The URL can be used to link to this page

110591 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 Case 91-22 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Establishment of a Pre- School and Child Care Center, 3701 Winnetka Avenue North, Rohan/I-Ielen DeAlwis, Petitioners 4.2 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 4.3 Case 91-35 Request for a 4-Foot Variance to the 35' Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of Porch, 4741 Boone Avenue North, Robert E. Lindell, Petitioner 4.4 Case 91-36 Request for Variance to Rear and Side Yard Setbacks to Allow A Utility Shed, 4764 Erickson Drive, LaVerne Kramer, Petitioners 4.5 Case 91-37 Request for Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Allow Construction of a New Super America Station, 6144 West Broadway, Super America Group Inc., Petitioner 4.6 Case 91-38 Request for Amendment to Conditonal Use Permit, and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Addition, 7100 Bass Lake Road, Taco Bell Corp., Petitioner 4.7 Case 91-39 Consider Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Rezoning Certain Residential Property from "R-2"Single and Two Family Residential to "R-I" Single Family Residential, City of New Hope, Petitioner 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 5.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 1991 7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of September 23 and October 14, 1991, and Special City Council Meeting of October 21, 1991 7.3 Review of EDA Minutes of July 22, 1991 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING CASES NOVE~.~ER 1991 .... "' o1-37 (to be 6144 ]Vest tabled) ~roa~ PC 91-58 7100 Bass Lake Ro ad PC 91-39 4712 4784 Erickson Drive . ~-_._ PC 91-36 4764 Erickson '~' Drive PC 91-35 4 741 Boone ~_~ ,.~ PC 91-26 Xylon PC 91-22 Winnetka 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: November 1, 1991 Meeting Date: November 5, 1991 UPDATE 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, and October 8, 1991, Planning Commission meetings and staff recommended the ease be tabled for one month to resolve a number of issues on the site plan. 3. A zoning text change was approved at the October Planning Commission meeting that allows day care centers as a conditional use in the "R-O" Residential Office District. 4. Subsequent to the last meeting staff drafted a letter to the petitioner outlining the specific changes the staff and commission wanted to see on revised plans. The staff met with the petitioner and clearly explained these changes and provided examples of trash enclosure details, planting schedules, etc. 5. As a result of the discussions with the petitioner, new revised plans have been submitted that address all issues, as outlined below: A. A detailed landscape schedule has been provided that shows quantity, size, type and name of landscaping to be planted. The new plan shows landscaping installed on the day care property behind the front property line (previous plan had shown landscaping on east side in City right-of-way). B. New Plan shows existing exterior lights on the rear and side of building and new parking lot lights with detail. C. New plan shows fence detail (6-foot red cedar wood on south and 4-foot cyclone on west and north). D. Trash enclosure detail is shown on new plan (6-foot height, natural cedar). E. New south driveway has been shifted north (5 feet away from south property line). F. Plan shows parking lot to be restriped in white. Planning Case 91-22 November 5, 1991 Page -2- G. Detail of playground area is provided (6" x 6" treated lumber around 6" of pea gravel with playgym). H. All curbing is shown on detail as concrete (also sidewalk). I. Details provided on stairs (concrete), retaining wall (6" x 6" treated wood), and railings (steel, 1-1/2" diameter); all retaining walls are engineered. J. Drop-off drive width increased to 16 feet with three (3) parallel parking spaces provided. 6. Staff finds that all recommendations have been incorporated into the plan. 7. The only concern staff has is that the exact size and setback of the primary business identification sign is not shown on the plan or plan details. A condition of approval should be that the sign meets City Code requirements (maximum 75 square feet and setback 10 feet or more from property lines). 8. The City's Planning Consultant and City Attorney have both provided comment on the drop-off drive aisle. It is the Attorney's opinion that the drive is not specifically required and that the number of parking spaces required is questionable if the code requirement is changed. It is the Planning Consultant's opinion that the City has the discretion to impose conditions not specifically outlined in the Code if they improve the safety and function of the site. The "pros" of the drop-off are that it provides a safety factor, it reduces the need for parents/children to cross the parking lot to enter the school, and it separates the entrance and exit drives. About the only negative factor is that it reduces green area. The County specifically recommends approval of the curb cut and supports the drop-off aisle because it directs traffic in one way and out the other on a busy four-lane roadway. Taking into consideration the fact that the code amendment for day care parking has not yet been considered by the Council or approved, staff finds that the safety issues are important and recommends including the drive-thru aisle as a condition of approval. RECOMMENDATION 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 Cub Permit within 60 days of Council approval. 2. Install new sod, landscaping, and drop-off lane prior to June 1, 1992. 3. Execute a development agreement with the City concerning site improvements and provide suitable bond. 4. Business ground sign to meet City Code requirements regarding size and setback. Planning Case Report 91-22 November 5, 1991 Page -3- Attachments: New Revised Site Plan Planting Schedule Sign Plans Trash Enclosure Plan Fence Detail Playground Detail Retaining Wall Detail Curb Detail Stair Detail Lighting Detail Letter to Petitioner re: Revised Plans Attorney Correspondence October/September Planning Reports II 7.00.am .5.30.pm i I I DayCare Center for _ 5 .... Mr' R°han DeAIWisI~1 oo PULL DO NOT AHEAD ENTER PLEASE '" 501 Mr. Rohan De AIwis M.szajner I · j rj .--- ,,::a ~ u.,,, ,,: ~,, . ~ 1 I i~ __ 221 I I DayCare Center for 10/30/91 Mr. Rohan DeAIwis M. sz,~or 5O2 DayCare Center f. or so~ Mr. Rohan De AIw~s M.Szainer Mr. Rohan DeAIw,s M.sZainer , ,, Mr. Rohan De AIwis M.Szajn,r ,, Mr. Rohan DeAiwis M.szajner , , CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 21, 1991 TO: Rohan DeAlwis FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Recommendations for Revisions on Bassett Creek Montessori School Plans from Planning Commission, Planning Consultant, Design & Review Committee, and Staff 1. Detailed landscaping plan to be provided along with landscaping schedule that shows location, plant type, size, number to be planted, etc., as per Attachment A. Landscaping to be provided in front yard (east) and is encouraged along perimeter of north property line. Landscaping to be installed on property - not City right- of-way (present plan shows landscaping on east in City right-of-way). 2. Lighting location to be indicated on plan (front, rear, side of building, and any free-standing lights). Ail lighting to be downlit - type and detail to be shown on plan. 3. Fence detail (height and type of construction materials) to be shown on plan (see example - Attachment B). 4. Trash enclosure detail (height, type of material, etc.) to be shown on plan (see example - Attachment C). 5. Shift new south driveway a minimum of 5 feet away (north) from south property drive. 6. State on the plan that the parking lot is to be restriped in white. 7. Show some detail of playground area: surface, equipment, etc. 8. Shown on plan that curbing around north parking lot and on drop-off drive will be continuous concrete. 9. Details regarding materials for steps, retaining walls and railings to be shown on plan. 10. Drop-off drive width should be increased to 18 feet in width and show four 8' x 20' parallel drop-off spaces striped along west side, including sidewalk. (The Planning Commission will require that a bond be posted for this improvement and that it be installed by June 1st, 1992.) The existing parking standards in the ordinance for this type of use require 14 spaces. Only 11 spaces are shown on the plan. Staff feels there is good justification to require the drive-thru/drop-off because current parking requirements are not met. The City is in the process of reviewing the parking standards for day care centers and if the recommendation of the consultant is adopted, the number of spaces required for this site/use would be reduced to 11. If the reduction occurs, it is staffs' feeling that the Planning Commission has the authority to recommend that the drive- thru still be installed for safety purposes, even though the drive-thru is not specifically required in the code. 11. Plans to be signed by a certified architect. Lastly, staff feels it would be beneficial if the site plan were of a larger size (scale) so that the plan details are more clear. OCT--~ 1 --9 1 THU 8 : 52 CORR ICK ~ $ON~RALL P . 02 October 31, 1991 Kirk HcDonald Hanagement Asst. C~ty of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, HN 55428 RE: Bassett Creek Hontessori School Planning Case No, 91-22 Our File No. 99.29122 Dear Kirk: This letter is in follow up to the Codes and Standards Commi%tee that met on October 30th to discuss the parking standards for day care centers and how said standards should apply to the Bassett Creek Montessori School Planning Case No. 91-22. Code §4.036(10)(j) se%s forth our current requirements for day care center off-street parking. The staff interpretation of that section in applica%ion to the subject planning case requires the applicant to provide 14 parking spaces, Basically, staff has concluded that since Dreschoolers may take a nap during their stay at the day care center, this is the equivalent of providing a bed under the terms of said code section, therefore one parking stall would be required for every 3 students enrolled a~ %he day care center. While ! understand the logic of this interpretation I think a cour~ may find it difficult to accept our application of %his code section. I think i~ would be d~fficult to make a persuasive argument that the act of taking a nap is the equivalent of providing a bed under the terms of that section. ~ think it more likely that a court would interpret that code section to require the applicant to provide only 4 parking spaces. I think a court would more probably conclude %hat a day care center does not provide any beds, that the act of taking a nap is not the equivalent of providing a bed &nd tha~ only 4 spaces are required CmCT--31--9 I THU 8 : 53 CORR I CK ~ $ON~RALL P . 81 Nr. Kirk McDonald October 31, 1991 Page 2 under the terms of our own code section. Therefore, I think tt is in the best interests of the City to agree with the applicant that the ordinance amendment currently under consideration be app3icable to Planning Case No. 91-22. Relative to %he drive-through aisle, I have reviewed the conditional use performance standards ~or day care centers and find no requirement for a drive-through aisle. As &resu]t, it ts my o~inion that ~he drive-through ais3e could not be made a. mandatory condition of the conditiona3 use permit, If there are any further questions, please con~act me. Very truly yours, Steven ~. $ondrall alt2 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'mai 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- RECOMMENDATION 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 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: Rohan/Helen 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 3,100square 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 Overation - facilities operating hours are limited to 6:30 am to 6:30 pm. C. Front Yard Setback o 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. ~- the site and parking is served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic that will be generated. H. ~- all signing in compliance with City Code. I. General Conditional Use Requirements to be met. J. State Regulations -no facility shall begin operation without a state license. K. Buildin~z 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_~arance -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 1D (off-street parking), IE (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 corner (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 exhibit). 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 wall 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 ear 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. RE~O~NDATION 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 / -R-O GETH~MANE CEMETERY SCHOOl., - _ BETHEl.* CEMETERY sol ! ~44~* HOLY NATIVITY BASSETT CREEK MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4735 8assett Creek Drive Golden Valley MN 55422 (612) 521-2232 August 7, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL City of New Hope 4401Xylon 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, Pl~nouth, Crystal and West Golden Valley. We have recei,~ec 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 ace 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 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 use permit be issued, in order to establish a Montessori Pre-School and a Child 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 Musi] & creative movements, Swimming, Computor classes, Spanish, French, Drama, Arts & Field trips, etc. wi½1 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)~, METHOD &t the turn of the century, Dr. Maria Montessori began · revolution in education. Maria Montessori was · biolo~st, scientist and ·las a woman of profound reli6ious fselin~s. She believed that education must meet the needs of the whole childs his mind, his body and his spirit. Her ~pproach to teachin~ was built upon respect for the child. Dr. Monteosori asserted th·t children are capable of learnin~ mathematics and of ·cquirin~ readin~ and writin6 skills ·t · younf a~ liven the opportunity and help. This capability ~rows from the childts innate desire to learn rather than from adult pressure. Utilizin6 her skills of ociontific observation, Dr. Monteosori carefully watched children over · number of years, and rained new insights into the nature of childhood learnin~. Abandonin~ the traditions of format classrooms, Maria Montess~ri created a new classroom environment scaled to the child and to his need. The ~repared environment offers the child security of order. There is · place for everythir~ and sverythin~ in its place. The sense of order, prevalent in · Montsssori classroom, diminishes frustration and ~ives the child satisfaction and self-direction. The Montessori apparatus, designed by Dr. Montessori, 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. Montessori made apparatus which can be manipulated sensorially. The trainin~ 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 and cultural subjec=s. The practical file ·rea ~ives the child an opportunity to perform real everyday activities. It is divided into two ~roups~ activities related to the child's own person, such as le~rnin~ to button and to tie a bow; and activities concerned with care of the environment, such as washin~ · table and polishin~ 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 lan~ua6e that already. exists in · child and helps him classify this existin~ language. "~he &ia of the Xontessori mathematical apparatus ie to give & child a chance to verify facts through expsrie~ce &nd to exercise his innate potentialities. Dr. ~ontessori ·nnlysed ·11 the difficulties of mathematics &nd then presented them separately by mea~s of concrete apparatus. The oultur·l.&rea'..covers subjects such &s geography, hiltory, music, botany, science, &nd zoology. Each subject is approached by first giving& child & sensorial experience &~d second by giving him spoken &nd then vritte~ 1Lngu·ge for the contents of each subject. The Xonteseori apparatus has man7 characteristics but there are fundamental qu·litiei com~o~ to every piece of material. They are as follovs~ 1. The Control of Error. The materials contain in themselves & control of error which makes the child use his reasoning power, increase hie capacity for dr&sing distinctions &nd promotes independence. 2..Le-~J~LYJ.~J. All materials are made as attractive &e possible. Color, brightness &nd proportioe &re sought in all the materials. 3. Activity. ~ key factor in all the ~ontessori 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 ~ontessori 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 &nd 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 Montessori class, the virtues of character are .as highly prized as academic achievement. Children grow not only in/self-confidence, but also in · sense of responsibility. I~tellect, physical powers, and moral insight must all be developed if a child is to be prep&red to meet the demands of life. The center of the Montessori Method is the child. The prep&red environment, the apparatus, the philosophy behind the ~echnique all flow from &n understanding of the child and a respect for his worth. Nor west ssociated Consul ants, Inc. U R B P L A N NG DES I G N M AR K E R ES 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 Recoa=~ndation: 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 AN~LYSIS Ex/sting Site Arr~-gement. 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 ~oot structure remains in fairly good conditicn overall, although a retaining wall and lower level entrance at the rear of the building appear dilapidated. The shrubbery and turfed areas are overgrown and have not been maintained recently. Adjacent land uses include a veterinary clinic to the north of 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 Desicm. The pre-school/child care facility is being 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-O, 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~gues 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 3 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. 4 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. TopograDkv. 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 2,3.25 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 potentia2 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. 5 LandscaDing. 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. Grading 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. Si?nage. 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 recommend 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 -I¥.LSA~JO,. EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN :t ' i'. ..... -; ~ .. EXHIBIT C - PROPOSED REVISIONS Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. URBAN P L A N NI NG DES I G N · MARKET R ES E A R C H PLAHNING REPORT 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 ANALYSIS Existing R.e~u~irements. The current Zoning Ordinance for the City of New Hope identifies the following requirement for day care centers: Sanitariums. Convalescent Homes. Rest Homes. Nursing Homes or Day Nurseries. Four 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, i~ appears that this provision is tailored to address nursing homes and other similar facilities as opposed to current day car~ practices. Case Studies. In an attempt to determine the appropriate parkin~ standard for a day care type use, a survey of other communities' standards was conducted. The following is a summary of the information that was obtained: City of Plymouth. ~. (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 Edina. MN. One space for each employee plus one space for every 20 individuals receiving care. City of A~rorm. CO. Two spaces for each three teachers, employees, or administrators, and one off-street passenger loading place for every eight pupils. Or~-~e County. CA. One space per staff member and one space per five students. City of (kaa~a. ~. 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 communities 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 ~uarantee. The ratios used to determine the parking requirements var7' significantly between communities. They range from one space for every four students to one space for every twenty students. The current New Mope 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 communities. 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 co~ff~nities 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: November 1, 1991 Meeting Date: November 5, 1991 UPDATE 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 Planning Commission tabled this request at their October 8 meeting to allow the petitioner to develop a new sign plan and also to allow K-Mart to respond to the unsettled planning case that has been tabled for almost one year. 3. Subsequent to the last meeting, an official from K-Mart headquarters in Troy, Michigan, contacted the City and requested a copy of the Planning Commission minutes and pertinent background information. Staff sent the enclosed letter with numerous attach- ments (dating back to 1990) and addressed both the sign variance request and related site issues. A copy of all information was also forwarded to the local manager. 4. Staff requested that a modified sign plan be submitted that reduced the overall sign area and number of signs and requested that they reconsider advertising each specific service and/or whether each of these services needed to be preceded with the word "K-Mart". 5. Staff met with the petitioner at the store, discussed recommendations on a modified sign plan, and discussed the outstanding planning case regarding site improvements. 6. The petitioner has submitted the enclosed revised sign plan, which includes the following changes: A. The original plan advertised three services on the front of the building: pharmacy, garden shop, auto service. The new plan deletes the auto service and advertises only the pharmacy and garden shop. B. The original plan had the work "K-Mart" preceding both the "pharmacy" and "garden shop". Staff and Planning Commission both felt this was repetitive and that customers would assume it was a K-Mart pharmacy or garden shop without being identified as such. The new plan deletes the word "K-Mart"that preceded both of these services. Planning Case 91-26 ~_~ November 5, 1991 Page -2- C. The original plan lacked balance because the three services were advertised in two separate columns. The new plans shows the two services advertised in one col-mn, or one stacked above the other, and the overall plan is more balanced when viewing the entire building front. D. The number of signs on the front of the K-Mart Store have been reduced. The original plan showed four (4) signs: 1. K (with Mart inside) over door 2. K-Mart Pharmacy 3. K-Mart Garden Shop 4. Auto-Service The new plan shows three (3) signs: 1. K (with Mart inside) over door 2. Pharmacy 3. Garden Shop E. The total area of the signs on the front of the K-Mart store have been reduced. The original plan showed an overall sign area on the front wall of 419 square feet (which was an 89 square foot or 29% increase over the 1972 variance): K (with Mart inside) = 96 sq. ft. K-Mart Pharmacy = 112 sq. ft. K-Mart Garden Shop = 142 sq. ft. Auto-service = 69 sq. ft. 419 sq. ff. The revised plan shows an overall sign area on the front wall of 312 square feet (which is a 107 square foot or a 55 decrease from the 1972 variance): K (with Mart inside) = 96 sq. ft. Pharmacy. . Garden Shop = 216 sq. ft. 312 sq. ft. 7. The proposal for the Old America Store and for the south side of the K-Mart Store remains unchanged. 8. In addition, the store manager has indicated that the "Garden Shop" sign on posts on the south/front of the store will be removed. 9. The local store has been in contact with the headquarters and I believe they will be addressing the outstanding planning case on site issues at the meeting. 10. Staff finds that K-Mart has made a reasonable effort to revise their sign plan proposal and to address concerns raised at the last meeting. Planning Case Report 91-26 November 5, 1991 Page -3- 11. There was also a question raised at the last meeting as to whether the advertisement of services such as "garden shop" or "pharmacy" was allowed on a business identification sign. According to a letter written by the City Attorney in March of this year, the ordinance definition of business sign clearly allows a business sign to advertise the sale of products or services (see enclosed letter and case). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the request for an amendment to the comprehensive sign plan and for a variance to exceed the maximum wall signage allowed, based on the revised sign plan submitted by K-Mart. Attachments: Revised Building/Sign Elevations Staff Revised Sign Variance Comparison (A-2) Correspondence to K-Mart Attorney Letter - Sign Ordinance October Planning Report 4'x55'- 220 sq. ft. SI~ ~B" 9,5'x10'-96 sq. ft. 9'x24'- 216 aq. fr. S[GII 6'x22.5'-135 sq. ft. 22"7 ~Iz ~ . . · ~ · ~! /----- R~RT (5N-324) AND ~ I /"AUTO SER~IICE' Sign Variance Comparison A-2 1972 Variance; 1991 258 s~. ft. 220 ~1. I siSn I sign - ~ 3~0 ~1- f~- 312 sq. ft-. ,~ (1 s~) (3 s~fs) ' ~ - 5% , 1972 Var~e; 1991 135 sq. fO. 135 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX ~$i£ 52' ~ ' -- October 16, 1991 K-Mart Corporation Attn: Aaron Thomas 3100 West Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48084 Subject: K-MART SIGN VARIANCE AND RELATED SITE ISSUES Dear Mr. Thomas: As per Doug Sandstad, Building Official for the City of New Hope, I am forwarding to you excerpts of the minutes from the October 8th New Hope Planning Commission meeting that pertain to K-Mart's request for a variance to exceed the amount of wall signage allowed by the City Code. In an attempt to inform you about several of the issues that were raised at the Planning Commission meeting, I am also enclosing additional information, and I am forwarding a copy of this letter and all of the attached information to Richard Jansen, Jr, Manager of the New Hope K-Mart store. Sign Variance Request: I have enclosed the staff report on the sign variance request for your information. As the report indicates, the City is pleased to see that the overall sign area square footage will be decreased, however the area still significantly exceeds the sign areas allowed by the City Code. Although the total sign area is being decreased, the number of signs being requested exceeds the number of wall signs permitted. As I interpret the minutes from the Planning Commission, they would like to see a revised plan that addresses the following concerns: 1. Reduced overall sign area and reduced number of signs 2. Does each specific service (garden shop, auto center, pharmacy) need to be advertized? 3. If each specific service is advertised, do they all need "K-Mart" preceding them? Why does the word "K- Mart" need to appear 3 or 4 times? Don't customers assume it is a K-Mart pharmacy or garden shop without being identified as such? Family S~led Ci~ ~,~ ~^? For Family Living 4. Balance: While we realize that the pharmacy, garden shop, and auto center are all located in the south/southwest portion of the building, is it necessary that each outside sign be located near where that service is offered in the store? The signs on the building look unbalanced, with all signs on the left of the "K-Mart" entry sign and no signs on the right. As the minutes indicate, the request by K-Mart was tabled and the Planning Commission has requested that a revised sign plan be submitted that addresses the issues listed above. The revised plan should be submitted to the City by October 30th so that it can be reconsidered at the November 5th Planning Commission meeting. Related Site Issues: The minutes also indicated that one of the commissioners brought up the fact that there is a planning case request and plan by K-Mart for overall upgrading of the outdoor area which has been tabled for over a year and he expressed the feeling that the former case should be settled before approval of the current request. This comment refers to the request that was filed by K-Mart in October, 1990, for a conditional use permit to move the restaurant within the interior of the building and site/ building plan review/approval to remove the existing store front glass, infill with decorative concrete block to match the store, and to upgrade the existing parking lot and add landscaping. The Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit to relocate the restaurant and tabled the request for the exterior improvements so that the City and K-Mart could work together cooperatively on a parking plan that would address some of the City's concerns. A plan was developed by the City and forwarded to K-Mart officials for review/comment in March of 1991. A response was received from K-Mart in June indicating that K-Mart would be proceeding with plans to update the exterior of the store and that the City's concerns would be addressed as drawings were submitted to the City for consideration. That is the last correspondence we received from K-Mart. The City contacted K- Mart again in August requesting that the City be informed as to the timetable for submitting plans and proceeding with the improvements. No response has been received. The City supports the upgrading of the K-Mart site and seeks to work cooperatively with K-Mart to implement improvements that will both benefit K-Mart and, hopefully, address some of the parking/landscaping/traffic-flow concerns that the City has expressed. To this date, however, the cooperation/communication on the K-Mart upgrading has been lacking and I hope it can be improved. I think it would be beneficial if one voice spoke for K-Mart, as right now we are dealing with the local store, a regional office, and the headquarters. The Planning Commission and City staff are frustrated by this lack of communication. -3- Please contact me after you review the enclosed information to let the City know how you intend to proceed on both the sign request and the pending case for exterior site improvements. The Ci%y staff will be glad to work with you and/or other K-Mart officials to resolve these matters. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/lb Enclosures: October 8th Planning Comm. Minutes - Sign Variance Staff Report - October 1991, Sign Variance Request Staff Report - November 1990, Case 90-35 Request Planning Comm. Minutes - November 1990 Staff Report 35A - December 1990 Staff Report 35B - December 1990 Planning Comm. Minutes - December 1990 December 11, 1990, Correspondence to K-Mart December 28, 1990, Correspondence to K-Mart Staff Report - January 1991 Planning Comm. Minutes - January 1991 Staff Report - February 1991 Staff Report - March 1991 Planning Comm. Minutes - March 1991 March 19, 1991, Correspondence to K-Mart with Plan May 17, 1991, Correspondence to K-Mart June 13, 1991, Corresponedence from K-Mart Staff Report - July 1991 Planning Comm. Minutes - July 1991 August 8, 1991, Correspondence to K-Mart cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Rick Jansen, Manager/New Hope K-Mart March 13, 1991 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assr. & ;~'~ City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: New Hope Sign Ordinance Our File No. 99.10000 Dear Kirk: This letter is in response to the question you asked me concerning the application of the New Hope Sign Ordinance to various business identification, signs throughout the City which include advertisements for products or services provided at a business location, as well as the name or identification of the business. As I understand it, there is some Question about the legality of that practice. I refer you to Section 3.422 (7) which defines a business sign. That definition, contained in our own zoning code, holds as follows: (7) Si~n, Business. Any sign which identifies a business or group of businesses, either re,ail or wholesale, or any sign which identifies a professional o__cr is used in the identification or promotion of any principal commodity, or service, including entertainment, offered or sold upon the premise where such sign,is located. This definition clearly allows a business sign to advertise the sale of products or services. Therefore, our own code expands ~he definition of a business sign to permit the advertisement of products or services in addition to indicating the name of the business. Mr. Kirk McDonald March 13, 1991 Page 2 Also, I nave enclosed a copy of a recent case from Minneapolis dealing with the constitutionality of sign code prohiDitions. The name of the case is Goward rs. City of Minneapolis, 456 N,W.2d 460 (Minn. ADp, 1990). Basically, this case holds that prohiDi~ion signs based on their content is unconstitutional. In my opinion we are coming dangerously close to unconstitutional content based regulation if we take the position that the advertisement of services and products on site is prohiDited, This is especially true in light of our own code definition which seems to permit this practice. ~ Therefore, it would be my recommendation to permit the practice of allowing businesses to indicate on their signs the nature of products or services sold on site as permissible signage. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slw2 Enclosures cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, City Bldg. Official Alan Brixius, C~.~y~Planner 4{{0 Minn. 456 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d 8I~RIEI{ The record mqqmrts tim jury's conch,sion 4. Con.tltutlon~ that Travelers f:dlcd to m:~ke a prol,er mail- Clayton L. GOWARI}, Respondent, ~ For ing of the notice of the right of first refus- purpe.~ "?~ is justified with< al. The first notice sent to Hanson on June v. analysis, regula~ 27, 1988, and to Ge~ewsk~ on June 28, CITY OF MINNEAPOIAS, Appellant. regulated speec 1988, did not comply with the requirements No. C0-89-2164. purposes unrela. of Minn.Stat. § 500.24, subd. 7. In addi- sion is neutral. tion, Travelers learned that Hanson was no Court of Appeals of Minnesota. effect on some longer the proper party to receive the no- May 29, 1990. not others. rices, and generated an internal memo indi- $. Constitutions caring that ali future notices should be sent Exception f to Gerz'ewski and the other HLF sharehold- ers. Travelers did send tile correct form of Homeowner brought action for injune- . rendered city la~ the notice on August 30, 1988, but mailed it tire relief after city threatened to prose- based, so that to Hanson instead of to Gerzewski and the cute him for erecting signs with political Amendment scrt others. Hanson again notified Travelers messages on his residential property in vip- serve compelling that notices should be sent to Gerzewski lation of city lawn sign ordinance. The ly drawn to sci and the others. It was not until September District Court, Hennepin County, Henry W. , Const. Amend. 20, 1988, that Gerzewski received notice in McCarr, J., joined enforcement of ordi- ~,"' 6. Constitutiona the proper form from Travelers. While nance against homeowner. City appealed. City's inter~ Travelers also contends that its actio,m con- The Court of Appeals, Short, J., ileld that compelling state First Amendment barred city from prohib- ',~ content-based re stituted a good faith effort to provide no- iting property owner from displaying signs ,~' lawn sign ord~ rice, there is sufficient evidence to support Amend. 1. the jury's finding that Travelers failed to that contained political messages on prop- make proper mailing of tile notice of tile erty zoned for residential uses, since ordi- 7. Constitutions nance did not constitute valid time, place or City did no~ right of first refusal. manner restriction on speech, nance restrictin~ Affirmed. ordinance did DECISION ernmenCal inters The trial court properly instructed the and city otherwi.~ jury that intent of the parties may be con- 1. Constitutional Law ~=48(4) sic evidence of nance; city fails sidersd in determining when property is Ordinary presumption of constitution, tionale behind er "acquired" or "held" under Mina. Stat. nifty afforded legislative enactments does was aesthetics. § 500.24, subd. 6. The trial court's refusal not apply to laws restricting First Amend- to instruct the jury on the doctrine of waiv- meat right~. U.S.C.A, Coast. Amend. 1. 8. Constitutiona er was proper. Thus, the jury's verdict Zoning and that Travelers acquired the property on 2. Constitutional Law 4=,47 City's lawn August 1, 1983, was proper, is supported Court of Appeals' standard of review effect of bannin by the record, and was not influenced by an of ease attacking constitutionality of ordi- criticizing treats error of law. .'.~,e,: v, nance is determined not by broad powers of did not leave There ia support in the record for the city to enact zoning ordinances but by means of comr~ finding that Travelers failed to make a rights allegedly infringed by city's action, homeowner'~ handling of his proper mailing of tha not. toe of right of {. Constitutional Law ~,90(3) closely related first refusal. Ordinance restricting time, place or adequate a}terna Affirmed. manner of speech will survive constitution- tion existed. -. a{ scrutiny only if it is justified without 9. Constitutions reference to content of regulated speech; it Municipal Co is narrowly tailored to serve significant Zoning and i governmental interest; and it leaves open First .Amend ample alternative channels for communion- hibiting propers: tion of information. U.S.G.A. Coast. · Acting as judge c Amend. 1. 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 Xylon - K-Mart, -one 100 square foot wall sign Old America Store-one 100 square foot wall sign Total 200 square feet Facing 42nd Av - K-Mart -one 100 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: Sign Area 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 C0d~ 1972 Variance 1991 Proposal 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. 1 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 Purpose -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 caused 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-Mart 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-Mart 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 NEW FL EMETARY SCHOOL N ~.M:~ I CiViC ~o~ CENTER '~.?, HALL ~ FIRE ~ ~ ~ GETHSEMANE CEMETER~ SCHOOL GARDEN CENTER KI"IART e304b XTLON AVENUE SITE PLAN lb":- I'"0 MAR1- a3045NEI~ HOPE,MINNESOTA I< 4300 XYLON NOI:~TH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I< MAI~T ~045 NEff HOPE, MINNESOTA EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I( MART 113045 IxlE~ I-lOPE, M]:NNESOTA 4:500 XYLON NORTI-I EXTEFIIOFI ELEVATIONS .... I< MAR1- t~3045 NE~ HOPE, MINNESOTA 4300 XYLON NORTI-I t Sign Variance Comparison \ 1972 Variance; 1991 Proposal; ~ 258 sqo £~. 220 sq. fco I si~n I si~n - 1.51 1972 V&ri~nce; 1991 Proposal; 330 sq. fo. 419 sq. fo. (1 8i~) (~ si~) , +29~ 1972 Vat--ce; 1991 Pro~sal; 135 sq. f~. 135 -681 Pl~anning Case No. 72-6, request for variances in height, size and number of signs fcTr K-Mart facilities at 4300 Xylon Avenue North, LeRoy Signs, petitioner, was considered by the Council. Mr. Frank Freeze, LeRoy Sign Co, any, 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 building 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 Commission and staff were involved in a judgmental area and had declded 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 7 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 3.17% of the wall area. A variance is required because the sign exceeds the 200 foot maximum by 130 feet. Also 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 sign 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 Si..~n 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 wall 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. M~t i on carried. Further discussion was then held on the m~tion as amended. Councilman Bosacker expressed concern with the signing on the south wall and asked whether it had to be that large. It was noted that in c~mputing the size of the sign for code conformance it was necessary to draw a rectangle. In this instance the "K" is 7 feet, 6 inches while the other letters are only 2 feet, 6 inches. Councilman 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 create a traffic hazard. He said he thought the sign had more value than a pylon sign. Mayor Erickson and Counci Iman Johnson said that they thought the sign f i tted aesthet i ca I ! y w i th the deve I opment. Councilman Bosacker then said he would withdraw his objection based on Councilman Plufka's remarks. Counci Iman Hokr inquired as to ground signs proposed on the site. The Village Manager said there was a ground sign for the Garden Shop which would sit about eight feet away from the building. He said this ground sign conforms With the code and does not require a variance. Vote was then taken on the question as amended. Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka. Voting against: None. Motion carried. Mr. Freeze, LeRoy Signs, advised the Council that there was also a pylon sign toward 42nd Avenue. It is proposed that there will be 128.5 square feet of sign area on each side of the sign with height of the sign to be 34 feet. The code provides for maximum sign of 90 square feet on each side with a maximum height of 25 feet. Counci Iman Johnson noted that sign would be only 9 feet off the ground and he thought it would be subjected to breakage. Mr. Freeze said that the pylon sign, as proposed, was a necessary part of the signing program for K-Mart. Councilman Hokr inquired as to the impact this sign would have on park- ing spaces. It was thought that it would take away two or three park- i ng spaces. The exact placement of the sign was not known at this time. Councilman Plufka stated that he would oppose the variance on the pylon sign, noting that if this variance were granted the next party wouJd want a taller sign. He felt K-Mart should follow the criteria for pylon signs. Councilman Hokr said it would be necessary to know exactly where the sign would be placed before it could be considered. The Mayor noted that a variance had been granted in parking requirements and that parking should not be further reduced. Motion by Counci Iman Johnson, second by Counci Iman Hokr, to deny the variance for the pylon sign at this time. Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka. Voting against: None. Motion carried. (Pylon sign denied). Planning 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 Dully 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, Hr. Tom Dully said it was his understanding that the Planning Commission had suggested that K-Nar? have a sign on the rear wall. Further Discussion hold. Notion 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. Hotion carried by voice vote. (Commissioner Oswal~ 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 :~tail business districts was held. The Village Manager reviewed the proposed ordinance change. Nfs. 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. Notion 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. Notion unanimously carried by voice vote. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-35 Request: Request for A Variance to the 35-Foot Rear Yard Setback to Allow Construction of a 3-Season Porch Location: 4741 Boone Avenue North PID No.: 07-118-21-31-0043 Zoning: R- 1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Robert Lindell Report Date: November 1, 1991 Meeting Date: November 5, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback to allow construction of a 3-season porch, pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code. 2. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 16' x 16' (256 square foot) three-season porch on the west side of the existing home in the rear yard. An elevated deck (16' x 11+ feet) would be constructed on the south side of the proposed three-season porch. Both structures would extend out 16 feet from the existing structure and would be located 31 feet from the property line. 3. The rear yard setback requirement in the R-1 Zoning District is 35 feet. The City Code allows open porches and decks as encroachments on yard setback requirements, however, porches and outdoor living rooms which become closed in and attached to the dwelling subsequent to initial construction of the principal dwelling are not exempt from yard setback requirements. Therefore, a four-foot {4') variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement is needed to locate the three-season porch 31 feet from the rear yard property line. 4. The property is rectangular in shape (83 x 125 feet), contains 10,375 square feet, and the existing structure meets all yard setback requirements (including the special 50-foot front yard setback from Boone Avenue). 5. The site was zoned "R-l"Single Family Residential in 1963 and is surrounded by "R-I" single family homes on the north/west/south, with House of Hope Lutheran Church and Homeward Bound located to the east across Boone Avenue. 6. The topography of the property is generally flat. 7. The home was constructed in 1963 and no major improvements have been made to the home according to City records. 8. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no feedback from adjacent property owners. Planning Case Report 91-35 November 5, 1991 Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. The property is regular in shape and does not contain unusual topography, thus it is questionable as to whether a hardship exists or not. One factor that might be taken into consideration is the special 50-foot front yard setback requirement along major thoroughfares (including Boone Avenue). Due to the 50-foot front yard setback, as opposed to 30 feet in other R-1 areas, there is less area in the rear yard to construct an addition without encroaching on the setbacks. 3. Staff finds that this is a minor variance request, as a 4-foot exception is only an 11% variance. 4. In the past, several minor front yard and a number of minor rear yard variances have been approved (minor being defined as about a 10% variance). 5. The Building Official has submitted an alternate plan for consideration by the Planning Commission and property owner that shows a 14' x 18' three-season porch (see Attachment "A"). This would reduce the variance from four (4) feet (11%) to two (2) feet (6%). Staff would like the petitioner to address whether they are willing to consider a reduction in the variance being requested. 6. The three-season porch would be accessed from the dining room of the existing structure and is located in the center of the rear of the home. It would be difficult to construct a reasonably sized three-season porch on the rear of this home without some type of variance. 7. Staff recommends that if the minor variance is granted, the Commission confirm that building materials (roofing and siding) will match the existing structure. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the minor four-foot (4') rear yard setback variance request subject to the condition that building materials on the addition match the existing structure. Attachments: Zoning/Section Map Sup/ey Elevations Porch Elevation Floor Plan Wall Section/Footing Plan Staff Attachment "A" i~,.}.~t~'~ ~' HIgH ~OOL 4~7 .~- ~ 471~ 471~ ~ HOPE DEL ~ ELEMETA~ ~7 . ~ ~- ~- CIVIC CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-36 Request: Request for A Variance to the Accessory Building Setback Requirement to Allow a Utility Shed to be Located Within a Drainage and Utility Easement Location: 4764 Erickson Drive PID No.: 07-118-21-32-0065 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: LuVerne D. Kramer Report Date: November 1, 1991 Meeting Date: November 5, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the accessory building setback requirement to allow an existing accessory storage building to remain in place, pursuant to Section 4.032(3d) of the New Hope Code. 2. The petitioner has constructed a 10' x 12' (120 square foot) storage shed 3 feet from the rear yard property line and 2.4 feet from the side yard property line and is seeking an after-the-fact variance to allow the shed to remain in place. The shed is located within the 5-foot side yard and 10-foot rear yard drainage and utility easement. 3. The City Code states that accessory buildings shall be five (5) feet or more from all lot lines of adjoining lots and shall not be located within a utility or drainage easement. 4. If the shed it to remain in its present location the following variances are needed: A. A seven-foot (7')rear yard setback variance because the shed is located three (3) feet from the rear property line and the rear lot drainage easement is ten (10) feet wide. B. A 2.6-foot side yard setback variance because the shed is located 2.4 feet from the side property line and the side lot drainage easement is five (5) feet wide. C. A variance from the requirement that states that accessory buildings shall not be located within a drainage or utility easement. 5. The property, according to the zoning map, is zoned R-1 and is surrounded by "R-l"uses on the east/south/west with a wetland located to the north. 6. The lot is rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 84 feet in width by 134 feet in length, and contains l l.200square feet. All zoning setback requirements are met on the existing single family home. 7. The topography of the property slopes form the rear (south) down to the street front. Planning Case Report 91-36 November 5, 1991 Page -2- 8. The ~ing is the result of an order from the Building Official to remove the shed from the drainage easement issued on 10/2/91 (attached). A complaint was filed with the City from a neighbor, which prompted the investigation and order. 9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. Two property owners living adjacent to the site have stopped at the City Hall to voice their opposition against the granting of the variance and will be present at the Commission meeting. ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. It should be noted that on the application the petitioner stated that he was given inaccurate information from the Building Inspections section of the Fire & Safety Department about requirements for shed locations. He has indicated that initially he was told there were no requirements regarding the location of the shed as long as maintenance could be performed around the shed. The department personnel do not agree with this interpretation. There obviously has been some miscommunication between the property owner and the City. The shed is constructed on a cement slab. 3. Several of the neighbors have complained about both the height and the location of the shed. City Code allows the shed to be 12 feet in height and the Building Official has confirmed that the shed does not exceed the 12-foot height requirement. 4. Due to the regular shape of the property and topography, and taking into consideration the large rear yard area, staff finds no hardship under which this request could be approved. 5. Staff does not recall any variances that have been granted for accessory storage sheds in the past. 6. Staff finds that a 5-foot side yard and 10-foot rear yard setback is already at the minimum, unlike a 30 or 50-foot front yard setback for a principal structure. Building a structure on an easement is usually never permitted. 7. The Building Official reports that he has to order 3 or 4 of these types of storage sheds moved every year for these same reasons. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends denial of the request for a side and rear yard setback variance, and a variance from the requirement prohibiting storage buildings on drainage and utility easements, to allow the existing storage shed to remain in place. Staff recommends that the shed be moved to comply with code requirements. Planning Case Report 91-36 November 5, 1991 Page -3- Attachments: Zoning/Section Map Survey Shed Location on Survey Shed Cross Section Inspection Order Application with Petitioner Note ~ ~K) I'H aVE: AVE. ' ATHLETIC ' FIELD CtR. 48TH AVE HOUSE ~. LUTH[R&N~ CHU~ ,, 47 TH ~vE. Bu$ine&s Name: Type: Reinapec~ Date: / / White: applicant yellow: inspector pink PLANNING APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Basic C~se ~N~.f Fee Depos it uate Filed Recgi~ ~o. Received by PID % Street ~cation of Property: ~gal Description of Pro~er~y~ / Applicant's nd=ute of ~gal or E~itable Interest: Typ~ of ~~t: (p~ai~i~g ~o wha= ~=tion of Ci=y Cod~) , (use add~io~l pages if necessa~) ~y Should Re.est be Granted: ~~ ~ ~t~ ~,. ~ v /. Applican~ ac~owledges ~at before this re.est can be considered and/or approved, all fees. including =he basic zoning fee and any zoning deposits must be paid to the City and ~at. if additional fees are re~ired ~o' cover costs incurred by ~he City. =he City ~ O~her O~er in Chain of Ti=le (grin~ or ~ype) ~.~ ~' Other Owner in Chain of Title (print or t~e) ~ ~ Applicant Other than Owner (print or type) Evidence of O~ership Submitted Yes__ No Re~ired ~ Legal Description Ade~ate: Yes No__ Re~ired ~ Legal Ad Re~ired: Yes__ No__ Re~ired~ Date of Design & Review Meeting: Date of Planning Commission Meeting: Approved: Denied: By Planning Co~ission on: Approved: Denied: By City Co~cil on: Subject to the following conditions: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-37 Request: Request for A Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Construct a New Service Station Location: 6144 West Broadway PID No.: 05-118-21-21-0035 Zoning: B-3 (Auto-Oriented) Petitioner: Super America Group Report Date: November 1, 1991 Meeting Date: November 3, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit, variance, and site/building plan review/approval to allow construction of a new service station, pursuant to Sections 4.039A, 4,124(1), and 4.034(3), of the New Hope Code. 2. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on October 22nd and, although extensive plans had been submitted, a number of revisions were requested regarding the following issues: -specific written request regarding extended hours of operation -lighting to be shown on plan -noise issues, such as the idling of tanker trucks at night -new landscaping schedule to be provided -additional landscaping and berm to be added -details on retaining wall to be provided -canopy and ground sign to be modified -canopy construction materials to be detailed -drainage to be shown on plan -outdoor storage issues to be resolved 3. At the conclusion of the Design and Review meeting the petitioner requested that the case be tabled until the December Planning Commi~ion meeting due to the revisions needed on the plans and due to the fact that construction is not anticipated until the spring of 1992. The Committee encouraged the applicant to hold off until plans were complete. 4. Property owners within 350' of this request were notified and staff has received several calls in opposition to this application. We have notified those that we have talked with that the case would be tabled until December, but some adjacent property owners may be in attendance at the meeting. RECOMIVIENDATION Staff recommends that this case be tabled until the December 3rd Planning Commission meeting. SUPERAMERICA ' BOUNDARY, LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHIC, 8 UTILITY SURVEY FOR: ...... X [ L~ATION MaP ///' ~" /// ' ................. _3 '-- ~'"~~---"~ ...... m ; 5UPERA~ERICA 62nd~w AVE~, ~SoTAN' & W. BROADWAY ......... -. ~ KEY NOTES FRONT ELEVATION Pi. AH ' ~ '- OCI' 101991 8TAT~II~ ~ AVE~ N. & W. ~ADWAY ~w ~, ~TA IPERAMERICA --..- ~ '~ ~'~ ~4375 SUPERAMERICA CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-38 Request: Request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit, and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Addition Location: 7100 Bass Lake Road PID No.: 05 - 118-21-31-0005 Zoning: B-3 (Auto-Oriented) Petitioner: Taco Bell Corporation Report Date: November 1, 1991 Meeting Date: November 5, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting an amendment to a conditional use permit, and site/building plan review/approval to allow construction of an addition, pursuant to Sections 4.039A, 4,124(3), and 4.036(10, 11, 12) of the New Hope Code. 2. Taco Bell is proposing to construct a 15'x 21' dining room addition (315 square fee0 to the north (rear) side of the existing building. The new addition would allow for an additional 28 seats to be added to the convenience restaurant. 3. The construction would involve relocation of the trash enclosure/construction of new enclosure, removal/replacement of 4-foot concrete sidewalk, removal/replacement of existing fence, relocation of light standards, new loading zone, and installation of some new landscaping on the south (fron0 and west sides of the building. The roof, walls, and windows of the addition would match the existing structure. 4. The site contains 24,289 square feet and the existing building plus the proposed addition contain 2,087 square feet or the building covers about 8.5% of the site. The majority o£ the site is devoted to parking (57%), with about 17% of the site being utilized as green 5. Surrounding land uses include Norwest Bank (Crystal) to the east, residential (Crystal) to the north, Ponderosa to the west, and the new Park National Bank across Bass Lake Road to the south. 6. The original conditional use permit for this convenience food operation was approved in 1972, with multiple variances for lot size, building size, and setbacks. 7. This addition meets the B-3 zoning setbacks and no variances are required. 8. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments regarding this application. Planning Case Report 91-38 November 5, 1991 Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. Drive-in and convenience food establishments are allowed as a conditional use in the B-3 District provided that the following conditions are met: A. 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 within a reasonable distance of the lot. B.Green strip - at the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five feet shall be landscaped and screened. C.Lighting -each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. D. Curbing -parking area and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curbs. E. Vehicle access -vehicular access points shall be limited and shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movements. F. Drainage - the entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City. G. Surfacing -the entire area other than occupied by buildings or structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust and drainage. H. Loading Berth - adequate space shall be provided on the site for a loading berth. I. Refuse Storage - all refuse shall be stored in containers and said containers are to be screened and enclosed by a fence of similar structure. 2. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on October 17th and the issues discussed included additional landscaping in the front, trash enclosure details, parking, loading zone to be added in rear, and the problems the City has had in the past with illegal signage. New plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. 3. Staff originally felt that a parking variance was needed and advertised this case as such, as 62 stalls are required with the addition and only 42 are shown on the plan. However, after further research, staff located a November 2, 1972, Shared Parking/Access Easement with Ponderosa which was approved by the City Council and City Attorney. The required parking for both food establishments is 130 spaces and a total of 142 spaces are provided. Therefore, a parking variance is not necessary if the agreement is still in force. The easement language is in the process of being reviewed by the City Attorney, as it may expire in 1993. Staff recommends restriping of both lots so that new standards are met. 4. Staff recommended the restoration of a 20-foot green strip in front of the building with sod, shrubs, and trees. Planning Case Report 91-38 November 5, 1991 Page -3- 5. Staff views this as a very minor building addition and recommends approval, but suggests that the parking lot striping, front yard landscaping, and sign violations be addressed. REC01VIMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site/building plan review and amendment to the conditional use permit to allow Taco Bell to construct a minor addition subject to the following conditions: 1. Shared Parking/Access Easement to be reviewed/approved by City Attorney. 2. Parking lot to be restriped to comply with City standards. 3. Green strip 20 feet in width to be added in front of the building. 4. Violations of sign and ordinance (banners, pennants, window signs, sidewalk portables, etc.) to be discontinued. Attachements: Zoning/Section Map Certificate of Survey Site Plan/Landscape Schedule Floor Plan Exterior Elevations Foundation/Roof Plan Shared Parking/Access Easement Shared Parking Agreement 7100 BASS LAKE RD ARCHITECTURAL: DOVOLIS JOHNSON S RUGGIERI. INC. NEW HOPE MN STRUCTURAL: DABS BOLGREAN MENK. INC. DRAWING INDEX SURVEY A ! SITE PLAN S 1 ROOF FRAMING PLAN, FOUNDATION PLAN CF_RTl FI CATE OF SURVEY FOR TACO BELL .~.~.' i ' "" T NORWEST BANK ...... '-,'",L'..';~','-,"." 2;'.' .'-,"; ~'.',' .... TACO BELL !5 [ --~:~-- ! ........ .... ~. 4 1991 Y'LOCATION MAP'~ .41;': .-~ ...................... ~." ~.,r / ~! ~ ' ' ~' ~ ~ ~",~ '~"*~ ~ I~1 I · . ,~ - . . ~. ~ ,- .............. ~ .I ~' ~il~ ..... ' '~"- '' ·" ;~~:g · ' i .- ,..}. , ,.., ....... ~ I ".* ~ ? .... i ~ I" / ~ I il ....... f,. i " ......... ~_ . , ~ ......... ~-~ ~ -'~'~ :.~ .... . .......... . ._; . ~ ~ ......... ~~r~ ~ ,M ~, Ecu, ~-.-, r: ,, ;~',{:-/ ~:':' ! COItltlCK, GUItOVlTSCH & WOOD, P.A. " Ma7 3, ~973 File No: 4620 " Mr. Bob Brown Building Inspector Village of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Dear Bob: Confirming our telephone conversation of May 3, the Agreement dated November 2, 1972 between Markland Development, Inc., Fifth Avenue Properties, and Ponderosa System, Inc., provides for easement access between the Ponderosa and Zapata properties at the north end of the Ponderosa property, and provides for cross-access between the two properties for access and parking. The parties have agreed to permit no par~ing or obstruction of any kind over a 20 foot strip of the Zapata parcel running north and south, lying 20 feet west of the east line of the property. The instrument submitted contains the necessary provisions as required by the Council in approving the two site plans. Very truly yours, W. J. Corrick Village Attorney WJC: 1 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this~-day of ~%,~--~., 1972, by ana between Markland Development, Inc., a Michigan corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Markland") and Fifth Avenue Properties, a partnership consisting of Harry A. Murphy, Jr. and Ned W. Stuart (hereinafter referred to as "Fifth") and Ponderosa System, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Ponderosa") Markland's Lessee on the parcel hereinafter described as the "Markland land", which lease agreement between Ponderosa and Markland is dated October 19, 1972. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Markland owns a parcel of land in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota described as: The South 358 feet of the East 231.9 feet of Lot 23, Auditor's Subdivision No. 226, Hennepin County, Minnesota; except the East 100 feet of the South 195 feet of said Lot 23; and also except the North 100 feet of the East 89.89 feet of the South 295 feet of said Lot; Subject to right of way of Bass Lake Road (County Road No. 10). Hereafter referred to as the "Markland land", and WHEREAS, Fifth owns an adjoining parcel in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota described as: The. East 100 feet of the South 195 feet of Lot 23, Auditor's Subdivision No. 226, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and the North 100 feet of the East 89.89 feet of the South 295 feet of said Lot 23; Subject to right of way of Bass Lake Road (County KoaU ~o. 10). Hereafter referred to as the "F~fth land". NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the part.~ hereto that:. 1. The term "Parking Area" as used herein means the area as may be from time to time designated for parking on and egress ingress to "Markland land", including but not by way of limitation, all parking lots, landscapes and vacant areas, passages for trucks and automobiles, walks, curbs and areaways. The "Parking Area" shall not include truck loading docks or spaces, commercial areas intended for renting, as the same shall exist from time to time, or areas whereon the buildings are located on "Mark- land land". The "Parking Area" and without limitation the passages for automobiles and trucks contained therein may be expanded, contracted, changed or rearrange~ from time to time in respect to the portion thereof located on "Markland land", provided however, that Ponderosa shall consent thereto. 2. Fifth hereby grants to Markland and Ponderosa for their use and the use of their officers, employees, lessees, licensees, invitees, concessionaires and customers, a non-exclusive ease- ment for t.hm benefit of said "Markland land" for vehicular and pedestrian traffic for egress and ingress over that part of said "Fifth land" described as follows (hereinafter called "Easement Area")= The West 20 feet of the East 40 feet of the South 295 feet of Lot 23, Audi,otis Sub- division No. 226, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 3. Markland and Ponderosa grant to Fifth for the use of the latter, and the latter's officers, employees, lessees, licensees, invitees, concessionaires, and customers a non-exclusive right for vehicular and pedestrian traffic over those portions of the "Parking Area" of "Markland land" intended, designated used for egress and ingress, or passageways for trucks or mobiles exclusive of parking spaces in or on said "Markland 4. Neither Markland nor Fifth shall ever commit or perm,% any parking of vehicles in, or any other obstruction of the "Easement Ar~a"; nor shall Markland or Fifth erect any obstructzon along the common line within the "Easement Area" between the "Markland. land# immediately adjoining it on the north and the "Fifth land", which would obstruct vehicular and pedestrian traffic from the "Markland land" on to "Fifth land" or from "Fifth land" on to "Markland land". 5. Markland and Fifth intend to finance the construction of improvements on and to their respective parcels. The terms and provisions of this agreement shall be submitted for approval to such financial institutions as may do such financing. If any such financial institution should require as a condition to such financing as Markland or Fifth may desire, any modification of the terms and provisions of this agreement, each party hereto agrees to enter into an amendment making reasonable modifications hereto, provided that such amendment is acceptable to and approved by Ponderosa, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 6. The rights granted by each of the respective parties hereto to the other by the provisions of the above paragraphs shall continue and the terms and provisions of this agreement shall remain effective until the close of business on the date twenty-two (22) years after the date the Ponderosa Steak House located on the "Markland land" is opened for business (the "opening date"), at which time such rights shall terminate and such terms and provisions shall cease to be of any further force or effect. Provided, however, that if either of the parcels is on the day following such date being used for restaurant purposes of if the Lease between Markland and Ponderosa is extended, then the terms and provisions of this agreement shall remain in eff~c~ until the close of business on the date thirty-two (32) years after the said "opening date". 7. This agreement shall not be recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota prior to ~ January 31, 1973. During this interim period, the parties hereto shall agree to relocate the "Easement Area" and the access way between the "Markland land" and the "Fifth land". Any such relocation shall be subject to the approval of the Village Council of New Hope, Minnesota and shall conform to the Plot Plans adopted and approved by the parties for the development of their respective lands. This agreement shall be amended to reflect such relocation. 8. That said agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective parties hereto and their successors, assigns, and lessees and sublessees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. WITNESSES: MARKLA/~EVELOPM~NT, INC. - A ,/~ -- ~ry . Ned W. Stua~ STATE OF MICHI~) ) ss COU~T~ OF ~ / O~ this ~'7IJ day of ~m~. , 197a, ~for~ ~,~ No~a:'~ Public within a~d for said_Cou~=y~personally appeared known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they.are respectively the President and the ~l,r~ ~C.~x,Q~-F~-'/-- of Markland Development, Inc the corporation name~ in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corpora- tion, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of sai~ corporation by authority of its Boa. rd of Direct.ors and said acknowledged sa'i~ instr~ent to be the free ac= and dee~ of said co~poration. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ~ CW~,s~,~ FF/3[~ ) SS COUNTY OF HE~EPIN)~/~ On this ~--ay of , 1972, before me a Notary Public within~--an~ for sai~County personally appeared Harry A. Murphy, Jr. and Ned W. Stuart to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn they did say that they are the partners in Fifth Avenue Properties, the partnership, and to me known to be the persons described in and who ~e~ted the foregoing instr~ent and acknowledged that ~ey executed the s~e as their free act and ~ee~ and as =he free act and~of said p~tnership. Before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared the ab~ve-n~ed Ponderosa System, Inc., a J ~ ~l~k~_~-. ~ , who ackno~dged th~ he did. execute the foregoing ~nstr~ent; and that he did ~ign the s~e on behalf of said corporation; that said instr~ent and execution thereof is the free act and deed of him individually and, as such, ~e free act and de~ of said corporation. MARY ~ H0~ARD, Nota~ Public I~ and for Mont~omory County, Ohio My Commlsslofl E~D~res Feb, 2~, EXHIBIT "H' 11-2-72 EASEMENT TOTAL PARKINGi :: 142 REQUIRED PARK~ :: 130 -l- PLANNING CASE NO. 72-52 Plannin9 Case No. 72-52 (Request for Variances in Lot Size, Building Size, Front Setback and Site Plan Approval) 7100 Bass Lake Road, Zapata Foods, Petitioner. Mr. Gordon Weber' representing Zapata Foods explained the operation and reasons for variance requests to the Planning Commission. He stated that this is a Minneapolis based company, that they have restaurants in the Metropol iran area and that these are company operated stores and are not franchised. Their restaurants will seat 66 people, 32 people will be seated outside during the warm season. I0 percent of their business is take out foods and they will be using compacters within the building for refuse disposal. The parking lot is picked up and swept every day and he stated that they maintain quality in food production and cleanli- ness in their restaurants. He further stated that if there were any questions he would be glad to answer them. Con~nissioner Cameron asked if the two parking lots would join so that you could drive through from one to the other at the north property line. Mr. Weber stated that they did not. Commissioner Barniskis asked if it would be possible that these two parking lots could be joined at that point. Mr. Weber stated that they intended to ask Ponderosa if they could do that. Mr. Fred Kamminga reported that Ponderosa would be glad to do this and that they had no objections and would prepare an agreen~nt for cross ease- ments for driveway privileges for each of the two parcels. He will present these so that they can be reviewed and approved by the Vi I lage Attorney. The Building and Zoning Director suggested that the site plans be changed to show their driveway entrance and the traffic easements and that the easements would have to be recorded before a building permit would be issued if the Council agrees to this requirement. Mr. Ohman asked if there was a possibility for getting a rear drivevCay entrance to the new street which has been built behind the Crystal State Bank. Mr. Weber said that he did not think so because there was some property between their land and the street, but that he would look into the matter. Chairman Ostlund asked if there were any comments or questions from the floor or tho Planning Commission. Mr. Barniskis moved to recommend approval of Planning Case No. 72-52 including lot size, building size, front setback and site plan approval with the provision that the driveway between parcel A and B is con- sumated. Commissioner Garin second the motion. %l~l~t[on carrie.~l~ r! ~-~ ~- ~'~a,~ ~t',Y~ c~'.9'-; -~ ~ CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-39 Request: Request to Consider Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Rezoning Certain Residential Property from "R-2"Single and Two Family Residential to "R-l" Single Family Residential Location: 4724 - 4884 Erickson Drive PID No.: 07-118-21-32-0050thru 07-118-21-32-0070 Zoning: R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: November 1, 1991 Meeting Date: November 5, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The City of New Hope is requesting consideration of amendment to the New Hope Zoning Code to rezone certain residential property in the City from "R-2" Single and Two Family Residential to "R-l"Single Family Residential, pursuant to Sections 4.201 and 4.26 of the New Hope Code. 2. In 1984 the City platted property that it owned at southeast intersection of 49th Avenue and Highway 169 into Lots 1 through 21, Block 1, Plufka First Addition. The property was platted for single family homes and was treated as if the property was located in an R-1 zoning district. 3. The property was not zoned with any classification until 1972, at which time it was zoned "MR" Multiple Family Residential. In 1981 the property was rezoned to "R-2" Single and Two Family Residential. 4. The current zoning map and the maps dated back to 1984 show this property being zoned as "R-i" Single Family Residential. 5. Although the original public hearing notice called for the approval of the final plat, rezoning of the property from "R-2"to "R-l",and vacation of utility easements, the only official action taken by the Planning Commission and City Council was to approve the preliminary and final plats. The property was never officially rezoned, although the zoning map depicts the property as being zoned "R-1r. 6. The City Attorney recently notified the staff of this oversight and indicated that Lots 1 through 21, Plufka First Addition, had not been rezoned from their existing R-2 designation. He requested that the rezoning process be initiated with the Planning Commission. He indicated that it is not unusual for the City to hold off on the official publication of a rezoning to insure that the proposed development will actually take place. 7. Lots 1 through 21, Plufka First Addition, are now fully developed with 21 single family homes. 8. Property owners within 350'of the request have been notified. Planning Case Report November 5, 1991 Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of the "R-1" Single Family Residential District is to provide for low density single family detached residential dwelling units and *direcfly related, accessory and complementary uses. Permitted uses include single family detached dwellings. 2. 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. Permitted uses include single family detached dwellings and two family dwelling units. 3. When a rezoning is requested the question is usually asked "has the nature of the area changed or was there an error made in the past text?" In this situation, both have happened. The City purchased the property when it was zoned "R-2' but intentionally wanted to develop the property as single family homes, thus the nature of the area has changed or has been "down-zoned" from a higher density zoning. An oversight was also made because the property should have been rezoned either in conjunction with the final plat or at the time that construction on the final home was completed. 4. Now that the property is fully developed, the rezoning will match the actual use of the property. 5. For all practical purposes the property has been classified as "R-l"since the 1984 zoning map was published. This action will not change the zoning map; it will approve the official text change in Section 4.25and 4.26of the Code which define the "R-l"and 'R-2" District boundaries. 6. The City Attorney has prepared the official text change which is attached to this report. 7. This rezoning request has been reviewed by the City's Planning consultants and they recommend approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone Lots 1 through 21, Plufka First Addition from an "R-2"Single and Two Family Residential District to an "R-l"Single Family Residential District. Attachments: Zoning Map Section Map Aerial Photo Plat Attorney Correspondence/Notice Attorney Correspondence/Ordinance Amendment 1984 Planning Commission Minutes 1984/85 City Council Minutes Resolution Approving Plat R.4 (.0 (55) 4 C) C53) $ (54) (7'1) (.~) (Gl) (m) (~1 (3~) (~) (~) (41) (3~) ~ ~ (45) (4~) (4~) ~Z Z (44) ig 34 (43) (~) (~) (48) ( 2 ~) - -- ~ ..... 4~TH -' .... '"*"' ~ n AVE =.,~.~ N 60 ST ~/4 CORNEI~ OF SEC ? __ ~ "~ _ !NNEPIN COUNTY MONUMENT) ~ ~ L_ ~-, NORTH LINE OFTHE NW / 673 68 COUNTY MONUMENT ~EOGE OF WET LANO _ ~ N v o 20 0 D[NOTE$ M~NUM~NT ~ET WITH CORRICK & $ONDRALL A PARTNE~HIP OF PROFES,gIONAL COP~=ORAT)O Ng co~,¢K ~,w OFFS. P~ ~lnb~ ~ecu~e Office Pl~ w,LL~M J. STUN A. ~D~L P~ 8525 ~mbr~k Cwssing ~VONN~ ~s A.~.~ S~ ~203 ~... M~ B~ ~k, M~neso~ 5~3 WILL~ C. ~LEP~NE (612) 4~1 FAX (61~ 4~7 October 11, 1991 Valerie Leone City Clerk City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Rezoning Plufka First Addition Our File No: 99.40005 Dear Valerie: Enclosed for mailing to all owners of property within 350 feet of Plufka First Addition, including the owners of the property in Plufka First Addition, please find a Notice of Public Hearing for the Planning Commission's meeting scheduled for November 5th, 1991. This notice must be mailed to the property owners not less than 10 nor more than 30 days prior to the hearing. Since we are within the 30 day period now, you may mail this notice any time up to October 25th. Our office will insure the notice is placed in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post in time for proper published notice of the Planning Commission meeting. Be sure to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha s3f Enclosure cc: Daniel J. Donahue Kirk McDonald Steven A. Sondrall, Esq. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AHENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY REZONING CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FROH "R-2" SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "R-I" SINGLE FAHILY RESIDENTIAL City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 5th day of November, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of rezoning the following described properties from "R-2" Single and Two Family Residential to "R-I" Single Family Residential: Lots 1 through. 21, Block 1, Plufka First Addition. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Dated the 11th day of October, 1991. s/ Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the 23rd day of October, 1991.) October 1, 1991 Valerie Leone City Clerk City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Rezoning Plufka First Addition Our File No: 99,40005 Dear Valerie: As we discussed, Lots 1 through 21, Plufka First Addition, have not been rezoned from their existing R-2 designation. That process must be initiated, beginning with the Planning Commission. A hearing will need to be held before the Planning Commission, with notice to all persons within 350 feet of any of the property to be rezoned. Enclosed you will find a proposed Ordinance Amending Section 4.26, Extent of R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. This is the Ordinance that ultimately must be passed by the City Council. Please begin the rezoning process. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha s3t Enclosure cc: Daniel J. Donahue Kirk McDonald Steven A. Sondrall, Esq. ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE ANENDING SECTION 4.26, EXTENT OF R-2 SINGLE AND TWO FANILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RELATING TO PLUFKA FIRST ADDITION) The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.26 (18) "Extent of R-2 Single and Two Family Residential District" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4 26 (18) Outlot A ~-~--" ' .... ~-~- "~ ~ ~ ,~A_ Plufka · , ~w~vl~ g I%V I I 1110 I I I I I ~ ~11~ n~ IVIVII First Addition. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1991. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post the day of , 1991.) PLANNING CASE 94 - 18 - APPROVAL OF FRELiMI~ARY PLAT at 49th~County Road #18 - City of New Hope, Petl- The City :4~n.lger ~tated he would sueak'to this request. He ~tated that the City Council in May, had held a p~l~c hearing on ~he general co~]cepc plan for this property. Am a ~esult of this public hear- ~ng Council had or.:{~red that the plannlng ~3rocess be initiated. The Preliminary plat was the first leg of ~hat process. He added ~hat the City Cou .c~l wished ~o assure the neigh~r$ that this property · would in fac~ be ~eveloped into R-1 or s~n~le family housing. ~is would be done, even though the zon- in on the ~roperty was R-2 and would allow for t~e development of double dwellings. He stated that all of the lot sizes ~re within the min~m~g requirements of the city code, which is 9500 square feet. u~tlot A, toward 49th and ~i~, WaS controlled by the QN~, and will always be a holding ~nd. There will be 21 lots, from the east side to the south side of the property. The site will essen~iall~ be a D~tr~ct. ~ . In response to a questmon from the audience, the City Manager again pomnted out the ~ocat~on of The proposed lots (using the plat illustratxon) stating that they '~111 be on the east and south sides of the property. He further stated that runoff will go north, ]u: t west of the ball !i~onds and north along County Road ~18. He re-affirmed that the holding pond area will never be deve!ope~, ~eoause is controlled by the A citizen asked what .would happen to the water behind the homes on Flag, that now drains behind the ~ill? Mr. Donahue stated that the proposed olat will not affect drainage along Flag Avenue at all. The Chairman noted that drainage was not the problem before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kosmek, 4833 Flag Avenue, stated t~at it was their problem. He stated that water drains from 47th, down the bac~ of the lots toward 49th. They have a "..." of a problem now, and he wanted it taken care of. The City Manager pointed out that city ordinance prohibited any developpent that adversely affected drain- age in an adjoining area that would in any way have potential for damaging property. He further stated that drainage was an engineering problem and that tonight's public hearing was to deal with a proposed plat, not development of the site. Mrs. Cstrom, 4885 Flag Avenue North, referred to the Council meeting, and asked whether the entrance co the development was still going to be 500 feet west of Flag Avenue? Mr. ~nahue said he was not aware of any such commitment. He would check on this. Mrs. Ostrom stated that there were many concerns, including drainage. Any entrance on to 49th Avenue, was going to affect them. There has been a traffic count of 8000 cars a day. She felt they had to !cch at this vet%,, carefully. She did not know how people were going =o get out of the cul-de-sac. She fur- ther stated that she had not received a notice about the meeting. The City t.~ana~er stated that a staff error had been made in sending out the nonices. He added the= ~he !o:s proposed, will be comparable to the lots they will back up =o. There will be no house within 35 feet of the existing properties. Chairm..~an C~neron confi-~med that the proposed plat did meet all requirements of the city ordinance ~n re- gard ~o plat:in~, and that no variances were required. Mr. Donahue sta~ed that the minimum frontage was 55' and ranged to 88'. This will be the longest cul-du- sac in the city, but there will not be a problem for emergency vehicles galning access. There were no further comments from the audience. Commissioner .~n~'er~on made a ~oticn recommending approval of the preliminary plat for 49th/County as recuested ~n Case 84-18. Co~issioner Kolander second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Ca,heron, Gundershaug, Edwards W'~ / Voting against: None COUNCIL MINUTES 5 AUGUST 13, 1984 S. Mr. Donahue continued that the policy or' the County is that in the future, should they take the land, the city would be asked to pay for half of the cost. If it is dedicated at the time the plat is approved then no~--- future cost would be incurred. Discussion followed as to whether the' city would actually pay the cost if the request were made, whether the developer would want to dedicate the land, not being able to use it either for building or as green area, and the requests that have been made regarding the need for a left turn lane running north and south from Bass Lake Road onto Boone with Councilmember Enck suggesting that the size of the 2nd lot be cut down slightly to provide for enough room for installation of left turn lanes at a future date. City manager Donahue stated that they could ask Mr. Thompson to "reserve" the space for future development and so note in the city records. This would not obligate the developer to the county. It was Clarified that the project would now begin again from scratch regarding proposed development and financ- ing hearings. Their original project construction costs came in approximately $1 million higher than anticipated so, as a result, they are looking at additional option~,, No one else appeared regarding this case. Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Daly, to table Planning Case 8a,-1S, request for approval of preliminary Plat, Bass Lake Road and Boone, Charles Thompson, Petitioner, to allow the petitioner time to prepare their new proposal and consider the request of Hennepin County for the additional 17 foot right of way. Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson Voting against: None Motion declared carried--- '''-'''' 6. The city manager presented an affidavit showing publication in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post, issue of July 26, 1984, of "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT. (Case No. 84-18), NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA." The affidavit was examined, accepted, and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. The mayor then called to order the meeting for request for approval of preliminary plat, 49th/County Rd. 18, City of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Dan Donahue, city manager, represented the petitioner and stated that Council had directed staff to prepare a preliminary plat of the property on 49th and 18 and a preliminary plan, which is still in the works. The plat, which was before Council tonight, locates the lots and their size; dedicates the easements and locates the streets. The property is zoned R-2 and is being platted as R-1. Each lot is sized above the mimmum 9,500 square feet. Ms. Marjorie Ostrom, 4885 Flag Avenue North, appeared before Council and stated her concerns about the following: 1. Development of the property adding to the storm water drainage problem existing on 49th and Flag. 2. The location of the access to the culode-sac off of 49th Avenue. 3. The excessive length of the cul-de-sac - approximately 1508 feet (a normal cul-de-sac is around bOO feet) as it relates to emergency vehicles. 4. The environmental impact on the ponding in the area. In response to her first concern, Mayor Erickson and Mr. Rosene advised Ms. Ostrom that the area was to be dredged, cleaned out, and studied relative to the capacity and elevation of the outlet. An ext~ under 49th Avenue, going under the swamp was installed in the past to help alleviate the problem some*~ It was clarified that the city was working in the area of 49th Avenue, on the ball parks, and not flll~r,~ '~. ponding area as was suggested by some of the neighbors in the area. The second item of concern, the entrance from 49th Avenue, was then addressed by the Mayor. He Ms. Ostrom, that the city has to get permission from the DNA to move the entrance any further to the and that it was felt the entrance was at its optimum location now. To locate it in any other area wou,,~ be possible. The claim that the neighbors made that it would be 500 feet from 49th could not be substant~a~,',~ that would place the entrance too far west and result in some of the ponding area needing to be filled in. Discussion followed regarding the maximum distance the access could be located from 49th, approximately ~00 feet, and that it should not cause a problem with the stop sign in the area. In response to the third concern, the Mayor advised Mrs. Ostrom that when a project such as this is proposed. it is automatically reviewed by the Police and Fire. This is an exceptionally long cul-de-sac and umque that there is no other access to the cul-de-sac. Discussion followed as to the water problem in the area and that the anticipation of the project is that the Grading changes and routing will help relieve some of the problem. The mayor and manager then explained that development of a lot in New Hope cannot be done if it would disruDt the flow of anybody elses water. Although the preliminary plat does not address the drainage problems per se, the preliminary plan will address these concerns. The funding is available now to do the work, if it is COUNCIL MINUTES 6 AUGUST 13, 198q 6o No one else appeared in regard to this case. Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Otten, approving request for approval of prelimin plat at qgthlCounty Road 18, City of New Hope, petitioner. ~,' Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson / Voting against: None Motion declared carried G. PETITIONS REQUE:~TS AND COMMUNICATIONS 7. Mrs. Lois Lemke, 8708 30th Avenue North, appeared before Council and stated she lives at this address with her husband, two children and five foster children, ail under the age of six. They contracted with Saw Horse to construct a "play room" as they felt they needed the extra space. On Tuesday, August 7, 1984, the base- ment wall of the new addition "blew in'j due to the excessive water which drains into their backyard from the neighboring 16 properties. She then presented a petition to Council for construction of a storm sewer in the area, as well as pictures depicting the damage done to the building, and affidavits from the following neighbors attesting to their awareness of the water problem: Grant E. Morse, 3001 Boone Avenue North Gordon Gust, 8709 30th Avenue Lorraine Wieker, 8725 30th Avenue North Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Daly, accepting the petition as presented by Mrs. Lois Lemke, 8708 30th Avenue North, requesting construction of a storm sewer, trunk and laterals in the area. Voting in favor: Erickson, Oaly, Enck, Otten, Williamson Voting against: None Motion declared carried Mrs. Lemke then described the pictures to Council of the standing water in her yard and collapse of the base- ment wall of the 20 x 20 play room. Councilmember Daly, then stated that he had been out to this site regarding a cable complaint and first bec~k, aware of the problem at that time. Mark Hanson was also at the site with Councilmember Daly who asked that the problem be solved at the ~rne Boone Avenue was re-done. He continued that he did not feel it would be to difficult to install some type of drainage system and run it out to Boone hooking it into .the existing storm sewer. Discussion held regarding the time required to get this project off the ground, with city manager Oonahue stating that ordering of a preliminary plan would be the first step. The mayor continued that, subtec~ approval of the preliminary plan being accepted, a public hearing would be ordered and held, the prolec:. hopefully, ordered, bids advertised for and let and commencement of construction. With all the necessary advertising, and the schedule of Council meetings, any work that may be done could not commence belore the end of October at the soonest. The mayor then commented on the fact th'at this problem had been before Council approximately 12 year- and that nothing had been done because the neighbors objected to installation of the storm sewer. Council then asked city staff to look into the past history of any reported problems in this area. Discussion followed regarding the project and the possibility of it not necessarily being an assessment ~r existing pressure to the stuctures, and repair of the damaged stucture. Following further discussion, city manager Donahue advised Council that a notice of public hearing ¢o, ready for the next Council meeting in anticipation of Council approving the preliminary plan. Mrs. Lemke was then advised that if she felt that the city was liable for damages, she should submit her ,.. in writing, to the attention .of the city manager, who would then forward it to the city's insurance Motion b.y Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Otten instructing staff to 'prepare, a preliminary for means to alleviate the surface water problem in the neighborhood. Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson Voting against: None Motion declared carried ~ H. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 8. Councilmember Otten introduced the following resolution and moved its approval "RESOLUTION APPROVlNC 1983 TRANSFER ENTRIES." The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Williamson; ahd upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson: and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. [PAGE EXTRACT BOOK) COUNCIL MINUTES 6 NOVEMBER 13. 19~ S Planning Case'-84-30, request for variance to reduce green area requirement at 4920 County Road 78, Wayzata Bay Center Company, petitioner, was brought to the table for consideration at this time. The petitioner was nc~t present. City manager Donahue advised Council he had not been informed the petitioner would not be present. Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Enck, tabling Planning Case 84-30, request for variance to reduce green area requirement, Wayzata Bay Center Company, ~1920 County Road 18, petitioner, until the meeting of November 2&, 1984 Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson Voting against: None Motion declared carried 6 Planning Case 84-18, request for approval of final plat at 49th Avenue and County Road 18, City of New Hope . petitioner, was open for discussion at this time. Discussion held regarding the change of the addition name from Erickson's 1st Addition to Plufka Addition. Councilmember Daly questioned the city engineer regarding the concern the neighbor's have regarding water flow problems. The city engineer stated any work which will be done in the area will not adverse!yaffect current water flow. As a result of the meetings with the neighbors, they have extended the storm sewer along lots 8 and 9 which will help relieve drainage. There are still 21 houses proposed. Mr. Hanson continued another concern which was discussed was in regard to the existing basin. The northern line of Plufka Addition is two feet higher than the basin. Before water will outlet from the basin, it will flood two feet. Included im the construction are plans to build the rim of the catch basin down. To do this type of drainage construction would result in the encroachment of 6 of the abutting properties. He stated he did not know if this action would really be a benefit. ( Mr. Tect Kozmik, 4833 Flag Avenue North, questioned where the drainage easements would be placed. Mr. Hanson then outlined the proposed easement using the drawing and stated there will be overland drainage straight through to 49th Avenue. The mayor called for a motion on the item. Councilmember Enck questioned if the motion was "purely on the plat, without any particular names?" The city attorney advised this was the final plat, any changes which are to be made need to be made at th~s time. Councilmember Enck stated he took exception to the process used in deriving the names for the a~idit~on and the street. Motion by Councilmember Oaly approving tl~e final plat of Plufka Addition with the street name Honsey Dr,ye The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Williamson stated she felt "Erickson Drive" would be an appropriate name for the street. Discussion followed regarding the name of the addition and the name of the streetwith the city attorney Council there could be a problem with the Post Office in relation to the alphabetical order of the streets i son Drive" may not qualify in the "alphabetical order" sense). Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Williamson, approving final plat of Plufka Add.!,,~n with the street nai to be Erickson Drive. Voting in favor: Daly, Otten, Williamson Voting against: None Abstaining: Erickson, Enck G. PETITIONS. REQUESTS. AND COMMUNICATIONS /,.____ 7 The request of All American Storage Partnership (36th/Nevada) to change the developers' agreement ~n rega to sidewalks was discussed by Council. Mr. Ed Kauffmann represented the petitioner and stated they were requesting the installation of the s.dewalk, be delayed until "it went somewhere" Currently the sidewalk runs along 36th Avenue and stops just before the railroad I~ridge. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Otten, to accept Lion's Club donation of three lights for Northwood Park and to authorize the city to install the lights at a cost of $848. Ail present voted in favor. AMUSEMENT DEVICES FEES The next item introduced by the mayor was a discussion of fees Item 9.2 for amusement devices. He noted that the Theisen Vending Company requested time on the agenda to review fees. No representative /~)~RSTADDITION~~~] Of the company was present. PL Item 1~.1 a resolution approving the plat of the Plufka First · Addition was introduced by Mayor Erickson. Dan Donahue, city manager, stated that on November 13, 1984, the City Council approved the final plat of the Plufka First Addition to New Hope. The platting ordinance allows 1~ days for filing of the final plat and the time had lapsed and now re-approval was necessary. Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLAT OF PLUFKA FIRST ADDITION." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Daly, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten; and the following voted against the same: None; absent: Williamson; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. (Page Extract Book) QUAD-CITIES DWI The mayor next introduced item 1~.2 on the agenda a resolution ENFORCEMENT PROJECT approving the Quad-Cities DWI Enforcement Project. Item 1~.2 RESOLUTION NO. 85-83 Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF THE GRANT APPLICATION AND EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT QUAD-CITIES DWI ENFORCEMENT PROJECT." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Daly, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten; and the following voted against same: None; absent: Williamson; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the may~r which was attested to by the city clerk. (Page Extract Book) ORDINANCE NO. 85-15 Councilmember Enck introduced the following ordinance and moved Item 1~.3 its adoption: "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE 85-13 RESTRICTING THE ISSURANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS AND THE ACCEPTANC5 OF APPLICATIONS FOR MINI-WAREHOUSES BY EXTENDING THE PERM[? MORATORIUM." The motion for the adoption of the foregoln7 ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Otten, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten; and the following voted against the same: None; absent: Williamson; whereupon the ordinance declared dul~ passed and adopted and was signed by the which was attested to by the city clerk. (Page Extract Book) The mayor recognized Mr. Dan Donahue, city manager, who sta~e: that the Planning Commission is in the process of review:-. zoning ordinance regarding conditional use permits in I-1 or zone. An amendment would allow regulation of the mini-warehouse and address public safety, residences on site, and the length width of building. Mr. Donahue further added that the Plann:~ Commission will be making a recommendation to the Coun3~ sometime the end of September or early October. Mayor Erickson recognized Mr. Richard Curry of the Curry Company Inc., who stated he has a mini-warehouse and would like to get feeling from Council when the moratorium wou~d be lifted. Mr. Curry discussed his current facility and added that his intention is to expand on the adjoining lot (south) in the spring. New Hope City Council August 26, 1985 Page 2 CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 85-82 RESOLUTION APPROVIN~ OF PLUFKA FIRST ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of New Hope is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of New Hope has adopted sub- division regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision plat of the Plufka Addition as submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of New Hope hereby approves the subdivision plat of Plufka Addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of New Hope as follows: 1. It is hereby found and determined by this Council that the plat of land described in the title of this resolution is accepted under the subdivision regulations of the City and that a public hearing has been duly held thereon. 2. This Council, as the platting authority provided by Chapter 670, Laws of 1965, does hereby approve the said plat. 3. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the final plat. This resolution will expire one hundred (100) days from the date of adoption. If the aforesaid subdivision is not recorded with the appro- priate offices of Hennepin County within one year, a new application will be required for subdivision by the City of New Hope. Passed and adopted this 26th day of August, 1985. 'Edward J~ Erickson, Mayor Carol Carlson, City Clerk