The URL can be used to link to this page

100891 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 91-17 Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval for a Temporary Office Building, Autohaus, Petitioner 3.2 Case 91-31 Request for A Text Amendment to R-O Zoning District, City of New Hope, Petitioner 3.3 Case 91-22 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Establishment of a Pre-school and Child Care Center, 3701 Winnetka Avenue North, Rohan/Helen DeAlwis, Petitioners 3.4 Case 91-26 Request for Amendment to Comprehensive Sign Plan, and Variance to Exceed Maximum Wall Signage Allowed, 4300 Xylon Avenue North, K-Mart Corporation, Petitioner 3.5 Case 91-27 Request for A Variance to Rear Yard Setback to Allow Expansion of Garage, 7621 48th Circle North, Robert Natzel, Petitioner 3.6 Case 91-28 Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Allow Expansion of Existing Office and Manufacturing Facility, 5420/5430 International Parkway, Custom Mold & Design Inc., Petitioner 3.7 Case 91-30 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval, 5420/5430 International Parkway, Custom Mold & Design Inc., Petitioner 3.8 Case 91-29 Request for Conditional Use Permit Allow A Commercial Recreational Use in an I-1 Zoning District, 5420 Highway 169, ATEC Grand Slam New Hope, Petitioner 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee -Set meeting date 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Miscellaneous Issues 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1991 6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of August 26 and September 9, 1991 6.3 Review of HRA Minutes of August 26, 1991 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-17 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval for a Temporary Office Building Location: 7709 42nd Avenue North PID No.: 17-118-21 23 0005 Zoning: B-4 (community Business) Petitioner: Autohaus of Minneapolis Report Date: October 4, 1991 Meeting Date: October 8, 1991 UPDATE 1. Staff received the attached letter from Autohaus at the end of July asking to postpone their application for temporary use of a trailer on the property. Staff met with the applicants again in September and they indicated they would not be seeking additional office space until next spring and that they would concentrate on removing the former Animal Hospital building this fall. In light of the delay, staff suggests that the Planning Commi~ion acknowledge the withdrawal of the application at this time, with the understanding that this issue will probably resurface in 1992 under a new case number. Attachments: Petitioner Letter July Planning Case Report ' o Mirmeat lis, Inc. LEASING & SALES/FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC A UTOMOB£LES 7-30-91 DEAR KIRK AND THE CITY OF NEW HOPE: At this time we would like to pospone our application for temporary use of a trailer on our property. We will be in contact with you concerning rescheduling. T.__H AN ~ YOU, TliOMA~ PAUL OESTRIECH 7709 42nd Avenue North ~r Minneapolis, MN 55427 * (012) 555-5707 ~- · CITY OF NEW HOPE ~ PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-17 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval for a Temporary Office Building Location: 7709 42nd Avenue North PID No.: 17-118-21 23 0005 Zoning: B-4 (Community Business) Petitioner: Autohaus of Minneapolis Report Date: lune 28, 1991 Meeting Date: July 2, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting Site/Building Plan Review Approval for a temporary office building, pursuant to Sections 4.211,4.039, and 4.039(A) of the New Hope Code. 2. The petitioner met with Design & Review on June 13th and discussed a number of issues. The petitioner did not submit adequate plans with the application and Design & Review recommended that the case be tabled for one month and brought back to the July 18th Design & Review meeting and be presented to the Planning Commission in August. The applicant is agreeable to the delay and is in the process of developing adequate plans for the request. 3. Property owners within 350' of the request were notified. RECOMMENDATION Staff concurs with Design & Review and recommends tabling the case for one month. Chairman Cameron asked if there was anyone present concerning the case and recognized Mr. Don Litterer, representing Creamettes, who acknowledged that he was present to answer questions. Mr. Litterer confirmed that they have heard no further from the residents. MOTION Notion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Friedrich, to approve the Final Plat for Creamette Addition, Planning Case 91-09. Voting in favor: Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Sak, Sonsin Notion carried. PC 91-16 (3.4) Chairman Cameron called for Planning Case 91-16 and Kirk McDonald REQUEST FOR emphasized that air conditioners are no= allowed as an encroachment VARIANCE FOR in side yards, and stated that this is an after-the-fact AIR CONDITIONER application because the air conditioner has already been installed. IN SIDE YARD AT He explained that Dependable Air received a permit from the City 27&8 ENSIGN AV. for the installation which clearly states that the unit should be placed in the rear yard, but the petitioner was unaware of the r~quirement for rear yard installation of air conditioners and relied on the contractor's judgement of the placement. Mr. McDonald added that letters have been submitted from the property owner to the wes= and two property owners across the street indicating that they have no problems with the placement, and he noted that the property to the west has no windows on the side that faces the air conditioner. He stated that staff's only concern is the aesthetics and suggested that approval require landscaping to screen the unit. Mr. Lyle Sandstrom, petitioner, asked for clarification of the screening requirement, stating he did not feel a fence around the unit would be aesthetically pleasing, but he could accommodate the landscaping requirement. Chairman Cameron expressed dismay at the contractor's lack of attention to the requirement as printed on the permit form and asked the petitioner if they have made the contractor aware of the inconvenience he has caused them in having to request a variance from the City. The petitioner confirmed that the contractor had assured him it was appropriately installed, but since the variance issue has come up they have withheld payment until the variance has been approved by the City, and they will request reimbursement for landscaping costs. MOTION Notion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to approve the request for a variance to allow an air conditioner in the side yard at 2748 Ensign Avenue North with the provision that evergreen-type of landscaping be installed to screen the view from the street, and further that if a noise problem from the unit develops it be reconciled between the neighbors and the City. Voting in favor: Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Sonsin Motion C&L'riod. ~) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 91-17 and called for a REQUEST FOR motion to table. SI E/BLD .PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL Mr. McDonald noted that the petitioner did not have adequate plans FOR TEMPORARY to present to the Design & Review Committee, therefore the request OFFICE BLDG., to table the case. AUTOHAUS, 7709 42ND AVENUE N, New Hope Planning Commission -2- July 2, 1991 MO'EZOIi Motion by Commissioner Friedrioh, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Call 91-17 for one Voting in favor: Cassen, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Watschks Voting against: None Absent: Sak, Sonsin Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS DESIGN & REVIEW Design & Review met briefly with Autohaus. Commissioner (4.1) Gundershaug requested that a check be made of the original approval to find out how many cars were allowed to be parked in front of the building and if they were in compliance with that requirement. CODES & STAND. Chairman Cameron requested that Codes & Standards review the issue (4.2) of "front yards" on corner lots. Commissioner Watschke called attention to the erection of a utility building in the yard of a home that was recently granted a variance for a fence on the corner of 37th and Jordan, and wondered if that was within the code. Mr. McDonald indicated he would check into the issues mentioned. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission minutes were approved as printed and other (6.1, 2, 3) minutes were reviewed without comment. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. McDonald noted that the City is seeking applications for a new (7) Planning Commission member. ADJOUP~NMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:47 p.m. (8) Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission -3- July 2, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-31 Request: Request for Consideration of a Text Amendment to New Hope Zoning Code to Expand Permitted and Conditional Uses in R-O (Residential-Office) Zoning District Location: PID No: Zoning: R-O (Residential-Office) Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: October 4, 1991 Meeting Date: October 8, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. City staff is requesting consideration of a text amendment to the New Hope Zoning Code to expand permitted and conditional uses in the R-O (Residential-Office) Zoning District, pursuant to Section 4.23 of the New Hope City Code. 2. City staff review of an application by the Bassett Creek Montessofi School (Planning Case No. 91-22) to locate within an R-O District revealed zoning text problems in the R-O District of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. 3. In the September staff report it was pointed out that permitted and conditional uses in a "higher" zoned district (R-O) routinely "roll back" to include the uses allowed in a "lower" zoned district. (For example, uses allowed in the R-3 District would include R-3, R-2, R-1 USES.) 4. The same conditional uses allowed in the R-O District are allowed in the R-2 District and the same uses allowed in the R-2 District are allowed in R-1 District. Day care facilities are listed as a Conditional l. lse in the R-1 District, however one of the conditions is that the day care facility is an accessory use of a building used for educational or religious purposes. Day care facilities are allowed as a principal use in the R-3 District, however the existing R-O conditional uses do not include R-4 and R-3 conditional uses. It is not known why the conditional uses in the R-O District "roll back" only to the R-1 and R-2 Districts and do not include conditional uses allowed in the R-3 and R-4 Districts, but the result is that free standing day care facilities are not currently permitted in the R-O District as a conditional use. 5. The purpose of the #R-OH Residential-Office District is to provide for high density residential use and for the transition in land use from mid-density residential to Iow intensity business allowing for the intermixing of such uses. 6. In light of the del'tuitional purpose of the R-O District, staff finds it unusual that free- standing day care centers are not a permitted conditional use when they are a permitted conditional use in "lower" zoned residential districts (R-3 and R-4). Planning Case Report 91-31 October 8, 1991 Page -2- 7. This issue was referred to the Planning Consultant, City Attorney, and the Codes & Standards Committee for review. The Planning Consultant drafted the enclosed report and recommends two (2) text amendments and the City Attorney and Codes & Standards agree with the recommendation. 8. It should be noted that the text amendment is not being recommended specifically so that the current application for a Montessori School can be approved. The errors in the text were noted in the R-O District as a result of that application, however this is an issue that would have had to be addressed sometime in the future anyway because of the expanded need for day care facilities. 9. A public hearing is required to amend the text of the Zoning Code and the hearing will be conducted at this Planning Commission meeting. Notification of residents within 350 feet of all of the R-O Zoning Districts is not required, as the change would be City-wide. ANALYSIS 1. In evaluating any rezoning proposals the City should consider the following established policies regarding such actions: A. Has the character of the area changed to warrant consideration of a zoning change? B. Has the rezoning request resulted from a past zoning mistake? The staff, Planning Consultant, and Attorney feel that this rezoning request results from a past error in the Code. 2. Two (2) zoning text inconsistencies have been found in Section 4.09, R-O Residential- Office District, as follows: A. The R-O District does not identify any "permitted uses" within the district. B. The conditional use provision identifies conditional uses allowed in the R-O District to include those from the R-2 District. 3. Permitted Uses -The 'permitted uses" section in the R-O District identifies permitted accessory uses, which references permitted uses in less intensive land use districts. This is a confusing arrangement, as the balance of the zoning text reveals that each of the other zoning districts identifies specific permitted uses. This format inconsistency, together with the purpose of the R-O District, suggests that Section 4.092 should reference permitted uses rather than permitted accessory uses. The staff recommends that the R-O text be amended as follows: 4.092.A Permitted Uses. R-O. The following are permitted uses in the R-O District: (1) L¢$$ Intensive Use District. All permitted uses allowed in an R-4 District. Planning Case Report 91-31 October 8, 1991 Page -3- 4.092.B Permitted Accessory_ Uses, R-O. The following are permitted accessory uses in an R-O District: (1) Less Intensive Use District. All permitted accessory uses allowed in the R-4 Zoning District. 4. Conditional Uses - The purpose of the R-O District suggests that the less intensive "conditional uses" of both the R-3 and R-4 Districts would also be appropriate in the R-O District. The R-3/R-4 District conditional uses include: -R-2 conditional use -free standing day care facilities -town homes -group care facilities -nursing homes -elderly housing The R-3/R4 conditional uses are seen as being acceptable in a medium/high density residential area, therefore these less intensive conditional uses would appear to be consistent/compatible with the high density residential/low intensity business purpose of the R-O District. The staff recommends that the R-O text be amended as follows: Conditional Uses. R-O. The following are conditional uses in an R-O District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20, and compliance with 4.036, Parking: 4.037, Off-Street Loading; Chapter 3, Signing.) (1) LOSS Intensive Use District. All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions, as allowed in an R-4 District. 5. New Hope has 19 R-O Zoning Districts scattered throughout the City, which are generally being used as a transition zone between less intensive districts and commercial or industrial areas. The Planning Consultant indicates that these locations are well suited to accommodate the conditional and permitted uses proposed in the amendment. 6. The impact of the amendment on existing uses in the R-O District would not bc significant, as the majority of uses are conditional uses (office or clinic). The three apartment complexes currently located in the R-O District would become permitted uses instead of conditional uses. The one non-conforming use (Ambassador Health Care Center) would become a conforming conditional use. 7. The adoption of the amendment would clarify the two inconsistencies, would have a minimal impact on existing uses. and would clean up existing non-conformities. 8. Codes& Standards reviewed this proposed text change at a meeting on September 19th and recommended approval. 9. The impact of the amendment on Planning Case 91-22 would be that the Montessori SchOOl would be allowed as a free-standing principal use as a conditional use. Planning Case Report 91-31 ~ October 8, 1991 Page -4- RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the R-O District Zoning text change to identify.permitted uses within the R-O District and to include conditional uses from the less intense R-3 and R-4 Districts. Attachments: Planning Consultant Report Staff Exhibit - Existing R-O Uses Zoning Codes - R-O, R-3, and R-4 Districts TO: Kirk MCDOnald FROM: Alan Brixius/Kyle ~rown DATE: 13 September 1991 RE: R-0 Zoning District Amendments PILE NO: 131.00 - 91.13 City Staff review of an application by the Bassett Creek Montessori School to locate within an R-O, Residential-Office District reveale~ zoning te~t problems in the R-0 District of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. At the request of the City, our office ~as been directed to evaluate the current Ordinance tex: and suggest alzernative text language that is consistent with the City's zoning district hierarchy and the expressed purpose of the R-O Zoning District. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Two zoning text inconsistencies have .been identified in Section 4.09, R-O Residential-Office District. The first inConsiStency is that the ~-0 Zonfn~ Distri=t doe~' not identify any "permitted uses" within the dlst=ic=. Section 4.092 identifies permitted accessory uses, which further references permitted uses in less intense land use districts. This is a confusing arrangement. Review of the balance of the zoning text reveals that each of New Hope's other zonin~ districts identifies specific permitted use~ deemed acceptable within the district. This format inconsistency and the defined purpose of the R-O District suggests that Section 4. 092 should reference permitted uses rather than Dermic=ed accessory uses. As illustrated in Exhibit A, New Hope has six residential zoning districts which gradually increase in land use intensity and residential density. With the exception of the R-S, Senior Citizen Residential Housing, which is a specialized land use district, the other zoning districts ~enerally reference less intensive use districts as acceptable land uses in the more 5775 Wayzata Blvcl,-Suite 555 .St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9656.Fax. 595-9837 SEP-- I ~--9 I ~R I I I : $$ 0 P ' ~ ~ ~ intensive districts. The expressed purpose of the R-0 Zoning District iS to provide for high density residential uses and some low intensity con~ercial uses. Consistent with this purpose and the graduated hierarchy of the other City zoning districts, high density residential uses should be permitted uses in the R-0 District. The introduction of con%~ercial uses into the dis=rio= should be done th=ough a conditional use permit to ensure compatible land use arrangements. Based on staff review, the following amendments are surges=ed: 4.092.A Permitted Uses. R~O. The following are permitted uses in the R-0 District: (1) Less Intensive Use District.. Ail permitted uses allowed in an a-4 Dis=rio=. 4.092.B Permitted Accessory__ Uses. ~-0. The following are permit=ed accessory use in an R-0 District. (1) Less Inters. lye Use Dis=rio=. Ail permit=ed accessory uses allowed in =he R-4 Zonin~ District. The second zonin~ rex= inconsistency pertains to Section 4.093(1). This conditional use provision'identifies conditional uses allowed in the R-O District to include =hose from the District. 4.09~ Con~i~iona~_Uses. R~0. The following are conditional uses in an R-0 DiS=riot: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20, and compliance with 4.036, Parking; 4.057, Off-Street Loading, Chapter ~, (1) Less Intens±ve Use Ristr~t.. Ail conditional uses, subject to the saz~e conditions, as allowed in an R-2 District. The described purpose of the R-O Dis=riot suggests that the less intensive conditional uses of both the R-3 and R-4 Zoning DiStrictS would also be appropriate in the R-O Zoning Dis=rio=. The R-3 and R-4 Zoning DiStrict conditional uses include the R-2 conditional uses, freestanding day care facilities, =ownhomes, group care facilities, nursing homes, and elderly housing. · Generally, the R-3 and R-4 conditional uses are seen as being acceptable in a medium and high density residential environment. Therefore, these less intensive district conditional uses would appear to be consistent and compatible with the high density residential and low intensity business purpose of the R-O Zoning District. In this light, staff would suggest the following amendment to Section 4.093, H-O District conditional uses. 2 4.093 ¢ond~tio~al Uses. R-O. The followln9 are conditional uses &n an R-O District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20, and compliance with 4.036, Parking; 4.035, Off-Street Loading, Chapter 3, Signing.) (1) Less Intensive Use District._ Ail conditional uses, subject to the same condi~ions, as allowed i an R-4 District. IMPACT OF TH~ TI~T ~ AS illustrated on Exhibit C, New Hope has 12 R-0 Zonin~ Dis~riczs scattered at various locations =hrou~h the City. =enerally, these ~oning districts have cbs following characteris~ics. I. The R-O Districts are ~enerally being used as a transitional land use arrangeme~ between less intensive districts and commercial areas, industrial areas, and/or heavily used thoroughfares. 2. The R-0 Zonin~ Distric=e are located at ~he periphery of iow density residential ~ts=ricts or in conjunction wi~h high density residential areas. 3. The existing R-O Districts abut collector or arterial roadways. As such, ~he traffic ~enera=ion from chess districts is channeled onto these roadways in a quick and efficlen~ fashion. Review of =hess chara¢~erisuics indicates tha% these locations are well suited to accommodate these higher density condi=iona! uses, as well as the permitted uses proposed in the amendment. Ex~ibi~ C iden~ifies existing uses within the Curren~ R-O Zonin~ Districts. As the table illustrates, the majority of =hess facilities are condi~ion&l uses and are o~fice or clinic in nature. There are currently three apartments located within ~-0 Districts. Based on the current Ordinance, ~hese uses are no~ defined as being permitted, although their nature is quite compatible with the location and surrounding land uses. Under the proposed amendment, these uses would become permi~ted in =he ~ R-0 District. Based on %he current Ordinance, there is only one non-conforming use in any of these R-O Zoning Districts. The Ambassador Health Care Center is not conforming wi~h the current Ordinance, al=hough the nature of this use is also ~enerally compatible with the location, adjacent land uses, and intent of the zonin~ 3 dis=tic=. Under the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, =his non-conforming use would become a conforming condi~ional ExhiDi= C also .identifies the curren~ lot sizes within the existing R-0 Zoning Districts. These lots sizes are generally small, rangin~ from .2 acres to 4.5 acres in size. These smaller lot sizes assist in ensuring uses which are limited in size and compatible with adjacent residential uses. CONCLUSION Two zoning text inconsistencies ~ave been identi~ied within the R-0 Zonin~ District text. The first inconsistency is the failure to identify permitted uses within =he R-O District. The second inconsistency is =he failure to include conditional uses from the less intense R-$ and R-4 Dis=riots. A study of the City's zoning distrio= hierarchy and Zonin~ Ordinance forma~ indicates ~hat permitted and conditional uses allowed in all less intense residential districts would be aDpropria=e and consistent with the purpose of the R-O Zonin~ District. The impac~ of the chan~es would De relatively minimal to the current func=ionin~ of the City. The location and the characteristics of current R-0 Zoning Districts would easily accommodate the additional uses while remaining comDa=ible with les~ intense residential uses. Furthermore, many existing uses in these districts which are compatible and approDriate would become conformin~ wlt~ =he revised Ordinance. Based on these considerations, our office suggests the amendments to the R-0 Zonin~ District text which are identified in the issues and analysis section of the report. SE P-- I ~--9 I FR [ 1 I = 48 0 P . 06 EXHIBIT A NEW HOP~ RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT HIERARCHY 4.05 R-1. SINC=LE FA~4ILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 4.0S1 ~UrD_ose. The purpose of the R-l, Single Family Residential District is to provide for iow density single family detached residential dwelling units and directly related, accessory and complementa=y uses. 4.06 R-2. ~INGLE AND TWO F~MILY RESIDENTIAL_DISTrICT 4.061 ~rp_ose. The purpose of the R-Z, Single and Two Family Residential District is to provide ~or low density one and two unit dwellings and directly re!aued, complementary uses. 4.07 R-~. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDBNTIAL DJSTRICT 4.071 ~ The puzl0ose of the R-~, Medium Density Residential District is =o provide for medium density housin~ in townhouses and multiple family structures and directly related complementary uses. 4.08 ~-4. HIgH DR~SITY RB$IDENTIAL DISTRICT 4.081 ~ T~e purpose of the ~-4, High Density aesidential District is to provide for high density residential uses, and directly related uses. 4.08A ~-6. SENIOR..CITIZEN RESXDENTIAL HOUSIN~ 4.08A1 ~ The purpose of :he R-S, Senior Citizen Residential Housing District is to provide areas within =he City which are particularly suitable as to location and amenities for elderly housing, and to limit the development of such districts to this type of residential construction, and directly related complementary uses. 4.09 R-O. RESID~NTIAL-OFF~CE DISTRICT 4.091 ]~ The purpose of the R-O, Residential-Office District is to provide for high density resident!al use and for the transition in land use from mid-density residential to low intensity business allowing for the intermixin~ of such uses. $ E P -- i ~ -- 9 I f R I I I : 42 0 P . ~XHIBIT C ~X~STIN~US~RS ~THE H-O ZONIN~DISTRXCTS Text Size i. $220 Bass Lake Road Office CUP 4.5 2. Bass Lake Pet Hospital Clinic CUP 3. Bass Lake Professional Bldg. Office CUP 1.0 Apar=ment Building Apartment N/A .5 4. 7332 Bass Lake Road Eye Care Center Clinic CUP .3 5. winnetka Dental Clinic CUP ~. Royal Oak Ap&r=men~s ADar~r~e~t N/A 42nd/Zealand Apart~nents Apartment N/A Heri=age Dental Care Clinic CUP 7. Louisiana Avenue O~fice Office CUP 8. New Hope Animal ~ospi~al Clinic CUP 1.0 Cen=ury 21 Building 0f:ice CUP .5 Vacant Parcel Vacant N/A .9 9. Northwes= Professional Office/ Buildin~ Office Clinic CUP 1.7 10. Vacant Building Office CUP .8 Sta~e Farm Insurance Bldg. 0f~ice CUP 11. Ambassador Health Care Center Nursin~ Home Non- 3.3 Conforming 12. 27~8 Winneuka Enterprise Bi~. Office CUP .6 ~IBIT ¢+ Existing Uses Within the R-O Zoning District-1991 # Address: Use: Text Use: Lot Area: 1. 9220 Bass Lake Road Office CUP 4.5 acres 2. 8119 Bass Lake Road Vet Clinic CUP .5 " 3. 7600 Bass Lake Road Office CUP 1.0 " 4. 7610 Bass Lake Road Apts. CUP* .5 " 5. 5617 Pennsylvania Apts. CUP* .3 " 6. 7332 Bass Lake Road Office/Optical CUP .2 " 7. 5001 Winnetka Dental Office CUP .5 " 8. 4200 Zealand Apts. CUP* .66" 9. 8500 42nd Avenue Dental Office CUP .75" 10. 8420 42nd Avenue Apts. CUP* .72" 11. 4215 Louisiana Ave. Dental Lab. CUP .2 " 12. 3900 Winnetka Avenue Church/Day Care CUP 3.9 " 13. 3709 Winnetka Avenue Vet Clinic CUP 1.0 " 14. 3701 Winnetka Avenue Office (Vacant) CUP .45" 15. 9401-9413 36th Ave. Office CUP 1.5 " 16. 9398 27th Avenue Home Non-Conforming .8 " 17. 9390 27th Avenue Office CUP .8 " 18. 8100 27th Avenue Nursing Home Accessory* 3.8 19. 2738 Winnetka Avenue Office CUP .5 TOTAL 22.58 /4 09 "R-O" RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE DISTRICT 4.091 Purpose. The purpose of the MR-O' Residential-office District is to provide for high density residential use and for the transition in land use from mid-density residential to low intensity business allowing for the intermixing of such uses. 4 09 P rmitted Accessor Uses R-O .. ~ ! . The following are permitted accessory uses in an "R-O' District: (1) Less Intensity Use District. Ail permitted uses allowed in an "R-4" District. 4.093 Conditional Uses~ R-O. The following are conditional uses in an "E-O" District: (Requires a Conditional Use Permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20, and compliance with 4.036, Parking; 4.037, Off-Street Loading; Chapter 3, Signing) (1) Less Intensive Use District. Ail condi~AiD~al uses, subject to ~ sa-~~ti-~s~ ~iowed in a~District. (2) Medical; Professional and Commercial. Hospitals, medical offices and clinics, dental offices and clinics, veterinarian clinics when completely enclosed, ~rofessional offices and commercial offices and funeral homes and mortuaries provided that: (a) Street Access. The site and related parking and service entrances are served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. (b) Traffic Flow. Vehicular entrances to parking or service areas shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. (c) Buffers. When abutting an "R-I", "R-2", "R-3", or "R-4" District, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with Section 4.033 (3) shall be provided. Parking. Parking facilities for adjacent commercial or multiple dwelling (Requires a Conditional Use Permit based upon procedures in 4.20, and compliance with 4.036, Off-Street Parking; 4.033 (3), Screening). (a) Excess of Requirements for Principal Use. Such parking is in excess of that required on the lot upon which the principal use is located. (b) Street Access. The site of the principal use and its related parking is served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. / 4-57 ~ 0726~4 (4) Retail Commercial. Retail commercial activities provided that: (a) Sales at Retail. Merchandise is sold at retail. (b) Principal Use. The retail activity is located within a structure whose principal use is not commercial sales. (c) Area. The retail activity shall not occupy more than fifteen percent or the gross floor area of the building. (d) Not in Residential. The retail activity is not located within a structure whose principal use is residential. (e) Additional Signing Requirement. NO directly or indirectly illuminated sign or s~gn ~n excess of ten square feet identifying the name of the business shall be visible from the outside of the building, and no signs or posters of any type advertising products for sale shall be visible from the outside of the building. (5) Combined Residential and Non-Residential. Buildings combining resldentlaf and non-residential uses allowed in this District provldea that: (a)Separate Floors. Resiaential and non-residential uses shall not be contalnea on ~ne same floor. (b) Conflict o~ uses. The residential and non-residential uses shall not conflict ~n any manner. 4-58 072684 4.08, 4.081, 4.082, 4.083, 4.084 (~)(2) I. I4.08 "R-4" HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 4.081 Purpose. The purpose of the "R-4" High Density Residential District is ~o provide for high density'residential uses, and directly related I uses · 4.082 Permitted Uses~ R-4. The following are permitted uses in an "R-4" I Distr~c~: (1) Less Intensive Use District. All permitted uses allowed in an "R-3" Dis~r~c~. I (2) Club or Lodge without the Serving of Food or Beveraq-. I Family Dwellings. (3) Multiple 4.083 Accessory Uses Permitted, R-4. The following are permitted accessory Iuses ~n an "R-4" D~strAct: (1) Less Intensive Use District. Ail permitted accessory uses as i allowed in an "R-3" Distr~ct. 4.084 Conditional Uses, R-4. The following are conditional uses in an "R-4" Dlstr~c=: (Requlres a conditional use permit based upon procedures set I < forth in and regulated by Section 4.20 of th~s Code, and compliance with Chapter 3, Signing, 4.036, Parking, and 4.037, Off-Street Loading). i (1) Less Intensive Use District. Ail conditional uses, subject to the same conditions, as allowed in an "R-3" District. (2)~_~ursin~ Homes.'~ Nursing homes, but not including hospi=als, ~a~eum: .er-similar institutions, provided that: (a) Side Yards, Double. Side yards are double the minimum requirements established for this District and are screened in compliance with Section 3, 4.033 (3). (b) Rear Yard Requirements. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational areas. Said area shall be fenced J and controlled and screened in compliance wi~h Section 4.033 (3). (c) Street Access. The site shall be served by an arterial or collec%or street of sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic which will be generated. J (d) Permits and State Laws. Ail state laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to and all required operating permits are secured. 4-53 072684 ! ~.08, (2) - (4)(a) I (3~ A~art-ment~Density iBonus. Except for elderly housing, a maximum ~--'~---r~ty percent reduction in square feet of lot area per unit for multiple family dwellings of ten units or more as required in Section 4.035 based upon the following bonus features and square foot reduction: Square Foot Bonus Feature Reduction Per Unit (a) Construction. Type two construction 100 square feet (b) Elevator. Elevator serving each floor 50 square feet (c) Underground Parking. Two-thirds of the required free par~ng underground or with the principal structure (not including attached or detached garages). 150 square feet (d) Recreation, Indoor. Indoor recreation and social rooms equal to twenty-five square feet per unit or seven hundred fifty square feet total, whichever is greater. 50 square feet (e) Recreation~ Outdoor. Major outdoor recreational facilitles such as swimming pools, tennis courts or simllar facilities requiring a substantial investment equaling at minimum five percent of t~e construction cost o~ the principal structure 20 square feet (f) Public Transit. Transit service available within three ~undred feet of entrance 50 square feet (~. Elderly Hous~ Elderly (Senior Citizen) housing provided requirements are met as to procedure, 4.20; 4.036, Parking; 4.037, Off-Street Parking; 4.033 (3), Screening; Chapter 3, Signing; and provided t~at: (a) A~e Limit. Not more than ten percent of the occupants may be persons sixty years of age or under (spouse of a person over sixty years of age or caretakers, etc.) (b) Public Transit. The site of the main entrance of the principal use is served or is locate~ wi%bin four hundred fee~ of regular transit service. (c) A~e Certification Required. To continue to qualify for the elderly housing classification, the owner or agency shall I annually ~ile wit~ t~e City Cler~ and the Building O~ficial a certified copy of a monthly resume of occupants of such a multiple dwelling, listing the number of tenants by age and clearly identifying and se~ting forth the relationship of all occupants sixty years of age or under to qualified tenants, or to the building. 4-54 07268& 4.064 (4) (d) - ((h). 4.084 4.084 (6) Street Access. The site of the principal use and its related parking is served by an arterial or collector street. (e) State Buildin: Code. The principal use structure is in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code. (f) Elevators. Elevator service is provided to each floor level. (g) Open SO,ge. Useable open space as defined in Section 4.022 at a m~nimum is equal to twenty percent of the gross lot area. (h) ShoooinF Access. The site of the main entrance of the princ~pai use is within four hundred feet of commercial shopping development or adequate provision for access to such facilities is provided. (5) Height Exceedinq 3 Floors. Buildings in excess of three stories provided that procedures of 4.20 are met and provided that: (a) Suitability. The site is capable of accommodating the increased lntensity of use. (b) Traffic. The increased intensity of use does not cause an incraase in traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding streets. (c) Utilities. Public utilities and services are adequate. (d) Adde~ Set-Backs. For each additional story over three stories or for each additional ten feet above forty feet, front and side yard setback requirements shall be increased by five feet. (6_~J~uu Cars_ Facilitv~.A~.. state licensed facility serving seventeen or more~-~ .... ~ (Code 072684, Ord. 85-2) 4-55 0?2684 4.06, 4.061, 4.062 (1) - (2), 4.063 4.064 (1) - (2), 4.07, 4.071, 4.072 4.06 "R-2"_SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 4.061 Purpose. The purpose of the "R-2" Single and Two Family Residential District is to provide for low density one and two unit dwellings and directly related, complementary uses. 4.062 Permitted Usesr R-2. The following are permitted uses in a "R-2' District: (1) Less Intensive Use District. All permitted uses allowed in an 'R-l" District. (2) Two Family. Two family dwelling units. 4.063 Accessory Uses Permittedr R-2. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "R-2" District: m · (1) Less Intensive Use District. Ail accessory uses as allowed in an mR-l" District. m 4.064 Conditional Usesr R-2. The following are conditional uses in a District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20) I (1)Less Intensive Use District. All conditional uses and subject to the same conditions as required in an 'R-l' District. (Code 072684) (2) Deleted. m (Code 072684, Ord. 85-2) 4.07 "R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT I 4.071 Purpose. The purpose of the 'R-3" Medium Density Residential District m is to provide for medium density housing in townhoUses and multiple family structures and directly related complementary uses. 4.072 Permitted Usesr R-3. The following are permitted uses in an "R-3' m District: (1)Multiple Family. Multiple family dwelling structure containing twelve or less dwelling units. houses limited to not more than ten m (2) Boardinq Houses. Boarding resident persons. (Ord. 84-3) m (3) Deleted. (Ord. 84-3, 85-2) 4-50 072684 I 4.072 (4)-(7), 4.073, ¢.074 (4) Day_Care Facility. A state licensed facility serving thirteen to sixteen persons. (Ord. 84-3, 85-2) (5) Public Parks and Playgrounds. (6) Essential Services. (See definition). (Ord. 84-3) (7) Deleted. (Ord. 84-3, 84-16, 85-1, 85-2) 4.073 Accessory Usesr R-3. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "R-3" District: (1) Less Intensive Use District. All permitted accessory uses allowed in an "R-2" District. (2) Off-Street Loading. 4.07~"'Conditional Uses, R-3.~'~The following are conditional uses in an · D~strzcu (~equires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20 and 4.036, Parking; 4.037, off- street loading) (1) Less Intensive Use District. All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions, allowed in an "R-2" District. (Code 072684) ~ ( _~Day /a~e.~ state licensed facility serving seventeen or more ~-m-~~ov i ded that: (a) Front Set Back. The front yard depth is a minimum of thirty feet. (b) Off-Street Parking. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Section 4.036 of this Code. (c) Off-Street Loading. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with section 4.037 of this Code. (d) Street Access. The site and related parking and service is served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. (e) General Conditional Use Requirements. The provisions of section 4.21 through 4.212(6)(c) of this Code are sari sfacorily met. (f) State Regulations. The regulations and conditions of Minn. Rules Part 9545.0510 through 9545.0670 are satisfactorily met. No facility shall begin operation without a state license as required by the regulations referred to in this sub-secton [f). 4.074 (2)(g) ~ (4)(g) (g) Buildin~ and Fire Code. That all applicable provisions of the Minnesota State Building Code and Fire Code have been met. That the City Building Official and Fire Marshall shall inspect the property prior to the issuance of the conditional use permit to determine if this sub-section of this Code has been complied with. (Code 072684, Ord. 85-2,.85-7) (3) Townhouses. Townhouses as defined by Section 4.022 provided that the regulations and requirements of Section 4.19 are satisfactorily completed and met. (Code 072684) (4) Group Care Facility. A state licensed facility serving seven to sixteen persons provided that the following conditions are met for the protection of the residents of the facility: (a) The facility is licensed by the State of Minnesota and the operator of the facility provides documentation of compliance with all applicable Federal, State, Metropolitan and County regulations. (b) The facility is in compliance with and is maintained in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code and Uniform Building Code. (c) The facility is in compliance with all regulations as determined by the City Director of Fire and Safety or his designated agent. (d) The facility is not located within one thousand three hundred twenty feet of any similar type use or care facility. (e) The entrance of the facility is located within four hundred feet of a public transit route and stop, and pedestrian access is available, or the operators provide a transportation/access plan which is found acceptable by the City Council. (f) The operation is subject to annual review and continual monitoring by the City's Human Services Committee and is found to be in compliance with all applicable construction and operation regulations and standards. (g)The criteria as specified in Section 4.212 of this Ordinance are considered and found to be satisfactorily met. (Ord. 85-2) 072684 October 3, 1991 Kirk McDonald Hanagement Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: R-O Text Amendment Our File No. 99.49117 Dear Kirk: Please ~ind enclosed a proposed Ordinance for amending the New Hope Zoning Code by expanding permitted and conditional uses in the R-O Zontng District for consideration at the public hearing before the next Planning Commission meeting. Basically, the Ordinance incorporates the recommended changes received from Northwest Associated Consultants in its September 13th, 1991 memo. Adoption of the enclosed Ordinance would mean that all permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, and conditional uses allowed in the R-4 Distric~ would also be allowed in the R-O Dis=riot, The Ordinance also amends the numbering scheme w~hin Section 4.09 of our Code. [~ there are any ques[tong, please con~act me. Very truly yours, Steven A. $ondrall Enclosure cc: Daniel J. Donahue, CJ%y Hanager A1Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, thC. [) C T -- ~ -- 9 1 T H U 1 1 : 0 2 C 0 R R I C K & S 0 N D R A L L. P . 0 ~ ORDINANCE NO, 91- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY EXPANDING PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE R-O ZONING DISTRICT The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.092 ."Permitted Accessory Uses, R-O" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by renumbering said section as ~4.093. Section 2, Section 4.093 "Conditional Use~, R-O" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by renumbering said section as §4.094. S_.ectimn 3. Section 4.092 "Permitted Uses, R~" of %he New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: 4.092 ~e~mi~tted.Uses, R-O. The fol]owln9 are permitted uses in the R-O District: (1) Less Zntens~...Use District. All permi~e_q! uses allowed in an R-4 Distr~c~. Section 4, Section 4.093 (1)"Less Int~,Osi%y Use_D~stric~" of the New Hops City Code as renumbered in Section 1 above is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) Less ~ Intensive U$_e~D~.$trict. All permitted accessory uses a~lowed in an "R-4" District. ~ec~ion 5. Section 4,094 (1)"Less Intensive Use O~s%ric%" of %he New Hope City Code as renumbered in Sec%ion 2 above ts hereby amended %o read as follows: (1) ~ess Intensive Use D~s%rt~t. A]I condi%iona~ uses, subject %o the same conditions, as a]~owed ~n an "~,, . ~ .... R-4" District. OCT-- S--9 1 THU i I :0~ CORR I CK Sectioo._6. Effec%ive Date. This ¢ upon its passage and public&~ion. Dated the day of Edw Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Vall , 1991.) CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-22 Request: Request for A Conditional Use Permit to Allow Establishment of a Pre- school and Child Care Center Location: 3701 Winnetka Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21-44-0038 Zoning: R-O (Residential Office) Petitioner: Rohan/Helen DeAlwis Report Date: October 4, 1991 Meeting Date: October 8, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow establishment of a pre- school and child care center, pursuant to Sections 4.093(1), 4.064(1), and 4.054(1) of the New Hope Code. 2. This case was presented at the September 3, 1991, Planning Commission meeting and staff recommended the case be tabled for one month to resolve a number of issues on the site plan and to allow the City Attorney, Planning Consultant, and Codes & Standards Committee to examine the zoning code regarding a text change. 3. The staff is recommending a zoning code text change to correct several inconsistencies in the R-O District, which is addressed in Planning Case 91-31. As the code presently exists, day care facilities are allowed in the R-O District only as an accessory use of a building used for educational or religious purposes. Yet they are allowed as a free- standing principal use in the less intense R-3 District. If the text change is approved, the Montessori School would be allowed as a principal use in the R-O District by conditional use permit. 4. The petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee on September 12th and a number of issues were discussed including: new curb cut, playground area, parking spaces, drop-off area, landscaping, hours of operation, number of employees/children, trash storage, signage, retaining wall, curbing, lighting, and posting of bond to install drive-thru at later date. Staff met with the petitioner subsequent to Design & Review and revised plans were submitted as a result of both meetings. 5. Although it is not necessary to renotify residents after an initial public hearing notice is published, due to the fact that the meeting date was changed and there were several residents from 37th Avenue present at the first meeting when this case was discussed, the City did notify 37th Avenue residents about the meeting date change. Planning Case Report 91-22 October 8, 1991 Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. The revised plan addresses a number of concerns raised by staff and Design & Review, including: A. A day care identification sign and traffic signage (enter, one-way, exit, do not enter, drop-off/parking) has been added to the site plan and complies with the sign ordinance. B. The location of the fence surrounding the playground has been revised to coincide with the topography of the property. C. Engineered steps and retaining walls have been added to the plan. D. Trash enclosure with cedar board screen wall has been added. E. New landscaping and planters added on north side of building, new sod added on north property line. F. Parking revised to show 11 spaces, including one handicapped space. G. New drop-off/drive-thru area with directional arrows and curb cut shown on the plan be added in future. H. Guard rail has been added to retaining wall. I. Entire parking area to be repaved and striped with 8'9"x 19' stalls with continuous curbing on north property line. 2. As per the attached Planner's Report on parking, the New Hope Code currently requires 14 spaces at the site based on four spaces plus one for each three beds provided. Staff has interpreted "beds' to be 'children" and 30 children -- 10 additional spaces. The existing parking requirements raise some confusion as to how they should be applied to contemporary day care centers. The Codes & Standards Committee recommended that the City establish a new parking standard for pre-school/day care facilities which is based on number of employees and student capacity. A formal change in the requirements will not be considered prior to the review of this request, but should be taken into consideration when reviewing the site plan. The f'mal recommendation from Design & Review was for the plan to show no less than 10 spaces and to post a bond for the installation of a drive-thru drop-offarea within one year, pending the outcome of any change in child care parking requirements. Planning Case Report 91-22 October 8, 1991 Page -3- RECOMlVlENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow a day care facility in the R-O Zoning District, subject to the following conditions: 1. Obtain Hennepin County Curb Cut Permit within 60 days of Council approval 2. Shift new south driveway a minimum of 5 feet away from south property line. 3. Restripe parking lot in white, per the approved plan. 4. Provide 18-foot wide "Drop-Off Lane" with four 8' x 20' parallel drop-off spaces striped along the west side, including curbing and sidewalk before October 15, 1992. 5. Install all new sod and landscaping prior to May 1, 1992. 6. Execute a development agreement with the City concerning site improvements and provide suitable bond. 7. Submit landscape schedule with plan. 8. Review and approval of plan by City Engineer. Attachments: Revised Plan September Planning Case Report Planning Consultant Report Report on Parking Standards REVISED PLAN NEW HOPE MONTIni (~41LD CA~E CENTER REVISED PLAN CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-22 Request: Request for A Conditional Use Permit to Allow Establishment of a Pre- school and Child Care Center Location: 3701 Winnetka Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21-44-0038 Zoning: R-O (Residential Office) Petitioner: RohardHelen DeAlwis Report Date: August 30, 1991 Meeting Date: September 3, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow establishment of a pre- school and child care center, pursuant to Sections 4.093(1), 4.064(1), and 4.054(1)of the New Hope Code. 2. State licensed day care facilities serving 13 or more people are allowed by conditional use if specific conditions are met. 3. The Bassett Creek Montessori School wants to establish a Montessori Pre-school/Child Care facility in the New Hope area to serve the communities of New Hope, Plymouth, Crystal, and Golden Valley. The petitioner states they have received many inquiries from residents in this area who are in need of quality pre-school programs and child care facilities for their children. Petitioner states that surveys indicated an immediate need for pre-school, latch-key and child care programs due to the substantial population growth in the pre-school/kindergarten age group. 4. Petitioner is interested in purchasing the vacant office building at 3701 Winnetka Avenue for this purpose due to its convenient location and good accessibility. 5. The school plans to enroll approximately 30 students in the age group of 33 months to 6 years. Extra-curricular activities would be conducted in addition to the regular school programs. 6. The school's hours of operation would be from 7:00 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday, on a year-round basis. The staff at the facility will consist of a Directress and three teachers/assistants. 7. Petitioner plans to do basic remodeling on the interior of the building by removing partition walls to make the space more functional. A fenced playground area with playground equipment is proposed for the west side of the building. 8. The property is zoned R-O, Residential Office, and surrounding zoning/land uses include: New Hope Animal Hospital to the north (R-O), Northwood Park/Bassett Creek to the south and west (R-l), and Bethel Cemetery in Crystal to the east across Winnetka Avenue. Planning Case Report 91-22 September 3, 1991 Page -2- 9. The parcel contains .6acres and the building contains 3,100 square feet (on two floors). 10. The topography of the site is gently sloping on the northeast and slopes severely on the south and west towards the floodplain. 11. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have been contacted by one resident who is adamantly opposed to the establishment of a day care/school at this site due to the increased noise and traffic they feel will be generated. ANALYSIS 1. The conditions that must be met for the establishment of a day care facility include the following: A. Accessory_ Use - the day Care facility is an accessory use of a building used for educational or religious purposes. B. Hours of Ope_ ration - facilities operating hours are limited to 6:30am to 6:30pm. C. Front Yard Setback -minimum of 30 feet. D. Off-street Parking -adequate parking and access provided in compliance with City Code. E. Off-street Loading -adequate off-street loading and service entrances must be provided. F. Outdoor Play Area - outdoor play areas are landscaped and screened form abutting residential properties. G. Street Access - the site and parking is served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic that will be generated. FI. ~- all signing in compliance with City Code. I. General Conditional Use Rea_uirements to be met. $. State Regulations -no facility shall begin operation without a state license. K. Building and Fire Codes - all applicable building and fire codes to be complied with. 2. In addition, the following general CUP requirements are to be met: A. Traffic - non-residential traffic to be channeled onto thoroughfares and not onto minor residential arterials. B. ~-proposed use to be sufficientlY separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be materially depreciated in value. C. Compatible Ap_vearance -the structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Planning Case Report 91-22 September 3, 1991 Page -3- 3. The staff finds that items ID (off-street parking), 1E (off-street loading), and 1K (building and fire codes) need to be addressed and corrected. 4. A total of 14 parking spaces are required for 30 students and only 11 are shown on the site plan. 5. Loading (drop-off and pickup) is inadequate. 6. Building code issues have not been resolved. 7. The following site improvements are necessary (Refer to Staff Exhibit A): A. Green area needs to be restored on northeast comer (area Z) to include removal of asphalt and installation of sod to correct non-conformity and match new development to north (Animal Hospital). B. Restripe parking lot with 11 spaces, per City Code (8'9" wide) and provide 12' wide end space for handicapped parking. C. Provide revised, detailed site plan with one-way drop-off/pickup lane added (similar to exhibi0. Provide curbing on the new drive, signage and one-way arrows on asphalt. Filling will be required and a Curb Cut Permit from Hennepin County (County responded favorably to a new one-way curb cu0. D. Owner must prove that employee/visitor/customer parking needs will be handled with 11 spaces or expand lot. There is room to west for parking expansion. The revised side plan could illustrate 11 stalls plus "future 3 stalls", so if need develops these stalls could be required. E. Building Code issue need to be resolved. F. Retaining wail in rear of property is deteriorating and requires an engineered rebuilding. G. Building and grounds appear to be seriously neglected from the exterior and entire property needs upgrading. H. Additional landscaping in the front and north side yard is needed. There is also a problem with the Zoning Code text. The same conditional uses allowed in the R-O District are allowed in the R-2 District and the same uses allowed in the R-2 District are allowed in R-1 District. Day care facilities are listed as a Conditional Use in the R-1 District, however one of the conditions is that the day car facility is an accessory use of a building used for educational or religious purposes. This Montessori School is intended as a principal use - not an accessory use. Public Educational and Religious Buildings are also allowed as conditional uses, however it is questionable whether this "school" fits that definition and/or whether or not a use can be an accessory use unto itself. Planning Case Report 91-22 September 3, 1991 Page -4- The City's Planning Consultant has reviewed this issue and feels that a day care facility was intended to be a principal - not an accessory use - and that there is an error in the text of the ordinance. Or else the R-O District should roll-over to the R-3 District, which allows day care centers as a principal use. In any case, a text amendment or a clarification of the ordinance should be sought. The City Attorney also agrees that there is a glitch in the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Due to the number of issues that must be resolved on the site plan, staff recommends tabling the case for one month until new plans can be submitted. A Zoning Code text change should also be explored by the Codes & Standards Committee so that a text change could be considered at the next Commission meeting. Attachments: Zoning/Section Maps Petitioners' Letter Site Plan with Recommended Revisions Floor Plans Building Elevation GETHSEMANE ~.~ c~ CEME:TER¥ ISCHOOL, BETHEL CEMETERY HOLY NATIVITY LUTN~AR~,,,,~o - P. HI,IIICN BASSETT CREEK MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4735 Bassett Creek Drive Golden Valley MN 55422 (612) 521-2232 August 7, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope MN 55428 Request for a coditional use permit to establish a Montessori Pre-School/Child Care Center Dear Members; The Bassett Creek Montessori School, is interested in establishing a Montessori Pre-School/Child Care facility in the New Hope area, to serve the communities of New Hope, Plymouth, Crystal and West Golden Valley. We have recei,~e.~ many inquiries from residents in the above mentioned areas, who are in need of quality Pre-school programs and Child care facilities for their children. Further more, the said areas have in the recent years experienced a substantial population growth in the Pre-school/Kindergarten age group, and our surveys indicate that an immediate need exists for Pre-school programs, Programs for young school age children (Latch-Key) and Child Care facilities. We have located a suitable building in New Hope, which we are intereste] in purchasing fo the above mentioned purpose. The said building is conveniently loc~' and is easily accessible to residents in New Hope~ Plymouth, Crystal and to many parents who are employed in the area. Hence, we wish to kindly request that a cone~' use permit be issued, in order to establish a Montessori Pre-School and a Child Cane Center at 3701, Winnetka Ave. N. New Hope, provided the said property is approved by the City of New Hope. The Bassett Creek Montessori School plans to enroll approximately 30 students, primaryly in the Pre-school/Kindergarten age group of 33 mos.to 6 yrs. The school will offer a Montessori Pre-School program, Kindergarten and a Latch-Key program. In addition to the above programs, extra-curricular activities such as ~usi~ & creative movements, Swimming, Computor classes, Spanish, French, Drama, Arts & Craft~. Field trips, etc. will be conducted. These programs and activities are both enjoyable and a valuable learning experience to the children. The school will operate from 7.00 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. Monday through Friday year round. The academic year is from September to May, and A fun-filled Summer program is offered June through August, which lays more emphasis on extra-curricular/Outdoor activities. The school will have a fenced Play ground with suitable play ground eqpt. and will be located on the west side of the building. The staff in the facility will consists of a Directress, and approximately three Teacher/Assistants. The school plans to do basic remodeling in the interior of the building by removing some partion walls, to make the space more functional and appropriate for the operation of a Child care facility. We would greately appreciate if the above request is given due consideration.. and we will be happy to provide you with any other information you may require. Thank You, Sincere]~, !: ...~,._-~... , .~-.~i'''= ._:.,~ ~' , ~ ' ' _L ' :~,""~' ~ ' I . . , ,~l~il,~,~,~-,.-'l ~v~',~J. ~.~ ~ -- .- , '- I. ..~..,.,,.,.. ·-,~,r,.:~ ~'"' ]~.. · 1~ ' { ,4 L"'-"~-"4~ ' '..~' '' L'I, r, ---.~T .... IT- _'L". ~J , .,_,~ , -...-:~ ~ --~- :.._~_,.~ .... ,, bi'',',.,'~-"- ~, J'.. ""' .... !i '' "-" "".~'"'""""~ ~ ........ .-_. ~ ~..H.~,,,. !,-,~ ] . ..., ':~.c_:.. _. ~.' _.. 2 :.. :'ii ~ ! THE MONTE$SOHI METHOD &t the turn of the century, Dr. ~ariaMontessori began a revolution in education. ~aria Monteooori was · biolo~lst, scientist and ·leo a woman of profound reli6icus feelin6s. She believed that education must meet the needs of the whole childs his Bind, his body &nd his Ipirit. Her ~pproach to teachin~ was built upon respect for the child. Dr. Montsssori asserted that children ·re capable cf learnin~ mathematics and of acquirin6 readin~ ·nd writin~ skills at a youn~ ·~e ~iven the opportunity and help. This capability ~rows from the childts innate desire to learn rather than from adult pressure. Utilizin6 her skills ef scientific observation, Dr. Montessori carefully watched children over ·.number of years, ·nd ~ained new insights into the nature of childhood learnin~. Abandonin~ the traditions of format classrooms, Maria Montsss~ri created a new classroom environment scaled to the child and to his need. The ~re~ared environment offers the child security of order. There is · place for everytbir~ and everythin~ in its place. The sense of order, prevalent in a Montessori classroom, diminishes frustration and ~ives the child satisfaction and self-direction. The Montessori apparatus, designed by Dr. Monteseori, is the salient in6redient in the prepared environment. The apparatus enables the child to order and to classify his environment and the many diverse sensations provided by it. Concludin6 that the first avenue to the intellect is throu6h the senses, Dr. Mon~essori made apparatus which can be manipulated sensorially. The train£n~ and sharpenin~ of the senses enlarges the field or perception and offers a solid foundation for intellectual ~rowth. Each piece of sensorial apparatus isolates one quality to be learned; for example, color and size. The sensorial apparatus is only one segment of the Montessori materials. The other areas are= practical life, language, mathematics ·nd cultural subjec=s. The practical file ·rea ~ives the child ·n opportunity to perform real everyday activities. It is divided in~o two ~roups~ activities related to the child's own person, such as le&rn£n~ to button and to tie a bow; ·nd activities concerned with care of the environment, such · s washin~ · table and poli.shin~ silver. The development of language that occurs ~n the Montessori Method follows the components of lan~ua~e~ sound, then words; and then arrangement of sentences. Montessori takes the language that already . exists in · child and helps him classify this sxistin6 language. "~he aim of the Monteesori ~athe~&tical apparatus ie to give a child a chance to verify facts through experience and to exercise his innate potentialities. Dr. ~ontesoori analyzed all the difficulties of mathematics and them presented them separately by means of concrete apparatus. The cultural_area'..covere subjects such as geography, history, art, music, botany, science, and zoology. Each subject is approached by first givings child a sensorial experience and second by giving him spoken and then written language for the contents of each subject. The Nonteaeori apparatus has many characteristics but there are fundamental qualitie~ common to every piece of material. They are as follows: 1. The Control of Error. The materials contain in themselves a control of error which makes the child use his reasoning power, increase his capacity for drawing distimctions and promotes independence. 2..A~.~a-~.~c~. All material8 are made as attractive as possible. Color, brightness and proportion are sought in all the materials. 3. ActivitF. A key factor in all the Montessori materials is that it lends itself to the motor activities of the child. Every object can be removed, used, and taken back to its proper place. The Monteseori materials are designed with scientific precision. Each has a definite aim. They give the child clear impressions, help him organize his environment, develop his muscular coordination and permit his experiencing the Joy of accomplishment. Discipline i~ central to the ~ontessori class. There is no learning without discipline. The authority of the teacher is replaced by the individual inner discipline in the children as the year progresses. In keeping order, children often teach one another more than an adult ~an. In a Monteseori class, the virtUes of character are.as highly prized as academic achievement. Children grow not only in/self-confidence, but also in a sense cf responsibility, lmtellect, physical powers, and moral insight must all be developed if a child is to be prepared to meet the demands of life. The center of the Montessori Method is the child. The prepared environment, the apparatus, the philosophy behind the technique all flow from an understanding of the child and · respect for his worth. Nor west ssociated Consultan s, Inc. U R B P L A N NG · DES I G N M A R K E T R S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Elizabeth Stockman/Alan Brixius DATE: 1 October 1991 RE: New Hope Montessori Pre-School and Child Care Center FILE NO: 131.01 - 91.22 Background: The applicant, Mr. Rohan DeAlwis, has submitted plans to the City of New Hope for a Montessori Pre-School and Child Care Center. Request for approval of such a facility also includes a conditional use permit request for location within the R-O, Residential Office Zoning District. The site, located at 3701 Winnetka Avenue North, was previously occupied by Century 21 Realty Company. The applicant proposes to reuse the existing building. Attached for reference: Exhibit A Site Location Exhibit B - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit C - Proposed Revisions Recou~uendation: Based upon the succeeding review and analysis, we recommend approval of the submitted site plan, provided the following conditions are resolved: 1. Approval of a conditional use permit to allow location of the pre-school/day care facility within the R-O Zoning District. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555 .St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 2. The applicant must obtain a State license prior to any operation of the facility. 3. Revise the submitted plans to show a total of 14 parking spaces, as required by Ordinance. 4. Revise the submitted plans to show construction of the drop- off/loading lane at the time of initial parking lot installation or set a security amount to ensure construction of such at a later date. 5. Renovate existing site and structural components to meet with all necessary State Building Code requirements. Provide and maintain an appearance which does not adversely affect adjacent properties. 6. Review of the submitted plan by the City Engineer to ensure that proper grades have been maintained throughout the proposed parking and drive areas to ensure adequate site drainage. 7. Review of the submitted plan by the City Engineer to ensure that steeply sloped areas on the west and south portions of the site are properly graded and vegetated for erosion control given the proposed additions of impervious parking/drive surfaces. 8. Submittal of a detailed landscape plan to show the locations, types, and sizes of proposed plantings, as well as those to be preserved. 9. Submittal of a detailed signage plan which shows the type, size and location of desired sign(s) on site. ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Site Arrangement. The .6 acre subject site is presently vacant, although a building is located upon the property which was previously owned and operated by Century 21 Realty Company. The 3,100 square foot structure remains in fairly good condition overall, although a retaining wall and lower level entrance a~ the rear of the building appear dilapidated. The shrubbery turfed areas are overgrown and have not been maintained recently. Adjacent land uses include a veterinary clinic to the north the site and Northwood Creek to the south and west, which is steeply sloped and heavily vegetated. Bethel Cemetery is located across Winnetka Avenue to the east in the City of Crystal. Proposed Design. The pre-school/child care facility is bein9 proposed to meet the needs of residents within New Hope, as well as surrounding area communities of Plymouth, Crystal, and west Golden Valley, for the care of children between 33 months and six years of age. The facility plans to enroll 30 students which will participate in a variety of learning and extra-curricular activities both on site and as field trips. The site design includes plans for upgrade of parking, retaining wall, and landscaped areas, and a proposal for a fenced playground and vehicular drop-off drive. Zoning. The subject site is located within the R-0, Residential Office Zoning District of the City. The proposed pre-school/day care facility is viewed as an appropriate use in the district and in relation to adjacent land uses. Approval of a conditional use permit will be up to the discretion of the City as based on the criteria contained in Section 4.21 of the City Zoning Ordinance and the project i~ues as discussed herein. Operation. The proposed pre-school/child care facility plans to operate between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM. This time period is viewed as acceptable with regard to noise control and compatibility between adjacent land uses and does not exceed the operating hours set forth by the City. The applicant must obtain a State license prior to any operation of the facility. Parkinq. The submitted site plan designates a total of eleven parking spaces on site, one of which is intended for handicapped use. The City Zoning Ordinance requires that four spaces plus one for each three beds be provided for "day nurseries". As was previously discussed in the planning report dated 17 September 1991, the existing parking requirements raises some confusion as to how this is applied to a contemporary day care center. It has been recommended that the City of New Hope establish a parking standard for pre-school/day care facilities which is based on the number of employees as well as the student capacity of the facility. Although a change in requirements will not be possible prior to final review of the proposed Montessori Pre- School/Day Care Center, these items should be taken into consideration when reviewing the submitted site plan. While the size and layout of the parking spaces/driveway areas seem adequate in relation to the building and accessibility onto Winnetka Avenue, the number of spaces, as shown on the submitted plan, is insufficient to meet with the City's current requirements. Assuming that each child using the pre-school/day care facility will have a bed/sleeping mat, a total of 14 parking spaces are needed. The four numbered spaces which have been designated within the drop-off lane on site do not qualify as parking spaces. Only spaces in which persons may park for the duration of the day count as part of the necessary parking requirement. The submitted site plan should be revised to show the required number of spaces (see Exhibit C). Loading. The submitted site plan shows a drop-off/loading lane along the front of the building. The location of the lane appears adequate in relation to the building, direction of vehicular movement, and access onto Winnetka Avenue. A question must be raised, however, as to the adequacy of the lane's proposed nine foot width. If the lane were allowed as such, vehicles wishing to bypass others which are stopped to drop- off/pick up children would not be able to do so. Depending on the expected numbers of vehicles anticipated at the same times of day, this may prove to be a very inefficient design. An escape lane, which would allow persons to pass on the left side of stopped vehicles, should be considered and a final decision made on the issue by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to plan approval. Likewise, the curb cut which provides access onto Winnetka Avenue from the loading lane is too narrow, by City standards, to allow for the proper left and right turning movements of vehicles exiting the site. In addition, the loading lane does not maintain the required five foot setback from the south property line. It is recommended that the lane be moved to the east to allow for the proper setback distance and be widened to a minimum curb cut width of 18 feet. This issue will be subject to review and comment by Hennepin County Engineers. The applicant is requesting a 12 month postponement of the loading lane construction to allow the facility operations to get well underway. We recommend, however, that the lane be constructed initially at the time of parking lot installation or that 125 percent of improvement costs be secured accompanied by a letter of credit and~approval by the City Attorney to ensure the construction of such at a future date. Access. The subject site obtains its access from Winnetka Avenue, a county road which is of collector status. It is expected that the road is of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. While peak traffic flow to and from the site will occur during morning and afternoon rush hour times, the visibility from and distance between driveway access points and intersections appear adequate to allow for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles. This issue is subject to review and comment by the County prior to final plan approval. Renovation. As mentioned previously, portions of the building and grounds appear to be seriously neglected and several building code issues have not been resolved. Prior to final plan approval, detail drawings must be submitted which illustrate all necessary site improvements. The structure and site shall provide and maintain an appearance which does not adversely affect adjacent properties. To_Do~raDhv. The subject site slopes to the southwest toward the adjacent Northwood Creek and floodplain region. The south and west sides of the building contain slopes at or in excess of 12 percent, while the north and east sides of the property are less severe. The proximity of the steep slopes adjacent to the proposed outdoor play area pose a concern for the safety of children. While a fence has been proposed, it must be ensured that the fence is constructed of proper materials and height to safely contain the students. It is recommended that the proposed fence, regardless of material, be eight feet in height along the southernmost fence line which runs from the west property line to the proposed retaining wall at the south side of the building. This would respond to the variation in topography and produce a more consistent height around the periphery of the fence line. The applicant should be required to submit detailed drawings of the proposed fence in order to properly analyze the type and height of fence material. It is of extreme importance that the fence be constructed adequately, given the extreme topography and proximity to parking areas on site. Outdoor Play Area. The submitted site plan shows a fenced outdoor play area at the rear of the building with direct access from both levels of the structure. The State Human Services Department requires that a minimum of 1,500 square feet and 75 square feet per child be allocated for outdoor play areas. The fenced play area, as proposed on the submitted plan, is 2,325 square feet in size, and thus could serve a maximum of 31 students. While only 30 students are anticipated, the total number must never exceed 31 without an expansion of outdoor play space. A future playground area has also been designated as part of the proposed facility plans to the east of the parking lot. Concern exists as to the usability of this parcel for numerous reasons. The parcel will most likely be reduced in size for the necessary addition of two parking spaces, backing area, and subsequent movement of the trash receptacle further to the west. After these changes, the parcel becomes virtually unusable and undesirable for use as a children's play area. While potential for expansion of the play area may exist to the south of the building, this issue would necessitate further study, due to the severity of topographic slopes and proximity to the drop-off/ loading lane, as need for such becomes a reality. LandscaDinq. As mentioned previously, the turfed areas and shrubbery on site have not been maintained properly and are quite overgrown. The grounds and landscape plantings are in need of upgrading, which should include removal of asphalt and installation of sod to correct the non-conformity and match site development to the north. The submitted sit~° plan shows new planters and shrubbery in areas adjacent to the building and retaining walls, while the planter in the front yard is to be maintained as is. The proposed changes are viewed as positive, however, a detailed landscape plan will be required to show exact types and sizes of plant materials. Gradinq and Drainage. As previously discussed, the site is severely sloped on the west and south sides of the building. While the site grading was previously completed at the time of building construction, the addition of parking and 'drop-off/ loading areas may require further grading and may affect the overall pattern of site drainage. It is recommended that the City Engineer review this issue and require a separate grading plan to be submitted. Signage. A sign has been proposed for the pre-school/day care facility which is intended to be ground mounted and show the school's logo, as well as hours of operation. Prior to final plan approval, a detailed signage plan will be required which designates the exact size(s) and materials desired. The submitted plans must be in full compliance with requirements outlined in Section 3.40 of the City Zoning Ordinance. CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review and provided that all conditions herein are appropriately resolved, we reco~end approval of the submitted site plan. Resolution of all issues shall be approved at the discretion of the City Council and Planning Commission. cc: Doug Sandstad Dan Donahue ' V.LSAaO,, EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN Nor west ssoci Consultan s, Inc U R B P L A N NG · O N M A R K E T R S E A R C PLANNING R~PORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Kyle Brown DATE: 17 September 1991 RE: New Hope - Daycare/Pre-school Parking Study FILE NO: 131.00 91.15 The City of New Hope has received a request for a conditional use permit for a Montessori Pre-school and Child Care Center. Review of this request has raised an issue with regards to current parking requirements within the City for such a use. ISSUES AND AN~LYSIS Existing Hequirements. The current Zoning Ordinance for the City of New Hope identifies the following requirement for day care centers: Sanitariums. Convalescent Homes, ReSt Homes, Nursinq Homes or D~¥ Nurseries. Pour spaces plus one for each three beds for which accommodations are offered. As this provision indicates, the requirements are based on the number of beds provided by the operation. This raises some confusion as to how this is applied to a contemporary day care center which does not provide beds for all of its students, iu appears that this provision is tailored to address nursing homes and other similar facilities as opposed to current day care practices. Case Studies. In an attempt to determine the appropriate parkin~ standard for a day care type use, a survey of other co~Lunities' standards was conducted. The following is a summary of the information that was obtained: City of Plymouth. MN. (Nursery Schools) Two parking spaces per classroom. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 City of Golden Valley, MN. (Proposed) One space for each employee and one additional space for every eight students enrolled. City of Wayzata. MN. One space for each employee, plus one for each four children. City of Ed~n~. MN. One space for each employee plus one space for every 20 individuals receiving care. City of Aurora. CO. Two spaces for each three teachers, employees, or administrators, and one off-street passenger loading place for every eight pupils. Orange County. CA. One space per staff member and one space per five students. City of O~hs. N~. One space per four persons of licensed capacity. Although the ratios varied from community to community, the parameters which were evaluated were generally consistent. In the majority of cases, the number of employees and the number of students were taken into account in ascertaining a parking requirement for daycare type uses. This ensures sufficient parking for the people that work at the center, as well as parking for parents who are picking up or dropping off children. Some of the communities surveyed specify that the number of employees and students are based on maximum number allowed by licensed capacity. This is a favorable arrangement because enrollments and number of employees may fluctuate, thus potentially changing the parking requirements if not specified as being based on maximum capacity. A few of the corem%unities base the parking requirements on number of classrooms in the facility. While a physical aspect such as this is easy to monitor, it does not necessarily guarantee sufficient parking for all employees in the facility, whereas an ordinance which specifically addresses staff members will provide this guarantee. The ratios used to determine the parking requirements vary significantly between communities. They range from one space for every four students to one space for every twenty students. The current New Hope Ordinance addressing beds essentially translates into one space for every three students. This is slightly more restrictive than other communities. The City must make a determination as to whether this ratio is appropriate, or whether it should be altered slightly to be consistent with neighboring co~unities. 2 The City's current parking standard is difficult and confusing to apply to contemporary daycare and pre-school centers because it is based on the number of beds offered. Modern day care centers do not necessarily provide beds for all children enrolled in the center. A survey of other communities' provisions was conducted and it was determined most communities base their parking standard on number of employees or facility size, and the number of students enrolled in the center. It is recommended that the City of New Hope establish a parking standard for day care centers, pre-schools and nursery schools which is separate from convalescent and rest homes. The City must determine the appropriate number of stalls to require. It is reco~ended that the number be based on the combination of the number of employees required by licensing and the student capacity of the facility as determined by licensing. If the City desires to draft an amendment based on the above requirements, Ordinance language and specific parking ratios can be prepared for the amendment. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-26 Request: Request for Amendment to Comprehensive Sign Plan and A Variance to the Maximum Wall Signage Allowed Location: 4300 Xylon Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21-11-0013 Zoning: B-4 (Community Business) Petitioner: K-Mart Corporation Report Date: October 4, 1991 Meeting Date: October 8, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the comprehensive sign plan and a variance to the maximum wall signage requirement, pursuant to Sections 3.467 of the New Hope Code. 2. The property is zoned B-4 Community Business and is located at the northeast intersection of 42nd and Xylon Avenues. 3. Signs accessory to multiple occupancy businesses, where a single principal building is devoted to two or more businesses, are required to be addressed in a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building. A comprehensive sign plan and variances for K-Mart signage were approved in 1972. As part of the nationwide K-Mart Corporation expansion and refurbishing program, K-Mart is requesting to revise the existing signage on the site and update the signage to K-Mart's new style; thus an amendment to the comprehensive sign plan is needed. 4. While the overall sign area on the new plan will decrease, the number of signs being requested exceeds the number of wall signs allowed by the sign code; thus a variance is also needed. 5. The sign code states that the total allowable sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed 15% of the combined wall surfaces on walls which abut streets in a General Business District and no individual tenant identification sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. Furthermore, no multiple occupancy structure may display more than 2 overall building identification signs. In short, the sign code allows the K-Mart building (including the Old America Store) one sign per tenant of 100 square feet each facing Xylon Avenue and one wall sign of 100 square feet facing 42nd Avenue. SIGN CODE ALLOWS: Facing Xyl0n - K-Mart, -one 100 square foot wall sign Old America Store-one 10Q square foot wall sign Total 200 square feet Facing 42nd Av - K-Mart -one 10Q square foot wall sign Total All Wall Signs 300 square feet Planning Case Report 91-26 October 8, 1991 ~'~ Page -2- 6. In 1972, the following variances were granted for wall signs on the K-Mart building: Farmers' Market 258 sq. ft. K-Mart 330 sq. ft. K-Mart Auto 435 sq. ft. Total 1,023 sq. ft. 7. The new proposal by K-Mart is as follows: Old America Store - Install new sign with area of 220 square feet. This would be a (Wall sign facing reduction in size of 38 square feet or a 15% reduction from the Xylon) 1972 variance. K-Mart - Install four signs with a total of 419 square feet as follows: (Wall signs K (with Mart inside) - 96 sq. ft. facing Xylon) K-Mart Pharmacy - 112 sq. ft. K-Mart Garden Shop - 142 sq. ft. Auto Service - 69 sq. ft. 419 sq. ft. This represents an increase from one sign to four and an increase in square footage from 330 sq. ft. to 419 sq. ft. (89 sq. ft.) or an increase of 29%. K-Mart Auto Service - Install K-Mart Auto Service sign of 135 square feet. This would be a reduction of 300 sq. ft. from the 435 sq. ft. variance granted or a decrease in size of 68%. These statistics are outlined in the attached staff sketch and in the chart below: City Code 1972 Variance 1991 Pr01~osal 2 front wall Farmers' Market - 258 sq. ft. Old America Store - 220 sq. ft. signs - 1 per K-Mart 330 sq. ft. K-Mart - 96 sq. ft. tenant of 100 K-Mart Pharmacy - 112 sq. ft. sq. ft. each K-Mart Garden Shop- 142 sq. ft. Auto Service - 69 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. total 588 sq. ft. 639 sq. ft. i side wall sign of K-Mart Auto Service K-Mart Auto Service 100 sq. ft. 435 sq. ft. 135 sq. ft. TOTAL WALL SIGNS 300 sq. ft. 1,023 sq. ft. 774 sq. ft. The total wall sign area is decreased by 24% with this request while the number of signs increases form 3 to 6. 9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no inquiries about the request. Planning Case Report 91-26 October 8, 1991 Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. The sign code states that where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, a variance may be granted if a finding of fact can be made based on the following conditions: Unique Conditions -That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of land or use involved. 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 business involved. Cause of HARDSHIP - that the alleged difficulty or hardship is mused by this Sign Code and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the parcel. Impairment of Light and Air -That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion or the public streets, or interfere with the function of the police and fire departments or the City. 2. Staff does not find that the granting of the variance would be detrimental to other uses in the neighborhood, but feels that the petitioner should outline the hardship for the request. 3. There is no doubt that the K-Man building is a large structure, that it is set back a long distance form Xylon Avenue, and it does not have much visibility from 42nd Avenue. 4. The City has granted excessive variances to K-Man in the past and the staff is pleased with the overall reduction in area/square footage. 5. Staff's main concern is that the front wall signs appear to lack balance. All signs, except the one over the main entry, are grouped on the south front side of the building. RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the upgrading of the exterior of the store signage and supports the reduction in overall wall sign square footage, but questions the hardship or need for the number of specialty signs (garden shop, auto service, pharmacy) on the front of the store. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Site Plan Building/Sign Elevations Staff Sign Variance Comparison 1971 Minutes re: Sign Variances ~? CIVIC CENTER HAL L G~THS~MAN~ CEMETERy SCHOOL, GARDEN CENTER KHARI '5045 XTLON AVENUE SITE PLAN IHIJf, MILIIIE, AII ,1~(.~4 M. L. SKILES O. M. VACHON s I ' ~E~ I-lOPE, M ! NNESOTA I / I , ~'L., - ~ ,~ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I I( M^RT /15045 I'xlE~/ I-lOPE, MINNESOTA 41500 XYI_ON lqOl?lll EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS K MART /'/5045 NEW HOF~E, MINNESOTA 4300 XYLON NOI:~TI-I t ~ ~FF£ovx~ a variance, aS long as other problems created with this proposal. There have been a number of illegal Lble~sighs erected at this site by K-Mart in the last two years. Sign Variance Comparison 1972 Var~tuce; 1991 Froposa2; 258 sq. fo. 220 sq. f~. - l~ 1972 Variance; 1991 Proposal; 330 ~q. ft. &19 sq. ft. (l si~a) (4 si~) +2~ 1972 Vat.ce; 1991 Pro~sal; -68~ Pl~anning Case No. 72-6, request for variances in height, size and number of signs for K-Mart facilities at 4300 Xylon Avenue North, LeRoy Signs, petitioner, was considered by the Council. Mr. Frank Freeze, LeRoy Sign Company, appeared before the Council to discuss the sign layout. Three wall signs are requested as follows: (I) Farmer's Market, (2) K-Mart sign and (3) K-Mart Auto Service sign. The K-Mart Auto Service sign will be on the 42nd Avenue side of the building with the other two signs on the side of the Duilding fac- ing Xylon. A variance as to size is needed for these three signs. The Farmer's Market sign has four foot letters for the "F" and the "M". The other letters are three feet high. The length of the sign for code computation is 64.5 feet. The sign then covers 258 square feet. The total wall area is 3,716. This is 6.94% of the wall area. The sign does exceed the 200 foot maximum by 58 square feet. The Village Manager then advised the Council that the Planning Con~ission and staff were involved in a judgmental area and had decided that the building should be treated similar to a shopping center, recognizing the separate tenants. The plans for the K-Mart sign (Exhibit A-Drawing 10219) were reviewed. The "K" is to be ? feet, 6 inches in height with the length of sign to be 44 feet, constituting a sign area of 330 feet. The wall area to which this sign relates is 10,400 square feet. The sign then constitutes 3. 175 of the wall area. A variance is required because the sign exceeds the 200 foot maximum by 130 feet. Aisc there is a partial projection over 12 inches from the wall caused by the mansard fascia to which this sign is mounted. The K-Mart Auto Service sign was then discussed. The "K" is to be 7 feet, 6 inches with an overall length for the balance of the sign of 58 feet. The sign area is 435 square feet - 18% of 2,420 square foot wall area. This s;gn then exceeds both the 200 square foot or the 15% of wall area maximum size. The proposed variances for the signs were discussed as follows: Wall Area Sign Area Percent Variance Farmer's Market 3,716 feet 258 feet 6.94 58 feet K-Mart 10,400 feet 330 feet 3.17 130 feet K-Mart Auto 2,420 feet 435 feet 18.00 235 feet Motion by Counci Iman Johnson, second by Mayor Erickson, to approve the variances for the walt signs at the K-Mart building as outlined above. It was also noted that there would be a 28 square foot Garden Shop sign on the south side of the building, (additional sign) making total sign- ing of 463 square feet on the south wall. Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Hokr, to include the Garden Shop sign in the motion for approval of variances. Council Minutes -~ April 24, 1972 Vote was taken on the amendment. Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka. Voting against: None. ~tion carried. Further discussion was then held on the ~tion as a~nded. ~uncilman ~sacker expressed concern with the signing on the south wall and asked whether it had to be that large. It was noted that in ~mputing the size of the sign for code conformance it was necessa~ to draw a rectangle. In this instance the "K" is 7 feet, 6 inches while the other letters are only 2 feet, 6 inches. ~uncilman Plufka also noted that the south wall is the chief exposure for the K-Mart facility and the sign should be visible so as not to c~ate a traffic hazard. He said he thought the sign had ~re value than a pylon sign. Mayor Erickson and ~uncilman Johnson said that they thought ~e sign fitted aesthetically with the develop~nt. ~uncilman Bosacker then said he would withdraw his objection based on ~uncil~n Plufka's re~rks. ~uncil~n Hokr inquired as to ground signs propos~ on the site. The Village Mana~r said there was a ground sign for the Garden Shop which would sit a~ut eight feet away f~m the building. He said this ground sign confo~s with the code and does not require a variance. Vote was then taken on the question as a~nded. Voting in favor= Bosacker, Eric.kson, ~kr, Johnson, Plufka. Voting against: None. Moti~ carried. Mr. Freeze, LeRoy Signs, advised the ~uncil that there was also a pylon sign toward 42nd Avenue. It is proposed that there ~ill be 128.5 square feet of sign area on each side of the sign with height of the sign to be 34 f~t. The co~ p~vides for maximum sign of 90 squar~ feet on each side with a m~imum height of 25 feet. ~uncilman Johnson noted that sign ~ould be only 9 feet off the ground and he thought it ~outd be subjected to breaka~. Mr. Freeze said that the pylon sign, as proposed, was a necessary part of the signing program for K-Mart. ~uncilman ~kr inquired as to the impact this sign would have on park- ing spa~s. It was thought that it would take away two or three park- ing spaces. The exact ptace~nt of the sign was not known at this time. ~unci Iman Plufka stated that he would oppose the variance on the pylon sign, noting that if this varian~ were granted the next pa~y would want a taller sign. He felt K-Ma~ should follow the criteria for pylon signs. ~uncilman Hokr said it would be necessa~ to know exactly where the sign would be placed before it could ~ considered. The Mayor noted that a variance had b~n granted in parking require~nts and that parking should not be fu~her reduced. ~tion by ~unci Iman Johnson, second by ~unci Iman Hokr, ~o deny the variance for the pylon sign at this ti~. Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, ~kr, Johnson, Plufka. Voting against: None. Motion carried. (Pylon sign denied). Planninq Case No. 72-31, request from LeRoy Signs, Inc. for variances to allow additional wall sign on the east side of the K-Mart building, was heard. Mr, Tom Duffy represented LeRoy Signs, Inc. The sign is proposed to provide identification for The building from Winnetka Avenue. The pro- posed sign is 7 feet 6 inches by 43 feet II Inches and contains 356.5 square feet. The east side of the building is the rear wall and the Village Sign Ordinance allows a nine square foot sign. Mr. Tom Duffy said it was his understanding that the Planning Commission had suggested that K-Mart have a sign on the rear wall. Further Discussion hold. Motion by Oster, second by Cameron, that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variances ';or rear wall sign at the K-Mart store as requested under Planning Case No. 72-31. Motion carried by voice vote. (Commissioner Oswald left the meeting temporarily and was not present for the voting.) The public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code relating to pet shops in :atoll business districts was held. The Village Manager reviewed the proposed ordinance change. Mrs. Gloria Gaage, the person interested in opening a pet shop in the Post Haste center at 36th and County Road 18, was present. She said the proposed ordinance was satisfactory as to the number of animals permitted. No one appeared to speak against the amendment. Motlon by Meyer, second by Sueker, to recommend to the Council that the amendment to Section 4,92, Subdivision (43) to allow pet shops in retail business zoning classifications be adopted. Motion unanimously carried by voice vote. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-27 Request: Request for a Variance to the 35' Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Expansion of Existing Garage Location: 7621 48th Circle North PID No.: 08-118-21 32 0074 Zoning: R-1 (Single-family Residential) Petitioner: Robert R. Natzel Report Date: October 4, 1991 Meeting Date: October 8, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a 13' variance to the 35' rear yard setback requirement to allow expansion of existing garage, pursuant to Sections 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code. 2. The City Code requires a 35-foot rear yard setback for structures located in an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and the petitioner is requesting to construct a garage addition which would be located 22 feet from the rear property line at the closest point, therefore a 13-foot variance to the 3S-foot setback requirement is needed. 3. The addition is proposed to be located on the southwest comer of the house off of the existing garage and would measure 20' x 20' or contain 400 square feet. Other setback requirements (side yard) would be met. 4. The petitioner states on the application that there is a manhole for city purposes on one side of yard and there are a variety of easements on the lot so there is no other practical way to add additional garage space. The physical characteristics of the lot show that it is irregular in shape, due to the tapered side lot line. 5. The physical characteristics of the property show an irregular, shallow, pie-shaped lot due to a tapered side lot line and the location at the end of a cul-de-sac. The topography of the property slopes gently from the rear (west) towards the front (east). 6. The surrounding adjacent land uses are all single-family residential, with Sunny Side Park located one lot away to the south. 7. The home was constructed in 1976 and has been maintained as a single family use since that time. 8. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no inquiries about the proposal. ANALYSIS 1. Staff has prepared "Attachment A" which shows the "buildable yard" area. Due to the shallowness of the lot, there is no practical area for an expansion without encroaching on the setbacks. Planning Case Report 91-27 October 8, 1991 Page -2- 2. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where circumstances are unique to a particular property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property or by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions. Irregular lot shape is specifically listed as an example of such a hardship and staff agrees that a hardship exists in this case that prevents the property owner from fully utilizing the parcel. 3. The request is for a 33 % reduction in the rear setback to 22 feet. Staff finds that this is a reasonable request because it is less than a 50% reduction and other precedents exist for granting variances on uniquely-shaped parcels. 4. Staff does not find that the unique circumstances (irregular lot shape) were created by the property owner. 5. Staff does not find that the granting of the variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood, as the addition will be located in the rear yard and will not be visible from the street. 6. The indoor (garage) parking area would be increased by two (2) spaces. 7. The elevation drawings indicate that the addition will match the existing structure. 8. While staff supports the granting of the variance due to the unique shape of the property, the applicant should address the following issues: A. The need for the additional garage space B. The overhead door on the rear of the proposed addition C. The color/type of siding and roofing materials to be used. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance to the rear yard setback requirement, due to the irregular shape of the parcel, for the proposed garage addition, subject to the following condition: Siding and roofing materials of addition to match existing structure. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Certificate of Survey Site Plan West/South Elevations Staff "Attachment A" - Buildable Yard o ICE ~ ARENA - WE. ~. AVE ~7~:47~ PARK ~ ~, ~7t~, 47 N. , TH AVE Iv ~ 45 TH Ay E ~Koo - L.ANO ~urvey foz'~ CO~MI~ ~I~, ~C. ~ '. . : I' I CE~ ~AT I AM THE PRO ~., ~ I ~B~R,OR OWNERS REPRESENTAT: ' -~' ' ~I~'~N 18 ~OMPLETE AND ACCU~ .. ' BUILDABLE YARD A I CE~'~AT I AM ~E PROPER~ OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE & .~ ~.~ ' AND ACCURATE: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-28 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Expansion of Existing Office and Manufacturing Facility Location: 5420/5430 International Parkway PID No.: 06-118-21-34-0003/06-118-21-34-0002 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Custom Mold & Design, Inc. Report Date: October 4, 1991 Meeting Date: Ocfober 8, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to allow expansion of existing office and manufacturing facility, pursuant to Section 4.039A of the New Hope Code. 2. Custom Mold & Design, Inc. is planning to more than double the size of their existing 9,100 square foot building by adding a 12,000square foot addition to the north side of the present facility (total building size will be 21,100 square feet). 3. In order to expand the facility, additional land immediately to the north of the existing property will be purchased and platted (plat is being considered in Planning Case 91-30). 4. Petitioner states that the design of the building addition will reflect the existing building design and color, utilizing various types of decorative concrete block. 5. A new main entrance will be developed at the northwest comer of the new addition and will be accessible from the new north parking lot. The existing front door will continue to serve as an exit. 6. The property is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and all surrounding parcels/adjacent land uses are zoned similarly. 7. The site is generally flat with a 12-foot hill at the northeast comer of the adjacent lot, which would be removed if the plat (lot combination) is approved. Planning Case Report 91-28 October 8, 1991 Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. The zoning code establishes special requirements for all Limited Industrial uses regarding lot coverage, lot area, and green space. These requirements are compared to the site plan below: Code Requirement Site Plan Lot coverage Not more than 40% Building covers 23 % of the lot shall of property be covered Lot area Minimum lot area Total parcel size requirement of 1 acre with new plat (ex- cluding outlot) is 2.08 acres Green area Not less than 35 % of Plan shows 35 % the parcel shall green area + 10% remain as green area snow storage = 45% The site plan meets the special requirements. 2. The setback requirements for the I-1 Zone of 50 foot front yard, 20 foot side yard, and 35 foot rear yard are all met, as is the building height requirement. 3. The zoning code requires 55 parking spaces for the facility and 55 spaces are provided. 4. The zoning code requires that no parking lot in front of the building shall be used by vehicles of employees. This requirement is met, as all parking is located on the north/south sides and to the east (rear) of the building. 5. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on September 12th and the following issues were discussed: trash storage, inside loading ramp, grading/drainage, parking and traffic circulation, concrete curb, snow storage, building materials, truck turning path, lighting, landscaping, roof-top equipment, crane system, and need to raise roof. 6. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting and the revisions include the following: A. Originally 59 parking spaces were shown, which exceeded the requirement by 4. Design & Review requested that the extra spaces be removed and converted to green area. The revised plan shows 55 spaces, with 4 spaces in the rear being eliminated and converted to green area. Planning Case Report 91-28 October 8, 1991 Page -3- B. The floor plan was revised to show indoor dumpster/trash storage. C. The east/west/north elevation drawings were revised to show an increased rood height for crane operations. D. The landscaping was revised to remove Ash trees and increase numbers of Suniper and Pine. 7. A one-way clockwise trucking design in included in the plan and staff recommends that "truck entry" and "truck exit" signs be posted at each driveway establishing this truck flow. 8. New concrete curb and gutter is shown on the east; staff recommends that it also be installed on the north side of the site. 9. Overall, staff finds that this is a good plan which does not need any major revisions due to the willingness of the owner/developer to take staff recommendations into consideration during the planning process. 10. The business expansion will help to clean up one of the unkept vacant parcels in the industrial area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site/building plan review for the expansion of Custom Mold & Design, subject to the following conditions: 1. Installation of signage at driveway entrances establishing one-way track flow. 2. Installation of curbing on north side. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Petitioner Letter Site Plan Floor Plan Building Elevations Landscape Plan/Schedule ACKERBERG AND ASSOCIATES INC Amhitects Planners Engineem 4201 Exce~or Boulevard Minneapolis MN 55~6 ~12) 920-9020 September Fifthlg g 1 J/'~ ~''~ Mr. Doug Sandstad Sanders M. ~ker~rg Building Official/Zoning Administrator ];:~-~-!,. Douglas P. Watschke City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 SEP 6 RE: Custom Mold and Design, Inc. Preliminary Plot/Building Expansion Dear Mr. Sandstad: As you know, we have been working with Custom Mold and Design, Inc. and the City staff throughout the last few months with regard to their proposed build- ing expansion and requirements to meet City Ordinances. Custom Mold and Design, Inc. is planning to more than double the size of their existing building. In order to expand the facility, additional land, located immediately north of their existing property will be purchased. You will notice that an "outlot" is being created, which "outlot" is excess property not required to meet the parking and green space requirements. This approach will allow the property owner some flexibility with respect to the future use of the excess land. Custom Mold and Design, Inc. and their civil engineer have met with City staff and the City Engineer regarding site drainage. Since there is no available storm sewer, on grade sheet drainage onto International Parkway has been ap- proved as delineated on the attached drainage and grading plan. In conjunc- tion with this grading plan, excess fill will be deposited on the "outlot". The design of the building addition will continue to reflect the existing building design and color, utilizing various types of decorative concrete block. Parking lot lighting will be provided by lights mounted on the build- ing wall similar to the existing lighting. A new main entrance will be developed at the northwest corner of the new addi- tion, directly accessible from the new north parking lot. The existing front door will continue to serve as an exit and access to the engineering depart- ment. A refuse dumpster will be provided inside the building and will be rolled out- side through an overhead door on pick-up day. Mr. Doug Sandstad September 5, 1991 Page 2 Existing landscaping will be maintained and additional landscaping will be in- cluded. The parking lots will be defined by concrete curb and gutter. With this letter we are submitting the Application to Planning Commission and City Council, a $600 check for the required Basic Zoning Fees, and supporting drawings as required for the application. Sincerely, ACKERBERG AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure cc: Duane Treiber DESTROY ALI. PF~IN']'~ OF F;'I'~L-'",/~,'..~L-~O ;OS;l J? ),~ :' ':', ! ~, ~/.'. r-o" NORTH ~c ~ CUSIOH HOLO AND DESIGN, INC. ~ 2 ~'~ ,, :';"?',':~r~'~ ...... I ..................................... ~ ~;,: ,, . ................. ~ ' ~'.' :A I ALL pNINT'S (-~t~ p,,.:,:¥1~.~ ' 120 INT'flRVAL~ (TYP) ~ WRAP TO ~ B~ ~L SEE TREE IN MULCH CONIFEROUS TREE SCHEDULE A 32 ~inus nato mute ,,, !1" pot 5~ 3'-0" 0.c. M~o ~ Iprd. I I Tilla cerdaM ~,5" bah 5u~dt ~ f~ ~m D 24 Junioerus ckinusls "Mi~' Il' pot ~ 3't o~. ~ f"' 19 L~lcera x x~bemm "~memM' M~~ Id" pot ~ 4'-0" p,~ ~~ CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-30 Request: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval Location: 5420/5430 International Parkway PID No.: 06-118-21-34-0003/06-118-21-34-0002 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Custom Mold& Design, Inc. Report Date: October 4, 1991 Meeting Date: October 8, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of Custom Mold Addition, which includes the property on which the existing business is located at 5420 International Parkway and the vacant property just north of the site at 5430 International Parkway, in order to allow for expansion of the existing facility. The request is made pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The preliminary plat approval is requested in conjunction with the site/building plan review/approval being requested in Planning Case 91-28. 3. Custom Mold and Design is proposing to more than double the size of their existing building. In order to expand the facility, additional land located immediately north of their existing property will be purchased. 4. The additional area of 2.962 acres to be added to the existing property would be divided with 2.08 acres being combined with the existing site to accommodate the building expansion, additional parking and green space requirements. The remaining .88 acres would be platted as an outlot because it is excess property not needed to meet parking and green area requirements and allows the property owner some flexibility with respect to the future use of the land. 5. It should be noted that the vacant land located north of Custom Mold is located directly south of the New Hope Public Works facility and the City has entered into discussions with Custom Mold about the possible acquisition of the "outlot" in the future, which would then be combined with the Public Works property. 6. The property is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and all surrounding/adjacent properties are zoned similarly. 7. The zoning code statea that "if the preliminary plat is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, the subdivider must submit the final plat within 100 days after said approval. Copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waved by the Planning Commission during their review of the preliminary plat". Planning Case Report 91-30 October 8, 1991 Page -2- 8. The petitioner has formally requested that the Planning Commission waive review of the f'mai plat so that it is possible for construction to start on the proposed building addition this fall. As per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to City Department Heads, utility companies, and Hennepin County for review and comment. 9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments about this proposal. ANALYSIS 1. The lot area and lot width requirements for the I-1 Light Industrial Zoning District are compared to the plat below: I-1 Rea_uirement Plat Minimum lot area 1 acre Lot 1 = 2.08 acres Ouflot= .88 acres Minimum lot width 150 feet Lot 1 = 161.01 feet Outlot= 129.12 feet The lot to be added to the existing property meets the lot area and width requirements. The outlot does not meet the standards but City Code does not require it to because a principal structure is prohibited from being constructed on an outlot. 2. The City Attorney has reviewed the plat and has the following minor concerns: A. The plat and legal description should be revised to include the dedication of the adjacent City streets. B. The plat needs to be revised to include a dedication clause for utilities and other easements. C. The petitioner must provide the City with evidence of title as to the ownership of the land to be platted. 3. A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement is shown around the perimeter of the entire property. The Building Official and City Engineer recommend that said easement be extended along the proposed north lot line to separate Lot 1 form Outlot A. 4. Custom Mold met with staff and the City Engineer prior to the application to discuss site drainage. Since there is no available storm sewer, on-grade sheet drainage onto Inter- national Parkway has been approved by the City Engineer and is delineated on the grading and drainage plan. 5. The City Engineer also recommends the City determine if we are going to purchase Out- lot A before the project begins. The petitioner is currently planning on depositing excess fill on the outlot. If Outlot A is to be combined with Public Works, excess material proposed to be placed on Outlot A will not benefit Public Works. The present grade of the existing site is adequate for Public Works use, therefore it would be more desirable from Public Works standpoint for excess material from grading to be removed from site. Planning Case Report 91-30 October 8, 1991 Page -3- The City is presently discussing this issue with the owner and should have the matter resolved soon. 6. No other agencies responded with comments on the plat. 7. Design & Review met with the petitioner and their concerns are outlined in the report regarding site/building plan review/approval. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Custom Mold Addition and recommends that the Planning Commission waive a review of the final plat due to the minor nature of the revisions that need to be made. Approval should be subject to addressing the concerns outlined above, from the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Building Official. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Petitioner Letter re Project Petitioner Letter re Waiver Attorney Letter Engineer Letter Preliminary Plat ~7'~' ~ INOU$~'RY PA R K JR H PUBLIC ~xOx WORK S - GARAGE NOR,H R'DGE ACKERBERG AND ASSOCIATES INC Architects Planners Engineers 4201 Excelsior Boulevard Minneapolis MN 55416 (612) 920-9020 · September ~? [~ ~2/ Fifth . q '~ '" ~!~A~' 1 g g 1 'j!'/~O1'' Mr. Doug Sandstad _ ~nders M. ~ker~rg Building Official/Zoning Administrator ::¥'~,, Douglas P. Watschke City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 SEP 6 RE: Custom Mold and Design, Inc. i~ .~- Preliminary Plot/Building Expansion t , Dear Mr. Sandstad: As you know, we have been working with Custom Mogd and Design, Inc. and the City staff throughout the last few months with regard to their proposed build- ing expansion and requirements to meet City Ordinances. Custom Mold and Design, Inc. is planning to more than double the size of their existing building. In order to expand the facility, additional land, located immediately north of their existing property will be purchased. You will notice that an "outlot" is being created, which "outlot" is excess property not required to meet the parking and green space requirements. This approach will allow the property owner some flexibility with respect to the future use of the excess land. Custom Mold and Design, Inc. and their civil engineer have met with City staff and the City Engineer regarding site drainage. Since there is no available storm sewer, on grade sheet drainage onto International Parkway has been ap- proved as delineated on the attached drainage and grading plan. In conjunc- tion with this grading plan, excess fill will be deposited on the "outlot" The design of the building addition will continue to reflect the existing building design and color, utilizing various types of decorative concrete block. Parking lot lighting will be provided by lights mounted on the build- ing wall similar to the existing lighting. A new main entrance will be developed at the northwest corner of the new addi- tion, directly accessible from the new north parking lot. The existing front door will continue to serve as an exit and access to the engineering depart- ment. A refuse dumpster will be provided inside the building and will be rolled out- side through an overhead door on pick-up day. Mr. Doug Sandstad September 5, 1991 Page 2 Existing landscaping will be maintained and additional landscaping will be in- cluded. The parking lots will be defined by concrete curb and gutter. With this letter we are submitting the Application to Planning Commission and City Council, a $600 check for the required Basic Zoning Fees, and supporting drawings as required for the application. Sincerely, ACKERBERG AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Douglas P~ Watschke DPW/nsb ~ Enclosure cc: Duane Treiber ' CUSTOM MOLD & DESIGN, INC. 5420 International Parkway Minneapolis, Minn. 55428 (612) 535-2333 October 1, 1991 Mr. Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 RE: CUSTOM MOLD ADDITION FINAL PLAT Dear Mr. Donohue We hereby request that the New Hope Planning Commission waive review of the final plat of the Custom Mold Addition subdivision. This waive will make ~t possible for construction to start cn the proposed building addition this fall. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, CUSTOM MOLD & DESIGN, INC. Duane G. Treiber, President CC Doug Sandstad OCT-- 2--91 WED 1 ~: ~9 CORR I CK ~ $ONDRALL P. 02 October 2, 1991 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Asst, City o~ New Hope 4401X¥1on Avenue North New Nope, HN 55428 (BY FACSIMILE) RE: Preliminary P~at of Custom MOld Addition Our File No. 99.15032 Dear Kirk: ! have reviewed the preliminary plat and find it %o be in order from a legal standpoint, subject to the roi]owing concerns: 1. There may be an issue as to whether the plat and the legal description should include dedication of the adjacent City streets. I expect the County will address this. 2. The p3at contains no dedication c3ause for streets, uti]ity and other easements in favor of the pub3ic. This must be included in the final plat. 3. Our office must be provided with e¥idence of title as to the ownership of the 3and to be platted. Anyone with an interest in the ]and, of course, must sign the fin&l p3a~. P!ease ca]3 me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha s3w cc: Daniel d, Donahue $~even A. 8ondrall, Esq. Bonestroo Otto G. Bonesl~o, I~E. Keith ^. Gordon, I~E. Mark R. Rolf~ I~E. Rene C. Pluma~. A J A ~ ~, Ro~ne, ~E. R~ha~ ~ ~er. ~E. ~ C. Rus~k, A.IA ~nes M Ring, ~.C P Jo~ph C. An~ik, ~E. ~a~ C. Bu~a~ ~E. Thomas E. Angus, ~E. Jer~ D. Pe~h. PE Rosene Matin g ~a,a. RE. Je~ A. ~u~on, RE. H~a~ A. Richa~ E Turner. RE. Ma~ A, Hanson, RE. Daniet J. Edison, RE.R~ R. Dmbl~ PE G~nn R. C~ RE. T~ K. Field. RE. Mare A. ~iD, PE. ga~ ~ Morien, PE R~ G. ~hunicnt. ~E. ~ R. ~de. ~E. Ismael Ma~i~z. ~E. ~ R. Yapp. PE. Associates Thomas W. ~e~n. PE. Thomas R. Mich~t C. Ly~h. PE. Ga~ ~ ~ander. ~E. He,an M Engin~rs & Archlt~ts J~ R. MalaY. ~E. Mi~s 8. Jen,n, ~n~ ~ ~n~n, ~E. L. P~illip ~ IlL ~E. September 26, 1991 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Attention: Mr. Kirk McDonald Re: Custom Mold Addition Our File No. 34-gen Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the above plat and recommend the follow~mg: Drainage and utility easements 10' wide shall be shown along al: ~[ lines, including the interior lot line betv~een Lot ! and Outlo: A. The drainage from the site will be directed on the surfacz !o Internatiom:| Parkway, which is acceptable. The City shou!d determine if they :~re going to purchase Out!ot A befor~ the project begins, l'f Outlot A is to be combLned with Public Work& t.he excess material proposed to be placed on Outlot A wfl! not benefit Public Works. Presently, the grade of the existing site is adequate for Public Works use. Therefore, it would be more desirable ~rom Public Works standpoint that the excess material from the grading be removed from the site. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at this office. Yours very truly, MH:lk 2335 ~(/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 · 612-636-4600 · 35th Anniversary i~1 '"' "" "J': ill:'- !il "" '"" lilll "" _,iii; ~iH ,dl '"' Jill i]li P,,, ·" I!h,, " "': '"' '·'"~ lilll , · ~, ~ ~o thl ifil ,,,,,"';,: illll:I !i,,,~i ii, 1 i ' ,:;;'!,, ' ! . I I'" ltlh iiilll ]~ CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-29 Request: Request for A Conditional Use Permit Allow A Commercial Recreational Use in an I-1 Zoning District Location: 5420 Highway 169 North PID No.: 06-118-21-33-0007 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: ATEC Grand Slam New Hope Report Date: October 4, 1991 Meeting Date: October 8, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a commercial use in an I-1 Limited Industrial District, pursuant to Sections 4.144(9), 4.21,and 4.22 of the New Hope Code. 2. ATEC (The Athletic Training Equipment Company) is requesting to operate a sports and entertainment complex within the currently vacant Chicago Cutlery building. The facility would include indoor batting cages, a miniature golf course, video arcade, weight room and basketball court, children's safari and adventureland, a pro shop, concessions, a non- alcoholic sports lounge, and a party room, and is geared toward the youth of the community. 3. The facility is proposed to occupy 42% of the Chicago Cutlery building, or 27,000 square feet, in the center portion of the 65,276 square foot industrial building. The site plan shows a 10,000 square foot warehouse in the west portion of the building (facing Hwy 169) and a 27,000 square foot bakery warehouse on the east (rear) end of the building. 4. The proposed use meets all I-1 performance standards in regard to setback, lot area, and building size requirements (see Planner's report). The green space requirement of 35% is met. 5. Commercial recreational facilities are permitted as a conditional use if the following criteria am met: A. Access -The site of the proposed use has direct access to an arterial street. B. Proximity tO Residential - The site is 500 feet or more from residential zoning. C. Compatibility_ -The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence. D. Screening from Residential Parking areas shall be screened from view of residential districts and shall be curbed with continuous concrete curbs. E. Access -Vehicular access points shall be limited and designed and constructed to create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. Planning Case Report 91-29 October 8, 1991 Page -2- F. Lighting Shielded - All lighting shall be hooded. G. Surfacing - The entire area shall be surfaced with a bituminous or concrete material which will control dust and drainage. H.Landscaping - Landscaping shall be provided and the type of planting material and the number and size of plants shall be subject to the approval of the City. 6. The facility would operate from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from 10:00 a.m. to midnight on Friday and Saturday. 7. If a number of deficiencies on this site can be corrected, the introduction of this tenant onto the site will benefit the property and will not depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 8. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. ANALYSIS 1. Design & Review Committee met with the applicant in September and the following issues were discussed: types of activities to be conducted in facility, parking, hours of operation, signage, landscaping, lighting, curbing, trash storage, snow storage, and exterior upgrading. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. 2. Compatibility -the Planner's report outlines the concern about a recreational facility being located between two industrial uses, all in the same building. A distinct separation of the uses would benefit both types of business so that commercial patrons are not forced to encounter industrial uses. The westernmost portion of the building is shown as a speculative warehouse, but a loading space is not provided. Staff recommends that the "Grand Slam" facility be shifted west to the front of the building so that potential conflict between uses is avoided. 3. Parking Lot Improvements - the following improvements need to be made to address deficiencies on the site: A.Existing parking stalls do not meet depth requirement and should be reconfigured to meet code requirements. B. Parking lot surface needs resurfacing and repair. C. Perimeter curbing should be diuscussed. D. Handicapped parking stalls need to be provided, per State law. 4. Parking Re~_uirement-the proposed parking lot site plan provides 148 off-street parking stalls (which currently exis0. Because three businesses may exist on the site, off-street parking must be provided to accommodate all three uses. A total of 33 spaces are necessary for the two warehouse uses, per code requirements. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a parking standard for sports/entertainment centers and uses not specifically mentioned are to be determined on an individual basis by the City Council under 'other uses' category. The Planning Consultant recommends one space for each 200 square feet of floor area (based on American Planning Association standards), which Planning Case Report 91-29 October 8, 1991 Page -3- would require "Grand Slam" to provide 135 parking spaces or a total of 168 spaces on the site. A deficit of 20 stalls exists using these calculations, however a design alternative for parking has been prepared by the Planner which could accommodate the required parking. The site plan should be revised to provide the required parking. 5. Curb Cuts - it is recommended that the northerly access be shifted slightly southward to accommodate the revised parking lot configuration. 6. Land.,qcapin~, - the proposed landscape plan, which focuses on Highway 169 and the Grand Slam entry point, will be a big improvement to the site (see attached landscape schedule), the Planning Consultant recommends that landseaplng be added within the parking lot's curb glands. 7. ~- Existing lighting is adequate but should be adjusted to reflect downward and light standards should be repainted. 8. ~- a comprehensive sign plan should be submitted providing more detail on the proposed signs. One wall sign is proposed for the north side of the building and one for the west side (facing 169). While the ordinance allows tenants of multiple occupancy structures to have identification wall signs, they must be located on the portion of the structure that is occupied by the use. If Grand Slam is shifted to the front of the building, the westerly sign would be allowed, otherwise it would be prohibited. 9. Refuse - the site plan shows the trash area near the facilities entry - this should be moved to a more remote location on the site and be screened. 10. Property owners within 350' of the site have been notified and staff has received no comments. REI~0MMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational use in a Limited Industrial Zoning District, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Grand Slam facility is shifted westward to occupy the extreme western portion of the subject building. 2. The subject parking lot is reconfigured to provide additional off-street parking stalls. All parking lot dimensions shall be in accordance with City standards, and appropriate handicapped stalls Shall be provided. 3. The site's parking lot is repaired and resurfaced. 4. Landscaping is provided within the parking lot's curb islands. 5. Ail concrete fragments, as currently piled on the site, are removed. 6. All lighting conform to the Zoning Ordinance and all light standards are to be repainted. 7. A comprehensive signage plan is submitted noting the exact size, location, and type of all signs on the site. In addition, directional signs (both upright and pavement) should be placed at the site's two access points to identify points of entry and exit. Planning Case Report 91-29 October 8, 1991 Page -4- 8. The Grand Slam's trash facility is relocated to lie away from the business's main entry, trash enclosure details to be provided, and trash facilities to be shown for other tenants (one per tenan0. 9. Asphalt be removed from southeast property line and 20 foot green area be restored, as no CUP has been approved for shared off-site parking. 10. Grand Slam to meet with staff and City Engineer to review site drainage and grading to determined if continuous curbing along perimeter of all off-street parking areas is necessary or if it will inhibit site run-off. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Planner's Report Business Plan/Company History · PARK ~.~ I~..am~ .-_~ CLrNTFJ~ PUBLIC o~,\0\- WORKS GARAGE ~o~ U R B P L A N N G · DES N · M A R K E T R E S E A R C H TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 3 October 1991 - RE: New Hope Grand Slam Conditional Use Permit FILE NO: 131.00 - 91.23 Attached please find a revised report for the Grand Slam conditional use permit request. The revised text responds to concerns cited by Doug Sandstad in regard to a number of inaccuracies in a proposed parking lot plan submitted by Grand Slam. In addition, the report provides a more detailed investigation into the matter of an appropriate parking standard for the proposed sports/entertainment complex. pc: Dan Donahue Doug Sandstad 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555 ,St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 ISSUES ANALYSIS Co-ditio-~] Use Permit. The applicant wishes to operate a 27,000 square foot sports/entertainment complex within the currently unoccupied, 65,276 square foot industrial building. The proposed Grand Slam facility is to contain a number of youth- oriented recreational events/uses, including batting cages, miniature golf, a video arcade, a pro shop, weight room and basketball court. According to the Zoning Ordinance, commercial recreational uses, such as those proposed, are allowed in I-l, Limited Industrial Districts only as a conditional use. In considering conditional use permits, the City has established a number of criteria which form the basis for review. Per the Ordinance, the Planning Commission and City Council shall approve a CUP subject to the following: 1. Comprehensive Pla-. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is generally consistent with the policies and provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. In regard to compatibility, genuine concern exists in regard to the sports/entertainment location between two industrial uses. As shown on the submitted site plan, the Grand Slam facility is to be located between a 10,000 square foot speculative warehouse and a 27,000 square foot bakery warehouse. Generally, a distinct separation of the proposed commercial and industrial uses would be beneficial to both use types. Commercial patrons should not be forced to encounter industrial uses and vise versa. This point is reinforced by the fact that the westernmost bay of the subject building is not provided a loading space. Consequently, its conduciveness as a warehouse use is questioned. AS a means of resolving this compatibili~'.· issue, both our office and the Building Inspector recommen: that the commercially-oriented "Grand Slam" facility shifted westward to occupy the extreme western portion the building. Such a location would offer the follow!- ~ advantages t6'the site's functioning: a. All proposed warehouse space in the building will provided a loading space. b. The Grand Slam facility will be afforded visibility Highway 169. 3 c. All warehOusing activities will lie to the rear of the subject site, thus potential conflicts with industrial/ warehouse uses may be avoided. d. Grand Slam facility signage would be provided additional visibility to Highway 169. 3. Performs-ce Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the City Code. Based on a site inspection, it has been found that the existing industrial structure exhibits a number of deficiencies in relation to Ordinance performance standards. These concerns are listed below. a. Considering the proposed uses, the existing parking lot does not accommodate off-street parking demand as required by Ordinance. This item will be discussed in following sections of this report. b. At 16 feet in depth, numerous parking stalls fail to meet the minimum 19 foot stall depth required by Ordinance. All stalls should be reconfigured to meet Ordinance requirements. c. The parking lot surface is currently in a state of disrepair and deterioration. As such, a condition of project approval shall be the resurfacing/repair of the parking lot surface. d. The parking lot lacks a continuous perimeter curb as required by Ordinance. Resultantly, a continuous curb will be required as a condition of project approval. e. The purpose and use of the 10 foot wide bituminous trail/drive connection to adjacent southerly property is questioned. If it is to be used as a vehicular connection, the route should be improved to comply wit~. minimum standards for such a use (width, curbing, etc. and coordinated with the southerly property owner. f. The most westerly building space (10,000 square fee' is not provided a loading space. As such, usability as a warehouse type use is questioned. issue will be discussed later in this report. The site currently provides two handicapped park~:~ stalls. Per State law, one handicapped space must provided for each 50 of street parking spaces. such, the subject parking lot should be revised to meet the said requirement. 4 4. No DeDreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The site is currently vacant. The introduction of this tenant into the site will benefit the property. 5. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP must meet the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. The proposed use meets all I-1 performance standards in regard to setbacks, lot area, and building size requirements, as listed belOw: Required Proposed Setbacks: Front Yard 50 feet 50 feet Side Yard 20 feet 20 feet Rear Yard 35 feet 70 feet Lot Area 1 acre 4.5 acres Lot Width 100 feet 330 feet Building Height 3 stories 24 feet In review of the preceding CUP judgement criteria, it appears that some concern exists in regard to use compatibility and building performance standards. While these concerns are noteworthy, it is believed steps can be taken to resolve them and lessen potential negative impacts. Parkinq Requ~ irements. Because the subject industrial structure shall likely hold three businesses, an assurance must be made that an off-street parking supply is provided which sba~ accommodate all of the said business activities. Aside from t~._ 27,000 square foot space devoted to Grand Slam, the subjec~ building is to contain 27,000 square feet of area occupied by bakery warehouse (eastern portion) and 10,000 square feet currently vacant warehouse space (western portion). The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a parking standard sports/entertainment centers such as that being proposed. According to the Ordinance, uses not specifically mentioned ska be determined on an individual basis by the City Counc. Factors to be considered in such determination shall include of building, type of use, number of employees, customer traff' and service vehicles. In addressing this particular use, a number of sources wet. referenced in ascertaining a parking requirement reflective the proposed use. A listing of these sources is provided below: 5 Use Ratio Source Amusement Center 1/150 square feet of American Planning (Alternative 1) gross floor area of Association, Off- building or ground area Street Parking devoted to such use Requirements 1991 Amusement Center 1/200 gross square feet American Planning (Alternative 2) plus one for every two Association, Off- licensed game machines street Parkin~ Requirements 1991 Health Club 1/200 square feet of American Planning leasable floor area Association, Off- Street Parking Requirements 1991 Sports/Health Club 1/200 gross square feet Institute of Trans. Engineers, Parking Generation 1985 Based on the preceding inventory, it would appear that a parking standard of one space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area would be appropriate for the sports/entertainment center use. Utilizing the referenced standard, the Grand Slam facility will be required to have 135 off-street parking spaces. 27,000 gross square feet divided by 200 = 135 spaces In addition to a parking allowance for the proposed entertainment/sports complex, the subject site must accommodate a 27,000 square foot bakery warehouse and a 10,000 square foot industrial space. Parking requirements for these uses, as well as the sports/entertainment complex, is provided below. Required Use Ratio Spaces Bakery Warehouse That space which is used 24 27,000 gross square as office shall comply with feet office use requirements (24,300 net square plus 1/1000 square feet feet) of floor area Warehouse That space which is used 9 10,000 gross square as office shall comply with feet office use requirements (9,000 gross square plus 1,000 square feet feet) of floor area Grand Slam 1/200 gross square feet 135 of floor area TOTAL OFF-STREET P~ARKIN~ REQUIREMENT 168 As shown on Exhibit C, the proposed parking lot site plan provides 148 off-street parking stalls (148 stalls currently exist also). As such, a deficit of 20 stalls appears to exist. Pro_Dosed Parking Lot Confiquration. As noted previously, the existing parking l°t holds 148 spaces, 20 stalls less than that required by Ordinance. In recognition of this off-street parking supply deficit, our office has prepared a parking lot design alternative. The plan, as shown on Exhibit H, illustrates 176 off-street parking stalls, 28 more than what currently exists. The plan should be used as a guide in the preparation of a revised parking lot layout. Curb Cuts. As shown on the submitted site plan, the site is acce~via two access points from the Highway 169 service drive and ~ 10 foot wide b~tuminous connection from the adjacent southerly~- property. -While the two westerly access points are considered acceptable, it? is recommended that the northeri7 access be shifted slightly southward to accommodate the proposed parking lot configuration shown on Exhibit H. An additiona' concern exists regarding the narrow bituminous connect~-- provided to southerly property. Prior to final CUP approval, use and intent of this connection should be stipulated a~'' coordinated between the affected property owners. Landscaping/Screening. In conformance with 0rdinanc. requirements, a landscape plan has been submitted for review Exhibit E). The proposed landscape plan is considered highil,' positive, with efforts focused along the Highway 169 service rcac and at the "Grand Slam" entry point. One item of concern, however, relates to a lack of landscaping in 7 the site's primary parking area. As noted previously, landscaping is recommended within the parking lot's curb islands. It should also be noted that all roof top mechanical units are to be screened with cedar fencing. Loadinq. As noted previously, the westernmost bay of the subject structure is not provided a loading space. As such, its usability as a warehouse space is questioned. To remove this concern, it is recommended that the Gr~nd Slam facilit~ occupy the Western portio~ of the building;~th~' allowing all remaining spac~ in the strt~.~;~re to have access to ~ designated loading space. ~ ' Liqhtinq. While existing fighting.appears to be adequate, all lighting~mUst~ installed and adjusted' to r~ect downward and properties (Section 4 033 [5]) minimi.z~glare~J~ad, acent . . It should be noted., however, that a site inspection has revealed that light standards are in need of repainting and are less than visually appealing.:' As a condition of project approval, the light standards shoUId be repainted. Signage. According to Section 3.467 of the Zoning Ordinance, when a single building is devoted to two or more businesses or industrial uses, a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building must be submitted. The plan should include, but not be limited to, the following information: 1. Sign location (both wall signs and freestanding signs) 2. Sign area 3. Sign height 4. Scaled building elevations 5. Scaled floor plan that outlines tenant bays 6. Identifica~ion~.~of andhor tenants 7. DeSQriDti~o~.~.~i~d~w signage use 8. I~enti~fic&~'~of sign design 9. Sign ~ons~'~ion drawings (sections) It should be noted that the Grand Slam facility has proposed a wall sign on the western facade of the subject structure. While the Ordinance does allow tenants of multiple occupancy structures to have identification wall signs (provided they have an exteri-- entry), the Ordinance suggests that such signs must be located the portion of the structure occupied by the use for which -' serves. Resultantly, the wall sign on the western facade of building would be prohibited. It should be r~cognized, however, that if the Grand Slam faci!it7 were to occupy the westernmost portion of the structure, its sign location as proposed would be permitted by Ordinance. ,~, ~'.. r BOUNDARY SURVEY - ' .... ' '"'' ' -" '" ~/ : :' ":" : · ' ' ' : :' / .... ~ FOR: -- ~ : .,~ : : : ~ : : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : : ~: . '. ~ ~ , : ~ :, : .... : , ....-. '. '. :'::':::'::::: .' .~.... z::~::-' ::': :: " "" .. .... .......... .... ......... . .... .. ~~ ~ ~'" ~ ~: ': :.L.,: ' "':' ',,~,.':':,'.',~2:',~ ..... LOOKING SOUTHEAST LOOKING SOUTHWEST EXHIBIT G - SITE PHOTOS LOOKING SOUTHEAST LOOKING WEST LOOKING SOUTH LOOKING NORTH ................ i_j2_i i.i_i,:i li i. [JIL" Ill J Ill IF/Il ....... ELEC. ~ ?: · I .. 10,000 S.F. J 27,000 S.F. 27,000 S.F SPEC. WAREHOUSE I PROPOSED GRAND SLAM PROPOSED BAKERY WAREHOUSE - I POT'~ C~T AMERICAN VI~M ', PflT TEC~[Y AR~V I TAE ~ PnT PURPLE L~ 5~N~HE~Y '. POT GOL~L~ ~1~ i POT M%NT J~ J~%~ ~ pOT Y~IE~TEO ~ ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A. New Hope, Minnesota Sports/Entertainment Complex Batting Cages Pro Shop Baseball, Softball and Basketball Academy 18 Hole Miniature Golf Birthday Parties Concession Video and Sport Games Basketball Grand Slam Adventure Land Grand Slam Safari Ride Business Plan for Grand Slam New Hope Sports/Entertainment Complex Confidential June 30, 1991 Grand Slam New Hope is a sports/entertainment complex that will be located in New Hope, Minnesota. Currently there are over 80 ATEC Grand Slam franchises in operation in the United States. All are centered around ATEC batting cages and ATEC baseball and softball equipment. Each ATEC Grand Slam has revenue centers in common and each has some uniqueness to them. Most have ATEC batting cages, a pro shop, concession area, video games and a basketball court. The more successful franchises have an extensive academy program and a large birthday party business. ATEC Grand Slam in New Hope is intended to incorporate nine revenue areas. This facility will have five ATEC Grand Slam batting cages. Four will be dual machines used for both baseball and softball. The other will be a rookie cage intended for use by younger players. All cages will be available for rent by the hour or a per time basis. The cages will be utilized by the academy, the party business, baseball and softball teams, as well as walk in customers. Due to the seasonal nature of the batting cage business, we have endeavored to make this a multi-purpose entertainment facility. The Academy for baseball, softball and basketball involves drawing customers from a large population base. Due to the unique nature of this type of business, we feel our population base will increase to over one million. We intend to relentlessly pursue the academy business which will in turn generate awareness and increased business for the rest of the facility. Private and group lessons will be offered for baseball, softball and basketball. Summer camps are planned for June thru August. We will also work with the athletic associations in the surrounding communities to develop clinics for the various youth groups. The Pro Shop will generate much of it's revenue from the academy business as well as walk in business. The pro shop will carry top of the line baseball and softball equipment. The Basketball Court will be designed as part of a multi purpose area incorporating the academy with the floor of the court designed as an infield. The basketball court rents by the hour for slam dunk three on three basketball. We will also have leagues during the winter. The basketball court will also be used as part of our birthday party packages. The facility will have over 70 video and sports games with a wide variety to choose from. Video games are a large part of the birthday party business, and can be used by any customers using the facility. The miniature golf course will be built around a jungle theme with large plants, waterfall, wild animals and eighteen holes of golf. The golf course is a large part of the total revenue as it is a popular form of entertainment everywhere. The birthday party business will be promoted to parents of 3-12 year olds. It will draw business from a large demographic area with a higher than average concentration of children. We will offer several different party packages with varied activities. Catering to other types of parties such as high school graduations will also be available. Grand Slam Adventure Land for children ages 2 to 10 years old will feature an activity center with slides, tunnels and a ball pool. We will use this center for birthday parties and walk in customers. Grand Slam Safari Ride for children ages 2 to 10 years old will feature Powerwheels battery operated cars. The cars will take the children on a safari ride thru the jungle of the golf course. This center will also be used for birthday parties and walk in customers. The concession area will feature ballpark food such as hot dogs, pizza, beverages, natchos and other miscellaneous items. This area will be used extensively with the birthday party offerings, as well as being available to other facility users. We feel it is good business planning to have diversified entertainment at this facility. The combination of the golf course, parties, basketball, video games, concession area, regular academy business and the pro shop should provide a stability in revenue during the off-season of the batting cage business. There is currently a suitable location in the New Hope area located at Highway 169 and 49th Avenue North that is available in the targeted time for opening the center. We will be utilizing a space of 27,200 feet. The current competition is strictly a batting cage operation in St. Paul plus an entertainment complex in Eagan. The facility in Eagan has been a huge success in the one and one half years of operation with the main part of revenue coming from the birthday party business. This information comes from observation and sources close to the owner. The Eagan facility lacks a teaching academy. The operation in St. Paul has flourished for over 7 years. This speaks to the success of the concept. PLAYS SIDE LIST FSI3-O CAPACITY: 35 ST~ ITI~: 12' X 12' BALL POOL 1 MULTI-COLORED BALLS CARGO CLIMB 1 BALL POOL RULES SIGN CONTAINED HUMP SLIDE 1 PROPER SIGNAGE PACKAGE CONTAINED SMALL DUMP SLIDE 1 TUBE CRAWL SAFETY STEP UNIT 1 BALL TARGET WEB TUNNEL 2 WING NETTING (AS REQUIRED SHOE HOLDERS 3 m-~¥ s~m~ NE?rED ELEVATED SUNSCREEN FOR BALL POOL &: CRAWL AREA L A Y c, iq o u mm mm ~ ,m mm mm mm mm m m m m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m mm mm mm mm m m mm mmmmmmmmmmmmlmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Length: 51' Width: 31' Height: 30.5' Realistic dash, pretend radio and key Pretend engine with dipstick Both doors open and close Simulated spare tire swings open, tailgate drops down (t°Y n°t included) ( Athletic Training Equipment Company P.O. Box 1317, Santa Cruz, California 95061-1317 115 Post Street, Santa Cruz, California 95060 1 - 800 - 547 - 6273 · (408) 425 -1484 · FAX 408 - 425 - 7832 ATEC GRAND SLAM U.S.A. CORPORATE BACKGROUND COMPANY HISTORY Athletic Training Equipment Company (ATEC) is headquartered in Clackamas, Oregon. Its financial and marketing bases are in Silicon Valley and Santa Cruz, California. The company has developed, manufactured and marketed baseball and softball practice equipment in the United States and Canada since 1976. In 1983, ATEC added a new dimension to the company which has provided an excellent opportunity for growth. The concept, marketing baseball/softball academies under the name "ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A.", offers investors the ability to acquire a franchise and become an owner/operator of their own sports oriented business. An ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A. Batting Range consists of a number of token operated baseball and/or softball indoor or outdoor batting cages. These automated batting cages include a ball retrieval system, token boxes, netting, pitching machines and a master control panel in the office. The indoor ranges are designed to be used year round, whereas the outdoor ranges may be seasonal, depending on the climate. These batting ranges are open to the public and to team practice. The unique Grand Slam U.S.A. concept, built around the indoor/outdoor batting cages, including the industries most comprehensive academy teaching program offers the investor exclusive territorial rights for ten years. A significant element of the ATEC package is an operating manual which systematically guides the franchisee through step-by-step procedures to effectively manage and operate the range and the Academy. Grand Slam U.S.A. includes a marketing plan consisting of promotions, advertising guidelines, and other means of increasing traffic to the ranges. The franchisee is provided with at least two national promotions each year (however entrepreneurial spirit and creativity we both encourage and promote). Baseball and softball are the major, participatory, leisure-time sports in America. By capitalizing on the popularity of these sports, and the growing emphasis on physical fitness, ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A. has become an attractive and popular investment. ATEC has successfully positioned itself as the only known franchisor of indoor automated batting ranges in the world. The franchise concept has rewarded ATEC with noteworthy growth. Sales have increased from $2.8 million in 1983-84 to more than $5 million by the end of the fiscal 1989-90. Currently, 80 franchises are in operation in more than 30 states and Canada. Between 200 and 300 franchise sites are expected to be in operation within the next five years. Page I · Revised 2/91 · ATEC Grancl Slam U.S.A. ACADEMY The Company's objective in creating the ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A. concept is to provide a consistent approach to baseball and softball hitting, fielding, throwing, running and conditioning instruction throughout the nation. Franchise sites stress their academy concept by having top high school and college baseball and softball coaches provide instruction at clinics and camps and' give private and semiprivate lessons. Youngsters represent the largest potential market for Grand Slam U.S.A. ATEC's approach enables Grand Slam U.S.A. Academies to attract participation from all age groups and all levels of abilities. Parents appreciate the excellent instruction and enjoyable atmosphere for their children. Most importantly, youngsters have fun while improving their skills. In order to keep abreast of the latest trends in coaching techniques and training drills ATEC formed it's National Coaches Advisory Board in 1954. These coaches are highly respected in their profession and are responsible for reviewing and updating Grand Slam U.S.A.'s Academy curriculum. Bob Bennett, Fresno State John Herbold, Los Angeles State Ron Klein, New Trier High, Wilmette, Illinois Ron Maestri, University of New Orleans A.D. Mark Marquess, Stanford John Oldham, University of Santa Clara Sharon Drysdale, Northwestern Gordy Gillespie, St. Francis College Chris Bradford, St. Francis High, Santa Clara Hal Smeltzley, Florida Southern A.D. Cliff Gustafson, Austin, Texas Judi Garman, Cal State, Fullerton Augie Garrido, Cal State, Fullerton In addition to the National Coaches Advisory Board, ATEC has signed Jim Lefebvre, Manager of the Seattle Mariners; Jeff Torborg, Manager of the Chicago White Sox, Bill Virdon, Pittsburgh Pirates coach, and Ben Hines, L.A. Dodger's hitting coach as special representatives. They represent ATEC and promote ATEC's products at conventions, clinics and other meetings to demonstrate how effective ATEC's equipment is when used in instructional programs. They also make appearances at selected Grand Slam U.S.A. franchises in order to Augment the Academy program. Periodically current Major League players may be scheduled for mini clinics as were. ATEC PRODUCTS ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A. franchises use ATEC state-of-the-an pitching machines and equipment in both their academy program and batting cages. This is the same equipment used by all 26 Major League teams, all Minor League clubs, and personally by many Major League players. Major College and University programs, as well as the best prep teams in the country, insist on ATEC equipment in order to train their athletes. Page 2 · Revised 2/91 · ROOKIE BALL ATEC has announced an exciting new concept for youth league baseball. Rookie Ball and the Ponza Rookie pitching machine were designed to put excitement back into the game and to eliminate the fear of being hit by a wild pitch. A young player, then begins to feel more comfortable at the plate and can concentrate solely on learning how to hit the ball correctly. In Rookie Ball, an action packed game can be played in 50 to 60 minutes. Most leagues allow 10 defensive players on the field, with everyone on the team hitting in the batting order. In Rookie Ball everyone plays, and everyone wins. A young player now has the chance to improve his skills in a safe and fun environment. Dr. Bobby Brown President of the American League stated, "We feel Rookie Ball provides a relaxed atmosphere that forms a natural bridge between T-ball and the more formal youth programs. We feel this is a good way to introduce more youngsters to baseball .... " Children today leave T-Ball and are rushed into Little League to compete at a level they are neither physically nor emotionally mature enough to handle. When this happens, many youngsters begin to participate in other activities such as soccer or football. Major League Baseball's support of Rookie Ball has been overwhelming. John Scheurholz, Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Kansas City Royals said "I don't know if I'm more excited about this concept because I'm a father of an nine year old participant in the rookie ball program or because I'm the General Manager of the Kansas City Royals baseball team .... I saw the excitement, the smile, and the look of gratification on my son's face when he finished his first season with the rookie ball program .... It was great to see the whole team have fun in youth league baseball again." Page 3 · Revised 2/91 · CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 4, 1991 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Issues 1. New Members - At the September 23rd Council meeting a decision was made to appoint two (2) new Planning Commission members: Vi Underdahl - 7706 53rd Avenue North and Todd Lifson - 4688 Flag Avenue North They will not be officially appointed by the Council until October 14th, thus their first official meeting will be November 5th when an oath of office will be administered. I have sent both new members copies of the October Planning Commission packet and have invited them to attend the October meeting to view the Commission in action from an audience perspective, if they so desire. I have enclosed their applications for your information and will ask them to introduce themselves if they are present at the October meeting. 2. Committee Appointments - I will leave it to the discretion of the Chairman as to whether you want to assign the new members to committees now or in November and/or if you want to make any other committee changes. 3. 1992 Planning Commission Schedule - The preliminary 1992 Planning Commission schedule is enclosed.' Please review and let me know if you have any problems with it. 4. Flood Plain Ordinance - The DNR has officially approved the Flood Plain Ordinance that was adopted - letter enclosed for your information. 5. Unloading Zone at U.S. Swim - The enclosed letters were sent to the U.S. Swim, the shopping center manager, and the towel company in regards to the complaint regarding the towel service truck. In addition, a citation was issued to U.S. Swim. If this does not resolve the problem, further action will be taken. -2- 6. Bosa Donuts - City staff is checking into what action, if any, can be taken to clean up the Bosa Donuts property and I will report back in November. 7. Yard Barn - The storage shed at 3700 Jordan is still in place and there is an outstanding order for it to be removed. 8. Codes & Standards - Met once to review four issues: 1. R-O Zoning Change 2. Day Care Parking 3. Outdoor Dining 4. Fence Ordinance The first two reports are included in your packet under Planning Cases 91-31 and 91-22. The last two reports are attached here for your information. A date for an October meeting should be established to discuss final text language on issues 2, 3, and 4, so they can be presented to the full Commission in November. Once the City Attorney completes his review of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance, Codes & Standards will need to discuss that issue also. Attachments: Letters/Applications New Members 1992 Planning Commission Schedule New Address List, Planning Commission DNR Letter Citation & Letters, Towel Truck Issue Outdoor Dining Study Corner Lot Study/Fence Location 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. M/nnesota 55428 Phone: 531.5100 FAX ~'_' 5~: ' 5' - September 25, 1991 Ns. VJ Underdah] 7706 53rd Avenue North New Hope, HN 55428 Dear Vi: The New Hope City Council unanimous]y selected you to serve on the City's Planning Commission. The Council was impressed with your qualifications and interest in serving the City. Your termwi]] expire on December 31, 1993 (3-year term). An oath of office wi]] be administered at your first P]anning Commission Meetin§ of Tuesday, November 5, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. at City Ha]]. You wi]] receive the agenda packet on the preceding Friday, which wi]] be hand delivered to your residence. This wi]] allow you ample time to read over the material and do a little on-site investigation if you so desire. Should you have any questions regarding the Commission, please contact Kirk McDonald, staff ]iaison for the Planning Commission. For your review, ! have enclosed a copy of the city code 2.13 and minutes from a recent Planning Commission Meeting. Congratulations! Sincerely, ~ /~ Val erie Leone City Clerk enc. cc: Kirk McDonmld ~ Commission Application Applyir~ For: { I Ci*~-en ~ 1. ~. ~.~ ~' ~,./'~-/~.--= '.' ' ~ ~..~' ~ ~' " '~ 4. ~t ~]~ ~~ ~~ f~ ~d~it ~ ~? ~{~i~? 7. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~lv~ ~? II 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55~28 Phone: 531-5100 September 25, 1991 Mr. Todd Lifson 4688 Flag Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Mr. Lifson: The New Hope City Council unanimously selected you to serve on the City's Planning Commission. The Council was impressed with your qualifications and interest in serving the City. Your term will expire on December 31, 1993 (3-year term). An oath of office will be administered at your first Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday, November 5, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. You will receive the agenda packet on the preceding Friday, which will be hand delivered to your residence. This will allow you ample time to read over the material and do a little on-site investigation if you so desire. Should you have any questions regarding the Commission, please contact Kirk McDonald, staff liaison for the Planning Commission. For your review, I have enclosed a copy of the city code 2.13 and minutes from a recent Planning Commission Meeting. Congratul ati ons! Sincerely, Val erie Leone City Clerk eric. cc: Kirk McDonald Family Styled City ~ For Family Living 1992 PL~HNING CO~ISSION SCHEDULE P.C. Public Council Public Desiqn and Hearing Hearinq Application Delivered to Reviee Revieed Plan 7:30 p.m. 7:00 p.m. Submitted Paper-NOON 3~45 p.m. Published on Deadline January 7 January 13 December 13 December 19 December 19 December 25 December 30 February 4 February 10 January 10 January 16 January 16 January 22 January 27 March 3 March 9 February 7 February 13 February 13 February 19 February 24 April 7 April 13 March 13 March 19 March 19 March 25 March 30 May 5 May 11 April 10 April 16 April 16 April 22 April 27 June 2 June 8 May 8 May 14 May 14 May 20 May 25 July (No meeting scheduled) August 4 August 10 July 10 July 16 July 16 July 22 July 27 September 1 September 14 August 7 August 13 August 13 August 19 August 24 October 6 October 12 September 11 September 17 September 17 September 23 September 28 November 3 November 9 October 9 October 15 October 15 October 21 October 26 December 1 December 14 November 6 November 12 November 12 November 18 November 23 TYPE OF REQUEST BASIC ZONING FEE ZONING DEPOSIT A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (minor residential) $75* None, or as required by Manager B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (all others) $225* $225, or as required by Manager C. REZONING/TEXT AMENDMENT $250* $250, or as required by Manager D. VARIANCES (single family residential) $75* None, or as required by Manager E. VARIANCES (all others) $175, $175, or as required by Manager F. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT $500* $250, or as required by Manager G. SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING $225* As required by Manager H. SITE & BUILDING PI~N REVIEW $150' As required by Manager I. COMPREHENf;IV} '~l~t~ I'I.AN $40 *Published Notice Required ~ STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD * ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA * 55155-40.~ DNR INFORMATION (612) 296-6157 September 23, 1991 Kirk C. McDonald, Management Assistant/ 'Community Development Coordinator City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Mr. McDonald: STATE APPROVAL OF DRAFT FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE The Department of Natural Resources has completed its review of the draft ordinance the City of New Hope is considering for adoption. The ordinance was entitled An Ordinance Amending Appendix D of the New Hope Code by Repealing Existing Floodplain Regulations and Adopting New Floodplain Regulations and was dated June 10, 1991. On behalf of the Commissioner of Natural Resources, I am pleased to inform you that the draft ordinance has been found to be in compliance with "Statewide Standards and Criteria for Management of Floodplain Areas of Minnesota," Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200. Therefore, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103F, I hereby conditionally certify state approval of the above cited draft ordinance. This approval is valid upon receipt (within 90 days) of three {3) certified, signed copies of the adopted version and a completed copy of the Ordinance Certification Checklist {attached) by Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss located at the following address: DNR-Dtvision of Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 772-7910 Any changes of the subject draft ordinance prior to adoption must be approved by this. agency prior to adoption before they can be considered valid. Also be advised that any future amendments of this ordinance or change in the designation of flood prone areas requires prior approval of the Commissioner. Note that you are required to send copies of hearing notices and final decisions relating to variances and conditional use permits relating to this ordinance to the Department. Please send these directly to Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss and rely on horror assistance in administering your ordinance.' AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page Two ~ Since your administration of a floodplain zoning ordinance is a pre-requisite of your eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program, a certified copy of the adopted ordinance will be sent by this office to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Your cooperation and initiative in providing for the reduction in flood damage through the administration of this ordinance is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Permits and Land Use Section PS/BA:fw cc: John Stine, Regional Hydrologist Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist David Schein, FEMA HC A56719~90) STATE OF MINNESOTA UNIFORM CITATION NO. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT 0481221 The ,$sutngbe,ow officer $,a,es o~enset~at ,~e~escr,~per~n ~n violation of the s~on indicate. NAME -- ~ST. ;IRST. MIDDLE. AlDEN U. S. Swim & Fitness 4 2 3 9 Winnetka Avenue North STATE Z~P CODE New Hope M N 55428 DATE OF BIRTH '~ EYES HEIGHT WEll3HT SEX MO. DAY YEAR, COLOR LOCATION & CI~ Hope STATUTE OR ORDINANCE NO. , DESCRiPTiON 4. 036 ILLEG~ USE 0F DRIV~AY FOR TRUCK LO~ING/~O~ING AT ~ Corn C~e~ C~ OtV ~ ACTIVITY [ Spec Endanger Llfl ~ Accident ~Un~fe ~ Commerclel ~HIzimoul BADGE NUMBER ~ ORr NUMBER 77 J M N ' If you fall to mepond to t~lJ citation within 7 dayL Increased penalties will ~ aeeeeJ~ an~ a warrant may ~ iJaued for your arm~t, If a warrant I~Jued, a penalty of ~30.00 will be added to the fine. COURT COPY-DO NOT WRITE ON REVERSE 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX ,' 6 ~ £ 52 -- September 18, 1991 ATTENTION: Manager U.S. Swim & Fitness 4239 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope MN 55428 subject: COMPLAINT REGARDING TOWEL TRUCK PARKING IN FIRE LANE AT U.S. SWIM & FITNESS Manager of U.S.Swim & Fitness: The City has received a formal complaint (Per the enclosed minutes of the New Hope Planning Commission) regarding a G & K Towel Services truck that parks in front of the New Hope U.S. Swim & Fitness in the fire lane next to a sign that indicates "no parking in fire lane" on Monday and Thursday mornings from 6-7 a.m. There is a concern that this creates a real traffic and safety hazard because visibility is blocked. The parking of the truck in the fire lane is not consistent with the revised parking plan that was approved this past May and violates City ordinances. I have enclosed copies of letters sent to the Towel Company and the shopping center management requesting that this practice be discontinued and that an alternative unloading plan/site be utilized. I would certainly appreciate your assistnace in resolving this problem. While it is a relatively minior issue, it has become a real thorn in the side to the Planning Commission. Is there any reason that the unloading cannot take place at the rear of the building in the designated zone? Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Enclosure: Planning Commission Minutes, Sept. 3, 1991 cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Colin Kastanos, Police Chief Doug Smith, Fire Chief Amy Melchoir, Shopping Center Management G & K Services ~ FamilyS~ledCi~~/~/~ ForFamilyLiving 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX , 5 ~, £, 5,3' ~' -~ September 18, 1991 Amy Melhoir, Senior Real Estate Manager Minnesota Center 7760 France Avenue South, Suite 770 Minneapolis MN 55435-5282 Subject: COMPLAINT REGARDING TOWEL TRUCK PARKING IN FIRE LANE AT U.S. SWIM & FITNESS Dear Amy: The City has received a formal complaint (per the enclosed minutes of the New Hope Planning Commission) regarding a G & K Towel Services truck that parks in front of the New Hope U.S. Swim & Fitness in the fire lane next to a sign that indicates "no parking in fire lane" on Monday and Thursday mornings from 6-7 a.m. There is a concern that this creates a real traffic and safety hazard because visibility is blocked. The parking of the truck in the fire lane is not consistent with the revised parking plan that was approved this past May and violates City ordinances. I have enclosed copies of letters sent to the Towel Company and the New Hope U.S. Swim facility requesting that this practice be dis- continued and that an alternative unloading plan/site be utilized. I would certainly appreciate your assistance in resolving this problem. While it is a relatively minior issue, it has become a real thorn in the side to the Planning Commission. Is there any reason that the unloading cannot take place at the rear of the building in the designated zone? Please contact me if you have any questions of comments. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Enclosure: Planning Commission Minutes, Sept. 3, 1991 cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Colin Kastanos, Police Chief Doug Smith, Fire Chief New Hope U.S. Swim & Fitness G & K Services ~ FamilyS~ledC~~~~3/,d~ ForFamilyLiving ~t,~01 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX ~. ~ !£ ~.:~ ~'""~ - September 18, 1991 G & K Services Linen Division 621 Olson Memorial Highway Golden Valley MN 55405 Subject: COMPLAINT REGARDING TOWEL TRUCK PARKING IN FIRE LANE AT U.S. SWIM & FITNESS To Whom It May Concern: The City has received a formal complaint (per the enclosed minutes of the New Hope Planning Commission) regarding a G & K Towel Services truck that parks in front of the New Hope U.S. Swim & Fitness in the fire lane next to a sign that indicates "no parking in fire lane" on Monday and Thursday mornings from 6-7 a.m. The complaint expressed the concern that this is a violation of City ordinances and creates a traffic hazard, as persons entering and exiting the facility do not have a clear view of traffic passing in front of the business. The City requests that the truck discontinue this practice immediately and that your firm cooperate with U.S. Swim to find an acceptable alternative unloading area. The City has contacted U.S. Swim and the shopping center management to inform them of this complaint. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Enclosure: Planning Commission Minutes, Sept. 3, 1991 cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Colin Kastanos, Police Chief Doug Smith, Fire Chief New Hope U.S. Swim & Fitness Amy Melchoir, Shopping Center Management Family Styled City ~ For Family Living U R B P L A N G DE S I G N M A R K E T R ES E A R C H TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Kyle Brown/Alan Brixius DATE: 10 September 1991 RE: New Hope Outdoor Dining Study FILE NO: 131.00 - 91.12 BACKGROUND The City has received a number of requests from eating establishments wishing to provide outdoor seating and service within the City. These restaurants are located within a number of commercial shopping centers, including Midland Shopping Center, City Center, and Winnetka Commons. All of these locations are zoned B-4, Community Business. ANALYSIS The current Zoning Ordinance allows restaurants as a permitted use, and drive in and convenience food establishments as a conditional use within the B-3 and B-4 Districts. However, neither of these uses identifies outdoor dining as being allowed. Furthermore, outdoor sales, which may possibly include outdoor dining, is allowed as a conditional accessory use within the B-3 Zoning District, however, not within the B-4 Zoning District. Based on these considerations, the current Ordinance does not provide for outdoor dining in the B-4 Zoning District at the present time. The appropriateness of outdoor dining must be considered in the context of the existing land use situation, and the zoning district(s) intent. In light of the fact that the current requests for outdoor dining pertain to existing businesses existing shopping centers, the feasibility of outdoor dining must be considered for these specific areas. These shopping centers were not originally designed to accommodate outdoor dining or storage. As a result, the sidewalks in front of the premises are generally narrow. Therefore, depending on the specific location of the outdoor dining, there may not be adequate space to provide the desired seating area. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555-St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 Another issue which must be considered with regards to existing operations is the equity in parking provisions. Although not expanding the size of their structure, these businesses are expanding their operations. The existing shopping center parking lots do not account for this expansion. Ensuring the provision of adequate space and parking, are issues which must be considered in determining the appropriateness of this request. The zoning district provisions must also be considered in this matter. Based on the zoning district purpose statements, it appears that outdoor dining areas would be generally consistent with the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts. However, in order for outdoor dining to function in a manner which is compatible with the restaurant and the surrounding facility, a number of factors must be sufficiently addressed. These factors include the type of outdoor service provided, the size of the dining area, a sanitary dining environment, screening, lighting, surfacing, pedestrian circulation, and refuse. With these considerations in mind, the City must make a policy decision as to whether or not these outdoor dining activities are appropriate as an accessory use within the B-3 and/or the B-4 Zoning Districts. If the City determines they are an appropriate accessory use, we offer consideration of the following factors in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and high quality performance. T~pe of Service. Of central importance in regulating this accessory use is the determination of the type of service provided for the outdoor dining. The area may consist of self- seating tables where patrons order and pick up food inside the building, or the outdoor dining may be an extension of a more formal restaurant which would provide table waiting service for the outdoor area. The applicant must identify the type of service provided in order for it to be properly evaluated. Currently only fast food establishments have inquired into the outdoor dining areas. Area Size The size of the dining area is also of concern. If the intent is that the outdoor dining is an accessory use on a site, the area should be smaller than the area provided within the principal structure. The Zoning Ordinance limits outdoor sales areas in the B-3 District to a determined percentage of the gross floor area of the principal use. It is recommended that this figure or a similar limit be placed upon outdoor dining areas. An option the City has is to limit the outdoor area to a determined percentage of the entire principal use floor area, or 30 percent of the customer area within the principal use. The latter provision would ensure that outdoor seating for establishments which are principally take-out in nature and provide only a small customer area in the facility, did not constitute the majority of dining area for the business. 2 CONCLUSION As stated in the Analysis section of this report, the decision to allow outdoor dining in New Hope is a policy matter in which the City must consider the ability to provide outdoor seating for existing facilities, and the appropriateness of the use within the context of the Zoning Ordinance. Although the current Ordinance does not address outdoor dining, it does address outdoor sales. Many of the provisions regarding sales are applicable to outdoor storage, however, additional items such as access, circulation, and refuse must also be addressed. It is therefore recommended that, if deemed appropriate, outdoor dining be allowed as a conditional accessory use to restaurants and convenience food establishments in the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts, provided the following: 1. The applicant submit a site plan and other pertinent information demonstrating the location of all tables, refuse receptacles, and wait stations. 2. Access to the dining area be provided only via the principal building if the dining area is a full service restaurant, including table waiting service. 3. The size of the dining area is restricted to a certain percentage of the total floor area of the principal use, or customer floor area within the principal structure. 4. The dining area is screened from view from adjacent residential uses in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 5. Ail lighting be hooded and directed away from adjacent residential uses in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 6. The applicant demonstrate that pedestrian circulation is not disrupted as a result of the outdoor dining area by providing the following: A. Cafe area shall be segregated from through pedestrian circulation by means of temporary fencing, bollards ropes, plantings, etc. B. Minimum clear passage zone for pedestrians at th.- perimeter of the cafe shall be at least five (5) feet without interference from parked motor vehicles. bollards, trees, treegates, curbs, stairways, trash receptacles, street lights, parking meters, etc. 4 Compatibility. In order for the outdoor dining to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, its potential effects must also be addressed. As is provided for outdoor sales within the Ordinance, outdoor dining should be screened from adjacent residential uses, and any lighting which is provided must be hooded and directed away from public right-of-way and neighboring residences. Another compatibility issue which must be addressed is pedestrian circulation. Frequently, outdoor dining in shopping centers occurs along the sidewalk in front of the principal use. The applicant must demonstrate through a site plan and/or other information, that the outdoor dining will not disrupt pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk, nor does it block access to any building entrance. A five foot wide pedestrian way is needed to provide uninterrupted foot traffic. Additionally, the pathway should have a clearance height of at least seven feet. Surfacing. The surfacing of the dining area must be level and of a material which is designed to accommodate heavy foot traffic, tables, and chairs. It must also be a material which can be cleaned easily and provides adequate drainage. It is therefore recommended that the dining area be surfaced with concrete, bituminous, or some form of decorative paver. Dining Area Design. The layout of the dining area must provide ample room for movement of people. As such, a minimum width of 42 inches should be provided for aisles within the dining area. The furniture for the dining area should be movable to allow for removal from the sidewalk in the evening, and during the winter months. Furthermore, no cooking or bar service should be provided outside for health and safety reasons. Ail requests should also be subject to review and comment by the City Sanitarian. Parkinq. The outdoor dining area cannot utilize existing parking spaces necessary to fulfill parking requirements for the principal use. Furthermore, the parking requirements for the use must be adjusted to account for the additional seating. Refuse. If the outdoor dining area is a self-service establishment, the applicant must demonstrate the provision of refuse containers to service the outdoor area. Such containers must be placed in a manner which does not disrupt pedestrian circulation, and must be designed to prevent spillage and blowing litter resulting from wind. C. 0verstory canopy of tree/umbrellas or other structures extending into the pedestrian clear passage zone or pedestrian aisle shall have a minimum clearance of seven (7) feet above sidewalk. 7. The dining area is surfaced with concrete, bituminous or decorative paver to provide a clean, attractive, and f~nctional surface. 8. A minimum of forth-two (42) inches shall be provided within aisles of cafe. 9. Furniture and enclosed perimeter shall be movable to allow for seasonal changes. Furniture shall be removed daily off of sidewalk. 10. No storage of furniture on sidewalk shall be allowed between the months of October and April. 11. No outside bar or cooking facility shall be established, only wait stations shall be allowed. 12. Increased parking requirements shall be addressed pursuant to Ordinance requirements. 13. Refuse containers are provided for self-service outdoor dining areas. Such containers shall be placed in a manner which does not disrupt pedestrian circulation, and must be designed to prevent spillage and blowing litter. 14. The operation is subject to approval of the City Sanitarian and compliance with any written provisions he or she requires. If the City desires to draft an amendment based on the above requirements, Ordinance language can be prepared for the amendment. 5 Nort we ssoci Consultants, Inc. U R B A P L NG · D N · M AR K E T R ES E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Allan Hunting/Alan Brixius DATE: 12 August 19~i ~E: New Hobe - Corner Lot Study/Fence Location FILE NO: 13i.O0 - 9i.ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background: The City of New Hope has recently confronted a unique reques~ a fence on a residential corner lot. The home on the oriented to the side street and the Droposed fence is located in the defined front yard. This situation was as a variance. The City, in review of this request, sugges~e~ that City staff review the lot frontage definition far ~ossiDie revision in order to avoid the need for the variance far ~nese lots in the~future. ANALYSIS The lot frontage definition ~as previously reviewed in New ho~e in July of 1988. This investigation stemmed from the number c- expansion requests of non-conforming single family homes loca~ez on corner lots. It was believed, at the time, that the iz~ frontage definition, add,ted in i980, created the need fo~ t~ese variances. The current lot frontage definition reads as foli~: Section 4.022.84 Let, Frontaqe. The front of a tot shall be, for ~ ~ur~oses of complying with ~his C~de, that boundary a~ut~inz a ~ublic right-of-way having ~he least width. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595°9837 This definition Orovides for building setback uniformity within a given residential block and also maximizes the buildabie area of a corner lot once the reouired building setbacks are applied. This definition does not dictate the o,-ientation of the home, Out does provide the greatest de~ree of flexibility for building placement in accordance with City setback standards. The conclusion of the i~88 corner lot ~eview revealed the current lot frontage definition was not the cause of the variance requests. Rather, the individual homes were not situated properly within the lot~s buildable area. In review of the fence reouest, we have again ~e-evaluated the lot frontage definition in con]unction with the C~.ty's fence regulations. Exhibit A illustrates the required setback anO a house oriented to the side street using !he current lot frontage definition. Please note that the required setback along both Streets A and B are uniform with aO]acent lot development. Also. the larger front and rea,- setbacks are applied to the lo~ s longest dimension, p~-ovidlng tine largest possible bulldable area. Section 4.035.3 outlines the performance standards for fences in New Hope. Exhibit 8 illustrates the a~lication of the fence requirement to the cdr'net lot situation. Section 4.033.3: (3) Fencing and Screening (a) Permitted (i) Height Maximum.. No fence shall exceed eight feet in height anO in the case of grade separation , such as the division of properties by a retaining wail. the height snail be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between t~e highest and lowest grade. (ii) Intersecti~ _~.~i~.il_~.~Y.. Except as to street intersections where vehicular access is controiiec by electrical signals, or where ali vehicula~ access to the intersection is controlled by n©n- electrical sto~ signs, such as three and four-way Or other all-way electrical stop signs, no fence. other than a chain line or woven wire fence forty- eight inches or less in height with openings between one and five-eighths and two inches, shali be permitted within twenty 'feet of any corne~ formed by the inter'section of street lines or the ,-iohL-of-way of a rallway intersecting a st,-eet. The twent'/ feet refeured 2 to above shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides formed by the property lines and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the two twenty .foot points on each side of the corner. No plantlog or structure which exceeds a width of twenty-four inches within a height eight feet or less from the top of the street curb small be permitted within said triangle. (iii)Short Fence. Except as provided in ii, a0ove, fences t~ree feet in height, or less, may be located on any Dart of a lot. (iv) Location. Except as provided in ii, above, fences may be erected on any part of a lot which is behind the front line of the principal bulldino. Provision (iv) above only limits a fence location to the area behind the front line of the principal building. This is unioue language in that it does not identify specific setback or required yard restrictions. Based on tl~e specific wording of this pMovislon, the orientation of the principal structure establishes the front line of the principal building and the location limits of the -fence location. Under this interpretation, the lot's front yard setback and other reoulreo building setbacks would not be applicable to the regulatin~ fence location. A comparison of the fence location restriction with City's location restriction for other accessory structures highlights the unidue language of the fence per'~ormance standards. While fence location only deals with the front line of the orincioai building, other accessory structures are limited by yard restrictions, ~s illustrated below: (b) Rear Yard Llmit~Q~_~_ No accessory storage tyDe Ouildings other than a g~rage shall be located in any yard other than a rear yard. Section 4.032.3 (d) (ii) Air Conditioners. No accessory uses or eOuipment suc- as air condi[ionino cooling structures or con0ense~s which generate noise may Oe located in a re0uired siCe yard except for side yards aOutting streets and in suc~ case the eouipment shai t he fully screened from view. Both of these requirements and others like them in the Ordinance address structure restr~.ctions by yard reouirement. This makes the location restriction very clear, and not affecte~ by structure orientation, or subject to interpretation. As Exhibl~ B illustrates, ~he fence requirements need ~o be m~re definitive in describing allowed fence location on ~he lo~. this deficiency is brought out most clearly in this corner scenario. As stated earlier, {be definition of lot frontaqe does not affect the fence 01acement, therefore, a change in this definition wi not address ~uture concerns. [he City should, however, consl0er amending its ~ence regulations to more clearly Oeflne ~he appropriate locations ~or ~ences. Ibm current regulations present concerns with fences being oermitted in requireO fron~ yards on corner lots. Clearly defined fence setbacks woulO eliminate interDretation differences and could reflect {he actual objectives of the City. CONCLUS I ON Based on the inEeroretation of the fence requirements, changing t~e definition o'~ Lo~ F,-ontaoe wi 11 have no im~ac~ on location of fences. Chan~ing the lot f,-onta~e definition would no~ provide any relief for any corner 1o~ S~'LIC~LIM~ variance or fence aD~lication. We would suggest that the Clt~ may want t~ investigate the possibility c~ modifying the fence requirements so that they are made consistent with the rest of the Ordinance in the way they deal with toc~tlon on t~e lot. 35' 1 _,~__ Front Line ---- ~ of the Principal Gara~ Structure House ~ Street A EXHIBIT A III I lill IIIIJ IIIIIIIII IIIII IIIII ~lllllllllllll iiii illillliil~ 35' Front Line of the _Principal Garage House Fencelme __.~. Street A EXHIBIT B