually resolve Homeward Bound's parking shortage problem and the bus storage issue for the church through a possible property exchange/planned parking/storage area on the south property line of the church. Options//4 and//5, dismissed from consideration by the Church Council due to cost and utility, were for parking off-site with limited overnight parking and installation of a new driveway on the south side of the church (to store bus between church and berm on south property line). The church has provided a site plan and pictures of the bus from various points around the neighborhood. The church is located in and surrounded by an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District, with single family homes located to the north, east, and across Boone Avenue to the west. The Homeward Bound Group Care Facility is located just south of the church. If Option //2 were approved, where the bus would be parked at a specific location on the southeast comer of the parking lot, minor shifting of the parking lot striping is proposed to accommodate the bus and the existing fire lane would be shifted to the north. Religious buildings are allowed as conditional use in the R-1 Zone if specific conditions are met: A. Side Yards. Side yards shall be double that required for the district, but no greater than thirty feet. B. Parking. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly across a public street or alley to the principal use and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with City Code. C. Off-Street Loading. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided. Property owners within 350" of the request have been notified of the request and staff has received no comments to date. ANALYSIS Section 4.211 details the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit and the specific language as follows: Purpose of CUP. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads,and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite fore consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health and safety. Planning Case Report 92-15 June 2, 1992 Page -3- The City Code also establishes specific criteria for considering whether a conditional use permit shall be approved or denied, as follows: Criteria for Decision. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit, the City Council and Planning Commission shall find that: A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. F. In Residential Districts (R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O): 1. Traffic. Non-residential traffic is channeled into thoroughfares or onto a street abutting business or industrial uses leading directly to thoroughfares, and not onto minor residential streets. 2. Screening. The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be materially depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. 3. Compatible Appearance. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The primary concern of the City staff in regards to the above criteria and their application to this request is the bus screening from the off-site residential view that could impact compatibility with adjacent land uses and depreciation in value. The code states that the use must be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land. The Commi~ion will need to determine if the 200-400 foot distance cited in the church's letter is a sufficient distance or if screening is necessary. The petitioner points out that the City Code allows the parking of recreational vehicles (boats, camping trailers, RVs, etc.) at single family residences and feels that the church should be treated similarly. The only difference is that the church is not a permitted use in an R-1 Zone like single family homes; it is a conditional use, which means that the use and related activities are permitted if certain standards/conditions are met. These same conditions (such as screening) are not required for permitted uses (single family homes). Planning Case Report 92-15 June 2, 1992 Page -4- 5. The petitioner also states "that other churches in New Hope routinely park their transportation vehicles in the open and on their parking lots". It is true that precedent exists with Crystal Free Church receiving Council approval for bus storage, but there is one significant difference: House of Hope Church property is surrounded by single family homes, while the Crystal Free Church bus storage is next to Highway//169 and County Road//9. Staff feels that screening is more useful than just "distance" to nearby residential in considering the House of Hope Church request. Staff's Exhibit "A" graphically illustrates how the two church sites compare in size and proximity to nearby residential. Six homes are within 300 feet of Crystal Free's bus location (5-28-92), but nine homes, Homeward Bound residence and a school are within 300 feet of the petitioner. The primary view of the bus and vans at Crystal Free is form the state highway and the county road. 6. Any comments from property owners in this area received at the public hearing should also be considered as an important factor in regards to this request. Perhaps the Commission will view the parking of the bus out in the open at the church parking lot as a minor issue. Staff certainly supports the purpose for which the bus is utilized: primarily providing transportation for senior citizens who reside in multiple family dwellings to and from church services. 8. The primary concern staff has is the o~n storage of a bus on a full-time basis at a church which is a conditionally permitted use in a single family residential neighborhood. Staff would prefer that several alternate options be considered by the church, such as the following: A. Storing the bus off-site eXcept during the primary use periods (weekend) if no screening is proposed. B. If the bus is to be stored on site on a full-time basis, staff feels some provisions should be made for screening, such as the construction of a fence or wall around the area where the bus would be parked, a heavily landscaped area, or inside storage. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the matter be tabled until a screening fence (8') or wall plan is submitted showing a visual buffer for the bus, because the property is surrounded by homes and quite visible. o Attachments: Site Location May 13th Petitioner Letter May 26th Petitioner Letter Bus Parking/Fire Lane Map Top Map/Picture References Photos Staff Exhibit "A" 1990 Planner's Report Site Survey Inspection Reports "--C 51 S'[ AVE. I ~ I NEW HOPE ATHLETIC " F~ELD 49 ~'H AVE CENTER AVE. RAILROAO Ztr ALANO AV~, LUTHERAN (~IUR CH Ho.~WRRo BOUND 47 TH AV COOPER HIGH SCHOOL '~~ Subject ProPerty-I NEW HOPE[ ELEMETARY SCHOOL R.4 .0 NCI CHURCH CiViC CENTER PARK NEW CITY HALL NEW HOPE FIRE STATION EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION HOUSE OF HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH ~800 Boone Avenue North, New Hope, MN §5~28 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Hay 15, 1992 The congregation needs, owns and uses a multi-person transporta- tion vehicle (currently a converted and pleasantly painted school bus) to fulfill our mission in ministry. We currently use the vehicle on a regular basis to transport youth, members of the congregation, and especially senior citizens from residence such as Chardon Court, North Ridge, St. Therese, and others. We have been advised our Conditional Use Permit must be amended to permit parking the vehicle on our premises. Wh~ should request be ~ranted? The congregation's need is genuine. The use is very complimen- tary to the needs of our community, especially the senior citizens. This vehicle is utilized weekly to transport members to worship services, as well as other senior activities. Our property is very well planned, landscaped and maintained. The parking of this tranportation vehicle is only a very minor distraction to the appearance of the property. / May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope. (Romans 15:13) House of Hope Lutheran Church 4800 Boone Avenue North · New Hope, Minnesota 55428 · Church Phone: 612-533-3341 John Fahning, Interim Senior Pastor David Hanson, Associate Pastor TO: The City of New Hope Attn: Kirk McDonald FROM: House of Hope Lutheran Church Bob Pray, Vice President SUBJECT: Application for Amendment to our Conditional Use Permit I have met with you, Doug Sandstad, Dan Donahue, Doug Smith, couple of our neighbors, Donna Hoverman of Homeward Bound, several members of our congregation and our Church Council to develop and review potential options concerning our need to own, use and park our multiple person transportation vehicle (the bus). Our Church Council accepted three options for presentation to the Planning Commission and the City Council with the under- standing that the congregation clearly wants and believes that the city should approve our first choice, Option OPTION Amend our Conditional Use Permit to authorize parking of our church owned multi-person transportation vehicle at any loca- tion within our hard surfaced parking lot. 'Comments: Our congregation has always considered it important to be good neighbors to our neighbors and continues to do so. We have spent many, many thousands of dollars installing berms, beautifully landscaping the property, providing direct storm drains to relieve a neighbor's problems, etc. 2= As we stated in our application, the bus is very important to our current and growing ministry. We currently use the vehicie on a regular basis to transport youth, members of the congregation, and especiaIly senior citizens from resident such as Chardon Court, North Ridge, St. Therese, and others. Many, many members of our congregat£on have expressed significant frustration and dismay at uhatever or whomever is the source of these oompIaints. They feel that we are being unfairiy harassed. The most common comments are: The congregation's need is genuine. The use is very complimentary to the needs of our community, espe- ciaIly the senior citizens. Our property is very welt planned, Iandscaped and maintained. The parking of this transportat£on vehioIe is oniy a very minor dis- traction to the appearance of the property. In our normaI parking spot the bus is a long, long distance from any house. Actually owner 200 feet to the closest and over &00 feet to mos~. The city routinely permits other city residents park lng privileges for extra vehicles like boats, camping trailers, RV's, work vehicles, etc., and that these are parked only 30 or &O feet from neighboring residences. (Not 200 to &O0 feet like we are.) That other churches in New Hope routinely park their transportation vehicles open and on their parking lots. The bus was painted specifically to be attractive and blend into the surroundings. OPTION Amend our Conditional Use Permit to authorize parking of the church owned multiple.person transportation vehicle at a "specifically designated" location on our hard surfaced park- ing lot. Comments: The designated parking location would be the most southerly and easterly corner of-our parking lot. To accommodate this, we wouid move the fire Iane one parking spot to the north. This was reviewed with Doug Smith. This spot is over 200 feet from the nearest home and is 500 to &O0 feet from those that would see the broadside view. We want the city to approve Option #1. It is our inten- tion, however, to park in this designated location almost all of the time. We want Option #1 (the undesignated location) however, so that we can avoid future hassles when the bus is occasionally parked at a different loca- tion for some special reason, ie. cleaning, loading, washing the exterior of the bus, etc. OPTION This is a future option only and is dependent on Homeward Bound both for their interest and lead.. The city wants Homeward Bound to expand their parking. We have been asked by the city if we would consider making a omaII parcel of Iand on the south side of our berm adjacent to their service area available to them for parking expansion. We expressed a willingness to work something out if Homeward Bound wants to and takes the lead. There is clearly a pos- sibility here to work something out that could be good for everyone including a long term parking option for the bus that the congregation wouId like and that would be even less visible to the neighbors. The future cost of this option is another reason why we believe Option #1 is the best choice at the present time. We do not want to incur any duplicated costs. ~E~N~_~AL COMMENTS: When you and I talked, I mentioned two other options; one for parking off-site with limited overnight parking, and one for a new long driveway on the south side of the church. The Church Council requested that I dismiss both of these, both for reasons of cost and utility. To aid you, the city staff, the planning commission and the council in evaluating our request, I am providing 12 pictures, copies of our current site plan and topographical plan. These plans are marked up with the locations used to take the pic- tures and aisc with the proposed changes to the fire iane. Thank you for your help. Bob Pray, Vice President House of Hope Lutheran Church May 26, 1992 / 3~N3^¥ o o ONVqYgZ o HOUSE OF HOPE I IA. 0 HOMEIdARD BOUND o PICTURE REFERENCES: #1 The bus in front of the church. #2 Showing neighbors across the street from the church lot. #3 through #8 - from the sidewalk across the street (Boone). #3 At lot line. #4 Closest neighbor. #5 At lot line. #6 At lot line. #7 At corner. #8 At corner. #9 through #1! - at north side of our parking lot. #9 At lot line as shown. #10 At lot line as shown. #11 At lot line as shown. #12 The bus parked in the designated location. b~ 5~ ~EtV HOPE ! ..~ -I- NEW H~ I ~W HOP~ ~ ~dOH ~0 ]SnOH x ]]Bd 1VISABO Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. URBAN PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: P L A N N I N G DE S I G N M A R K E T R E S E A R C H Dan Donahuo Curt±s Gutosko~Alan Br£x±us 25 Apr±l 1990 Now Hopo - Houso of Hopo Buthoran Church 131.01 - 90.11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background: The House of Hope Lutheran Church has submitted a CUP amendment application to allow a building expansion to their existing church located at 4800 Boone Avenue North. The church expans[on is to consist of the construction of an education wing with classrooms, a kitchen facility, a new steeple, an expanded recreation pavilion, and a parking lot. Tho total size of the expansion area is approximately 8,000 square feet. The subject property is zoned R-I, Single Family residential. Recommendation: Based upon the review which follows, our office recommends approval of the submitted CUP amendment and site plan subject to the resolution of the following conditions: The north curb of the existing parking lot and the two parking stalls identified in Exhibit B are reconfigured as illustrated on Exhibit B of this report. o The loading needs are determined for the site and appropriate facilities are provided on the approved site plan in accordance with Ordinance standards. The landscape plan is found to be acceptable by the Planning Commission. o The final lighting plan is found to conform to all ordinance requirements. 4601 Excelsior Blvd.. Suite 410.Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420. Fax 925-2721 The steeple is reduced in height to be of a scale exhibited in other churches throughout the City. The grading and drainage plan is found to be acceptable by the City Engineer. Comments from other City staff. CASE ANALYSIS Zoninq. Churches (and other religious institutions) are allowed in an R-1 District only via a conditional use permit. As such, the proposed expansion requires an amendment to the church's existing CUP. The acceptability of the CUP amendment will be subject to the acceptability of the various site plan review components. Setbacks. The proposed and required setbacks of the proposed expansion are as follows: PropoSed Required Conforms Front (West) 95 ft. 50 ft. Yes Side (North) 112 ft. 25 ft. Yes Side (South) 47 ft. 25 ft. Yes Rear (West) 174 ft. 35 ft. Yes As can be seen from the table, all proposed building setbacks are found to be in conformance with ordinance requirements. In addition, the placement of the recreation building expansion meets all required accessory building setbacks. Parkinq. The proposed church expansion basically consists of 12 classrooms and a kitchen facility. However, for parking purposes, only the classrooms are used to determine the increased parking requirement. According to the ordinance requirement for elementary schools, one parking space must be provided for each of the following: o o 1 space per classroom, and 1 space per seven students and 1 space for each 3 classrooms. Based upon a design capacity of 10 students per classroom (according to the project architect), the total parking requirement of the church expansion is 33 spaces. This compares to an additional 42 spaces being proposed in the new parking lot. -As such, there exists a 9 space surplus in the proposed expansion. 2 With regards to the new parking layout, it is recommended the curbing along the north edge of the existing lot be revised in the manner illustrated on Exhibit B. This is recommended to better delineate the parking stalls from the drive aisles and t© provide a physical separation between them. In addition, it is also recommended the two parking stalls identified in Exhibit B are turned 90 degrees to be accessed from the north-south drive aisle. This recommendation would cause the elimination of one parking stall, however, this should not be a concern due to the parking surplus identified earlier. Parking stall and drive aisle dimensions within the new lot are found to conform to ordinance requirements. The setback of the new lot also conforms to the required setback. Continuous curbing is proposed around the new parking lot, around the parking lot islands of the steeple canopy, and along the north edge of the existing parking lot. However, it is also recommended that curbing be provided along the western edge of the existing parking lot between the northern and center curb cuts. The proposed and recommended curbing along with catch basins being proposed should substantially remedy the run-off problem currently being experienced between the church property and the property to the north. Presently, storm water drains from the existing parking lot (and the northern half of the property as a whole) into a drainage area along the north property line. This run-off, however, often "spills" onto the properties to the north as well. The proposed curbing and catch basin should eliminate the vast majority of this run-off problem. Loadinq. The ordinance requires that an off-street loading area be provided where applicable for the church. The submitted site plan does not illustrate a specific loading area. The applicant should be asked to describe the property's current loading techniques and its demand for a loading facility. The City should then determine the type of loading facility required. Landscaping. The proposed landscaping is shown on the site plan (Exhibit B). The type and size of plant materials illustrated on the plan conform to Ordinance requirements. The screening of the new parking lot from the residents to the north appears adequate. The plan also indicates nine existing trees are to be relocated, however, the plan only identifies six of the trees actually be relocated. The applicant should be asked to respond to this situation. While the center island near the proposed steeple is to be nicely landscaped, the perimeter of the education wing is somewhat void of landscape emphasis. The Planning Commission should review 'this item to determine if additional landscaping is recommended. · 3 Gradinq and Drainaqe. As previously indicated, there does exist a drainage problem along the north property line. However, with the improvements proposed, this problem is expected to be corrected. The City Engineer should comment on this matter further. The proposed grading plan in general shall be subject to the City Engineer's approval. Liqhtinq. Locations for exterior lighting have been indicated on the site plan. The said lighting is to be provided for the new parking area and around the periphery of the building. Detail of this lighting must be indicated on the final building plans to ensure that no light directly shines on the adjacent residential properties or public right-of-way. Church Steeple. As can be seen in the submitted site plan and building elevation (Exhibits B and E), the proposed church steeple is to be quite tall at 68 feet in height. In addition, the steeple is to reach a height of approximately 43 feet above the existing church roof. To be considered in the steeple's evaluation is this relationship between the steeple and the church itself and also the elevation of the property in relation to the surrounding area. The base elevation at which the steeple is to be located is 924 feet. The elevation of the top of the steeple would be 999 feet. The elevations of the immediate surrounding properties are: 915'- 924' (north), 924'-935' (east), 918'-933' (south), and 915'-918' (west). A survey was also conducted regarding the existing churches (and steeples) within the City (see Building Official's report). In this survey, it was found all the steeples ranged in a height of 0-29 feet above the height of the accompanying church. While steeples may be exempt "from the building height requirements of the Ordinance, it is recommended the height of the proposed steeple be reduced to reflect the scale found in the other churches throughout the City. The applicant has indicated that there is to be no sound making devices within the steeple. CONCLUSION The proposed expansion of the House of Hope Lutheran Church has been found to be generally acceptable. The few items of concern relate to the configuration of the connecting area between the old and the new parking lots, the submission of an exterior lighting plan, and the acceptability by the City of the proposed steeple. In recognition of these items, we have recommended CUP amendment and site plan approval subject to the conditions stated in the Executive Summary of this report. cc: Doug Sandstad Mark Hanson · 4 I CF...RTIFICAT[-. OF SUI~VEY For House of Hope'Lutheron Church ASSOCIATES. I'NC 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 (612) 531-5127 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTIIIB~I~i~ Date: Time: Address: Business Name: Type: INSPECTION REPORT PID#. Source: [] Construction C° m me nts: _ ,~.~./'~'''~-' ///~' Complaint [] Other [] Annual Corrected Representing: NOTE ~ days to Correct these Conditions Phone: Reinspection Date: / / white: applicant yellow: inspector pink: file SP-O~ Add ress: 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 (612) 531-5127 COMMUNITY DEVEILOPMENTI~B~~ Date: Time: PID#. Business Name: Type: Source: [] Construction XComplaint [] Other Annual Comments: ,ssuedto: ~ /~~ _~~ / / Representing: --_ NOTE ,{,..~,~ days to Correct these Conditions Reinspection Date: -~ /.~V / '~ ~ Date: ~' - ~ - ~ '---' Mailed / Phone: white · applicant yellow 'inspector pink: file INSP-00 INSPECTION REPORT 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 (612) 531-5127 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTI~~IIi~ Date: INSPECTION REPORT Time: Address: PID# Business Name: Type: Source: [] Construction //E~.C.7~[],Other [] Annual Comments: Corrected Issued to: ~ ~ ate: .-~ -' .~ o - 2 _~ Mailed/[~- ' ~) ' ~ . . Representing: .-~ ~ NOTE ~_.~//~ays to Correct these Conditions Reinspection Date: / / SBMPFLH NO ~3~06 Phone: ~ " Signature white * applicant yellow · inspector pink · file DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM May 27, 1992 Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Coordinator Miscellaneous Planning Issues Development Block Buster Video Canopy If you have not already noticed, Block Buster Video has installed their new canopy at the New Hope Mall and it matches canopy previously installed by the other tenants. Construction Trailer The City was finally successful in getting the construction trailer removed from the Brandell Industrial Park 2nd Addition site on 49th Avenue. The trailer was removed on May 6th after a citation had been issued. Frank's Development Agreement The Development Agreement for Frank's Nursery & Crafts at 5620 Winnetka Avenue has been completed and forwarded to the petitioner for execution - copy enclosed for your information. Norwest Bank Sign Commissioner Watschke called after the last Planning Commission meeting to inform me that the exist sign at Norwest has been .moved and reduced in size. Adult Entertainment Ordinance The City Council conducted their public heating on the Adult Entertainment Ordinance on May llth and passed a resolution formally ratifying the Planning Commission's findings and adopted the two ordinances regulating and licensing said businesses. The adopted license fee is $5 ,000 annually with a $500 investigation fee, but this may be increased after further research by staff. The Council expressed its thanks to the Planning Commission and others involved in the extensive study. May Planning Cases The City Council approved the May planning cases including the CUP for outdoor dining at Winnetka Commons, the City Hall expansion, and the J.R. Jones expansion. In the case of J.R. Jones, the Council denied both the green area and parking variance requests and instead granted a CUP for deferred parking. The petitioner will be submitting a new plan showing the deferred parking area, which would be constructed if deemed necessary (see enclosed letter). In the case of the City Hall expansion, the City Council is expected to approve the plans and specifications and authorize the seeking of bids at the May 26th Council meeting. Bids are scheduled to be opened at the July 20th Council meeting and a determination made at that time as to whether the project would proceed or not. 10. 11. 12. 13. -2- Codes & Standards Staff conducted a meeting with the Planning Consultant on May 18th on a number of miscellaneous planning issues and requested that initial background reports be prepared in preparation for Codes & Standards study. As soon as the reports are prepared, contact the committee and coordinate a meeting. Issues to be discussed include: B. C. D. E. staff will Moratorium on apartment conversions Ground sign setback requirements for multi-family residential Sign code amendments re: governmental signs in an R-1 Zoning District Country Club Food building zoning or text amendment Text amendment regarding location of adult day care and/or hospice facilities in I-1 Zoning District Definition of Families Due to the fact that several questions have arisen in the Inspections Department recently regarding the Zoning Ordinance definition of "family",the City Manager requested that the City Attorney prepare a legal opinion on this matter. I have enclosed the Attorney's memo for your information if you are interested. Royal Oaks Apartments' Sign Variance The setback variance for the ground sign for Royal Oaks Apartments, which was approved by the Commission at the April 14th meeting and tabled by the City Council on April 27th, will be back on the agenda for consideration on May 26th. The Council has some questions regarding how staff was defining the sign area and this issue is addressed in several staff memos, which are enclosed for your information. Autohaus Extension The EDA will be considering the Autohaus extension request on development at the May 26th meeting and I will inform you as to the outcome. improvements Applebees Outdoor Dinin8 Applebees will be seeking a CUP for an outdoor dining area in the near future. K-Mart Site Improvements I will contact K-Mart prior to the June 2nd meeting regarding any progress they have made with their headquarters relative to improvements to their site. July Plannln~ Commission Meetine As of now we have not scheduled a July Planning Commission meeting, so there also is no need for a Design & Review meeting in June. If several applications are submitted we may need to reconsider and staff will contact commissioners if the need for a meeting arises. 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone:531-5100 FAX ~612~ 53!-5'- May 6, 1992 Mr. John Winston Lindquist & Vennum 4200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2205 Subject: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/PERFORMANCE BOND FOR FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS EXPANSION AT 5620 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH IN NEW HOPE Dear Mr. Winston: On April 27, 1992, the New Hope City Council approved Frank's Nursery & Crafts request to allow expansion of a B-2 Garden Novelty Store and related variances, as submitted in Planning Case 92-04, subject to specific conditions. One of the conditions was that a Development Agreement and suitable bond concerning site improvements be executed with the City. I notified you that the City would draft the Development Agreement and notify you regarding the appropriate security to be posted. Enclosed please find three copies of the Variance and Site Improve- ment Agreement. The City Engineer and Building Official have estimated the cost to install the storm sewer improvements, concrete curb, cedar fence, landscaping, and driveway improvements at $25,380 and the total bond to be posted is 150% of the cost of the work, or $38,070. On page 6 of the agreement the various types of financial guarantees that are acceptable 'to the City are outlined under $10, "Financial Guarantee". The performance bond or other type of guarantee is released upon completion and acceptance of all the site improvement work by the City. Please review the enclosed agreements, and have the appropriate officials from Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc. sign all three copies in the appropriate place on page 7 and have their signatures notarized. Please return the three executed copies of the agreement to the city with the appropriate type of financial guarantee. I will have the appropriate City officials sign the agreements and will return one fully executed copy to you for your files. Family Styled City ~ For Family Living --2-- ' Please contact me if y~u have any comments or questions. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/lb Enclosures: Engineer's Letter Re: Bond Amount Three Copies Variance and Site Improvement Agreement CC: Dan Donahue, City Manger Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 92-04 Bonestroo Rosene m--m Ander!ik & Assocmates Engineers & Architects April 30,. 1992 Jerry A ~urOon PE Mar~ R ~o~fs. PE Jerry D Per~sc~ PE Oawc: 0 Los~ota. PE Dan*el J Ed~Ron. PE Ga~ W Mor,e- =E ~ara A ~n~. PE PhHmp J Cas~ll. RE Keratin R YaDD. PE ~nal~ C 8urga~. PE lsmael Ma~nez. PE M~nae~ ~ Rau PE Tea K F~eld. PE Mark D ~ths. PE Charles A Er~cKsor Rooe~ R ~r~e. PE Ga~ F Ryla~Oer. PE Harman M O~son City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Attention: Mr. Kirk McDonald Re: Frank's Nursery' 5620 Winnetka Avenue Our File 34-gen Dear Kirk: The bond amount for the above project is listed below: Lump Sum 850 Lin. ft. 290 Lin. ft. 14 Each 144 Each 2 Each Storm Sewer Improvements @ $3,000/LS B612 Concrete curb & patching @ $10/L.F. Cedar fence (8: high) w/brick columns @ $24/L.F. Trees @ $100/ea Bushes @ $30/ea. Driveway apron @ $600/ea. + 50% Bond Increase TOTAL $3,000 8,500 6,960 1,400 4,320 1,200 $25,38O 12,690 $38,070 The total estimated bond amount is $38,070. If you have-any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark Hanson MH:lk cc: Doug 8andat~ew Hope Marty Malecha, City Attorney 2335 ~/est Highway 36 · St, Paul, Minnesota 55113 · 612-636-4600 CITY OF NEW HOPE VARIANCE AND SITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THZS AGREEMENT is entered into by Frank's Nursery & Crafts, a Michigan corporation (hereinfter "Developer") and the City of New Hope (hereinafter "City"), this day of , 1992. WHEREAS, on April 27, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-84, the City Council approved Developer's request for a Variance (hereinafter the "Variance") for certain real property located in the City of New Hope, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota known as 5620 Winnetka Avenue North, legally described as: Part of Lot 36, Auditors Subdivision 226 Commencing at a point in west line of Lot 36 distant 672 feet south from northwest corner thereof, thence south 353 28/100 feet thence east at right angle 206 63/100 feet thence north at R/As 50 feet thence east at R/As to E line of Lot 36, thence north to a point 672 feet south from northeast corner thereof, thence west to beginning except roads, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "Property") to allow expansion of an Accessory Garden Novelty Store, and WHEREAS, the City Council also approved Developer's site development plans for the Property dated March 30, 1992 as set forth in Planning Case 92-04 (hereinafter "Plans"), and WHEREAS, the Plans included the following site improvements: New curbing on parking area on Winnetka Avenue side of building, in front of building, and on north side of building. New concrete driveway aprons on Winnetka Avenue (both entrances) and widening of entrances. New "shoe-box style" down-lighting to be installed throughout site to replace existing floodlights. Existing east fence on Sumter Avenue replaced with 8-foot high cedar and brick column fence. 5. Six (2-1/2" minimum trunk diameter) new boulevard trees (hackberry) to be planted on Sumter Avenue in front of 8- foot fence. 6. 158 total new shrubs and trees added to the site. 7. New front building fence and trash enclosure. 8. Building rotated to north/south direction (42 x 84 feet). 9. Repair retaining wall on northwest corner of property to address poor drainage situation. 10. Existing lathe-house to be cut back 5 feet from property line to meet setback requirement. 11. "No truck" signs to be installed on south entrance. 12. Truck delivery lane identified. 13. Replace some of the landscaping in front of conifers. 14. Note on site plan that planters will be repaired. 15. Repair southeast fence, as necessary· 16. Paint cashier shed in front of building. 17. Inflate building with double roof. WHEREAS, the Variance was granted subject to the following conditions: Greenhouse (42 x 84 feet) to be air inflated and oriented as shown on plan with total size not to exceed 3,528 square feet. Installation of new cedar/masonry screening fence along east property line, per plan. Eliminate two parking stalls as shown on staff "Exhibit A" to Planning Case Report 92-04 dated April 14, 1992, and build steel "cart corrals" in center of front lot. Balance of space to be pedestrian walkway. ;Total parking stalls will number 127. Development Contract and Performance Bond to be provided for improvements on public property (amount to be determined by City Engineer)· 2 Storm sewer construction in the northwest corner of the parking lot to be revised to include two storm sewer catch basins with R-3067 castings constructed in the concrete curb. Annual review by City staff, specifically including but not limited to the condition of the poly house materials, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows: 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. incorporated herein by reference, conditions of the Variance. The recitals above are specifically including the 2. THE WORK· The Work shall consist of the site improvements described in the Plans, including the Secure Work as described below, and including any amendments to the Plans which are approved by the City Council. The Work shall be performed by the Developer to the City's satisfaction in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, standards, and policies of the City. 3. THE SECURED WORK. The Secured Work includes all on-site exterior amenities shown on the Plans that are listed below. Quant i t ¥ Lump Sum 850 Lin.ft. 290 Lin.ft. · 14 Each 144 Each 2 Each Item Storm Sewer Improvements @ $3,000/LS B612 Concrete curb & patching Q $10/L.F. Cedar fence (8' high) w/brick columns ~ $24/L,F, Trees ~ $100/ea Bushes Q $30/ea Driveway apron @ $600/ea Estimated Cost $ 3,000 8,500 6,960 1,400 4,320 1,200 Subtotal + 50% Bond Increase TOTAL: $25,380 12,690 $38,07O The Developer unconditionally guarantees to the City all of the Secured Work for a period of one year subsequent to the Completion Date of the Secured Work. This guarantee shall include failure of the Secured Work due to poor material, faulty workmanship, or any other cause. This guarantee shall continue whether or not all of the financial guarantee shall have been released by the City. 3; COMPLETION. The Developer agrees that the. Work shall be completed in its entirety on or before the 1st day of November, 1992 (the Completion Date), except as this period of time is extended by resolution of the Council, or by the City taking no action to require completion hereunder on a timely basis. It is understood and agreed that failure of the City to promptly take action to draw upon the bond or other security to enforce this Agreement after the expiration of the time in which the Work is to be completed hereunder will not waive, estop or release any rights of the City and the City can take action at any time thereafter to require completion of the Work, and payment for same. Furthermore, the term of this Agreement shall be deemed to be automatically extended until such time as the City Council declares the Developer in default thereunder, and the statute of limitations shall not be deemed to commence running until the City Council has been notified in writing by the Developer that the Developer has either complied with this Agreement, or that it refuses to for any reason. These provisions shall be applicable to any person who shall give a financial guarantee to the City as required below. 4. COST OF WORK. The Developer shall pay for all costs of persons doing work or furnishing skill, tools, machinery or materials, or insurance premiums or equipment or supplies and al'l just claims for the same, and the City shall be under no obligation to pay the Developer or any subcontractor any sum whatsoever on account thereof, whether or not the City shall have approved the subcontract or subcontractor, and the Developer and its surety .shall hold the City harmless against any such claims, and provide the City with all necessary lien waivers. 5. DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the Secured Work to be performed hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the Secured Work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred therein by the City, provided the Developer is first given written notice by United States Mail of the Secured Work in default and required to be done by the Developer, not less than 48 hours being given thereby to the Developer to remove the default status., said notice being addressed to the Developer at the address set forth below. Notice given in this manner being sufficient as described, by agreement of the parties hereto. Notice to the Developer shall 4 also constitute, without further action, notice to any contractor or subcontractor, whether they are approved and accepted by the City or not. In the event of emergency, as determined by the City Engineer, the 48 hours notice requirement to the Developer shall be and hereby is waived in its entirety by the Developer, and the Developer shall reimburse the City for any expense so incurred by the City in the same manner as if mailed notice as described above had been given. It is understood by the parties, however, that the responsibility of the Developer is limited by strikes and force majeure. 6. REVOCATION OF VARIANCE. The City Council approved a Variance for the Property subject to certain conditions including completion of the Work. As an additional remedy separate and independent from any other remedy available to it, upon breach of this Agreement by Developer, the City may revoke the Variance for the Property. Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City may also revoke the Variance for failure of the Developer to satisfy any of the other conditions of the Variance. 7. ADMINISTRATION COSTS. Developer agrees to reimburse the City for the actual costs to the City associated with Planning Case 92-04, the Variance, and this Agreement, including but not limited to, engineering and attorney's fees. Developer agrees that the financial guarantee shall not be released until all such costs have been paid to the City. 8. HOLD HARMLESS. The Developer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents and employees against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages and expenses (including attorney fees) arising out' of or resulting from the Developer's negligent or intentional acts, or any violation of any safety law, regulation or code in the performance of this Agreement, without regard to any inspection or review made or not made by the City, its agents or employees or failure by the City, its agents or employees to take any other prudent precaution. In the event any City employee, agent or representative shall come under the direct or indirect control of the Developer, or t~e City, upon the failure of the Developer to comply with any conditions of this Agreement or the Variance, performs said conditions pursuant to the financial guarantee, the Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its employees, agents and representatives for its own negligent or intentional acts in the performance of the Developer's required work under this Agreement or the Variance. ~ 9. COST OF ENFORCEMENT. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in the enforcement of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, including court costs and reasonable engineering and attorney's fees. 10. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE. The Developer shall furnish the City with a financial guarantee acceptable to the City in one of the following forms: a) cash escrow; b) a performance bond-issued by an approved corporate surety licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, and executed by the Developer as the principal; c) an .irrevocable letter of credit; d) an automatically renewing certificate of deposit in Developer's name but assigned to the City; e) other financial instruments which provide equivalent assurance to the City. Said financial guarantee shall be furnished to the City as security to assure completion of the items of Secured Work as set forth above, and payment of the costs of administration as set forth above. The financial guarantee shall be in an amount of 150% of the cost of the Secured Work as estimated by the City Engineer. The financial guarantee provided shall continue in full force and effect until the City Council approves and accepts all of the Secured Work undertaken and releases the surety and/or the Developer from any further liability, and until all administrative costs are paid in full. The City Council may reduce the amount of the financial guarantee upon partial completion of the Secured Work and payment of all outstanding administrative costs. 11. NOTICE. The address of Developer, for purposes of this Agreement is as follows, and any notice mailed by the City to this address shall be deemed sufficient notice under this Agreement, until notice of a change of address is given to the City in writing: 12. SEVERABILITY. If any portion, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. 13. SUCCESSION. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns as the case may be. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our han~s and seals. CITY OF NEW HOPE By Its Mayor By Its City Manager FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS, INC. By Its By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1992, by EDW. J. ERICKSON and DANIEL J. DONAHUE, the Mayor and Manager, respectively, of the City of New Hope, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said municipal corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1992, by and , the and , respectively, of FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS, INC., a Michigan corporation, on behalf of said corporation. DRAFTED BY: CORRICK & SONDRALL, A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, #203 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 (612) 425-5671 Notary Public 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX (612) 531-5 ~ - May 12, 1992 Mr. Bob Jones J.R. Jones Fixture Company 3216 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 and Mr. Mark Marlowski Belair Builders, Inc. 443 8th Avenue NW St. Paul, MN 55112 Subject: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOADING BERTH FRONTING STREET, VARIANCES TO EXPAND NON-CONFORMING BUILDING AND FROM GREEN AREA OR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL TO'ALLOW EXPANSION OF EXISTING BUILDING, 3216 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH, PLANNING CASE NO. 92-10 Dear Mr. Jones and Mr. Marlowski: Please be advised that on May 11, 1992, the New Hope City Council acted as follows regarding the above request, as submitted in Planning Case 92-10: Approved site/building plan review for expansion of building, Approved variance to expand a non-conforming building, Approved conditional use permit for loading berth fronting street, Denied variances for--green area and/or parking requirements, Approved a conditional use permit for deferred parking, subject to the following conditions: Immediately repair/redesign plans for' sawdust collection system including handling. Said plans to be on paper and approved by Building official 14 ~ays prior to a building permit application for the addition. Additional landscape improvements required for the building front yard including 2-1/2" maple tree (3) and 20+ shrubs (as per Commission); per revised 5-7-92 landscape plan. City Engineer to review site drainage changes and forward to Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, if necessary. Owner to agree to Development Contract and bond for all parking lot work and grading/landscaping (amount to be determined by City Engineer). Revised plan to be submitted showing deferred parking area whereby parking and green area requirements would both comply with City Code, which could necessitate removal/reconstruction of front semi-circular entry drive and restrictive covenant for deferred parking to be filed against property title. Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living -2- The City Council approved the building addition based on the plan showing a 36.5% green area and the provision of 87 parking stalls. The Council granted a conditional use permit for deferred parking and is not requiring that additional parking (beyond 87 stalls) be constructed at this time. However, the City does request that a revised site plan be Submitted showing the deferred parking area and indicating that parking and green requirements could be met if deemed necessary. Once the revised plan is submitted showing the deferred parking area, the City Attorney will prepare the restrictive covenant document and it will be forwarded to you for execution. The City will be responsible for filinG/recording the document. After the revised plan is received the City will also draft a Development Contract and forward to you for execution and the bond amount will be determined. It is the City's written policy (stated on the application) that the petitioner is responsible for consulting expenses incurred by the City that exceed the deposited amount. Legal expenses will be incurred in the drafting of the Development Contract and in the preparation and filing of the restrictive covenant and expenses that exceed the deposit will be billed to J.R.Jones. Please be advised that if the work authorized by this special zoning procedure has not been implemented within a year after final council approval said procedure shall automatically terminate, ~'unless a written petition for extension of time to implement the use of or complete the work has been filed with the City Manager at least thirty (30) days before the expiration. There is no charge for filing of a petition for extension, which should include a statement of facts explaining the circumstances necessitating the extension. If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager - Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/lb cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Property File Planning Case File 92-10 CORRICK & SONDRALL A PA/~rN ER~HIP OF ~FrE~IONAL GOf~4~LATK) N~ Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 t. AVONNE E. KESKE ~HAF~ON D. OEP~Y April 15, 1992 Jean Coone General Inspector City of New Hope ¢401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Application of New Hope Zoning Code Regarding Definition of Family and Boarders Our File No: 99.52300 · Dear Jean: Please field enclosed a copy of an April 1st, 1992 memo prepared by Marry Malecha of my office re9arding the questions you raised in our recent phone conversation about our Zoning Code definition of family and boarders. Basically, the memo indicates that our Zoning Code definition of family is enforceable under the Federal Constitution. However, our Slate Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the validity of this definition under State Constitutional protections. Bear in mind that a State Constitution can give its citizens more rights and protections than provided by the Federal Constitution. Please note in Section 1.c. of the memo that in New Jersey for instance under the case of St_%_t-----~B.~.9 v. BakeF, our code limiting family to four unrelated persons would be unconstitutional. Until our State Supreme Court directly deals with the issue, we cannot give you a definitive opinion, however ! agree with Marty that more than likely our ordinance would be upheld if we can establish there is a legitimate governmental interest promoted by the restriction. Our restriction on boarding rooms is really a factual problem in light of our definition of family as pointed out in the enclosed memo. If you look at the issue hypothetically, two different conclusions can be reached depending upon the factual situation. Jean Coone April 15, 1992 Page 2 Assume a single homeowner of a four-bedroom home with three tenants as we have previously discussed. If they are maintaining a common household, i.e. sharing household costs and duties such as cooking, washing the dishes, etc,, such a group will qualify as a family and the boarding room restriction will not apply. However, if the tenants are not sharing the household expenses and duties but receiving a service from the homeowner such as meal preparation or laundry services, then the family definition would not be applicable and the single boarder restriction of Section 4.053(6) in our Code would be enforceable. The key issue, which is a factual issue and our burden of proof to establish, is whether they are residing as a family sharing household duties and expenses, etc. In other words, is the homeowner conducting a boarding room business or is the homeowner simply attempting to make ends meet and reduce living costs. My thought is it wi]] be rare occasion when we wi]] be able to utilize Section 4.053(6). Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondra]] slw2 Enclosure cc' Daniel J, Donahue'~THISCOPYFOR I~ TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMO SAS MPM 04/01/92 FAMILY/RENTER'S ISSUES, ZONING CODE OUR FILE NO: 99.10000 FACTS A single homeowner living in an R-1 zoning district in the City is renting out her house to three unrelated adults in addition to living there herself. ISSUE IS THE CURRENT CITY OF NEW HOPE CODE OF ORDINANCES DEFINITION OF FAMILY UNDER §4.022 (52) OF THE ZONING CODE ENFORCEABLE? ANSWER: YES. ISSUE CAN A SINGLE PERSON OWING A HOUSE HAVE THREE RENTERS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY AND WITH §4.053 (6)? ANSWER: POSSIBLY, DEPENDING UPON THE FACTUAL SITUATION. RATIONALE DEFINITION OF FAMILY. am Code'Definition. The City Code defines family as "one or more persons each related to the other by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care, or a group of not more than four persons not so related maintaining a common household and using common cooking and kitchen facilities, exclusive of servants." New Hope §4.022 (52). Federal Constraints. Few restrictions exist on definition of unrelated persons as a.family for Zoning Code purposes at the federal level. See, generally, Validity of Ordinances Restricting the Number of Unrelated Persons Who Can Live Together in a Residential Zone, 12 ALR 4th 238. The Supreme Court in Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S.1, 94 S.Ct. 1536 (19.74) upheld an ordinance which restricted to two the number of unrelated persons who may live together in a residential zone. The ordinance was found to not violate the 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection, and also to not impermissibly affect associational interests, provided the Zoning Ordinance had a rational relationship to a permissible state objective. One commentator noted that this zoning definition in fact applied to a small area. If this restriction were applied City wide, there may be constitutional problems, even under the Belle Terre standard· On t-he other hand, in Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S.Ct. 1932 (1977) the Court overturned as violating due process a zoning ordinance which restricted "family" to a few catergories of related individuals, essentially parents and their children, excluding extended family members· See also Palo Alto Tenant's Union v. Morgan, (1970 ND Cal.) 321 F.Supp. 908, Affd (CA 9 Cal) 487 F.2d 883, cert. den. 417 U.S. 910, which upheld a zoning restriction limiting single family residential occupation to four unrelated persons. Given the minimal federal limits of Belle Terre and Moore, the New Hope definition of family will meet any current United States constitutional standards. State Constraints· After Belle Terre, a number of challengers to restrictive family definitions found protection under state constitutions· See Santa Barbara v. Adamson, (1980) 27 Cal. 3rd 123, 164 Ca. Rptr. 539, 610 P.2d 436 (1980) (invalid when restrict to five unrelated persons); State v. Baker, 81 NJ 99, 405 A.2d 368 (1979) (restriction to no more than four unrelated persons was unconstitutional); Children's Home of Easton v. Easton, 53 PA Conwlth 216, 417 A.2d 830 (1980) (restriction to three unrelated persons was unconstitutional ). However, a number of states also failed to find constitutional protection for unrelated persons living together in a residential zone. See Palo Alto Tenant's Union, supra; Hayward v. Gaston, 542 A2d. 760 (1988 Del .Sup.) The Minnesota Supreme Court has not ruled directly on the point of restrictive family definitions, but it is worth noting that the standard for review of zoning regulations is low. General ly, the standard for restricted residential districts is whether the classification bears some reasonable relationship to public safety, health or welfare. The regulation will be invalid if it bears no relationship to the health, safety or public welfare of the municipality, or if the classification is arbitrary and discriminatory insofar as it relates to different property owners affected by it. Perron v. Village of New Brighton, 275 Minn. 119, 145 N.W.2d 358 (1966). Zoning regulations are generally upheld unless they are shown to be unsupported by any rational bases related to promoting public health, safety, morals, or general welfare or that the classification amounts to a taking without compensation. State, by Rochester Association of Neighborhoods vs. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 (MN 1978). The closest the State of Minnesota courts have come to defining family surfaced in Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., 313 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. 1981), involving a group home of six retarded adults and two resident house parents acting as a family within the Two Harbors zoning code definition. The group was considered a' family by the court because it met the Two Harbors definition of one or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single housekeeping unit. CONOLUSION Given the scarcity of constraints upon zoning restrictions of unrelated persons living together in residential areas at the federal level, the New Hope definition of family certainly passes federal constitutional muster. As for Minnesota constitutional requirements, the New Hope definition of family is likely in compliance, given a lack of cases on the subject combined with the deference given to local authorities by the courts when reviewing zoning cases. 2. LEGALITY OF A SINGLE PERSON OWNING A HOME AND RENTING TO THREE OTHERS. am Violation of Boarder Restriction. The New Hope Code R-1 single-family residential district regulations include as an accessory use: 4.053(6) Boarding Rooms. Boarding or renting of rooms to not more than one person. A boarder is defined as a person who gets his or her meals, or room and meals, regularly for a fixed sum; paying guest. Webster's New World Dictionary, 1960. (Steve, we may need an up to date dictionary for the office.) On the stated set of facts, a homeowner renting to more than one person would be in violation of New Hope Ord. 4.053 (6), and the continued use of the property in this manner would be a violation unless the group qualifies under some other section of the code, i.e. falls within the definition of family. Qualification as a Family. A single person with three renters could make the argument that his or her use is allowed under the Code as falling within the definition of family, and thus a permitted use in R-1 areas. The relevant portion of the family definition includes "a group of not more than four persons not so related maintaining a common household and using common cooking and kitchen facilities, exclusive of servants". Without further definition in the Code itself, the common meaning of the words used in the ordinance will be given effect. State v. Bies, 258 Minn. 139, 103 N.W.2d 228 (1960). The New Hope Ordinance requirement of using common cooking and kitchen facilities would seem to be easily met if all used the same stove, oven, refrigerator, etc. Whether or not the group was maintaining a common household would also be a factual issue and may involve items such as common planning and preparation of meals, sharing housekeeping duties, planning recreational activities, and sharing expenses. The Minnesota Supreme Court touched upon these factors in Costley, supra, when discussing whether a group lived together as a single housekeeping unit. Whether this particular group of people qualify as maintaining a common household and using common cooking and kitchen facilities will be primarily a factual issue, to be proved by facts which the City would probably have little access to. If these facts can be developed, the City may be in a better position to attempt to solve this type of problem through enforcement of the Zoning Code either by citation or injunction. However, a simpler procedure may be to target ~he specific activities causing a problem, namely noise or other ordinance violations. CONCLUSION While a single person owing a house and renting to three unrelated people is likely a violation of §'4.053 (6), the group of four as a whole may qualify under the definition of family in the Zoning Code. Proving the group does not fall within the definition of family may prove difficult. A better alternative may be to enforce other provisions of the Zoning Code which are violated, such as the noise provisions. COUNCIL  REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Planning & City Manager l.~.~ r~.v~l~pm~nt 5-26-92 Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: 8 1 PLANNING CASE 92-06 - REQUEST FOR A SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION SIGN 10 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE AT 8015 36TH AVENUE NORTH, (PID #19-118-21-11-0002), ROYAL OAK PROPERTIES LIMITED P A R TNI::.I~ ILIIP PF.TITIONll:I~ The petitioner is requesting a sign setback variance to Section 3.464 of the New Hope Code to allow installation of a 25-square foot property identification sign stating "ROYAL OAKS APARTMENT - 588-2888" 10 feet from the property line. City Code states that signs accessory to residential uses shall be set back from the street right-of-way line a distance at least one-half of the required minimum building setback. In this situation the building setback requirement is 35 feet, thus the minimum sign setback is 17-1/2' and therefore a 7-1/2 foot variance is required. The petitioner desires to install the new sign on 36th Avenue to improve the property appearance and visibility. The sign would be an entrance monument with two single-sided clear redwood sandblasted sign panels mounted back to back, with the design blending with the brick exterior of the building. Apartment complexes are allowed one 25-square foot sign per street frontage, so the number/size of sign(s) comply with code requirements - the only issue is the setback distance. Both commercial and industrial signs (except shopping centers) are permitted to be located 10 feet from the property line but residential signs are restricted to a setback from the property line of 1/2 the building setback. The Planning Commission considered this request at their April 14th meeting and recommended approval of the request and further recommended that the Codes & Standards Committee research the reasoning for the discrepancy in sign setback requirements between commercial/industrial and residential properties. This request was tabled at the April 27th Council meeting due to three main issues: 1) definition of sign area, 2) hardship, and 3) possible amendment to the existing ordinance. (cu, tinuczl) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Revlew: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ · Request for Action Planning Case 92-06 May 26, 1992 Page -2- 1. Definition of Sign Area The Royal Oaks sign will be mounted on at 4 foot x 14 foot brick structure or wall and the question arose as to whether the brick wall should or should not be included in the computation of sign area. It was staff's opinion that the brick wall should not be included in the sign area computation and that only the area that is needed to circumscribe the message or lettering should be included in the area calculation. This matter was referred to the Building Official, City Attorney, and Planning Consultant for review. Per the enclosed letter, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that the wall should not be included in the area calculation and that staff's interpretation excluding the brick base from the computation of sign area is correct. The Building Official has provided examples of other sign area calculations and in all cases the support structure is not included in the area calculation if the message is visually distinct from the support structure. The Planning Consultant also concurs with this viewpoint. 2. Hardship The comment was made at the Council meeting that the petitioner had not demonstrated a hardship and Royal Oaks Apartments/Sage Co. responded that the Fina Station blocked visibility of their property and that the sign would not be noticeable of placed 17 feet back from the property line near the garages. The Planning Commission considered this a reasonable hardship and recommended approval. The City Code outlines the following criteria for sign variances: Unique Conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular land or use involved. parcel of Variation Pu _rpose. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the bus~aess involved. Cause of Hardship. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Code and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel. Effect of Variance. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. 3. Code Amendment, There has not been sufficient time for Codes & Standards or the Planning Commission to consider a code amendment. This issue was discussed with both the Planning Consultant and City Attorney, and background research and recommended code language changes are in the process of being prepared. It is anticipated that Codes & Standards will meet on this issue in June, however, there presently is not a July Planning Commission meeting Request for Action Planning Case 92-06 May 26, 1992 Page -3- scheduled and so the earliest the Commission would consider a code ~tmendment is August 4th and that recommendation would be presented to the Council on August 10th. The Planning Consultant supports a code amendment for multi-family residential sign setbacks. If a 10-foot setback is adequate for signage in a commercial district where there is more traffic congestion, it is the Planner's opinion that a 10-foot setback is adequate for a multi- family residential district. In short, the code amendment will probably be recommended, but not until August. Options/Recommendation The Council has two options: Deny the variance, in which case the petitioner would have to wait until mid-August until the code was changed if they wanted to install the sign 10 feet from the property line. Grant the variance, with the understanding that a code amendment is being pursued and will be presented in August and probably approved. Due to the fact that the code will most likely be amended in the near future to allow for a 10-foot setback, staff recommends approval of the variance and resolution. CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 92- RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 92-06 REQUESTING VARIANCE TO SECTION 3.464 OF NEW HoPE CODE TO ALLOW PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION SIGN 10 FEET FROM PROPERTY AT 8015 36TH AVENUE NORTH (PID # 19-118-21-11-0002) SUBMITTED BY ROYAL OAK PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LINE WHEREAS, the applicants, Royal Oak Properties Limited Partnership, have submitted a request identified as Planning Case No. 92-06 for a variance to Section 3.464 of the New Hope Code to allow a property identification sign 10 feet from property line; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Planning Case No. 92-06 on April 14, 1992, found that all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for the variance have been satisfied by the applicant, and recommended approval of the planning case request subject to all conditions as set forth in the City Staff Report dated April 10, 1992; and WHEREAS, the City Council on April 27 and May 26, 1992, considered the report of the City staff, findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the comments of persons attending the Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby.-finds and concludes that the applicant has satisfied all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for issuance of the requested variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope that a variance to Section 3.464 of the New Hope Code to allow a property identification sign 10 feet from property line.,, as submitted in Planning Case No. 92-06 is approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 26th day of May, 1992. Mayor Attest: City Clerk CORRICK LAW OFFICE~t, ~J~ WltJ.tAM J. CORRICK ~TEVEN A. SONDIRALL P A. STE'V~N MICHAEL R. L~FLEUR MARTIN ~m. MA~ECHA WILLIAM C. STRAIT CORRICK & SONDRALL A PARTNEI=~HIFI OF PROFES~ONAL CORPORATIONB Edinburgh ExecuUve Office Plaza 8525 Edlnbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 4~5-5671 FAX (612) 425-5~67 LAVONNE E. KES~E SHAJqON O. DERBY May 20, 1992 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Administrative Interpretation of Sign Ordinance Our File No. 99.10000 Dear Kirk: The Royal Oaks Apartment Planning Case requesting a sign setback variance has raised an issue regarding the definition of sign area. Specifically, the Royal Oaks sign will be mounted on a 4 foot by 14 foot brick structure or wall rather than a pylon or pole. The question is should this brick wall or structure be included in the computation of sign area per our ordinance? It is my opinion this question should be answered in the negative. New Hope Code §3.422(1) defines a sign as follows: Sign. Any writing (including letters, words, or numerals), pictorial representation (including illustrations or decorations), !mblem (including devices, symbols, or trademarks), flag, banner, streamer, pennant, string of lights, or display designed to attract the attention of the public, whether it be attached to a structure, painted on, or in any other manner represented on a building or other structure or on the ground. (emphasis added) §3.422(4) defines sign area as follows: Sign, Area. That area within the marginal lines created by the sign surface which bears the advertisement or, in the case of messages, figures or symbols attached directly to the part of a building, which is included in Mr, Kirk McDonald May 20, 1992 Page 2 the smallest geometric figure which can be made to circumscribe the message, figure or symbol displayed thereon. Reading these sections together establish a distinction between sign area or surface and the structure it is mounted on. The definition of sign clearly speaks to a structure distinguishable from the sign itself. Structure means something different than building since the definition of sign also refers to a building distinguishable from structure. The ordinance does not clearly define the term structure. However, we have consistently interpreted structure to mean a brick wall or support like the one proposed by Royal Oaks. I refer you to the Chardon Court and Northridge signs as examples. Since we have administratively interpreted structure to mean a brick wall distinguishable from the sign or sign area on a consistent basis, this distinction may be implied into the ordinance. Ambiguities in an ordinance can be resolved by administrative or official interpretation if it is a practical and reasonable interpretation acquiesced in by all for a long period of time (see 6 McQuillan, Municipal Corp. §20.45). As a result, it is my opinion that staff's interpretation excluding the brick base from the computation of sign area in the Royal Oaks Planning Case is correct. Very truly yours, St'6-~en A. Sondral 1 slw2 cc: Daniel J. Donahue TO: I~:BI I~DONALD ! DAN DONAI:rlTEa FILO~: DOUG SANDSTAD DA/E: NAY 19, 1992 SUBJECT: DE~NAT]:ON OF STG"N I have worked with two similar sign codes and a dozen amendments since 1975. The technique used to calculate "sign area" for ground signs has not changed durin$ this 17 year interval. It is consistent with the definition in Section 3.422(4) of our code and all nuances within the fourteen page code. In brief, grqund signs.are of two types, "pylon" style and "monument" style. The code'is value neutral as to preference. Most ground signs are the pylon type, with a sign placed "on top" of one or two vertical posts or columns. A smaller number of more expensive signs are the monument type, where a low ground-hugging massive structure of masonry & brick is built and a contraSting sign is placed on the top or side of same. In both cases the support structure is NOT included in sign area calculations if the message is visually distinct from the the basic support structure. The sign area is determined by calculating the area of the smallest single geometric figure that can encompass the entire message. Here is a copy of actual plans for one sign of each type that were erected in our city: . ..~ ......... ~.:~...: .......... %~.~ : I ....... 1" "~ 't / 1 I1 1t message area I PYLON-type MONUMENT- t~pe TYPICAL MONI~E~T SIGNS (~xistin$) meaaage area II/ 3. PRINCIPAL GROUND SIGN RULES Street Classifica~ion LAND USE TYPE: Churches, Schools, Non-Profits Businesses, Industries,Retail Shopping Centers Apartments [Kllo~ed Sign Area-sq.ft.] 20 20 20 20 ½ Bldg Setback N/A 40 75 200 l0 N/A 200 200 200 20 25 25 25 25 ½ Bldg Setback Both underlined categories are prohibited from having signs of any significant size and are required to place them further from property lines. Staff suggest that both the size and location of signs in these land use areas ~ake it difficult to clearly inform the public of the building identity and function. Nany co~plaints have been received by property o~ners in these C~o categories about "severe" limitations. £ The co~plexity of the sign code is a frustration for all,' understood by few other than A1 Brixius, Steve Sondrall and I. Any review of this ordinance is encouraged, if one goal is si~plifying and condensing it. Mr. Wins=on presented a photograph representing =he poly house and Mr. Pulkrabek confirmed that Frank's has these houses at all theLr stores in the Twin Cities, with the exception of the Burnsville store. Commissioner Wa=schke complimented the petitioner on the good job they had done =o address =he issues and concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Underdahl questioned if all of the old fencing will be removed. Mr. Gregory replied that the entire fence across the rear of the property along Sum=er Avenue will be replaced and fences along south and north side will remain as is a= the present time. Mr. Skelton interjected =ha= the fence on the south side will be repaired and all of =he cyclone fencing material on the fence on =ha= side will be replaced, and Mr. Gregory added that even though i= is no= shown on the plans, Frank's would eventually like to replace Chairman Ca~eron complimented =he peri=loner on the upgrade they are making and he questioned how the new sod will be taken care of. Mr. Skelton replied that a lawn service will take care of it and he pointed out =hat he was no= chore in pas= years, but i= will be his responsibility to correct the pas= neglect and see tha~ it is taken care of now. MOTION M~tion by Commissioner Wa=schke, second by Commissioner Friedrich, =o approve Planning Case 92-04, subject =o the following conditions~ 1. Greenhouse to be inflated and oriented as shown on the plans with total size not to exceed 3,528 Ic[uare feet. 2. Installation of new cedar/masonry screening fence along east propez~y Line, per plan. 3. Eliminate two parking stalls as shown on staff "Exhibit A" and build steel "caz~ corrals" in center of front lot. Balance of space to be pedestrian walkway and =oral parking stalls will number 127. ¢. Development Contract and Performance Bond to be provided for improvements on public proper~y (amount to be de=ermined by City Engineer). 5. AnnUal review by staff. Voting in favors Underdahl, Lifson, Friedrich, Watschke Voting ageinets None Absent, =assert, Gundershaug Motion carried. Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Chairman Cameron informed =he petitioner than =he Council will revio~ tho case on April 27th. ,- Chairman Cameron introduced PLanning Case 92-06 and asked Mr. McDonald =o explain =he need for =he variance or change in the ordinance. Mr. McDonald presen=ed =he requee= and explained than the Commission will have co decide if they wish =o handle iC as a SEt, zeN 3.~64 / variance or a text amendment. He s=aCed =ha= =he pe=iCioner claims OF NEW HOPS / a hardship resulting from a visibili=y problem wi=h the Fins CODS TO ALLOW / / Sta=ion Located on =he corner in fron= of =he complex and would AIDE~TIFZCATIo~PROPERTY / like =o erect a 25 square foot property idea=irate=ion sign sen SIGN 10 FEET/ back 10 feet from the proper=y line. He no=ed =ha= the Planning FROM PROPER~ Commission can gran= the request as a variance =o =he existing LI~Fg &~ 801~ ordinance and then pursue a ~ex= amendmen= =o =he ordinance in the --~,-- .u~u~w N fuCur., if =h.y .o d..ir.. Me. Jill Gilber=son addressed the Commission on behalf of the Royal Oaks Apartments and =he Sago Company and stated than as Property New Hope PLanning Commission -2- April 14, ~992 New Hope Plann£ng Commission Supervisor par= of her job is to improve and upgrade the property see due to the station on the corner they are requesting a se=back equal to co~ercial property setback. She prelented photograpas 8hewing the current 8ignage. Chairman Cameron asked MI. Gilbertson to speak to the hardship involved since they do have exposure on two main streets. Ms. Gilber=son pointed out that the F£na Mar= on the corner limits their exposure because they are behind it and the Fins signage and bright colors draw attention there rather than to their signs. She added that their office faces 36th Avenue and the signage is not easy to see. Chairman Cameron addressed staff regarding any reports or complaints against the complex. Mr. McDonald reported that both the Building Official and Housing Inspector had nothing negative to say about it. commissioner Zak confirmed with the petitioner that the old signs will be removed. Alan Brixius, City Planner questioned the se=back of the current signs, the amount of frontage along 36=h, and where =he new sign is to be located. Ms. Gilbertson indicated she did not have the information and pointed out the sign location. Com~issioner Underdahl asked the petitioner to pein= mu= the driveway location. Commissioner Sonein called the petitioner's attention to a temporary banner hanging from one of the garages that shows on one of the pictures and questioned how long it had been there, and advised the petitioner to consult staff a~out the use of temporary bannere. Mo=ion by Commissioner $onsin, second by Commissioner Zak, to for a code =ex= ch&uge, wi=h the condl=ion fha= the temporaFy sign il re~ovod. Vo=ing ~n favor:.~Underdahl, Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Caneron, Friodrich, Vo=ing againe=: None Absentz Caseen, Gundorshaug chairman Comeron called for Planning Case 92-0? and noted that staff recommende the case be tabled in order for the petitioner to present a survey to confirm lot lines. Mr. McDonald reported that revised plans have been submitted since tht repo~ was writ=on, but the plane could be more detailed. Chairman Cameron concluded that the Commission would hear the case, but without a lurvey it would itill have Hz. McDonald outlined the requemt fo= an addition to the existing atCa=~ed garage which requires a variance to the 3S-foot rear yard se=bac~ rec~uiremen= and a variance to expand a non-conforming structure. He explained that by code definition the front of the house mhould be to the north with a rear yard (south) setback requirement of 35 fee=, but instead it was built facing west and the new addition would be 7 feet from the south lot line requiring a 28-foo= variance, however, =he way the house is situated the addition would be in the midi yard where the setback would be 5' with a garage. Craig Hall, petitioner, explained hil need for thil addition since he hal several vehicles, including motorcycle and snowmobile, and currently rents storage space in a pole barn and since he has lived -3- Apri~ ~A, 1992 Item 8.1 ~IN$ CASE / ,t-o New Hope City Council Page 17 amended. The following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, L'Herault, Otten, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly oassed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Councilmember Enck advised that staff at Frank's was extremely helpful during his last visit there. Mr. Winston complimented the City Council on the manner in which it performed during the street improvement public hearing. Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Planning Case 92-06, Request for a Sign Setback Variance to Allow Property Identification sign 10 Feet from Property Line at 8015 36th Avenue North, (PID #19-118-21 11 0002), Royal Oak Properties Limited Partnership, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated the petitioner is requesting a sign setback variance to allow installation of a 25-square foot property identification sign stating "Royal Oaks Apartment" 10 feet from the property line. The sign would be an entrance monument with two single-sided clear redwood sandblasted sign panels mounted back to back, with the design blending with the brick exterior of the building. He stated both commercial and industrial signs (except shopping centers) are permitted to be located 10 feet from the property line but residential signs are restricted to a setback from the property line of 1/2 the building setback. The building setback is 35 feet so the sign setback would be 17-1/2 feet. Since the petitioner would like the sign 10 feet from the property, a 7-1/2 foot variance is required. The petitioner would like to be more visible to drive-by traffic as well as improve the appearance of the property. It is felt that Fina somewhat detracts from the apartments. .- The Planning Commission considered the case on April lCth and recommended approval. The Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission will be researching the reasoning for the discrepancy in sign setback requirements between commercial/industrial and residential properties. The Council discussed the actual size of the sign. Mr. McDonald stated apartment complexes are allowed one 25- square foot sign ~er street frontage. He explained that the sign dimensions are 10 x 3' or 30 square feet but due to the rounding effect, the total square footage is actually 25. April 27, 1992 MOTION Tte~ 8.2 PLANNING CASE 92-08 Item 8.3 RESOLUTION 92-85 Item 8.3 New Hope City Council Page 18 Councilmember Enck questioned whether the entire size of the structure should be considered part of the sign rather than only the lettering. Councilmember Enck commented that the petitioner has not demonstrated a hardship. He stated Fina will be rebuilt so it is premature to believe that it detracts from the neighboring property. Councilmember Enck recommended tabling the planning case to allow the Planning Commission adequate time to study the ordinance. He noted that a variance may not even be required by Royal Oaks. Ms. Sharon Gully addressed the Council on behalf of the Royal Oaks Apartments and the Sage Company. She indicated they believe there is a hardship with the Fina station next door since it definitely detracts. She stated the current apartment signage blends in and is not visible. Signs placed 17 feet back would be close to the garages and will not be noticeable. She indicated money has been allocated for this year and they would like to erect the new signage this summer. Ms. Gully stated the signs on 36th Avenue will be replaced with the new sign; the current sign on Winnetka will remain. She explained that the brick monument type sign is an attractive design as well as long-lasting. Mr. Sondrall, City Attorney, called attention to sign measurements. He stated the ordinance allows for 25 square feet regardless of sign shape. He stated when lettering*constitutes a sign, then a dimension is taken around the lettering to determine the square footage. Motion for Councilmember Enck, seconded by Councilmember Otten, to table Planning Case 92-06 until May 26, 1992, to allow the Planning Cordmisston tostudy the ordinance. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Erickson introduce~ for discussion Item 8.3, Planning Case 92-08, Request for a Variance from the Parking Distance from Property Line Requirement to Allow Existing Driveway and Curb Cut to Remain in Place, 6109 Gettysburg Avenue North (PID #06-118-21 22 0008), James Benson, Petitioner. Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 9Z-08 REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM THE PARKING DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT TO REMAIN ZN PLACE AT 6109 GETTYSBURG AVENUE NORTH (PID #05-118-21 22 0008) SUBMITTED BY JAMES BENSON". April 27, 1992 Plannin~ Case: 924)6 Request: Request Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Dat~: Meeting Dat~: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANN~G CASE REPORT for Variance or Text Amendment To Section 3.46,* of ~he New Hope Zoning Code to Allow Installation ora Property. Identification Sign 8015 36th Avenue North 19-118-21-11-0002 R4 (High Density Residential) Royal Oak Properties Limitod Partnership April 10, 1992 April 14, 1992 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a t~xt amendment to or variance from Section 3.464 of the New Hol~ Zoning Code to allow installation of a property identification sign set back no less than 10 feet from the property line. Petitioner is requesting to install a 25-square foot property identification sign 10 feet from their pro~ Line on Winnetka Avenue that stat~.,s "Royal Oaks Apartments -54a-2888". City Code stat~s that signs ~ry to residential us~ shall b~ s~ back from the street right-of-way line a di$~anc~ at l~a.~ on,.half of tim required minimum building setback. In this situation the sid~ yard building s~ck requirement is 3:~ fe~. thus the minimum sign s~tback is 17-1/2'. The applicant wanta to placo the sign 10 fe~ from the property line, thus a ?-1/2 foo~ ,artanoa h r~lulr~l. Apartment complex~ ar~ allow~l one 2~ square foot sign per street frontage so there am no problems with tl~ number or ~ of tl~ sign(s). The sign would b~ aa ~~ monument with two singl~-sided clear redwood sandblmt~l sign panel~ mountmt back to back. Petitioner s~im to imln'ove t~ ~ ~ and visibility through new and larger signage. Petitionm' ~ [hal *although we am .on the corn~' of 36th & Winnetka Avenue, w~ do no~ mjo~ t~ ~posum of a typical com~ du~ to the Fina gas station which bloe. l~ our vi-~ib'ffily to driw*-by traffic. The signage design will blend well with the brick ~xagior of our buildings and improve the prolm'W curb app,.* Surroundi~ ~ u~8 i~lu~ ~ingle family hon~ on tim w~ and ~outh, Winnetka Commons ShoPl~g Cen~r on tl~ east acros~ W~ Avenue, and a gas station/ convenienc~ store on tl~ no~,h. Property owner~ within 3~0' of th~ r~u~ have Imam notifi~l. Staff would recomme~l that the Commission consider either a varianco to the existing sign setback requirements and/or consid~' a code t~xt change now or in the future so that residential sign m-~acim would conform to the requimmenta for commercial/ indusu'ial signs. Planning Case Report 92-06 April ~4, ~992 Page -2- The Building Official has encourage this property owner and others to pursue this type of' request because of an 'ordinance inequity". Signs that ar~ erectod away from a building are referred to a~ "ground signs", whether they a~ permanent or "special event" (temporary). All commerciaJ/industrial signs (except Shopping Centers) are permitted to be ten feet from the property line, and axe ai.lowed signa~e area of 40, 75, or 200 sqtta,~ feet depending upon the traffic cla.ssification (and speed limit) of. the roadway. However, residential signs a~ restrict~ to ~ a small size (25 ~. ft.) and a remote location, set back from the property line 1/2 of the building setback. In practical terms. most residential, church, and school signs are required to be 17.5 feet or 25 feet behind the lot lines. Since there is no safety or visibility purpose for the greater setback, it clearly responds to a lesser need for "commercial' signage. This is accomplished by aJlowing commetciaYindusttial signs to be 160-800% larger than residential. Not is little ot no benefit derived by the greater residential setbacks, but the signs are not easily read from roadways, when placed properly. Many apartment owners place signs at a ten-foot setback without inquiring about a sign permit. As long as we ate restnc:/ng the allowed sign area, the confusion over the second resmction -greater setbacks- is questionable. Staff recommends approval of a sign ordinance text change to Section 3.464: 'Signs Accessory to Residential Uses". Each sign accessory to residential uses shall be set back from the street fight-of-way line a distanc~ of at least I~. feet... If there is a desi~ to bring ALL ground sign setbacks to one standard, then stair recommend the same change--be made to Ordinance 3.463(1) (1): Delet~ the third sentence and t~la~ it with the following pertaining to church, schools, and non-profits: 'Such signs shall be s~t back from the street right-of-way line a distance of at least tm feet". NOTE: This complent is 6 at:~, with only 2 ground signs allowed (one per street on The City Cod~ o~tlines th~ following critm'ia for sign variance: When cottsidm'ing a variant, th~ Planning Commission shah ~ a finding of fact and grant approval bamt upon the following conditions: 3.481 Uninue Conditions. That th~ conditions involved a~ uniqu~ to the particular parcel of land or us~ involved. 3.382 Variation Purno~. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a ~ to incrm.se the valu~ or income pot~tial of the business involved. 3.483 cntt_~ of I.Iatd~fip. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Cod~ and has not been created by any persons pre~ntly having an interest in the parcel. Planmn$ Case Report 92-06 April 14, 1992 3.484 Effect of Variance_. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements to neightx)rhood. tO Staff finds that this is a minor variance request (7-1/2 feet) and the property may be unique in its' location. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a minor sign setback variance to allow the apartment compiex sign to be located 10 feet from the Winnetka Avenue property line and recommends that a study be undertalmn to demrmine if a code t~xt change should be made in the futur~. Attachments: Section Map Si~n Location Map Si~n Detail Petitioner Lett~r I I tm i Iml,,, dd 7,",,:? -- V! C INIT¥ MAP 36r..h AVENUE NORTH $CAI,,E.' 1" / F FINA sig-u N x 0~30.2 AVENUE o x 93~.8 <3 93~5.4 SIGN= 25 .sq. ft. ! APAR~b~ rI EI_~MI ~t' .h, ~.~,~ ISTAVENUE NW · NFW Pl'h{ ,/ Il, ,~ &,flfvh#_._.'.', ~',. , ~t,". ~1~ /~P1~;.1~.0457i ~ a/., ~I:'<JuF:.,TED, WE: ARE PROYIDING TI. IF FOLLOWING PlaO~,~&AL REGARDING TH[ ~ I~,~tJrlF'NT AT ROYAL 0AK,~. FI ;~'~F ~T:~,. INC. WILL C~3~TRU~T ON~ ENTRANCE r~ONUr",l' NT A~ FOLLOWS: ALL EXCAw F'OOTINC~. FOUNDATION, AND BRICKWORK ( r'tEA,SURING 4 X 1 4' X 1 6"); TWO SINGLE ~I FAa ~,Fr)wo00 ,SANDBLASTED $1eN PANEl. ~ MOUNTED BACK TO BACIC ( HEASURING ? ' ~,:,, ,,H~)WN iN THE DRAWtN~ WE PROVIDED :,~, , ,,' .*RE AS FOLLOWS: .'. ,',NF MONUMENT. ' 'wq MONUMENT$ AT &~d'tF TIMF 4962.00 9S24.00 '~f'~f ;.(Y.T$ iX) NOT INCLUDE: THE ~ECURINO OF' PERrliT:. LAND~,APIN0, OR ELECTF,. wnar ~ ~,FS1RED. ~HAi~ON .tHERE: ARE ALTERNATIVES THAT WILL EITHER i.l,e;Rr~ OR DECREA,~ THE ,;: ' r NF RF FNTI:LRNC~ MONUMENTS. INCLUDING 51 Z[ CHANC~'~. OE$1(~N CItAN(~$ OR MATF ~-' ,, ~,~N(~;', m WILl., GLAOLY 01,,qCU~5 THESE WITH YCRJ AT Y¢4~R CONVENIENCE. m f A..',~' aH~NE ME: WITH ANY QUESTt('JNS YfXi MIC~T HAVf rHANI~ 4 ~,HARON, R t(')'~ARI' rD FI Fr-tFNT~). INC.