Loading...
120491 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 91-26 Request for Amendment to Comprehensive Sign Plan, and Variance to Exceed Maximum Wall Signage Allowed, 4300 Xylon Avenue North, K- Mart Corporation, Petitioner 3.2 Case 91-32 Request for Consideration of an Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Revising the Off-Street Parking Requirements for Day Care Centers, City of New Hope, Petitioner 3.3 Case 91-37 Request for Two Conditional Use Permits to Allow a Convenience Store with Gasoline and Outdoor Sales, A Rear Yard Setback Variance, and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Construct a New Service Station, 6144 West Broadway, Super America, Petitioner 3.4 Case 91-40 Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Allow Commercial Sports Entertainment Complex in an I-1 Limited Industrial District, 7109 31st Avenue North, Triple Play, Inc. dba Grand Slam USA, Petitioner 3.5 Case 91-41 Request to Rezone Property from B-2 (Retail Business) District to B-3 (Auto-Oriented Business) District, Conditional Use Permit for B-3 District, and Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Allow Motor Vehicle Sales, 8001 Bass Lake Road, Auto Emporium, Petitioner 3~6 Case 91-42 Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance from Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Redevelop- ment of a Convenience Store and Gas Station, 3535 Winnetka Avenue North, Finn Daniels Broussard/Fina Serve, Inc., Petitioner 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Miscellaneous Issues 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of November 5, 1991 6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of October 28, and November 12, 1991 6.3 Review of EDA Minutes of October 14, and November 12, 1991 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING CASFS ............. ........ PCI 9~-57 6~44 IVest ~2,.~ ~--~¢.~ _"',~ ; , PC 91-41 8001 Bass L~e Rd.~__ ~_ . _ PC 91-26 ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ' ......... 4 ~00 Xylon Ay. · 91-42 ,- ~:~-. 31st Ay. ',. CITY ~ NEW HOPE 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 27, 1991 Meeting Date: December 4, 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 case at their October 8 meeting and requested that the petitioner develop a revised plan that reduced the overall sign area and number of signs and requested that the petitioner reconsider advertising each specific service (garden shop, pharmacy, etc.) and/or whether each of these services needed to be preceded with the work "K-Mart". 3. The petitioner submitted a revised sign plan at the November 5 Planning Commission meeting that reduced the number and total area of signs, deleted one of the specific services (auto service) and deleted the work "K-Mart" that preceded the specific services to be advertised. 4. A question arose as to the actual number of signs planned for the south side of the building (facing 42nd Avenue) because "K-Mart Auto Service" and "Garden Shop" are presently advertised on the building. The new plan shows only "K-Mart Auto Service" on the south elevation, and the petitioner was unaware as to whether the "Garden Shop" sign was to be retained or deleted. The Commission tabled the ease so the petitioner could either eonfu'in the plan or revise the plan. 5. The petitioner has conf'wmed that the "GardenShop" wall sign on the south face of the building will be removed, as shown on the plan presented in November. The only signage on the south wall will be the "K-Mart Auto Service" sign. 6. Details of the original variances granted in 1972 for the K-Mart sign plan and the original 1991 request are outlined in the attached October planning report. Details on the revised plan are outlined in the attached November planning report. Planning Case 91-26 December 4, 1991 Page -2- 7. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take action at this meeting to either approve or deny the request. City Code states that "the City Council shall act upon a Special Zoning Procedure application after it has received the report and recommendation from the Planning Commission and the City staff or sixty (60) days after the first regular Planning Commission meeting at which the request was considered, if no recommendation is received from the Planning Commission". This request was first considered by the Commission on October 8th. 8. The City has received no official correspondence from K-Mart regarding the outstanding planning .case on the site plan upgrading. Attachments: November 1st Planning Report October 4th Planning Report 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 cob~mn, or one stacked above the other, and the overall plan is more balanced when viewing the entire bui]dlng front. D. The naamber 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 = ~9 sq. ft. 419 sq. ft. The revised plan shows an overall sign area on the front wall of 312 square feet (which is a 107 square foot or a 5% decrease from the 1972 variance): K (with Mart inside) -- 96 sq. ft. Pharmacy. . Garden Shop = 21{~ 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 revis~ 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 aq. ft. F'K~T r~v~,T /IL,"~ ILO $~11 nil# / J SI4;~ nC" 9'x24'- 216 sq. ~t. SI~ #D# 6~x22.5~-13.~ sq. f~. '/1~': 1%0 Sign Variance Comparison A'~. 1972 Vari~nca; 1991 2:58 oq. lC. 220 1972 V&rtam:e; 19~1 Pro~e&i; 330 sq. fO. 312 sq. f~. - 5~ 1972 V~r~e; 1991 ~~1 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX 5 !£ ~?' - 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. Sig~ 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? FamilyS~leflCi~ ,q!,.,j?,,~i,,hm ForFamilyLiving 4. ~: 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. Re~ated S~te 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 th~ 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. 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 City 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 re~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 - ~ovember 1990 S~aff Report ~§A - December 1990 Staff Report 35B - December 1990 Planning Comm. Minu~es - December 1990 December 1~, 1990~ Correspondence to K-Mart December 28, 1990~ Correspondence to K-Mart Staff Report - ~anuary 1991 Planning Commo Minutes - Sanuary 1991 Staff Report - February 1991 Staff Report - March ~991 Planning Comm. Minutes - March 1991 March 19, 1991, Correspondence to K-Mart with Plan May 17, 1991~ Correspondence to K-Mart ~une 13, 1991, Corresponedence from K-Mart Staff Report - ~ul¥ 1991 Planning Comm. Minutes - Suly 1991 August 8, 1991, Correspondence to K-Mart cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Steve Sondra~l, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer R£ck ~ansen, Manager/New Hope K-Mart March 13, 1991 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Asst. ~. :~,~ City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, HN 55428 RE: New Hope Sign Ordinance Our File No. 99.10000 Dear Kirk: This letter is in resoonse to the question you asked me concerning the aPolication of the New Mope 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 t~e business, As I understand it, there is some question about ~he 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, B~,siness. Any sign which identifies business or group of businesses, either retail or wholesale, or any sign which identifies a professional 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 Oefinition clearly allows a business sign to advertise the sale of products or services. Therefore, our own code expands the definition of a business sign to permit the a0vertisement of ~roducts or services in addition to indicating the name of the business. Mr. Kirk McDonald March 13, 1991 Page 2 Also, I nave enclosed a cody of a recent case from Minneapolis dealing with the cons~i=utionality of sign code prohiOitions. The name of the case is Gowerd vt, City Of..Minneapolis, 456 N,W.2d 460 (Minn. ADD. 1990). Basically, this case holds that DrohiDi~ion o~ 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 prohiOited. This is especially true in light of our own code definition which seems to permi~ tm~$ orac~ice. 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. [f you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Steven A. $ondrall slw2 Enclosures cc: Daniel~ J. Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, City Bldg, Official Alan Brixius, C~.~y~Planner 4(~0 Minn. 45~ NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d 5ERIES The record SUl)l.)rta tim jury's conclusion ,t. Constttuth)n~ thntT~vele~ failed to make a I)roper mail- Clayton L. GOWARI), ltes~ndent, . For ing of the notice of the right of first refus- analysis, '~ al. ~e fi~t notice sent ~ Hanson on June v, ~.~ in justified ~, ~988, and to Ge~ewski on June 25, CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, Ap~llnnL regulated ~peec ~98~, did not comply with the requiremenM No. C~2164. purposes unrel~ of Minn.S~L ~ 5~.24, sub& 7. In addi- ~"' sion is neutral tion, Tmv~l~ I~arn~ that H~n~on w~ no ~u~ of Ap~l~ of Minn~o~ '. ~e~ on some longer th~ proper party m r~iv~ tim n~ Ma~ 2~, 1~0. no~ o~hem. tiers, and ~n~mted an internal m~mo indi- ~" $. Con~titution~ eatin~ tha~ ali futur~ notie~ ~houid b~ ~n~ "' to G~r~ki and th~ other HL~ ~har~hold- : ~xc~ptioa f em. Tmvele~ did send the correct form of Homeowner brought action for injunc- ~. rendered city la~ the notice on August 30, t988, but mailed it tive relief afar city threa~ned m pros~ ~. based, so thac m Hanson ins~ad of m Gerzewski and the cu~ him for e~ting signs with ~iitical Amendmen~ scr~ o~hem. Hanson again notifi~ Travelem messages on his residential pmpe~y in ~ se~e compelling that notices should be sent to Gerzewski lation of city lawn sign ordinance. The ly drawn ~o District Cour~ Hennepin County, Henry W. Cons~.Amend. L and the othem. It was not until Sep~mber 20, 1988, that Ge~ewski received notice in McCarr, J., join~ enforcement of ord~ 6. Constitutions the proper form from Travelers. While nance against homeowner. City appealed. City's in~er~ The Court of Appeals, Short, J., held that compellin~ state Travelers also conlemls that its actions con- First Amendment barred city from prohib .. con[en[-I,~sed re stitut~ a good fidth effort to provide no- iting property owner from displaying signs .~' lawn sign rice, there is sufficient evidence m support that contained political messages on pm~ Amend. [. the jug's finding that Travelers failed to make proper mailing of the notice of tl~e erty zoned for residential uses, since ordi- 7. Constitutions right of fi~t refusal, nance did not constitute valid time, place or City did manner resection on speech, nance res[ric~in~ Affirmed. ordinance did DECISION ernmen~l [n[ere The trial court properly instructed the and city o~herw~: ju~ that in~nt of ~he parties may be eon- 1. Constitutional ~w ~48(4) sic evidence nance; city faile side~ in de,training when property is Ordina~ presumption of constitution, fionale behind er "acquit" or "held" under Minn. S~t. ality affo~ed legislative enactmenm d~ .. was aesthetics. ~ 5~.24, subd. 6. The trial court's refusal not apply m laws ms~eting Fimt Amens 8. Constitutions ~ m ins~uct the ju~ on the doct~ne of waiv- ment dgh~. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. l. er w~ pm~r. Thus, the jug's ve~ic~ Zoning and that T~velem acquired the property on 2. ComtitutionM Law ~47 City's August 1, 1983, was proper, is sup~r~ Court of Ap~ala' s~ndard of review effect of by the ~rd, and w~ not influenc~ by an of case at,eking constitutionality of o~k criticizing error of law. ~,,e,: ~ nance is ~rmin~ not by broad ~wem of did hoc There ~ support in the reco~ for ~e city to enact zoning ordinances but by means of come finding that Travelem fail~ m make a righ~ allegedly infringed by city's action, homeow~er'~ pm~r mailing of ~e notice of ~ght of 5. Constitutional Law ~9~) closely re'~ed fimt refusal. Ordinance ms~efing time, place or adequate ~ AffirmS. manner of s~eeh will su~ive constitutiom tion ex:~..~ .. al so,tiny only if it ia jusfifi~ without 9. Consttt,~,o~a  reference ~ con~nt of m~ia~ s~h; it Munic~ val Ce is n~wly ~ilo~ m se~e significant Zonin~ ~nd governmental in~res~ and it leaves open Firs[ .~ mend * Acting as ,~dge c Amend. L GOWARD v. CITY OF MINNEAPOI.IS Minn. 461 els- a~ 456 AI. W3d 4~d (Mino. App~ I~) 4. Constitutional l,aw ~90(!) signs confining political messages on es~ndenL For purlmaes of First Amendment property zoned for residential use under =. analysis, regulation is content-neut~l if it lawn si~ ordinance that permitted other is justified withou~ refe~nce to content of polific~ speech in fo~ of ~mpaign , Ao9ellant regulated speech; regulation that se~es ordinance was not valid time, place or man- ', pu~oses unrelated to content of expres- net res~iction on spe~h because it w~ .~ sion ~ neutral, even if it has inciden~l eon~nt-based, city failed to show signifi- nneso~, effect on some speakem or messages but cant governmen~l interest underlying ordi- not othem. U.S.C.A. Coast. Amend. L nance, and ordinance did not leave open S. Constitutional l,aw ~90.3 adequate alternate channels of communica- Exccpliofl for campaign-related ai~ tmn. U.S.~.A. Coast. Amend. 1. )n for injuno rendered city lawn sign ordinance content- ~ed to pros~ based, so that it would su~ive First S~llabua b~ the Court wi(h lmliticai Amcmlmcut ~cruthly (rely if uecesaary to The first ~memhm:nt I)ur~ u city frmn ot~rty in vi~ ~crvc cOral)oiling al;Ut ilfl~l'c~t ami tmrrow. inance. The ly drawn tu achieve that end. U.S.C.A. prohibiting a prulmrty owner ~rom display- ty, Hen~ W. C~nst. Amend. 1. ink signs containing political messages on property zoned for rcahlentiai uae. ent o~ ord~ 6. Conatilulionai l,aw ~90.a ity ap~aled. City's interest in aesthetics was not J., held that compelling s~te interest that could justify Mark R. Anfinson, Charles J. Rethwisch, from pmhib content-based restrictions confined in city Minneapolis, for respondent. flaying si~a lawn sign ordinance. U.S.C.A. Const. yea on p~ Amend. ~. Robe~ J. Alfton, Minneapolis City Atty., s, since ordN 7. Constitutional Law ~90.a Michael T. No,on, Assr: City Arty., Minne- ime, place or City did not establish basis for o~i- spoils, for appellant nance restricting speech wimre city sign Considered and decided by SHORT, ordinance did not identify par~cular gov- e~mentai interest sought to be advanced P.J., and NORTON and MULALLY,' and city oti~e~i~e failed to present ext~n- ) ~ic cvid,'Pc~ o1' i.lt'r,~.t umlerlyi.g ordi- OPINION nancu; city failed to demo.~t~te that r~- :onstitution. ' ~ionale behind enactment of sign ordinnnce SHORT, Judge. men~ do. wu aesthetes. U.S~,~nsCAmend. 1. The City of Minneapolis appeals ~rom ,rat Amend- ~ ~ .mend. 1. *' ~. Conalilullonal !m~'~90.3 order of the t~al cour[ enjoining enforce- Zoning and: Planning ~1 meat of pa~ of i~ municipal code City's lawn si~ o~inan~, which had res~ndent Clayton Gow~rd. Responden~ t of renew eff~ of bnnning hom~wner'a hwn si~a b~ughr th~ action for injunctive relief lity of ordi- .~ cH~ing t~acmenl of h~ zoning dispu~, when the city threatened to pro, ecute him d ~we. of ~ dM not leave o~n ~d~un~ ~lte~nm for erecting si~s on his residential pro~r- :es bu~ by ' m~ of ~mmunication; messages on ty eri~ci~ing the city government The icy's ~e~ion. hom~wneCs si~ which c~tici~d city's si~s violated city code provisions for areas handling of h~ zoning dispu~ were so zoned for ~sidenti~l uae. We affix. closely related to their I~tion that no ,, place or . ~ ~d~ua~ al~ative means of communic~- ons~tu~on- ~on existed. U.~.C.A. ConscAmend. 1. No fac. a~ in dispu~. Res~ndent has ed without ~. Conslitutionni l~w ~90.3 owned his present home since 1959. t ,~h; it ': Municipal Cor~ration, ~60~ eonvert~ the house into s duplex in 1960. si~ifi~nt '~ Zoning and Planning ~81 in 19~a, the city regon~ the pro~rty eaves o~n Fi~t Amendment burred city f~m p~ single family residential district. Res~n- 'ommuni~. hibiting prol~rty ow.er from dilplaymg dent's duple~mu.a nonconforming u~, A. ~' "~ ..... ' - 462 Minn. 156 NORTll WESTERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES which couhl uot be enlarged without city If you have had a cruel and unpleasant ~A) :. permission. Over the next 20 years, re- eXperience with the l~)epartment of tn- CATI spondent made numerous changes to the spections or with a hateful neighbor, (1) Are home. Respondent ,brained permits from please call or write to me: Claytm~ Go- There the oily -, five .cc~u~i...~. Iluwcvcr, re- ward. plate--~ spondent made several changes without ob- The Minneapolis Department of Inspee- area--~ taining permits. This work included an 8' tions and a hateful neighbor have forced the narr by 10' addition to the front of the second me to demolish a beautiful addition on a perrm stnry; a bay window mi the e:tst side of tile my home which Ires cost me $50,000 aud lng lo~ second story; an enclosed room on the two trips to the hospital. The same or dwellini back side of the second story; and an open worse could happen to you. shall °~eck on the front of the third story. Are you thinking of buying your own (2) Arez In 1985, city inspectors cited respondent home? Don't do it? Your home is not For no for expanding tile nonconforming use with- your castle. Owning a home could be- identific out city permission. Respondent pled come a disaster to you. (9) squ~ guilty to these charges. The city also Two signs were attached to the back of the nar brought an acti(m to c(,upel real.rodent to the house. One of them staled: may be remove the expansions. The parties even- tually reached an agreement which called This was once my beautiful great room; lot ~wo for respomlent to remove most of the room complete with carpeting & beautiful cur- s~reec~ at the back .f the sec(md story. The other tains. Is it nothiug to you all ye who (3) Proj alLeratious were permitted Lo remain. The pass by? fl~ to parties reduced this agreement to an order A few days later, the city info,ned re- (4) Hei~ and judgment in July of 1987. No appeal spondent the signs violated tile city code than on was taken, and both parties complied fully and had to be removed. Respondent appar, curb with the terms of the judgment, ently was permitted to retain the signs for IB~ In October of 1987, however, respondent an additional five days and was then re- SIGN erected several large signs in his yard and quired to remove them. Respondent com- Ill Are: attached more to his house. Some of the menced this action seeking declaratory and more signs facing the street contained the roi- injunctive relief from tile city's enforce- except t lowing messages: ment of the sign ordinance. The city con- Watch my prediction: The Minneapolis cedes it would enforce the ordinance perm~m Departmeut of Inspections and the City against respondent if he reinstalled the ~2~ sqt Attorneys Office will quickly force ine to signs, iran e~ remove these signs. Why? I. The truth Respondent stated in deposition that he in my signs embarrasses them. 2. My did not attempt to use any other means to .:: Proj signs could muster sympathy for my communicate his grievance to the imblie. . i t~ cause. Specifically, he (lid not write to the newspa- , .. Attention: Minneapolis De&t, 9,f_ Inspee- pers; he did not protest before city hail or tions; City Attorneys Ofl~iF'e~ ~ly dear city council; and he did not buy advertising '- ,~ neighbor: You have made my life aliv- space in any newslmper. However, a news- lng hell for the last two years? paper article about respondent's problems Drive up the back alley & see what was published in the Minneapolis Star Trib- , man's inhumanity to man has done to my uae on October 16, 1987. The article in- home. cluded a photo of respon(lent with some of ~ -~: To the tree house builder in SL Louis his signs. Pa:rk: Let's join forces against those who The trial court declared the following are trying to destroy us. Minneapolis ordinance unconstitutional: . I have been ordered to demolish part of 538.180. Signs. In R1 District the fob . my home or go to jail! Is this democracy lowing nonflashing, noniiluminated signs f and the United States Constitution at are permitted under the conditions speci- ~, mu work? fled: ~- ,,~ be GOWARD v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Minn. 465 elto il 456 M.W.ld I unpleasant (A) NAMEPLATE AND IDEN~IPI- lot two (2) such aigns~ne facing each ment of In- CATION SIGNS street--shall be permitted. d neighbor, (l) Area and eontent~Residentiai. (2} Projection. No ~ign shall project Clay~n G~ There shall be not more than one name yond the property line into the public platinol exceeding one square foot in way. t of Insp~. area~for each dwelling unit, indicatin~ (3) Height. No sign shall project higher have forc~ the name and address of the occupant or than seven (7) feet above curb level. addition on a permitted occupation. On a corner zon- Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances $50,000 and ing lot two (2} suct~ namuplate~ for each ~ 538.180(A~C) {1987). 'lie Sallie or dwvlliilg mdt -om~ i'acmg each street-- The city code cmflains other l~rovisiona shall bu permitted, for political campaign signs: ~ your own {2) Area and content--NonresidentiaL 522.300. Signs. (a) Permanently af- ~ome is not For nonresidential buihtinffs a single fixed. All signs shall be permanently ,e couht l)~ identification sign~n,)t exceeding nine affixed to ti~u grotmd or a struct,re. (9) Sqtlal'u t:cet in area--indicating only Por~ble aign~ are not authorized. the back of the name and address of the building (b) Political campaign signs. Political d: may be d/splayed. On a corner zoning campaign signs are authorized in ali dis- great ~m; lot two (2} aueb aigna~ne facing each tric~. Subsection lb) shall not be con- 'autifui cur- street--shall be permitted, strued as authorizing any such signs on ali ye who (3) Pwjection. Ali signs shall be fixed public property or on private property flat to the anrface of the buiMiflg, where otherwise prohii)ited. Jfom~ ~ (4) Heigh~ No sign shai} project higher Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances e city e~e than one sto~, or fifteen (15) feet above t 522.300 (1983). dent appab curb level, whichever is lower. 109.~0. Political campaign signs. Not- ~e signs for iB) "FOR SALE" AND "TO RENT" withstanding any other provision of this as then re- SIGNS Code to the contrary, no license or permit ndent eom- {1) Area and number. There shall be not shall be required for the placing of tem- ~rato~ and more thnn one aucb sign per zoning lot, porary political campaign signs not more 'a ellfi)rce- except thnt on a cot'twr zomng h)t two (2) than thirty-two (:~2) square f,(~t in area ~e city eon- signs~ne facing each ztreet~aball be where tb~ placing of such signs ia autho- ordinance ~rmitted. No sign shall exceed twelve ~zed by the zoning ordinance. Lawn ~]led the (12) square feet it~ nor be closer signs shall be removed six (6) days after than ctgi~t (8) feel to any olher zoning a general election. )n that he lot. Minneapolis, Minn., {:ode of Ordinances ' means ~ ~2) Proj~tion. No ~ign shall project b~ ~ 109.60 {1981). liu~pomient'a ~ign~ do not the public, yond the p~rty line in~ the public fall into any of the permitted categories. he newapa- w~y. The~ is no dispute that the ordinance pro- :ity hall or (3) Heigh~ No sign shall proj~t higher hibi~ respondent from po~ting his signs. ~dve~isinff ~ '- ~ on~ s~ or fif~en {15} feet above the curb level whichever is lower. ISSUE ~ problems . S~r Tri~ (C) SIGNS ACC~SORY TO PARK- D~s enfo<ement of Minnea~iis, Minn., lNG AREAS Code of Ordinances ~ 538.180 (1987) rio- article in- late res~ndeflt's first amefldmen~ righ~ ~h some of (1) Area and numar. Signs designating parking area entrances or exi~ are limit- of free speech? ed to one sign for eaclt exit or entrance, foilowin~ and to a maximum eize of two (2) square ANAI,YSIS ution81: feet each. One sign per parking area [1 ] On appeal from summary judgment, ct the roi- designotin~ the conditions of use or iden- this couP's role i8 to de~rmine whether -164 ,~linn. 15~ N()IITil WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES ,l[inn~'s.t. llo.~Hital.~ & ('linicn, 426 e~t; and (3) it h,:~ves .pen mnple :fltenm- exampt~. N.W.2d 425, .t27 (Mmn. 19~). The nonmov- tiwe channels for cmmnunicati~m of the in- and lng party has the burden of producing evi- formation. Ward v. Rock Again.~t Rae. cai dence as to all material facts for which it ism, ~ U.S: ~, ~, 1o9 S.Ct. 2746, determm~ bears the burden of i)r()of at trial. ('clotex 2753, 105 L. Ed.2d 661 {1989).~ The time, the oth~.r' Corp. v. Catrctt, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 place or manner analysis has been routin~ of the S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 9I L. Ed.2d 265 (1986); ly applied in cases involving zoning laws reguiatie:. Carlisle v. City qf Minneapolis, 437 restricting speech on privately-owned pro~ In City N.W.2d 712, 715 (Mim~.App. 1989). The or- arty. See, e.g., City ofRcntvn v. Playtim~ dinary presumption of constitutionality al- Theatres, Ina., 475 U.S. 41, 4~47, 106 S.Ct. payers~b. 2118. 80 forded legislative enactments does not a~ 925, 928, 89 L. Ed.2d 29 (1986} (adult films Court ~y to laws restricting first amendment shown in privately-owned theatres); rights. Johnson v. State Civil Service De- tromedia, lac. v. City of San Diego, 453 An ass~ partment. 280 Minn. 61, 66, 157 N.W.2d U.S. 490, 51~16, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 289~97, "Abort~ 747, 751 (1968). The burden of proving a 69 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981) (plurality opinion) has the need for such a law is on the government. (billboards confining commercial speech hol Kills Id; secalso .lb'yet v. Grant..I~6 U.S. 414, located on private property); Schad, 452 tut~onaI 426, 108 S.Ct. I8~6, I894, 100 L. Ed.2d 425 U.S. at 74-76, 101 S.Ct. at 218~2186 Ilive that is nude dancing); State v. Hopf 323 N.W.2d cent--C, (1988). 746, 753 (Minn. 1982) (advertising devices tion for 12] The city seeks deference to its near churches, schools, nmi srvnie atonal not thcs The city's power to zone. however, is limit- ally for~ ed by express constitutional and s~tutory 1. Content Neutrality. 466 U.S. provisions. Our standard of review is de- [4] In determining whett~er a govern- omittedk retrained not by the power exercised by the ment regulation is content-neutraL the certain w: city, but by tl~e rights allegedly infringed government's purpose is the controlling o~her by the city's action. Schad ~. Borough of consideration. Rock Against Racism, ~ agenda Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 68, I01 S.Ct. U.S. at , 109 S.Ct. at 2754. The regula- ed 2176, 2182, 68 L. Ed.2d 671 (1981). Respon- tion is content-neutral if it is just~ied with- s~on. 447 dent's signs vent his criticism of city ac- out reference to the content of the regular- 2333-:~4, ~ion. Such political speech is at the core of ed speech. Id. A regulation that se~es first amendment protection, and the city purposes unrelated to the content of ex- 92, 9~. 92 must "allow the widest room for discus- pression is neutral, even if it has an inca- ([972~: see sion, the narrowest range for its restric- den~i effect on some speakers or roes- t~nc~on tion." See Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. sages but not others. Id. Here, the gov- Re~v~n. 516, 530, 65 S.Ct. 315, 322, 89 L. Ed. 430 ernmenml objective the city asser~ is to (1945). preserve the appearance of residential prvcess of [3] An ordinance restricting the time, neighborhoods by reducing the visual clut- for place or manner of speech wili~ve con- tar caused by signs. This objective is un- t~e stitutional scrutiny only if ~1) it ~ justified related to the content of the signs. without reference to the content of the The ordinance contains exceptions, how- regulated speech; (2} it is na~owly ~ilored ever, which permit cer~in signs based sol~ ~ ~' :s ~ se~e a significant governmen~l in~r- ly on the speech con~ined on them. For a ...- I. The test articulated In CTty Cotmcii o/ Los dental restriction on alleged Fh'sl Amendment ;, ~ A~gel~ v. TazFeye~ ~or Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, freedoms ts no greater than is e~emial to the [04 .S.Ct. 211B, ~ L.Ed.2d 772 ([984) is som~ ~rtherance o~ that interest. what different: 466 U.S. at 805, I04 S.Ct. at 2128 (quotin! ~nit. F:' ' [ lA] government radiation is sufficiently justS- ed 5tat~ v. O'B~en, 391 U.S. 367, 377. 88 S.Ct. :~ ~ ,r~,~. fled if it is within the constitutional power o~ 1673, 1679, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968)). These two ~' ;~-~ the Government; if it ~urthers an importani tests appear to have become interchangeable, fe~ or substantial governmental interest: if Ihe See Day, ~e Hyb~di:ation o[ the Content-Neu. governmental interest is unrelated to the sup- tral $tandar~ /or the Free Speech Clam& 19 ret pression of free expression; and if the tnci- Ariz. St. LJ. 19S. 215 (1987). [ [ , 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 wail signs ailowed 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 overail 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 o 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-Mar~ - Install four signs with a total of 419 square feet as follows: (Wall signs K (with Mart inside) - 96 sq. ft. facing Xylon) K-Mart Pharmacy - 112 sq. ft. K-Mart Garden Shop - 142 sq. ft. Auto Service - 69 sq. ft. 419 sq. ft. This represents an increase from one sign to four and an increase in square footage from 330 sq. ft. to 419 sq. ft. (89 sq. ft.) or an increase of 29%. K-Mart Auto Service - Install K-Mart Auto Service sign of 135 square feet. This would be a reduction of 300 sq. ft. from the 435 sq. ft. variance granted or a decrease in size of 68 %. These statistics .are outlined in the attached staff sketch and in the chart below: City Code 1972 Variance 1991 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: l. lnique Conditions -That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of land or use involved. Variation Pu _rpose - That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. Cause of HARDSHIP - that the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Code and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the parcel. Imp~rment 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 wail 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 C3AI~DEN CENTER .-.. KI'IART XYLON AVENUE SITE PLAN /Ib"~ I"0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I< MART ~3045 NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 4 500 XYLON NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I< MART /t_5045 NEV~ I-lOPE, MINNESOTA ,i ",lJ(~ ×YI IllJ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS d'~O0 X'I'I I'11,,1 lql-)l-{l'll '~"" '~ l[ __Ex TE___B,__O_B. E _~T,__O_~_S. i~?-~E-~~~---E~; I-lOPE, MINNESOTA 4',00 XYI {}N lqOl~-I-II EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, I< MART ~'t.5045 NEWHOPE,M[NNESOTA 4~00 XYLON NORTH t i PJanning Cas_e No. 72-6, request for variances in height, size and number of signs f6-r K-Mart facilities at 4300 Xyton Avenue North, LeRoy Signs, petitioner, was considered by the Council. Mr. Frank Freeze, LeRoy Sign Con~oany, 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 decided that the building should be treated similar to a shopping center, recognizing the separate tenants. The plans for the K-Mart sign (Exhibit A-Drawing 10219) were reviewed. The "K" is to be 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 ? feet, 6 inches with an overall length for the balance of the sign of 58 feet. The sign area is 435 square feet - 18% of 2,420 square foot wall area. This s ig~ 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.qn Area Percent Variance Farmer's Market 3,716 feet 258 feet 6.94 58 feet K-Mart 10,400 feet 330 feet 3. I ? 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 ~s taken on the ~nd~nt. Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka. Voting ~gainst: None. ~tion carried. Further discussion wes then held on the ~tion as a~nded. ~uncilman ~sacker expressed concern with the signing on the south wall and asked ~hether it had to be that large. It was noted that in ~uting the size of the sign for code confo~ance it ~as necessa~ to draw a rectangle. In this instance the "K" is 7 feet, 6 inches while the other letters are only 2 feet, 6 inches. ~uncilmen Plufka also noted that the south wall is the chief exposure for the K-Mart facility and the sign should be visible so as not to c~ate ~ traffic hazard. He said he thought the sign had ~re value than a pylon sign. Mayor Erickson and ~uncilman Johnson said that they thought ~e sign f i tted eesthet i c81 ! y w i th the deve I op~nt. ~uncilman Bosacker then said he would withdraw his objection based on ~uncil~n Plufka's re~rks. ~uncil~n Hokr inquired as to ground signs propos~ on the site. The Vi llBge Mana~r said there was a ground sign for the Garden Shop which would sit a~ut eight feet away f~m the building. He said this ground sign confo~s with the code and does not require a variance. Vote ~as then taken on the question as a~nded. Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, ~kr, Johnson, Plufka. Voting against: ~ne. ~ti~ carried. Mr. Freeze, LeRoy Signs, advised the ~uncil that there ~as atso a pylon sign t~ard 42nd Avenue. tt is proposed that there will be 128.5 square feet of sign are~ on e~ch side of the sign with height of the sign to be 34 f~t. The co~ p~vides for maximin sign of 90 square feet on each side with ~ m~imum height of 25 feet. ~uncilman Johnson noted that sign would be only ~ feet off the ground end he thought it would be subjected to breaka~. Mr. Freeze said ~at the pylon sign, as proposed, was ~ necessary part of the slgning program for K-Ma~. ~uncilman ~kr inquired as to the impact this sign would have on park- lng spa~s. It was thought that it would take away two or thr~ park- lng sp8ces. The ex~ct place~nf of the sign was not known at this time. // Councilman Plufka stated that he would the variance on the oppose pylon sign, noting that if this variance were granted the next party would want a taller sign. He felt K-Mart should follow the criteria for pylon signs. Counci Iman Hokr sald 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 Dy 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). Plannin~ Case No. 72-31, request from LeRoy Signs, Inc. for variances to allow additional wall sign on the east side of the K-Mart building, was heard. Mr. Tom Duffy represented LeRoy Signs, Inc. The sign is proposed to provide identification for the building from Winnetka Avenue, The pro- posed sign is 7 feet 6 inches by 43 feet II inches and contains 356.5 square feet. The east side of the building is the rear wall and the Village Sign Ordinance allows a nine square foot sign, Mr. Tom Duffy said it was his understanding that the Planning Comisslon had suggested that K-Mart 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. Motion carried by voice vote. (Commissioner Oswald left the meeting temporarily and was not present for the voting.) The public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code relating to pet shops in :'atoll business districts was held. The Village Manager reviewed the proposed ordinance change, Mrs. Gloria Gaage, the person interested in opening a pet shop in the Post Haste center at 36th and County Road 18, was present. She said the proposed ordinance was satisfactory as to the number of animals permitted. No one appeared to speak against the amendment. Motion by Meyer, second by Sueker, to recommend to the Council that the amendment to Section 4.92, Subdivision (43) to allow pet shops In retail business zoning classifications be adopted. Motion unaqimously carried by voice vote. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-32 Request: Request for Consideration of an Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Revising the Off-Street Parking Requirements for Day Care Centers Location: City of New Hope PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: November 27, 1991 Meeting Date: December 4, 1991 BACKGROUND City staff is requesting consideration of an ordinance to amend the New Hope Zoning Code by revising the off-street parking requirements for day care centers, pursuant to Sections 4.036(10)J and 4.20 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. This issue arose when the City received a request for a conditional use permit for a Montessori Pre-school and Child Care Center. A review of the request by the Building Official, City Attorney, and Planning Consultant raised an issue with regards to the current parking requirements within the City for such a use. 3. The current Zoning Ordinance for the City identifies a minimum number of required off- street parking spaces for specific uses identified in the ordinance (churches, schools, office buildings, etc.) 4. The current Zoning Ordinance 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. 5. As the 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. The existing provision is tailored to address nursing homes and other similar facilities as opposed to current day care practices. (The Montessori School argued that they did not provide beds so the parking standard should not be applicable.) 6. This matter was referred to the City's Planning Consultants for review and it was their recommendation that the City establish a parking standard for day care centers, pre- schools, and nursery schools, which is separate from convalescent and rest homes. 7. The Consultant examined several alternatives upon which to base the appropriate number of off-street parking stalls, including number of employees, number of students enrolled, building floor area, number of classrooms in the facility, and/or a combination of the above. A survey of other communities' day care parking regulations was conducted and a day care parking demand study was conducted. Planning Case Report 91-32 December 4, 1991 Page -2- 8. All information was reviewed in detail by the Codes & Standards Committee, City Attorney, and Building Official. Agreement was reached on a specific standard and an ordinance amendment has been drafted for presentation to the full Planning Commission and City Council. 9. When a general Zoning Ordinance text amendment is considered for adoption, notification to property owners within a specific distance is not required, however, a legal notice on the ordinance amendment was published in the official newspaper. ANALYSIS 1. Survey of Other Communities' Standards - In an attempt to determine the appropriate parking standard for a day care type use, a survey of other communities' standards was conducted by the Planning Consultant and is summarized below: JUrisdiction Standard City of Plymouth 2 parking spaces per classroom City of Golden Valley 1 space per employee + 1 space per 8 students City of Wayzata 1 space per employee + 1 space per 4 children City of Edina 1 space per employee + 1 space per 20 students City of Aurora, CO 2 spaces per 3 teachers + 1 space per 8 pupils Orange County, CA 1 space per employee + 1 space per 5 students City of Omaha, NE 1 space per 4 students A. In the majority of cases, the mlmber of employees and the number of students are taken into account in determining the parking requirement for day care type uses. This ensures sufficient parking for people employed at the center and for parents picking up/dropping off children. B. Several communities base parking requirements on nnmber of classroom~ in the facility. It is the Planning Consultant's feeling that a requirement based on number of classrooms does not guarantee adequate parking for employees, as does an ordinance which specifically addresses staff numbers. C. The ratios used to determine parking requirements varies a great deal between the communities surveyed, ranging from 1 space per 4 students to 1 space per 20 students. The existing New Hope ordinance based on number of beds essentially translates into 1 space for every 3 students, which is slightly more restrictive than other communities. 2. The Planning Consultant also reviewed the possibility of requiring day care centers to provide parking based on the building floor space rather than enrollment and number of employees. Day care establishments were randomly identified and floor area ratios per students and per students/employees were calculated to establish a parking standard based on floor area. After analyzing the data it was the Consultant's opinion that a parking standard based solely on floor space would not be advantageous due to the inconsistency in building size and enrollment capacity. Planning Case Report 91-32 December 4, 1991 Page -3- 3. The Consultant found that the City's current parking standard is confusing to apply to contemporary day care 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, thus the number of beds is not the most appropriate way to calculate parking requirements. The Consultant suggests that a parking standard based on a combination of the nnmber of employees and enrollment capacity is more reflective of the actual parking demand. 4. The Planning Consultant recommends that the following day care parking standard be considered by the City: Day Care, Pre-School, Montessorl Schools: one parking space per employee, plus one parking space per every four children based on enrollment capacity. 5. The Codes & Standards Committee met on several occasions to review this recommended ordinance change and are in support of the recommended revision. 6. The City Attorney has reviewed the Planner's memo on day care parking standards, agrees with the recommendations, and has drafted a proposed ordinance to implement the recommendations. 7. Proposed Ordinance No. 91-18 would change Section 4.03(10), Off-Street Parking Requirements/Number of Spaces Required, as follows: A. The existing Section 4.036(10)0) which requires four parking spaces plus one for each three beds for which accommodations are offered for Sanitariums, Convales- cent Homes, Rest Homes, Nursing Homes or Day Nurseries would be amended to ellmlnate Day Nurseries from this category. The same number of spaces would be required for the other uses. B. The existing Section 4.036(10)(dd), "Other Uses", would be rentmabered as Section 4.036(10)(ee), or shifted to make room for a new section to be inserted. C. A new Section 4.036(10)(dd) entitled "Pre-School/Day Care Centers" would be added and state "one space for each employee plus one additional space for each four students, as based on the maximum number of employees and students allowed by licensed capacity". 8. The ordinance amendment would not significantly impact existing commercial day care centers. All day care centers located in the City are an accessory use of an educational or religious institution, except for the recently approved Montessori School, and ample parking is provided on the sites. Although this amendment slightly reduces the number of parking spaces required for day care centers, all existing centers that are accessory to another principal use meet the existing, more restrictive standard. 9. As for the recently approved Montessori School, staff does not fred this amendment would impact the approved site plan. With four (4) instructors and a maximum of 30 students, under the existing ordinance (four spaces plus one for each three beds) 14 parking spaces were required on the plan (11 in the parking lot and 3 at the drive-thru/drop-off lane). Planning Case Report 91-32 ~-~ December 4, 1991 Page -4- Under the amended ordinance (one space for each employee plus one space for each four students) 11 spaces would be required. Although 3 fewer parking spaces would be required, the 3 extra spaces are located in the drive-thru/drop-off lane which was specifically required for traffic safety purposes, so the revision of the parking standards will not cause the drop-off lane to be eliminated from the plan. 10. The ordinance revision will clean up and modernize the parking standards as they apply to contemporary day care centers and will assist the staff in the future to match the appropriate number of parking spaces to the specific use. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 91-18, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code By Revising the Off-Street Parking Requirements for Day Care Centers. Attachments: City Attorney Correspondence 10/16/91 Ordinance No. 91-18 Planner's Report 10/16/91 Planner's Report 10/3/91 Planners's Report 9/17/91 Excerpt form Code -Day Care Parking CORR~CK & SON~R~a.L A PAPFTNEP~HIP OF PROFESSIONAL COI~TiON~ ~RRICK ~W OF~ES, P~ w~J.~nm. ~lnb~ ~ecu~e Office PI~ ~,~$~T~T, sr~. ~ ~ ~. 8525 ~br~k C~sing ~vo..~ ~ ~ ~N A.~N~ ~m,, ~. ~ B~ ~ M~neso~ 5~3 ~LE~NE (612) ~1 FAX (~1~ 42~7 October 16, 1991 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Proposed Ordinance Amending Parking Requirements for Day Care Facilities Our File No. 99.49118 Dear Kirk: I have reviewed the City Planner's October 3rd, 1991 memo regarding the referenced matter. I agree with the recommendations made in their memo. Enclosed please find a proposed Ordinance implementing the recommendations made by the City Planner for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Please remember that since this is an amendment to the Zoning Code, a public hearing is required prior to the adoption of the ordinance. The public hearing can be either at the Planning COmmission stage or the City Council stage. Contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slw Enclosure cc: Valerie Leone (w/enc) A1 Brixius (w/enc) ORDINANCE NO. 91-18 AN ORDINANCE ANENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONZNG CODE BY REVISING THE OFF-STREET PARKZNG REQUZRENENTS FOR DAY CARE CENTERS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.036(10)(j) "Sanitariums, .Convalescent Homes, Rest Homes, Nursing Homes or Day Nurseries" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by deleting Day Nurseries to read as follows: (j) Sanitariums, Convalescent Homes, Rest Homes, Nursin~ Homes ~r ~" k, ...... ~_A pl ~-z ........... Four spaces us one for each three beds for which accommodations are offered, Section 2. Section 4.036(10)(dd)"Other Uses" of the New Hope City Code is hereby renumbered as §4,036(10)(ee) and a new §4,036(10)(dd) "Pre-School/Day Care Centers" is added to read as follows: (dd) Pre-School/Day Care Centers. One space for each employee plus one additional space for each four students, as based on the maximum number of employees and students allowed by licensed capacity. Section 3. 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.) ' Nor we ssociat Consultants, Inc. U R B P L NG DEs N MARKET R ES E A RC H TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Elizabeth Stockman/Alan Brixius DATE: 16 October 1991 RE: New Hope - Day Care Parking Ordinance Amendment FILE NO: 131.00 - 91.15 At the request of the City, we have reviewed the possibility of requiring day care centers to provide parking based on the building floor space rather than enrollment and number of employees. In contacting a variety of cities we found parking based on enrollment capacity to be by far the most popular parking standard. In a second effort, we randomly identified the following day care establishments and calculated a floor area ratio per four students and a floor area ratio per four students and employees in an attempt to establish a parking standard based on floor area. As the following table shows, there is a great variation in building size versus the number of students and employees among the facilities. .Applying the average floor area ratios to the proposed Montessori school would require between 16 and 19 parking stalls. This is higher than the current standard requiring 14 stalls and the proposed standard that would require 11 parking stalls. Due the inconsistency in building size and enrollment capacity that has been illustrated for day care facilities, we do not believe that a parking standard based solely on floor space would be advantages. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 DAY C. AR~ PARKIlq~D]~4AND STUDY Student/ Number of Student Employ. Facility Bldg. Students/ Number of Parking Parking Existing Name Sq. Ft. Children Employees Ratio* Ratio** Parking Lakeville 1 space/ 1 space/ Kinder Care 5,965 133 15 179 SF 161 SF 21 Delano 1/288 1/240 Busy Beaver 3,600 50 10 (12,5) (15) 7 Bloomington 1/107 1/127 Child Care 2,100 66 12 (20) (17) Unlimited Childrens World 1/169 1/144 Brooklyn Pk 3,000 71 12 (18) (21) 12 Childrens World 1/140 1/120 Maple Grove 3,150 90 15 (23) (26) 23 Especially for Children 1/315 1/257 Robbinsdale 5,200 66 15 (17) (20) 19 Kinder Care 1/131 1/110 Maple Grove 2,950 90 17 (23) (27) 20 A~ERAGE 3,709 72 14 1/190 1/166 (20) (22) * Building SF divided by number of students X 1 space per four students ** Building SF divided by (number of students + employees) X 1 space per four students. It is suggested that a parking standard based on number of employees and enrollment capacity is more reflective of actual parking demand. We would recommend that the following day care parking standard be considered by the City of New Hope: Day Care, Preschool, Montessori Schools. One parking space per employee, plus one parking space per every four children based on enrollment capacity. cc: Doug Sandstad Dan Donahue Nor we Associat Consultan s, Inc. U R B P L N I NG ' DES N . M AR K E T R S E A R C H TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Elizabeth Stockman/Alan Brixius DATE: 3 October 1991 RE: New Hope - Day Care Parking - Ordinance Amendment FILE NO: i31.00 91.15 Attached is a draft of the proposed zoning amendment which would add a new subsection which regulates the number of parking spaces. required for pre-school and day care facilities. Based on a recent request to allow a conditional use permit for a Montessori Pre-School and Child Care Center in New Hope, a parking study was completed and outlined in the Planner's Report of 17 September 1991 (attached). The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance has been formulated in response to this, analysis of the City's current regulations vs. need, and discussions at the 19 September 1991 Codes and Standards meeting. The current regulations constitute a rather confusing requirement which is based on the number of beds. Given the modern day design and functioning of child care and pre-school facilities, the number of beds is not the most appropriate way to figure the necessary parking requirements. Rather, it has been suggested that the necessary parking spaces be based on the number of employees and students of such facilities. The attached amendment, upon approval by the City, would establish a separate parking standard for day care centers, pre- schools and nursery schools. While specific parking ratios have been proposed based on similar standards in other cities, and our best determination, the City of New Hope must ascertain the appropriate number of stalls if different from those proposed. The attached draft amendment is recommended for review and comment by the Planning Commission, City Council, and City Attorney. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555 .St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636. Fax. 595-9837 ORDIHANCENO. 91 AN 0RDIi~C'E /~/ENDII~ ~ ~ HOP~ ZONING ~DE BY ~S~G SE~ION ~.036 (10) ES~LISH~ ~ ~ER OF P~ING SPA~S ~Q~ ~H DAY~/P~-S~L FACILITIES. The City Council of the City of New Hope does ordain: Section 1. Section 4.036 (10) "N~er of Spaces Re~ired" of the New Hope City Code is hereby ~ended by revising subsection 4.036 (10) (j), "Sanitari~s, Convalescent Homes, Rest Homes, Nursing Homes or Day Nurseries" to read as follows: (j) S~tari~s, Convalescent Homes. Rest Homes. or Nursing Homes. Four (4) spaces 91us one (1) for each three (3) beds for which acco~odations are offered. Section 2. Section 4.036 (10) "N~er of Spaces Re~ired" of the New Hope City Code is hereby ~ended by changing subsection 4.036 (10) (dd) "Other Uses, to subsection 4.036 (10) (ee) "Pre-School/Day Care Centers" to read as follows: (dd) Pre-School/Day Care Centers. One (1) space for each employee 91us one additional space for each four (4) students, as based on the ~xim~ n~er of employees and students allowed by licensed capacity. (ee) Other Uses. Other uses not specifically mentioned herein shall be dete~ined on an individual basis by the City Council. Factors to be considered in such dete~ination shall include (without limitations) size of building, t~e of use, n~er of employees, e~ected vol~e and turnover of customer traffic and e~ected fre~ency and n~er of delive~ or se~ice vehicles. Section ~ Effective ~te. The Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated this day of , 1991 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the day of , 1991.) Nort we ssociat Consul nts, Inc. U R B A P L "G , DES "· MARKET R ES E A RC H PLANNING 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 BACKGROUND 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 ANDANA~YSIS Existing Hequirements. The current Zoning Ordinance for the City of New Hope identifies the following requirement for day care centers: Sanitariums, Convalescent Homes, Rest Homes, 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. It appears that this provision is tailored to address nursing homes and other similar facilities as opposed to current day care practices. Case Studies. In an attempt to determine the appropriate parkin9 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, MN. (Nursery Schools) Two parking spaces per classroom. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636. Fax. 595-9837 City of Golden Valley, MN. (Proposed) One space for each employee and one additional space for every eight students enrolled. City of Wayzata. MN. One space for each employee, plus one for each four children. City of Edina, MN. One space for each employee plus one space for every 20 individuals receiving care. City of Aurora, CO. Two spaces for each three teachers, employees, or administrators, and one off-street passenger loading place for every eight pupils. Orange County, CA. One space per staff member and one space per five students. City of 0m~h~, NE. 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 guarantee. The ratios used to determine the parking requirements vary significantly between communities. They range from one space for every four students to one space for every twenty students. The current New Hope Ordinance addressing beds essentially translates into one space for every three students. This is slightly more restrictive than other communities. The City must make a determination as to whether this ratio is appropriate, or whether it should be altered slightly to be consistent with neighboring communities. 2 CONCLUSION The City's current parking standard is difficult and confusing to apply to contemporary daycare and pre-school centers because it is based on the number of beds offered. Modern day care centers do not necessarily provide beds for all children enrolled in the center. A survey of other communities' provisions was conducted and it was determined most communities base their parking standard on number of employees or facility size, and the number of students enrolled in the center. It is recommended that the City of New Hope establish a parking standard for day care centers, pre-schools and nursery schools which is separate from convalescent and rest homes. The City must determine the appropriate number of stalls to require. It is recommended 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. 3 &.036 (10) (c) (c) M~i%~ple Famil}' Dwellings. At least one encloses and 1 1/4 open spaces per unit. (d) M0:e!s, Motor ~o:el~, Hotels. One space per each rental unit plus one space for each ten units and one space for each employee on any shift. (e) School, Elementary and Junior High. At least one parking space for each classroom plus one parking space for each seven students based on design capacity plus one for each three classrooms. (f) School, High School Through College and Private and Day or Church Schools. At leas: one parking space for each seven studen:s based on design capacity plus one for each three classrooms. (g) Church, Theatre, Auditorium. At least one parking space for each three seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to additional requirements which are imposed by this Code. (h) Private or Private Non-l~rofit Baseball Fields, Stadiums. At leas: one parking space for each eight seats of design .-- ~ ~~__~,_ , capacity. Private Cluu~, Lod~e~, Museum~, Art Gallerie~. Ten spaces  plus one for each one hundred fif=y square feet in excess of two thousan~ square feet of floor area in the principal  ~ s~ruc~ure. Sani:ariuma, Ccnvalescen~ Homes, Res~ Homes, Nursing Homes or ~a~- Nurseries. Four spaces plus one for each ~hree beds for w~ch accommoda=ions are offered. (Code 072684) Elderly (Senior Citizen){ Physically Handicapped, or R-5 Housing. The following parking requirements shall be established for uses permitted in the R-5 zoning district: 1. Elderly (Senior Citizen) Residential Mousing. One space per every three units plus reservation of area equal to one parking space per every three units. 2. Phys~call~ Handicapped Citizen Residential ~ousin~. One parking space for each unit. (Co~e 072684, Ord. 88-19) (1) Drive-in Establishment and Convenience Food. One parking space for each fifteen square fee% of gross service and seating floor area excluding the kitchen, but no~ less than fir:eeo parking spaces. Two additional spaces shall be required for a drive-through service window. (Code 072684, Ord. 85-22) t (m) Office Buildings, Animal Hospitals and Professional Offices. Three spaces 91us a= least one space for each ~wo hundred square feet of floor area. 4-36 072684 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-37 Request: Request for Two Conditional Use Permits to Allow a Convenience Store with Gasoline and Outdoor Sales, A Rear Yard Setback Variance, and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Construct a New Service Station Location: 6144 West Broadway PID No.: 05-118-21-21-0035 Zoning: B-3 (Auto-Oriented) Petitioner: Super America Group Report Date: November 27, 1991 Meeting Date: December 4, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a convenience store with gasoline, a conditional use permit to allow outdoor sales, a rear yard setback variance, and site/building plan review/approval to allow construction of a new service station, pursuant to Sections 4.039A, 4,124(2), and 4.034(3), of the New Hope Code. 2. The petitioner is also requesting an extension on the hours of operation beyond those hours specifically allowed in the Code. 3. Super America is proposing to demolish the existing vacant gas station at the southeast intersection of West Broadway and 62nd Avenue and construct a new 2,200 square foot gas station/convenience store with gasoline. The plan includes a new 60' x 39' masonry building with awning, 74' x 36' canopy, new identification/directional signs, new trash enclosure, two concrete pump islands, new site landscaping, new curb cuts and elimina- tion of non-conforming curb cut, restriped parking area and loading zone, and new site lighting. 4. The specific requests are outlined below: A. A convenience store with gasoline is permitted in the B-3 Zoning District by conditional use permit provided that specific conditions are met. B. The code states that exterior sales shall be subject to a separate conditional use permit provided that specific conditions are met. C. The code states that hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m.to 12:00 p.m., unless extended by the City Council. Super America is requesting 24-hour operation. D. The rear yard setback requirement for the property is 35 feet and the building would be located 18 feet (at the closest point) from the south area yard property line, thus a 17-variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement is needed. E. Site and building plan review/approval is required for the erection of any new building in the City. Planning Case Report 91-37 December 4, 1991 Page -2- 5. The property was zoned General Business in 1961 and in 1979 was rezoned to a B-3 Auto-Oriented Zoning District. 6. Surrounding zoning/land uses include: R-4 High Density Residential (townhouses) to the east; R-5 Senior Citizen and Physically Handicapped Residential (new elderly apartment building) to the south; B-3 Auto-Oriented (Woody's gas/convenience store) to the west; and Brooklyn Park (elementary school) to the north. 7. The physical characteristics of the property, which contains 19,200 square feet, include a downward 5-foot slope from West Broadway to the east property line and several existing trees at the southeast comer of the property. 8. 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 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. 9. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner again on November 18th and revised plans were submitted/reviewed: -a specific request was submitted regarding 24-hour operation, -a site illumination plan Was submitted regarding lighting, -revised landscape plan was submitted, -canopy and ground sign details were provided, -canopy construction materials were clarified, -grading/drainage plan was provided. Design & Review requested additional changes including detail on outside sales to be provided (with maximum number of items to be displayed), landscape schedule to be provided, additional landscaping on south side, loading area to be shown, statement on plan that snow will be hauled off site, statement on plan regarding volume control on speaker system, statement to be added to plan regarding irrigation. New revised plans were submitted on 11/22 and all of the requested revisions were incorporated. Planning Case Report 91-37 December 4, 1991 Page -3- 10. Property owners within 350' of this request were notified and staff has received several calls in opposition to this application. ANALYSIS 1. A Conditional Use Permit for Convenience Store with Gasoline is allowed provided that the following conditions are met: A. Take-Out Food. Convenience/deli food is of the take-out type only and that no provision for seating or consumption on the premises is provided. B. Sanitation. That any sale of food items is subject to the approval of the City Sanitarian. C. Licenses. That the non-automotive sales shall qualify for and be granted an annual food handling, retail sales license or other license, as circumstances shall require, in addition to the Conditional Use Permit D. Area. That the approximate area and location devoted to non-automobile merchandise sales shall be specified. Exterior sales shall be subject to a separate conditional use permit. E. Hours of Operation. The hours of operation shall be limited to six o'clock a.m. to twelve o'clock p.m.,unless extended by the City Council. F. Motor Fuel Facilities Motor fuel facilities are installed in accordance with state and city standards. Underground fuel storage tanks are to be positioned to allow adequate access by motor fuel transports and unloading operations do not conflict with circulation, access and other activities on the site. G. Canopy. A protective canopy located over primp island may be an accessory structure on the property and may be located twenty feet or more from the front lot line, provided adequate visibility both on and off site is maintained. H. 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. All sides of the principal and accessory structures are to have essentially the same or a coordinated, harmonious finish treatment. I. Dust Control and Drainage. The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage. J. Area. A minimum lot area of twenty-twothousand five hundred square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty feet by one hundred thirty feet. The City Council may exempt previously developed or previously platted property from this requirement provided that the site is capable of adequately and safely handling all activities and required facilities. Planning Case Report 91-37 December 4, 1991 Page -4- K. Curb Separation. A continuous and permanent concrete curb not less than six inches above grade shall separate the public sidewalk from motor vehicles areas. L.Landsc~ing. At the boundaries of the lot, a strip of not less than five feet shall be landscaped and screened. M. Light Standards Landscaped. Each light standard shall be landscaped. lq.Access. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. O. Noise. Noise control shall be as required. P. Outside Storage. No outside storage except as allowed per the code. An enclosed screened area is to be provided for rubbish and dumpsters. 2. Excluding hours of operation and exterior sales, the two conditions above that should be pointed out are - 1. Canopy (G) and 2. Area (J): 1. The canopy does meet the 20-foot canopy front yard setback requirement, as noted on the plan. The canopy was modified to meet the setback. 2. The minimum street frontage dimensions are met, but the minimum lot area of 22,500square feet is not met. The property contains approximately 19,200square feet. The City Council may exempt previously platted property from this require- ment if the "site is capable of adequately and safely handling all activities and required facilities". Staff recommends that this property be exempted from the requirement due to the fact that the site is being totally redeveloped. 3. Hours of Operation - are normally limited to exclude midnight to 6:00 a.m. "unless extended by the City Council". Petitioner has submitted a request for the standard 24- hour Super America operations based on sales and customer needs. Security is also addressed in their written request (attached). No other smaller scale convenience/gas operations are open 24 hours in the City and few are interested in remaining open all night. No car wash is included with this request so that type of noise is not a concern. The Planning Commission will want to make a recommendation on this request to the Council. 4. Outdoor Sales - EXterior sales are subject to a separate Conditional Use Permit. The revised site plan illustrates three specific area for proposed outdoor sales/display with a maximum of three different items at one time, due to seasonal nature of each item. The items would include anti-freeze, windshield wash, fireplace wood, charcoal, pop, propane, oil, and salt. Petitioner is requesting outdoor sales because of high sales of these items and for better customer service. The revised plan shows an 8-foot wide sidewalk with 4 feet devoted to sales, maintaining a 4-font clear sidewalk for pedestrians. The total area of outdoor sales is 24 square feet (4' x 10', 4' x 20', and 4' x 30'). City Code allows accessory outdoor sales under the following conditions: A. Area Limit. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. Planning Case Report 91-37 December 4, 1991 Page -5- B. Screened from Residential. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting "R" District. C. Lighting Shielded. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences. D. Surfacing. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust and mud, and to provide a clean, attractive and usable surface. E. Parking. Does not take up parking space required for conformity to City Code. 5. Variance Request - The proposed Super America Station/Store meets all setback require- ments except for the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement. Petitioner is requesting an 18-foot variance or .about a 50?6 setback reduction. The existing building is non- conforming and meets no setback requirements. If this site is redeveloped as proposed, all non-conforming setbacks and non-conforming curb cUts will be corrected except for this one rear yard setback variance request. There is a significant distance (200 feet) between the proposed Super America and the building to the south and significant land- scaping has been incorporated into the plan. The building proposed for the site is unique in the fact that it has a comer-cut, windows on two street sides, and is aesthetically pleasing. The site may be useable with all setbacks being met, but the aesthetics of the building would probably be revised to present a less appealing structure. 6. Parking requirements for the site are met, as 18 spaces are provided with 10 in the parking lot and 8 at the pumps. Traffic in the area will be increased, but the intersection is signalized. A 50-foot track turning radius is provided for tankers. One non- conforming, unsafe curb cut 110 feet in length on the west is being removed/ reconstructed. 7. Drainage has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the majority of the lots impervious surface will sheet drain overland towards West Broadway and 62nd Avenue North, including building and roof. 8. The identification sign, directional signs, and wall/canopy signs have been reviewed by staff and are in compliance with the Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a convenience store/gas station in a B-3 Zoning District, a rear yard setback variance, site/building plan review approval, and a conditional use permit for limited outdoor sales subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner to submit revised 1/4" scale floor plan illustrating the exact outdoor sales location-limits for clarity of all parties (sidewalk is not drawn correctly). 2. Annual inspection for CUP required by staff. Planning Case Report 91-37 December 4, 1991 ~-' Page -6- The Commission should also make recommendations to the Council on hours of operation and the area requirement issue. Attachments: Petitioner Letter (Hours of Operation/Exterior Sales) Zoning/Section Map Survey - Existing Site Revised Site Plan- November 22 Revised Landscape Plan- November 22 Grading Plan Illumination Plan Signage Plan Signage Detail Building Elevations Directional Signs Trash Enclosure Detail Canopy Elevation SuperAmerica Group, Inc. ~. 1240 West 98th Street Bloomington, MN 55431 J SUPERAMERICA ® [~~ © ~ ~ ~'''''~:~ ?~ i i'~': (612)(612) 887-6158887-6100 FAX NOV I 2 1991 November 12, 1991 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 SUBJECT: 24 Hour Operation/Outside Displays New SuperAmerica Store 6144 W. Broadway, New Hope, MN Both of the above are very important to SuperAmerica for economical reasons and customer service. I will address 24 hours first. At most of our SuperAmerica stores we are a 24 hour operation. This is important to us because of sales and customer needs. There are many people that work nights and look for our service. We have taken all precautions to make the night shift safe for our people. There will always be two people working (this is true at all of our Twin City SuperAmericas). Each will have a security alarm with them at all times. If there is ever a need to call for the police or fire department they only need to press their alarm and the call is made automatically. There is also a panic button under the counter that works in the same way. We also have armored car service, so once the money is dropped not even the store manager can get at it. There is little more we can do to make SuperAmerica a safe place to work. Outside sales are also important to us as this is done because of high sales of those items and for better customer service. The items that we need to put outside are anti-freeze, windshield wash, fireplace wood, charcoal, pop, propane, oil and salt. However, only three or four of the items would be there at anyone time due to the seasonal nature of each item. SUBSIDIARY OF ASHLAND OIL, INC. Page 2 24 Hour Operation/Outside Displays November 12, 1991 In today's world it costs us a lot of money to put in a first class operation as SuperAmerica, so it is very important that we maximize the business 24 hours a day and with all sales possible. We will also employ approximately 15 from the New Hope area. We look forward to approval of both issues. Thank you. Leonard A. Feilmeier Regional Vice President LAF/lc ~,OU~TY f~OAO ....... 62nd. AVENUE NORTH ,[ 162nd AVENUE N. & W. 6ROADWAYI- ..... ,, SUPERAMERICA ] NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA "l~ :TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN SCALE: ,,..,-,,- I PRELIMINARY SITE STUDY ""'"""" '.,,,- J62nd AVENUE N. & W. BROADWAY I NEW 'HOPE, MINNESOTA ---,.. PLANT MATERIAL QUANT, CO~N NAMIE 62nd AVENUE NORTH ~ ~ "~ - /' I~ I  SUPERAMERICA STAT iON; STORE KEYNOTF.~ (~ =iUi~JU~iIIiCA' ~TID ~ FM'j - Ill fill. 62nd ~VENUE NORTH ~' ~V~ ~ ~T~- ~ ~T ~ ~ 74'x 31' C~PY , .  ~ 6~ERA~RICA ~ ~ 6TAT~/aT~ ~ _ - ~- 1~t~'B SUPERAMERICA ~ CY ~A~ ~VAT~ ~ SUPERAMERI~A -- CY ~A~ ~VAT~ CANOPY f~JJ ARE ILLJATED FL~XIBL~ FA~E PA~L LEFT END ELEVATION Q ~ ELEVATION I/4"~ I ' "0" I/4%. I' '0~ COLOR CODE '""-"'"""- .--.,,, QFRONT ELEVATION Q SIDE ELEVATION AREA - 4 SQ. FT. AI~IIA OF LOOO - e2 SQ. IN. (tS& OF TOTAL ARIA) REDWOOD 2 x 2 (BEYOND) G x B REDWD. POST ~EE DET 14/I 2 x 4 · 3/16' STL. FRAME 5' O.D. PIPE STD. - W1.4 · W 1.4 W.W.M. OVER 6" COMP. 6" O.D. PIPE' · STRONG GRAHUCAR FiLL SLEEVE HINGE - 6' HIGH. WELD SPACER & (2) 1~2' I ~ & REDWD. BDS. 8 BOLTS TO EA. HINGE BASKET WEAVE TO FASTEN DR. 4 x ~ REI)WD, POST I · 6 T & GREDWOOD STL. TUBE FRAME w/ 5, O.D. PIPE STD. DRAIN HOLES AT BOTTOM %DET. 12/I  HINGE DETAIL 3'-t-0' REDWOOD 2 · 2 & I · 6 CROSS BRACING (~ INT. (DASHED) \ 2' SEE DET~, 1'2/1 5' O.D. PIPE STD. 10'*0' REDWD. POST :' LONG FILLED w' CONC. - ROUND TOP. SET IN 1'-6" x l'-B' x 4'-4' OEEP FTG. FOR SURIrACE I · 6 T A G REDWOOD BOLT , LATCH / / SURFACE BOLT @ IHT. /~Y"RECEWERS OF DR. //I(OR SURFACE TS ,// FLUSH wi GRADE 6' O.D. PIPE · STRONG SLEEVE 3/1' = 1-0' I I  TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN ) WOOD TRASH EI~LOSURE GATES ~,,.. ,..,. SCALE AS NOTED REVISED 9-6-r~0 12.,/1 REVISED ~-23-90 ~:),~, CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-40 Request: Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Commercial Sports Entertainment Complex in an I-1 Limited Industrial District Location: 7109 31st Avenue North PID No.: 20-118-21-31-0020 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Triple Play, Inv. dba Grand Slam USA Report Date: November 27, 1991 Meeting Date: December 4, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit and site/building plan review/approval to allow a commercial sports entertainment complex in an I-1 Industrial District, pursuant to Sections 4.144(9) and 4.039A of the New Hope Code. 2. In October, 1991, ATEC (Athletic Training Equipment Company) Grand Slam received approval for a conditional use permit to operate a sports and entertainment complex in a portion of the vacant Chicago Cutlery building, subject to specific conditions relating to site improvements, in Planning Case 91-29. 3. In November, 1991, Grand Slam notified the City that CB Commercial, the leasing agent for Oeneral Housewares (owner of the Chicago Cutlery building), had backed out of the lease arrangement. This forced Grand Slam to look elsewhere in the New Hope area for another building. They desire to stay in the City and have found another building/owner in New Hope, and are in the process of obtaining a lease. This conditional use permit is for the new building location. 4. Grand Slam is proposing to lease and remodel 29,100 square feet of the R. Johnson warehouse building located at 7109 31st Avenue North, north of Medicine Lake Road and west of Louisiana Avenue North. The proposed use would occupy 16% of the existing 176,507 square foot building which is located on a parcel that contains 10.18 acres. 5. The facility would include exactly the same uses as proposed at the Chicago Cutlery site, including indoor batting cages, a miniature golf course, video arcade, weight room, basketball court, children's safari and adventureland, a pro shop, concessions, a non- alcoholic sports lounge and a party room, all of which are geared toward the youth of the community. 6. The facility would operate from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from 10:00 a.m. to midnight on Friday and Saturday. Planning Case Report 91-40 December 4, 1991 Page -2- 7. Surrounding zoning/land uses include: I-1 warehouses to the south; railroad right-of-way and Crystal industrial and residential to the west; I-1 warehouses to the north; and Crystal residential east across Louisiana Avenue and a New Hope single family home on the west side of Louisiana Avenue (non-conforming, located on a lot zoned I-l). 8. The west half of the property was zoned General Industrial in 1960, Residential in 1962, and I-1 in 1963. The "protection of Crystal's residential neighborhood" was stressed when this area was zoned I-1 Light Industrial, as this zoning district contains the City's highest development standards (green area, lot coverage, etc.). 9. This parcel is a large flat site with an artificial berm on the east edge between the existing home and the existing warehouse. 10. Commercial recreational facilities are permitted as a conditional use if the following criteria are met: A. Access -The site of the proposed use has direct access to an arterial street. B. Proximity to Residential - The site is 500 feet or more from residential zoning. C. Compatibility -The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence. D. Screening from Residential Parking areas shall be screened from view of residential districts and shall be curbed with continuous concrete curbs. E. Access -Vehicular access points shall be limited and designed and constructed to create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. F. Lighting Shielded - All lighting shall be hooded. G. Surfacing The entire area shall be surfaced with a bituminous or concrete material which will control dust and drainage. H. Landscaping -Landscaping shall be provided and the type of planting material and the number and size of plants shall be subject to the approval of the City. 11. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments pertaining to this request. ANALYSIS 1. Special attention should be paid to conditions A. (Access), B. (Proximity to residential), and C. (Compatibility). A. Access- the code requires all commercial recreational conditional use permit sites to be located upon an "arterial" street, but according to the City's traffic plan, Louisiana is designated only as a "collector" level street. Planning Case Report 91-40 December 4, 1991 Page -3- There is no question an increase in passenger vehicle traffic will result since vehicle trip numbers will increase on Louisiana and 31st Circle, although the primary hours of use will be extended over a longer time frame to include evenings and weekends for this tenant. One option would be to require a Traffic Engineer's analysis of the various impacts and table the case. A second option would be to require a development contract and bond for two years covering landscaping, sidewalks, and an optional traffic analysis (at the City's discretion). B. Proximity to Residential and C. Compatibility - the code requires the lot to be 500 feet from a residential zoning district or "the architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing building or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence". While this parcel is 66 feet from Crystal residential property, the actual east end of the warehouse is 380 feet from Crystal. The proposed tenant space for this CUP is in the center of the very large building and is 630 feet west of Crystal residences. The potential for loitering youths affecting blight of the property is another issue that should be discussed. 2. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on November 18th and the following issues were discussed: parking requirements, building code issues (rear exit, fire walls, smoke detection, overhead door), sign plan, landscaping, hours of operation, security and supervision, interior layout, lighting on site and general operations. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. 3. The revised plans include: A. Additional landscaping in front (north) of the building, around entrance, and on east side B. Landscape schedule C. The rear exist on the original plan was not adequate because there was no maintained access from the exit to a public way. The revised plan shows a new 4- foot wide bituminous sidewalk from the rear exit, which has been made handicapped accessible, to the front parking lot D. New light standards have ben added in the parking lot. 4. The plans show that an existing overhead door near the entry will be infilled and painted to match existing building; a screened trash enclosure of cedar construction; split face decorative block on top front face of building; illuminated sign "Grand Slam USA" centered over awning/entrance and wall pack lights on building. 5. The proposed signage meets the sign code requirements. Planning Case Report 91-40 December 4, 1991 Page -4- 6. Grand Slam would be located in the center of the building between two (2) very low intensity storage warehouse tenants (Flower City Warehouse and Prudential Records). 7. The parking requirements are met on the site. Parking adequacy has been determined under "Other Uses" in the City Code. In this unique situation, the Building Official is familiar with the way the property functions with its' large unused parking lot. The major tenant for the last 10 years, Prudential Records, occupies 56% of the building for the storage of quantities of insurance policies with a handful of employees in a 94,000 square foot building space. The other large tenant, Flower City Warehouse, has a storage-only use with no more than 15 employees in 53,000 square feet of building space. Staff have assigned 20 spaces to the two storage-only tenants. This total of 40 spaces is subtracted from the available parking lot total of 255 spaces, yielding a balance of 215 spaces. City Code requirements for a commercial recreation use of 29,100 square feet is 156 spaces, which leaves a surplus of 59 parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational use in an I-1 Zoning District and site/building plan review approval for Grand Slam subject to the following conditions: 1. Development contract and bond for 2-year period to cover sidewalk, landscaping, and possible traffic analysis. 2. Annual CUP inspection by staff. 3. Compliance with State Building Code and Disability rules. Attachments: Section/Zoning Maps Petitioner Letter Survey/Landscaping Plan Interior Floor Plan Building Elevations Sign Detail Landscape Schedule Previous Business Plan/Company History Planning Commission Minutes 10/91 (PC 91-29) Council Minutes 10-91 (PC 91-29) B-4 R-4 1.2 lNG DISTRICT MAP Nove~ 6th, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave N New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Mr. Donahue: Last month Grand Slam U.S.A. applied for, and received a conditional use permit from the City of New Hope for use in the Chicago Cutlery building. Grand Slam U.S.A. has tried for months to negotiate a lease with General Housewares, the owners of the Chicago Cutlery building. General Housewares has made it as difficult and expensive for us to lease space in their building as they possibly can, forcing us to look elsewhere in the New Hope area for a building. We had negotiated a lease agreement thru CB Commercial, General Housewares leasing agent which involved many expensive concessions on our part which we were willing to do, only to have CB Commercial call us the next day and back out of what we thought was a done deal. As it turns out General Housewares is unwilling to negotiate any kind of a fair lease agreement, obviously they are not concerned with leasing space in their building. We have found a building and a building owner willing to work with us in the New Hope Area, where we wanted very much to stay. We are in the process of applying for a conditional use permit for this building and obtaining a lease. We are requesting the City of New Hope to consider forgoing any additional charges for obtaining another conditional use permit. Your consideration of this is very much appreciated. S b3.cer ely, ~ Patty Morris GRAND SLAM U.S.A. 7452 Ideal Ave So ]e Grove, MN 55016 ~ . :'~' ~ ~s ~ I I '. ~. t. ' ' . -- ..... ~. ~ , ', CaRAND SLAM ~ m' , PRELl MI NARY ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A. New Hope, Minnesota Sports/Entertainment Complex Batting Cages Pro Shop Baseball, Softball and Basketball Academy 18 Hole Miniature Golf Birthday Parties Concession Video and Sport Games Basketball Grand Slam Adventure Land Grand Slam Safari Ride Business Plan for Grand Slam New Hope Sports/Entertainment Complex Confidential June 30, 1991 Grand Slam New Hope is a sports/entertainment complex that will be located irt New Hope, Minnesota. Currently there are over 80 ATEC Grand Slam franchises in operation in the United States. All are centered around ATEC batting cages and ATEC baseball and softball equipment. Each ATEC Grand Slam has revenue centers in common and each has some uniqueness to them. Most have ATEC batting cages, a pro shop, concession area, video games and a basketball court. The more successful franchises have an extensive academy program and a large birthday party business. ATEC Grand Slam in New Hope is intended to incorporate nine revenue areas. This facility will have five ATEC Grand Slam batting cages. Four will be dual machines used for both baseball and softball. The other will be a rookie cage intended for use by younger players. All cages will be available for rent by the hour or a per time basis. The cages will be utilized by the academy, the party business, baseball and softball teams, as well as walk in customers. Due to the seasonal nature of the batting cage business, we have endeavored to make this a multi-purpose entertainment facility. The Academy for baseball, softball and basketball involves drawing customers from a large population base. Due to the unique nature of this type of business, we feel our population base will increase to over one million. We intend to relentlessly pursue the academy business which will in turn generate awareness and increased business for the rest of the facility. Private and group lessons will be offered for baseball, softball and basketball. Summer camps are planned for June thru August. We will also work with the athletic associations in the surrounding communities to develop clinics for the various youth groups. The Pro Shop will generate much of it's revenue from the academy business as well as walk in busia~ess. The pro shop will carry top of the line baseball and softball equi.'pment. The Basketball Court will be designed as part of a multi purpose area incorporating the'academy with the floor of the court designed as an infield. The basketball court rents by the hour for slam dunk three on three basketball. We will also have leagues during the winter. The basketball court will also be used as part of our birthday party packages. The facility will have over 70 video and sports games with a wide variety to choose from. Video games are a large part of the birthday party business, and can be used by any customers using the facility. The miniature golf course will be built around a jungle theme with large plants, waterfall, wild animals and eighteen holes of golf. The golf course is a large part of the total revenue as it is a popular form of entertainment everywhere. The birthday party business will be promoted to parents of 3-12 year olds. It will draw business from a large demographic area with a higher than average concentration of children. We will offer several different party packages with varied activities. Catering to other types of parties such as high school graduations will also be available. Grand Slam Adventure Land for children ages 2 to 10 years old will feature an activity center with slides, tunnels and a ball pool. We will use this center for birthday parties and walk in customers. Grand Slam Safari Ride for children ages 2 to 10 years old will feature Powerwheels battery operated cars. The cars will take the children on a safari ride thru the jungle of the golf course. This center will also be used for birthday parties and walk in customers. The concession area will feature ballpark food such as hot dogs, pizza, beverages, natchos and other miscellaneous items. This area will be used extensively with the birthday party offerings, as well as being available to other facility users. We feel it is good business planning to have diversified entertainment at this facility. The combination of the golf course, parties, basketball, video games, concession area, regular academy business and the pro shop should provide a stability in revenue during the off-season of the batting cage business. There is currently a suitable location in the New Hope area located at Highway 169 and 49th Avenue North that is available in the targeted time for opening the center. We will be utilizing a space of 27,200 feet. The current competition is strictly a batting cage operation in St. Paul plus an entertainment complex in Eagan. The facility in Eagan has been a huge success in the one and one half years of operation with the main part of revenue coming from the birthday party business. This information comes from observation and sources close to the owner. The Eagan facility lacks a teaching academy. The operation in St. Paul has flourished for over 7 years. This speaks to the success of the concept. Athletic Training Equipment Company P.O. Box 1317, Santa Cruz, California 95061-1317 115 Post Street, Santa Cruz, California 95060 1-800-547-6273 · (408) 425-1484 · FAX 408-425-7832 ATEC GRAND SLAM U.S.A. CORPORATE BACKGROUND COMPANY HISTORY Athletic Training Equipment Company (ATEC) is headquartered in Clackamas, Oregon. Its financial and marketing bases are in Silicon Valley and Santa Cruz, California. The company has developed, manufactured and marketed baseball and softball practice equipment in the United States and Canada since 1976. In 1983, ATEC added a new dimension to the company which has provided an excellent opportunity for growth. The concept, marketing baseball/softball academies under the name "ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A.", offers investors the ability to acquire a franchise and become an owner/operator of their own sports oriented business. An ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A. Batting Range consists of a number of token operated baseball and/or softball indoor or outdoor batting cages. These automated batting cages include a ball retrieval system, token boxes, netting, pitching machines and a master control panel in the office. The indoor ranges are designed to be used year round, whereas the outdoor ranges may be seasonal, depending on the climate. These batting ranges are open to the public and to team practice. The unique Grand Slam U.S.A. concept, built around the indoor/outdoor batting cages, including the industries most comprehensive academy teaching program offers the investor exclusive territorial rights for. ten years. A significant element of the ATEC package is an operating manual which systematically guides the franchisee through step-by-step procedures to effectively manage and operate the range and the Academy. Grand Slam U.S.A. includes a marketing plan consisting of promotions, advertising guidelines, and other means of increasing traffic to the ranges. The franchisee is provided with at least two national promotions each year (however entrepreneurial spirit and creativity we both encourage and promote). Baseball and softball are the major, participatory, leisure-time sports in America. By capitalizing on the popularity of these sports, and the growing emphasis on physical fitness, ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A. has become an attractive and popular investment. ATEC has successfully positioned itself as the only known franchisor of indoor automated batting ranges in the world. The franchise concept has rewarded ATEC with noteworthy growth. Sales have increased from $2.8 million in 1983-84 to more than $5 million by the end of the fiscal 1989-90. Currently, 80 franchises are in operation in more than 30 states and Canada. Between 200 and 300 franchise sites are expected to be in operation within the next five years. Page I · Revised 2/91 · ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A. ACADEMY The Company's objective in creating the ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A. concept is to provide a consistent approach to baseball and softball hitting, fielding, throwing, running and conditioning instruction throughout the nation. Franchise sites stress their academy concept by having top high school and college baseball and softball coaches provide instruction at clinics and camps and give private and semiprivate lessons. Youngsters represent the largest potential market for Grand Slam U.S.A. ATEC's approach enables Grand Slam U.S.A. Academies to attract participation from all age groups and all levels of abilities. Parents appreciate the excellent instruction and enjoyable atmosphere for their children. Most importantly, youngsters have fun while improving their skills. In order to keep abreast of the latest trends in coaching techniques and training drills ATEC formed it's National Coaches Advisory Board in 1984. These coaches are highly respected in their profession and are responsible for reviewing and updating Grand Slam U.S.A.'s Academy curriculum. Bob Bennett, Fresno State John Herbold, Los Angeles State Ron Klein, New Trier High, Wilmette, Illinois Ron Maestri, University of New Orleans A.D. Mark Marquess, Stanford John Oldham, University of Santa Clara Sharon Drysdale, Northwestern Gordy Gillespie, St. Francis College Chris Bradford, St. Francis High, Santa Clara Hal Smeltzley, Florida Southern A.D. Cliff Gustafson, Austin, Texas Judi Garman, Cal State, Fullenon Augie Garrido, Cal State, Fullerton In addition to the National Coaches Advisory Board, ATEC has signed Jim Lefebvre, Manager of the Seattle Mariners; Jeff Torborg, Manager of the Chicago White Sox, Bill Virdon, Pittsburgh Pirates coach, and Ben Hines, L.A. Dodger's hitting coach as special representatiVes. .They represent ATEC and promote ATEC's products at conventions, clinics and other meetings to demonstrate how effective ATEC's equipment is when used in instructional programs. They also make appearances at selected Grand Slam U.S.A. franchises in order to Augment the Academy program. Periodically current Major League players may be scheduled for mini clinics as were. ATEC PRODUCTS ATEC Grand Slam U.S.A. franchises use ATEC state-of-the-art pitching machines and equipment in both their academy program and batting cages. This is the same equipment used by all 26 Major League teams, all Minor League clubs, and personally by many Major League players. Major College and University programs, as well as the best prep teams in the country, insist on ATEC equipment in order to train their athletes. Page 2 · Revised 2/91 · ROOKIE BALL ATEC has announced an exciting new concept for youth league baseball. Rookie Ball and the Ponza Rookie pitching machine were designed to put excitement back into the game and to eliminate the fear of being hit by a wild pitch. A young player, then begins to feel more comfortable at the plate and can concentrate solely on learning how to hit the ball correctly. In Rookie Ball, an action packed game can be played in 50 to 60 minutes. Most leagues allow 10 defensive players on the field, with everyone on the team hitting in the batting order. In Rookie Ball everyone plays, and everyone wins. A young player now has the chance to improve his skills in a safe and fun environment. Dr. Bobby Brown President of the American League stated, "We feel Rookie Ball provides a relaxed atmosphere that forms a natural bridge between T-ball and the more formal youth programs. We feel this is a good way to introduce more youngsters to baseball .... Children today leave T-Ball and are rushed into Little League to compete at a level they are neither physically nor emotionally mature enough to handle. When this happens, many youngsters begin to participate in other activities such as soccer or football. Major League Baseball's support of Rookie Ball has been overwhelming. John Scheurholz, Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Kansas City Royals said "I don't know if I'm more excited about this concept because I'm a father of an nine year old participant in the rookie ball program or because I'm the General Manager of the Kansas City Royals baseball team .... I saw the excitement, the smile, and the look of gratification on my son's face when he finished his first season with the rookie ball program .... It was great to see the whole team have fun in youth league baseball again." Page 3 · Revised 2/91 · PLAYS~SIDE ~ LIST FSI3-0 , CAPACIT~: 35 STANDARD 12' X 12' B~T,T, POOL 1 MULTI-COLORED BALLS 10,000 CARGO CLIMB 1 BALL POOL RULES SIGN CONTAINED HUMP SLIDE 1 PROPER SIGNAGE PACKAGE CONTAINED SMALL DUMP SLIDE 1 TUBE CRAWL SAFETY STEP UNIT 1 BALL TARGET WEB TUNNEL 2 WING NET?ING (AS REQUIRED) SHOE HOLDERS 3 FULLY SAFETY NETTED ELEVATED SUNSCREEN FOR BALL POOL &~ CRAWL AREA L ~ Y a ~ o u CHARTER STREET ALSSMARLE iI I II II · · Chairman Cameron questioned the reason for the waiver of the final plat and the creation of .88 acre Mr. Trieber explained that their plan il to get the trees removed and grading started before it freezes giving them a better chance for starting construction early in the Spring, but it mainly hinges on what the City will do about the outlet and uncertain. He added that if the City does not act on the purchase of the outlet, he will incoL'porate it into the existing property. Alan Brixiue suggested the preliminary plat be approved subject the City Council approval of the purchase of the outlet and if they choose not to proceed on it, an amendment to the final plat can consolidate the outlet into the existing lot thus avoiding further delay in approval of the final plat. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Cassen, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to approve~he prelimine~pl&t and waive fin&l plat review by the Planning COmmission sub, oct to the conditions that the concerns of the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Building Official are corrected on final plat; and City make determination as to purchase of Outlet A prior to final plat approval, and in the event the City does not purchase the subject Outlet the plat be amended to include Outlet A as par~ of Lot l, Block ~ on the final plat. Voting in favor= Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Sonsin, Oundershaug Voting against: None Not voting: Watschke Absent~ Friedrich Motion carried. Commissioner Watschke rejoined the Comm£seion at this time. PC 9L'30-~3.8~ Chairman Cameron introduced the next planning case. Mr. McDonald 1~ ~R outlined the request for a conditional use permit to allow a COMDX~XOMJLL USE commercial recreational use in the currently vacant Chicago Cutlery PERMIT~OALLOW building. He explained that the planned use will be geared to the A COJ~(~ClAL youth of community cages, the with indoor batting miniature golf RB(~ATXONAL course, video arcade, weight room, basketball court, children's USS A~ $420 safari and adventureland, pro shop, concessions, non-alcoholic HW~ 169 NORTH spprts lounge, and a party room. He noted that the petitioner is planning to occupy 42%, or 27,000 square feet in the center of the 65,276 square foot building, with a 27,000 square foot bakery warehouse in the east end and a 10,000 square foot warehouse in the  He added that the proposed use west portion (facing Highway 169). meets all the I-1 requirements, revised plans were submitted sub- sequent to meeting with Design & Review, and the Planner has also submitted a report, but staff has a number of concerns even though they are recommending approval. He listed the concerns and made recommendations for correction as follows= 1. Compatibility: location of a recreational facility between two industrial sites making it necessary for its patrons to cross industrial traffic is a concern, therefore staff is recommending petitioner shift west to the front of the building thereby keeping the recreational use in front and the industrial use in the back of the building. 2. Parking lot improvements: needs resurfacing, stalls for handicapped parking, and curbing needs to be discussed. 3. Parking requirements: Planner has determined that 33 spaces are needed for the two warehouse uses, but there is not a category that addresses sports and entertainment uses, therefore an other uses category is used to make a determination on an individual basis. The Planner has researched American Planning Association Standards and recommends one space per 200 square feet of floor area for the sports and recreation complex, therefore Grand Slam would need to provide 135 spaces, so combined with the 33 industrial a total of 168 spaces are needed on the site. 4. Curb cuts= a minor shift in the northerly access will accommodate the revised parking lot configuration. New Hope P~anning COmmission -5- October 8, 199~ 5. Landscaping: plan meets requirements, but staff suggests the addition of landscaping within curb islands in parking lot. 6. Lighting: is adequate but should be adjusted downward, light ~ standards should be repainted to clean up the site. 7. Signage: staff would like comprehensive sign plan submitted. 8. Refuse: trash area should be moved to more remote area. Bob Rate, representing Grand Slam, stated that he had not seen the report detailing staff concerns, but he indicated that he did not think there would be a problem to accommodate the recommendations. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern regarding the trash area location and closure of several overhead doors. Mr. Rate explained that the only trash generated by the operation would be a small amount from the concession stand which will have sandwiches and hot dogs and soft drinks and they propose a screened trash area in a loading ramp area away from the main entrance. He indicated that if the operation is moved to the front there would be only two overhead doors to be closed up. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the removal of asphalt from southeast property line and restoration of 20 foot green area with no CUP approved for shared off-site parking and who had the responsibility for such. Mr. Brixius replied that in a multi-tenant building the owner has responsibility to establish allocation. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed with the petitioner that drainage and continuous curbing will be determined by the City Engineer, snow storage will be on the north side, hours of operation will be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. even on weekends, expected opening will be around January 1st if approval is given shortly, number of employees will be initially 3 full-time and maybe one or two part-time if business warrants, parking turnover will be every one or two hours with typically more than one or two persons per vehicle coming for birthday parties or batting practice etc., food service will be basic items such as hot dogs, pretzels, popcorn, soft-serve ice cream, pop, etc. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern that the petitioner has not been able to discuss the relocation to the front and other issues with the building owner to get approval before the request is approved by the Commission. Chairman Cameron suggested that, although it is not normal procedure to do so, rather than delay the process by tabling the request, the Commission could approve it on the basis of the petitioner's promises to incorporate and clarify all the recommendations into their plan before presenting it to the City Council on the 14th, and leave it up to the City Council to make the final approval. Mr. Rate expressed certainty that the majority of concerns could be resolved in time for Council. Commissioner Cassen confirmed that the entry would be moved to the front canopy if they relocate into the front part of the building and noted that it should be indicated on the plans when presented to Council. MO~ZGSS MotiolbyCommiseionor Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, %0 IlPprov, Plann~ Case 91-29, request for a conditional use permit to- allow · commercial recreational uso in I-1 Zoning District sub, oct to revised plans being completed and submitted for the City Council meeting on October lCth, with the stipulation .that the facility is shifted to west end of building; parking lot is reconfiqured to provide off-street parking; parking lot dimens£ons are in accordance with city standards; appropriate handicapped stalls are provided; parking lot is repaired and resurfaced; landscaping is provided within the parking lot curb islands as submitted in Exhibit H; all concrete fragments currently piled on site are removed; all lighting conforms to zoning New Hope Planning Commission -6- October 8, 1991 ordinance and all lighting standards are repaired and repainted; conprehens£ve sign planis submitted noting exact location, size, and type of all signs on site, with additional d£rectional signs both upright and pavement placed at site's t~o access points to identify entry and exit; Grand Sl~mtrash facility is relocated to the westerly end of their ps,ion of the building and is adequately screened; asphalt is removed from the southeast p~opeFty line and 20-foot green area is restored as no C~P has been approved for shared off-site parking; City Engineer review drainage and grading to deteruAne Af continuous curbing is needed along perimeter of all off-street parking areas; main entrance be moved to the west end of the building. Con, missioner Zak called attention to a 10' wide trail located the east end o5 the build£ng connecting the property inquest£on the south property, which has not been addressed in the evening's discussions. Mr. Brixius explained that the trail leads into a parking lot to the south but the purpose or function could not be identified and the feeling is that if it is no longer needed it should be terminated and closed off. He recommended that the motion include that condition. ~ND~O~ZO~~ Amendment by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to add the condition that the owner explain the purpose of the lO' wide trail on the east and if it is no longer necessary it be terminated. Voting in favor: Zak, Cassen, Cameron, Sons£n, Gundershaug, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich Hotion carried. M~TXON Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Hundershaug, to lift Planning Case 01-22 5rom the table. Unanimous vote recorded. PC 01-22 Chairman Cameron called on Hr. nrixius to present the case. REg~EST FOR Mr~ nrixius explained the request and how it related to the text CONDZTXONAL USE amendment requirement 5or a conditional use permit 5or day care £n PERMXT TO AT-TAW the R-0 District. He re£terated the conditions that meet KS~ABLXSHME~T zoning requirements, such as lot size, required setbacks, OF PRE-SCHOOL/ enclosure, and operational hours. He noted that the plan must CHXLD CARE 1¢ park£ng stalls and only l0 are sho~n, so ¢ additional stalls CEhWA~R AT 370~ have to be provided in 5rent drive-up lane by October, 1992. He WXHNETEAAV N also noted the loading area is shown as only 9' wide and th£s must be expanded to 18' to allow 5or escape lane 5or parking stalls 5rent o5 building. He explained that add£tional egress is propose~ 055 the drive-th~u lane onto W£nnetka Avenue and the curb permits from Hennepin County should be received within 60 days approval. He recommended that the petitioner explain the of the play program through the play area, even though the area provides su55icient area 5or the number o5 children proposed. He noted that the site will be improved by the planned upgrade. Rohan and Helen DeAlwis, aassett Creek Hontessori School, appeare~ before the Commission to answer questions. Commiee£oner Cassen expressed concern over the saSety o5 the children andquestioned the petitioner regarding the drop-s55 and i5 there ~ould be su55£cient parking prior to the October date 5or ad~ing more spaces. ~. meAlw£s conSirmed the drop-s55 would be widened and more spaces ~ould be provided when required. He explained that they have no~ run into any tra55ic problems at their other school. Commissioner Cassen asked i5 the petitioner understood requirement 5or a curb cut permit 5rom Hennep£n County within days o5 approval, the shi~ting o5 the south driveway away 5rom property line, and the restr£ping o5 the parking lot in New Hope PlannAng Commission -7- October 8, 199! the outlot is not purchased by the City, it is to be abolished and platted into existing Lot 1, Block 1. Councilmember Enck inquired whether the land would be combined. Mr. McDonald stated the Custom Mold property would be known as Lot 1, Block I, Custom Mold Addition, and would include the existing property plus the 1.12 acres of the new property. Councilmember Enck questioned the reason for waiving the final plat approval. Mr. McDonald explained that it was only waived by the Planning Commission but will still require final approval by the City Council. He stated the petitioner would like to start construction this fall if possible. The Council thanked Mr. Trieber for his well prepared presentation and indicated they are happy that his business will remain in New Hope. RE~OLIErXoIt 91-175~ Councilmember Otten introduced the following resolution ZtM 8.3 and moved_its adoption: 'RESOLUTION APPROVIN6 PLANNIN6 CASE gZ-~ PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CUSTOM MOLD ADDITION AT 5420/5430 INTER,NATIONAL PAP. lO(AY (PID #05-118-21 34 0003/06-118-21 34 0002) SUBMITTED BY CUSTOM MOLD & DESIGN, INC.'. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Enck, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, L'Herault, Otten, Enck, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adooted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city. clerk. / PLANNZIJ6CA~E Mayor Erickson intrOduced for discussion Item 8.4, 191-29' * Planning Case 91-29, Request for a Conditional Use Permit It~mS.~ to Allow a Commercial Recreational Use in an I-1 Zoning District (PID #06-118-21 33 0007), Atec Grand Slam New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated the petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational use in an I-I Limited Industrial Zoning District. The Athletic Training Equipment Company is requesting to operate a sports and entertainment complex within the currently vacant Chicago Cutlery building, which will include indoor batting cages, miniature golf course, video arcade, weight room, basketball court, children's safari and adventureland, a pro shop, concessions, non-alcoholic sports lounge, party room, ~and is geared toward the youth of the community. New Hope City Council Page 6 October 14, 1991 He continued explaining that the facility was originally proposed to occupy 42% of the Chicago Cutlery building, or 27,000 square feet in the center portion of the 65,276 square foot industrial building. Since a 27,000 square foot bakery warehouse would be located in the east end of the building and a 10,000 square foot warehouse was proposed for the west (front) end of the building facing Highway 16g, staff was concerned about a recreational facility being located between two industrial uses and Grand Slam agreed to shift its facility west to the front of the building. The Planning Commission reviewed this case on October 8th and recommended approval subject to several conditions. He noted the petitioner has submitted a revised plan which addresses all of the issues. Councilmember Enck questioned whether retail sales such as the sale of day-old bakery goods are permitted in an industrial zoning district. Mr. Donahue explained that it would depend on whether it is part of the business's distribution/manufacturing operation. The City Attorney reviewed the city code and stated if an industry or a manufacturer is processing something on site they can sell it at retail as long as they have a conditional use permit clearly defining their sales space and the building has access by a collector street without the necessity of using a residential street and the hours are limited to 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Therefore, businesses such as day-old bakery sales would be permissible as tong as the goods are manufactured on site. Ms. Patty Morris and Bob Rabe, representing Atec Grand Slam, were recognized. Ms. Morris indicated that there are approximately go similar facilities in operation throughout the United States. She indicated the nearest Grand Slams are located in Eagan, St. Paul, and Duluth. Ms. Morris explained that Atec Grand Slam is a franchise operation but each franchise is unique. She indicated it is a family entertainment business centered around Atec batting cages, softball and baseball equipment, video games, concession area, basketball courts, pro shop, and academy. She stated a large part of the business is for birthday party business, graduation parties, private parties. The academy is a teaching facility for baseball, softball, and basketball. New Hope City Council Page 7 October 14, 1991 Councilmember Li;Herauit inquired of the typical peak season and the anticipated number of customers. Ms. Morris stated January through May is the peak season for baseball and softball players but for entertainment purposes it should remain steady. She commented that it is difficult to specify an exact number of customers since it is a turnover business whereby people are constantly in and out. The hours of operation will be 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Friday and Saturday. The charge for batting cage usage will be $15 per half hour or $1 for 18 balls. Councilmember Otten inquired how the business intends on controlling the customers and what problems they foresee. Ms. Morris stated the younger children are generally supervised by their parents and the employees will also supervise. She stated all employees are required to attend a training session. Councilmember Williamson asked whether there are problems with mixing the age groups. Ms. Morris indicated that the facility has something for everyone and a parent could enjoy himself as well as the child. Councilmember Enck requested assurance that staffing would be adequate. Mr. Rabe indicated there will be at least one person designated for each area including the concessions area, pro shop, batting cages, games, and a number of instructors depending onthe academy demand. The Council expressed concern with possible excessive loitering outside the building and parking lot. Mayor Erickson advised the management to make it clear at the onset that they will not tolerate loitering, speeding, etc. by their customers. Councilmember Williamson questioned whether the petitioners have any problems meeting the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Rabe indicated one concern. He stated they cannot afford to place the continuous curbing around the parking lot. He stated there are some bituminous curbs next to the building. Mr. Mark Hanson, City Engineer, stated he inspected the parking lot and currently the drainage all sheet drains New Hope City Council Page 8 October 14, lgg! off the parking lot into the open ditch which extends north to Bassett Creek. He explained that the curbing around the parking lot is required mainly to contain the drainage and the parking so that it does not extend beyond the property or cause the adjacent property any problems. He stated this property is unique in that it is bordered by the'open ditch along the north line where the drainage goes so it does not cause problems. Also, presently there are no signs of erosion. Mr. Hanson indicated the perimeter curbing requirement, in this case, could be delayed. The Council informed the petitioner that the property will be reviewed on an annual basis. Mr. Rabe agreed to construct the perimeter curbing at a later date if the annual review deems it necessary. The Council welcomed the new business to New Hope. RESOLUTION 91-176 .Councilmember Otten introduced the following resolution Xtmlm 8.4 'and moved its adoption: 'RESOLUTION APPROVXN6 PLANNING CASE NO. 91-29 REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT5420 HIGHWAY 169 (PID #06-118-21 33 0007) SUBNITTED BY ATEC GRAND SLAM NEW HOPE'. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember L'Herault, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, L'Herault, Otten, Enck, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. PLANNING CASE Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.5, 91-31 Planning Case 91-31, Request for Consideration of a Text Item 8.5 Amendment to New Hope Zoning Code to Expand Permitted and Conditional Uses in R-O (Residential-Office) Zoning District, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated zoning text inconsistencies were discovered by city staff after review of an application by the Bassett Creek Montessori School. He outlined the two zoning text inconsistencies found in the R-O District: 1) The R-O District does not identify any "permitted uses" within the district, only "permitted accessory uses". 2) The conditional use provision identifies conditional use allowed in the R-O District to include those from the R-2 and R-1 Districts, but not the R-3 and R-4 Districts. The result is that free-standing day care facilities are not currently permitted in the R-O District as a New Hope City Council Page g October 14, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-41 Request: Request to Rezone Property from B-2 (Retail Business) District to B-3 (Auto-Oriented Business) District, Conditional Use Permit for B-3 District, and Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Allow Motor Vehicle Sales Location: 8001 Bass Lake Road PID No.: 06-118-21-41-0006 Zoning: B-2 (Retail Business) Petitioner: Auto Emporium Report Date: November 27, 1991 Meeting Date: December 4, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting to rezone property from B-2 (Retail Business) District to B-3 (Auto-Oriented Business) District, Conditional Use Permit for B-3 District to allow motor vehicle sales, and Site/Building Plan Review Approval (Sections 4.20,4.124(5),and 4.039A - New Hope Code of Ordinances). 2. The petitioner was proposing to purchase and utilize the vacant Cub Food Store building at 8001 Bass lake Road for indoor motor vehicle sales and occasional outdoor display. The proposed use is not permitted in the B-2 District and the petitioner made application to rezone the property to a B-3 Auto-Oriented Business District, where motor vehicle sales are allowed by Conditional Use Permit. '3. The petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee on November 18th and presented plans with very limited detail. The Committee indicated that they could not react to the plans or the concept of an "auto emporium' without more detailed information and recommended that they meet with the staff regarding specific items to be shown on the site plan. The applicant indicated that they were hesitant to spend additional funds on more elaborate plans until they received a preliminary indication from the Committee as to whether or not they would support the concept of rezoning. The Committee indicated they could not give such an indication based on the limited plans. 4. Staff coordinated a second meeting with the applicant for November 22nd. 5. On November 21st, prior to the meeting with the staff, the petitioner contacted the City and requested to withdraw their application and will redirect their efforts in a city that has available property that is zoned properly for such a use. 6. Property owners within 350' of the request were notified and staff received no comments. Attachments: Letter of Withdrawal Zoning/Sectional Map Survey Landscape Plan Building Elevations Floor Plan ' ~ ~. r / L-I ................... 1 / - ~T.~E ~.~,r,,,~ TY~ P/ANT~R / LANDSCAPE PLAN ' WEST ELEVATION ,~.. -u- j./ ~ III1' , AUTO EMPORIUM--,,/' Ill ~ IH I I J NORTH ELEVATION IrUTL~IE FLOOR PLAN CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-42 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance from Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Redevelopment of a Convenience Store and Gas Station Location: 3535 Winnetka Avenue North PID No.: 19-118-21-11-0001 Zoning: B-3 (Auto-oriented Business) Petitioner: Finn Daniels Broussard/Fina Serve Report Date: November 27, 1991 Meeting Date: December 4, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting site/building plan review approval, a conditional use permit to allow a convenience store with gasoline and a carwash, and a variance from the side yard setback requirement to allow redevelopment of the convenience store and gas station (Sections 4.124(2), 4.124(4), 4.034(3), 4.039A - New Hope Code of Ordinances). 2. In September, 1991, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a request for an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow a convenience store with gasoline and interior remodeling and expansion of the retail sales area for Fina Mart at 36th and Winnetka Avenues. The project involved complete renovation of the building interior, the installation of new panel brick and aluminum facia on the exterior elevations, new pump islands, parking lot restriping, and new concrete sidewalk. 3. Fina Serve, owner of the Fina Mart, is now proposing to completely redevelop the site, raze the existing structure and construct a new building. The existing building, canopies, pumps, pump islands and trash enclosure would be removed from the site. The new building would have an attached automatic carwash with pneumatic door coordination so that when a car is being washed/dried, both doors would be closed and would not open up until the cycle has been completed to control noise. 4. Petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee on November 18th and the following issues were discussed: setback variance/building location, green area/landscaping, curb cuts, traffic impact analysis, hours of operation, path of fuel tanker, parking spaces, snow removal, trash enclosure, building materials, signage, rooftop equipment, noise (carwash and speakers), lighting, aesthetics of building and interior layout, outside storage, canopy, and site drainage. The applicant agreed to submit revised plans to incorporate the recommendations of the Committee. 5. Petitioner contacted staff after Design & Review and requested that the Commi~ion table their request for one month to allow them sufficient time to obtain a traffic analysis and make other plan revisions. 6. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments. Planning Case Report 91-42 December 4, 1991 Page -2- RECOMlVIE~ATION Staff recommends that the Commission table this request until the January 7th Planning Commission meeting, per the applicant's request. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Petitioner Letter Survey Site Plan Floor Plan Building Elevations November 8, 1991 To: City of New Hope Planning Staff and Planning Commission Members City Council Members Finaserve, owner of the Finamart is proposing to redevelop its C-store on Winnetka and 36th Ave. We're before you to assess our site and building plans for the proposed raze and rebuild of our existing facility. The existing building; canopies, pumps, pump islands and trash enclosure would be removed from site. All existing landscape would remain and any damaged materials or dead plantings, (based on the city's last approved landscape plan), would be replaced. The new build- ing would have an attached automatic carwash. This type of car- wash is a roll-over type with pneumatic door coordination, such that when a car is being washed and dried both doors would be closed and they would not open up until the cycle has been com- pleted, thus controlling the noise that I know you're concerned about. The last time I was on site, I measured the distances from our proposed building to the adjacent apartment buildings. For your information, to the west the apartment buildings are 150' away, across their parking lot surface. To the south, the apartment buildings are 220' away with garages and driveway surface be- tween. Across Winnetka is commercial property. Across 36th Ave. is, starting from Winnetka, a gas station, Tom Thumb, and then apartment building garages. The reason for the variance request from a 35' side yard setback to a 28' side yard setback is due to the tight confines of the site. We're basically asking for a 7' variance since the exist- ing building is currently 28' from the property line. Thus, we're not moving any closer than where the existing building al- ready sits. I trust that my information is presented with sufficient detail and clear.enough:to make your judgments. Please call with any questions.! Sincerely, Daniel M. Dege /- cc: Sam McGee, Fina 0il Don Marrow, Fina Oil 2324 UNIVERSITY AVENUE , SUITE 109, ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55114 , 612-6414339 TO: KIRK McDONALD FROM: BUZZ SANDSTAD DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 1991 SUBJECT: FINA;PLAN CASE 91-42 I spoke with Dan Dege, late yesterday, regarding the earlier approved landscape plan for 3535 Winnetka Avenue North. He is beginning to make changes to the~ plans, incorporating some of the Design-Review Committee ideas. He has requested that we table their plan case for one month to allow them sufficient time to obtain the Traffic Engineer input, among other things. I told him it would be done. hereby Certl[! to Fine 01! e.d Chemical ~lcuncN~r C~ ~0~055 dated -J~ ~ ~ ~ ;chac chZs survey vas ~de on the 8round and Is a true m,d accurlce tepresencaczofl oL sa~d real property; eX1 butXd~ng/. Mjor s~ruc~urel and mjor ~mprove~nc~ on said descrx~d pro~rty; c~here are no vis~b&e encroec~flcl onto adJo~n~n[ propert~ee, streets or alleys by a,y o[ s~d buZ~d~ngs, structures or ~ove~ezcepC ns s~ thereon; c~C there ire no visible rlshts of vey or ease~ncs off said described pr~ert7 ex~ as s~.~ ~ld survey. ~t/rlIht le87 SE ~Ipifltel. Suburban r~ttfleerinI. FLOOR PLAN A2 WEgl' ELEVA'110~ I~ Eg..EVATI~ A3 CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: November 19, 1991 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Issues 1. Change in Meeting Time for Planning Commission Meetings Per the request of the Planning Commission, a request was submitted to the City Council on November 12th to change the starting time of regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings on the first Tuesday of every month from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The New Hope City Code states that "the Planning Commission shall hold one regular meeting each month, on such day and at such time as established by the Council". The City Council approved the request without comment. Because the staff has already disseminated information to applicants that the starting time of meetings is 7:30 p.m., staff recommends thatthe December Planning Commission meeting begin at the usual 7:30 p.m. starting time and that the new 7:00 p.m. starting time become effective for the meeting in January. The sign on the glass panel at the City Hall front entrance will be changed to read "Planning Commission meetings ..... First Tuesday of the Month...7:00 p.m." after the December meeting. The meeting time has also been revised on the 1992 schedule. 2. December Meeting Date Change The City Clerk had informed staff that there probably would be a primary election on Tuesday, December 3rd to narrow down the candidates filing for House District Seat 47A, which was vacated by Linda Scheid. The primary is now not necessary because each party conducted a special balloting process to determine that each party would only endorse one candidate. The special election will be conducted on December 17th. Due to the fact that the primary was tentatively scheduled for December 3rd, the date of the regular Planning Commission meeting, the meeting date was shifted to Wednesday, December 4th. Although the primary was canceled, staff still recommends that the December meeting be held on the 4th because that is the meeting date that was distributed to applicants and used in legal notices. 3. 1992 Planning Commission Schedule Revisions With 1992 being an election year, there are several changes that needed to be made to the 1992 Planning Commission Schedule. The first Tuesday of April is the 7th, but that is the date of the Presidential Primary; therefore, the April Planning Commission meeting date has been shifted to Wednesday, April 8th. Also the first Tuesday of November is the 3rd, but that is date of the General Election; therefore the November Planning Commission meeting date has been shifted to Wednesday, November 4th. No meeting has been scheduled for the month on July, unless it becomes necessary. Please let the staff know if these changes are not agreeable with you. -2- The enclosed revised1992 Schedule includes~he revised dates and meeting times. 4. Outlot A, Custom Mold Addition The City Council/EDA has determined that it will purchase Outlot A of Custom Mold Addition and combine it with the Public Works property. The Final Plat of Custom Mold Addition was approved at the November 12th City Council meeting. The City has developed some alternative plans for the use of the property, but no definite use has been determined. 5. Cellular Telephone Tower The lease agreement with the US West New Vector Group has been executed, allowing them to lease property from the City at Victory Park and construct a cellular telephone tower. Due to the early snowfall, construction on the tower will not begin until April, 1992. 6. Community Center Enclosed are several preliminary concept plans and graphics on a possible New Hope Community Center. No definite decisions have been made on this project and if and when any decision is made to proceed, the Planning Commission would be kept well informed. 7. Rapid 0il Representatives from Rapid Oil Co. will be in attendance at the November 25th Council/EDA meeting to discuss the possible purchase of city-owned property at 7305 42nd Avenue, the vacant property adjacent to and just east of All-Star Sports, for possible construction of a new Rapid Oil store. 8. Shed Variance The shed variance to locate in a drainage/utility easement in Plufka Addition, which the Commission recommended denial of, was tabled at the November 12th Council meeting. The applicant agreed to remove the shed and withdraw the request. The Council is considering giving the applicant until next spring/summer to move the shed, pending a report back by the City Engineer on any negative drainage factors that may result from leaving the shed in place for the next 6 months. The Council will consider this issue again on December 9th. 9. Outdoor Dining and Fence Ordinance Studies The City's Planning Consultant is still making revisions to the code amendments regarding outdoor dining and front yard fence locations. The Codes & Standards Committee has studied these issues on several occasions over the past several months. When the Consultant finishes the revisions, Codes & Standards should schedule another meeting prior to the time that these code revisions are considered by the full Commission. 10. Planning Co~mission officer Elections Staff would recommend that the election of officers for the Planning Commission be conducted at the January Planning Commission meeting. The City Code states that "Planning Commission shall elect one of its members as Chairman, one as Vice-Chairman, and another as Secretary, each of whom shall hold office until December 31st following their election." It appears to be the intent of the code that officers are to elected on an annual basis. As most of you are aware, we discovered last year that an election of officers had not been conducted since 1984. An election was conducted last February and it was determined that thereafter the election of officers would be conducted at the first meeting of the year on an annual basis so that the elections could be officially recorded in the minutes and be in conformance with City Code. Current officers include: Robert Cameron, Chairman Robert Gundershaug, Vice-Chairman William Sonsin, Third Officer Attachments: Request re: Meeting Time Change Revised 1992 Schedule Concept Plan - Outlot A Concept Plans - Community Center ~OU~l~ REQUF T FOR ACTION Orlgmatmg Department Approved ~r Agenda Agenda Section City Manager November 12, 1991 Consent Item No. Kirk McDonald BY: Management Assistant BY: MOTION TO APPROVE CHANGE IN MEETING TIME FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS The Planning Commission is requesting to change the starting time of their regularly scheduled meetings on the first Tuesday of every month from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The request is prompted by the length of several of the last agendas and a general feeling that the Commission would like to get started on their meetings earlier in the evening. Section 2.135 of the New Hope City Code, Planning Commission Meetings, states that "the Planning Commission shall hold one regular meeting each month, on such day and at such time as established by. the Council". Evidently in the past the Council established that Planning Commission meetings would be conducted on the first Tuesday of the month at 7:30 p.m. The Commission respectfully requests that the Council change the established meeting time to 7:00 p.m. on the same day, one-half hour earlier than the existing time. Staff does not anticipate any problems with the time changes, as 1992 schedules and notices can easily be revised. A minor expense will be incurred, as the sign on the glass panel at the City Hall front entrance needs to be changed from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Staff recommends approval of the motion to approve changes in time for Planning Commission meetings. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Renew: Admlnl~ration: F~ance: RFA-O01 ~ 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION BCHEDULE P.C. Public Council Public Design and Hearing Hearing Application Delivered to Review Revised Plan 7:00 p.m. ?:00 p.m. Submitted Paper-NOON 3:45 p.m. Published on Deadline January 7 January 13 December 13 December 19 December 19 December 25 December 30 February 4 February 10 January 10 January 16 January 16 January 22 January 27 March 3 March 9 February 7 February 13 February 13 February 19 February 24 April 8 April 13 March 13 March 19 March 19 March 25 March 30 May 5 May 11 April 10 April 16 April 16 April 22 April 27 June 2 June 8 May 8 May 14 May 14 May 20 May 25 July (No meeting scheduled) August 4 August 10 July 10 July 16 July 16 July 22 July 27 September 1 September 14 August 7 August 13 August 13 August 19 August 24 October 6 October 12 September 11 September 17 September 17 September 23 September 28 November 4 November 10 October 9 October 15 October 15 October 21 October 26 December 1 'December 14 November 6 November 12 November 12 November 18 November 23 TYPE OF REQUEST BASIC ZONING FEE ZONING DEPOSIT A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (minor residential) $75* None, or as required by Manager B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (all others) $225* $225, or as required by Manager C. REZONING/TEXT AMENDMENT $250* $250, or as required by Manager D. VARIANCES (single family residential) $75* None, or as required by Manager E. VARIANCES (all others) $175, $175, or as required by Manager F. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT $500* $250, or as required by Manager G. SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING $225* As required by Manager H. SITE & BUILDING PLAN REVIEW $150 As required by Manager I. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN $40 *Published Notice Required NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CENTER III I · NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 .RCR .1019/91' SCHEMATICS~ SITE PLAN . ....... NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CENTER .~.:'..,~ "==""~"" .. ~ :~ ~ ,. ~, .~, KEY / I I STAGE ~4'~14 i t2 F&NLY CHANGING i 4 I'~1' , ~ t4 9REAK ROOM IS CONFERE~E ~OOM ~O ilZ' j J ~ OPEN i ,e OPEN OFFICE 10 RECEPTIONS F 10' f I~' ' Ze rooeAL 30 GYM ~TO~&GE ~0X24 UPP~ FLOOR PLAN ~IN FL~ ~ NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CENTER I I II I | · NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 'RCR -10/9/91' o ~o zo 40 so ~ao NOR T FRONT ELEVATION NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CENTER,,, ' N~, ~ ~J ~°"'"'°° 'NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 *RCR '1019191' .. ,, ~ ~,,~,x~:,~.^r'de'"k · 1-PLY EPOM ROOFING METAL DECKING - TAPERED INSULATION INSULATED CAVITY J BAR JOIST i PRECAST Pt.,  ': ...., .,, :.':: '..:,,.-. .... CONCRETE SL~ GYM CROSS SECTION 4JJll,.~l I ,JJiJl,J JJJl: I I Anderllk 'NEY/ HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 °RCR °1019191° _