The URL can be used to link to this page

010291 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 90-35B Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Modify Existing Building, 4300 Xylon Avenue North, Weis Builders/K-Mart, Petitioners 3.2 Case 90-40 Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Modify Existing Building and Construct Building Addition, Variance to Side Yard Setback, Variance to Expand Non- Conforming Building, and Conditional Use Permit to Allow Loading Berth in Front Yard, 7300 36th Avenue North, Creamette Co., Petitioner 3.3 Case 91-01 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Convenience Food Operation, 4219 Winnetka Avenue North, Timothy C. Johnson/Taco John's, Petitioner 3.4 Case 91-02 Request for Variance to 8-foot Fence Height Requirement, 7300 36th Avenue North, Creamette Co., Petitioner 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee A Discuss warehouses as permitted uses in the "I-l" Limited Industrial Zoning District B. Discuss Deferred Parking Ordinance 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 4, 1990 6.2 Review of City Council Minutes and City Council Executive Session Minutes of November 26, 1990, and City Council Work Session Minutes of November 27, 1990, and City Council Minutes of December 10, 1990. 6.3 Review of EDA Minutes of September 10, 1990, and December 10, 1990. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 90-35B Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review to Modify Existing Building Location: 4300 Xylon Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21 11 0013 Zoning: B-4 Petitioner: Weis Builders/K-Mart Corporation Report Date: December 28, 1990 Meeting Date: January 2, 1990 UPDATE The City Engineer completed his review of the K-Mart parking lot plan oh December 28th and has drafted a revised/recommended plan for K-Mart's review. Time schedules did not permit a meeting before the January Planning Commission meeting, therefore staff is recommending that this matter be tabled again until the February Planning Commission meeting. Staff has arranged a meeting with Weis Builders and K-Mart officials for January 16th to review the plan drafted by the City Engineer. At that time the recommendations from the original Design & Review Committee meeting will also be discussed with K-Mart. After the meeting it is the staff's expectation that K-Mart will submit a revised plan for considera- tion at the February Planning Commission meeting. The original report and recent correspondence is attached for your information. The plan drafted by the Engineer will be available for your review at the meeting. Attachments: Management Assistant's Letters 12-28-90 & 12-11-90 Applicant's Letter 12-3-90 Planning Report 90-35B December 4, 1990 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 December 28, 1990 Mr. Tim Reiner Weis Builders, Inc. 3601 Minnesota Drive Minneapolis, MN 55435 and Fallon Associates K-Mart Corporation 3100 Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48084 Subject: K-MART SITE & BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION Gentlemen: The New Hope City Engineer has completed his review of the parking lot layout plan for K-Mart and is prepared to make recommendations. As per my phone conversation with Mr. Reiner on December 28th, we have arranged to meet at 1:30 p.m. on January 16th at the New Hope city Hall to discuss the plan. As we discussed, I am recommending that the New Hope Planning Commission table this matter again at the January Planning Commission meeting (to be held January 2nd) because time schedules do not allow for a meeting before that date. The February Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for February 5th and revised plans are due January 28th (see enclosed schedule) . I would recommend that after our meeting on January 16th that a revised plan be submitted on or before January 28th so that this matter can be discussed at the February meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/lb Enclosure: 1991 Planning Commission Schedule cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building official Alan Brixius, Planning Consulta~n~ ~ Planning CommissiO~amily StYled CitY'k~'~k~~Y' '~" ~ For Family Living 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 December 11, 1990 Weis Builders, Inc. 3601 Minnesota Drive Minneapolis, MN 55435 and Fallon Associates K-Mart Coporation 3100 Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48084 Subject: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONVENIENCE FOOD SALES - PLANNING CASE 90-35 Gentlemen: Please be advised that on December 10, 1990, the New Hope City Council approved the referenced request as submitted in Planning Case 90-35A. The request involves the relocation of convenience food sales within the store. The City Engineer is in the process of reviewing the parking lot layout and when he has completed his study the City will contact you so we can proceed with the site/building plan review approval for the exterior alterations (Planning Case 35B) . I expect he will have his recommendations to us within the next 10 days. If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/lb cc:Planning Case File 90-35 Property File Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Weis Builders, Inc. multi-family, commercial, institutional - since '1939 December 3, 1990 City of New H~pe 4401 Xtlon Avenue, North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Conditional Use Permit and Site and Building Plan Review. K mart #3045, New Hope, MN Dear Mr. Sandstad: Weis Builders/K mart Corporation would like a 30 day extension for the Site and Building Plan Review Application, submitted October 12. Please continue with the Conditional Use Permit proceedings for Dive-In and Convenience Foods as previously submitted. Sincererly yours, WEIS BUILDERS, INC. David P. Johann' Architect DPK:kjr CC: Tim Reiner METPO OFFICE CORPORATE OFFICE 3601 West 77th Street * Suite 110 2227 N.W. 7th Street · P.O. Box 6757 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 Rochester, Minnesota 55903 Phone 612-831-9060 Phone 507-288-204t CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 90-35B Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review to Modify Existing Building Location: 4300 Xylon Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21 11 0013 Zoning: B-4 Petitioner: Weis Builders/K-Mart Corporation Report Date: November 30, 1990 Meeting Date: December 4, 1990 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a site/building plan review approval to modify the existing building, pursuant to Sections 4.03PA(id) (th) of the New Hope Code. 2. This request was considered at the November 7th Planning Commission meeting in conjunction with a conditional use permit request for convenience food and the case was tabled and directed to the Design & Review Committee. 3. Staff is recommending that the interior (conditional use permit) work and exterior (site/building plan review) work be separated into two cases. Staff further recommends that the request for site/ building plan review approval be tabled until January. 4. The K-Mart parking lot and site plan are an integral part of the entire City Center area and have an impact on surrounding properties. Any site plan should be coordinated with and compliment the bank property at the northeast corner of 42nd and Xylon Avenues and with the new Applebee's parking lot. 5. The original plan has been forwarded to the City Engineer so that he can analyze the flow of traffic between these properties, the design and layout of the parking lot, curb cuts, and drainage patterns. The Engineer will complete his analysis in mid-December and those recommendations will be forwarded to K-Mart along with the recommendations from Design & Review and the Planning Consultant. There are a number of issues to address and a variety of persons need to give input on these issues. Staff would prefer to spend the time that is needed on this proposal so that all issues can be addressed - which hopefully will result in a plan that is acceptable to both the City and K-Mart. Planning Case Report 35B December 4, 1990 Page -2- 6. K-Mart is agreeable to tabling the request and will wait to revise their 91an until the staff recommendations are prepared. 7. Design & Review met with the petitioner and the following issues were discussed and will be incorporated into the revised plan: -continuous curbing around the site, -snow storage, -restriping of lot, -main drive aisle not aligned with Xylon curb cuts, -bank and Applebee's parking lot entry -angle parking vs 90° parking -excessive parking -improved landscaping -trash enclosures -several larger green areas vs multiple small islands It was the consensus of Design & Review to routinely approve the interior convenience food and to table the site/building plan review. Once the recommendations from the Engineer are received, they will be combined with the Design & Review recommendations and forwarded to K-Mart. RECOM~ENDATION Staff recommends tabling the request for site/building plan review approval for one month. Attachments: Refer to Planning Case 35A CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CIa,SE REPORT Planning Case: 90-35 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review to Modify Existing Building and Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Drive-In and Convenience Foods in a B-4 (Community Business) Zoning District Location: 4300 Xylon Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21 11 0013 Zoning: B-4 Petitioner: Weis Builders/K-Mart Corporation Report Date: November 2, 1990 Meeting Date: November 6, 1990 ~ACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a site/building plan review to modify existing building, and a conditional use permit to allow a drive-in and convenience foods in a B-4 Zoning District, pursuant to Sections 4.039A(ld)(2b), 4.134(1) and 4.124(3) of the New Hope Code. 2. The existing K-Mart Store was originally developed in 1971 and no major changes have occurred on the site since that time. 3. The petitioner is requesting site/buil~ing plan review approval to remodel the existing building and to add a new eatery at the front northwest corner of the store. The existing food bar area in the back would be removed. Extensive modifications to a building require site/building plan review approval. 4. The petitioner is requesting to remove the existing store front glass located on each side of the existing entry and infill with decorative concrete block to match the store. These plans are part of a nationwide K-Mart Corporation expansion and refurbishing program and if the requests are approved the store would be updated to K-Mart's new style. The replacement of the glass with solid walls would increase the merchandise area and provide greater selection to customers. 5. The petitioner is also requesting a con~itional use permit to allow the sale of convenience foods at a new eatery. The primary function would be to provide an in-house convenience to customers by serving food. City Code defines "Convenience Food Establishment" as "one which serves food in or on disposable containers for consumption on or off the premises and where customers are generally served at a pick-up station by clerks rather than served at tables by waiters or waitresses". Technically, a conditional use permit is required for this type of food service. Planning Case 90-35 November 7, 1990 Page -2- 6. The standards to be considered for the granting of a conditional use permit for convenience food are listed below: A. Architectural compatibility B. Five foot landscaped green strip at residential district boundaries C. Light standard islands in parking lot to be landscaped D. Continuous curbing on parking areas and driveways E. Limited vehicular access points F. Approved drainage system G. Surfacing to control dust and drainage H. Loading berth I. Screened and enclosed refuse storage 7. As part of the building plan/review approval, the petitioner is proposing to add additional landscaping and planting areas to the site to enhance the store's image to the surrounding neighborhood. New planting islands will be added to the parking lot to help direct traffic and highlight the entry to the store. Additional planting beds will be placed between the existing trees along 42nd Avenue and Xylon Avenue. 8. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. ANALYSIS 1. The conditional use permit requirement is a technical ordinance need because the eatery will result in the sale and consumption of convenience food. K-Mart will close the existing food bar in the rear of the store and shift this use to the front of the store. The eatery is for the sole use of K-Mart customers and has no separate public access door, however note that two new doors will be installed to the south and north of the existing entrance on the west side of the building. No problems are envisioned by the staff. The new eatery would be required to comply with various building and health code reviews and inspections. 2. The majority of convenience food conditional use permit standards are already met. 3. The major issue involves major exterior remodeling of the west front wall of the store to remove all glass windows and~replace with matching brick. While this is a good sales business strategy by K- Mart, the remodeling has significant impacts upon the aesthetics of the property. 4. The developer and owner were advised by staff to give some thought to this issue and they have proposed to add significant landscaping to the west side of the site, which is currently all asphalt excepU for the existing trees around the perimeter. They have proposed to ~add 21 trees and 265 shrubs (see planting schedule). Planning Case Report 90-35 November 7, 1990 Page -3- 5. Much of the landscaping will be planted inside eight (8) planter/ islands within the parking lot, which will provide some traffic control safety-improvement as well as green area. A total of seven (7) new planting beds will be added around the perimeter of the site where little landscaping now exists. Six trees will be added around the perimeter and 15 trees will be incorporated into the planter/ islands. 6. Staff commends K-Mart for their landscaping efforts which succeed in "balancing" the lost building glass with the introduction of trees and shrubs to soften the look of the remodeled building. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the requests for Site/Building Plan Review to modify the existing building and the Conditional Use Permit to allow convenience food sales in a B-4 Community Business Zoning District by Weis Buildings, Inc./K-Mart Corporation. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Letter from Petitioner Site Plan Floor Plan Elevations Eatery Express Detail Landscape Plan Details Landscape Plan Schedule NEW HOPE SCHOOL CIVIC CENTER HALL FIRE ~ · STATI~ ~ ~ 0 A~ GETHSEMANE CEMETERY SCHOOL Weis Builders, Inc. Description of Request: We request a Conditional Use Permit for a new eatery located in the northwest corner at the existing K mart store. We also request Building Plan Review Approval to remove the existing storefront glass located on each side of the current entry, and infill with decorative concrete block to match the store. Reasons Request Should Be Granted: K mart Corporation is currently under a nationwide expansion and refurbishing program. In allowing the above requests, this store would be updated to K mart's new style. The new eatery would be located within the northwest corner of the store. It's primary function would be to provide an in-house convenience to it's customers by serving food. K mart wishes to remove the existing storefront glass and construct solid walls to increase the merchandise area for greater selection to their customers. As part of the Building Plan Review Approval, K mart will add additional landscaping and planting areas to the site to enhance its store and image to the surrounding neighborhood. New planting islands will be added to the parking lot to help direct traffic and highlight the entry to the store. Additional planting beds will be placed between the existing trees along 42nd Avenue and Xylon Avenue. 3604 Minnesota Drive · Suite ~ ID Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 Rochester, Minnesota Phone 6~2-83~-9060 Phone 507-288-204~ ! C.;AIRDEN CENTEIR -.- KI~AIRT ~045 XYLON AVENUE.. ~ / SITE PLAN Plant Material l~, -:-~~- ~ ~,~,t'~ · ..... , ~ ~,~ ~w~ ~[~- " ' .......... ,, ~ , , CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 90-40 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Modify Existing Building and Construct Building Addition, Variance to Side Yard Setback, Variance to Expand a Non-Conforming Building, and Conditional Use Permit to Allow Loading Berth in Front Yard Location: 7300 36th Avenue North PID No.: 17-118-21 34 0003 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Creamette Company Report Date: December 28, 1990 Meeting Date: January 2, 1991 UPDATE 1. On December 19th Creamettes presented revised plans to the City and met with City staff. The plans were submitted after the scheduled Design & Review meeting (December 13th), but before the revised plan deadline (December 24th). The revised plans were forwarded to the Planning Consultant and City Engineer for review. 2. The changes that Creamettes noted in the revised plans and which they will explain in greater detail at the meeting, include the following: A. A new decorative woodscreen fence 10 feet in height is being proposed for the east property line behind the properties located between 3709 and 3725 Maryland Avenue North. A separate variance application has been made for this request. Creamettes has stated that the request is being made on behalf of the abutting property owners. B. A new catch basin has been added to the southeast corner of the property showing that the drain tile around the building and the roof drains connect into the catch basin, which is linked to the existing storm sewer system in the street. The drain tile and roof drains on the north half of the building drain into the catch basin on the north near the new garage addition. The intent of these revisions is to better illustrate the drainage system. C. The rooftop units have been moved back from the edge to the westerly side of the new addition. The revised plans show metal panel screen walls surrounding the units. Planning Case Report 90-40 January 2, 1991 Page -2- D. Handicapped parking stalls are shown on the plan. E. The dimensions of the parking stalls have been corrected. F. The site plan data has been revised to show a correct green area ration of 40.3%. G. A more detailed grading and utility plan has been submitted. H. The materials and height of the screening walls around the rooftop units are shown. I. The sizes and number of trees has been clarified on the landscape plan. The plan shows: 15 new Colorado Spruce (4'-6') 23 new Evergreens (4'-6') The majority of the new plantings would be on the east property line. Creamettes estimates a cost of $30,000-$40,000 for landscaping. J. The front dock on the southeast corner has been screened by a wall. K. Downlights have been added for security. L. Exist doors have been illustrated on the floor plan. M. Recycling area is illustrated. The revised plans address a number of issues that were raised at the last meeting, however staff still has some concerns as outlined below. 3. The Building Official prepared the enclosed graphic which illustrates the types of complaints the City has received over the years about the Creamettes operation, as per your request. 4. Staff has also prepared the attached chronology of approvals Creamettes has received from the City. Note that only one variance was approved (1975). 5. All concerns of the Fire Department have been resolved. 6. The revised plans were submitted to the City Engineer for review and the following recommendations made: A. The previously recommended storm sewer has been incorporated along the east side of the building and driveway, however a small detention area for collection of storm water still needs to be provided. Planning Case Regort 90-40 January 2, 1991 Page -3- B. It is recommended the Creamette~s expansion be reviewed by Bassett Creek Watershed for conformance with their requirements. 7. The revised plans were submitted to the Planning Consultant for review, who recommends approval of the CUP and variance based on the revised site plan subject to the following conditions: A. Parking lot resurfaced to meet City performance standards, B. Applicant to provide information to City regarding acoustical and aesthetic adequacy of proposed metal panel walls for rooftop screening or relocate vent fans west of masonry wall, C. Loading berth at southwest corner be removed or limited to use by trucks less than 50 feet in length due to maneuvering conflicts, D. Utility easements be changed to meet city requirements. E. Revision of Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 8. Creamettes has submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. It is attached to this report and staff has circled areas of concern. The EAW must be revised and resubmitted with more detailed information. 9. Potential pollution concerns raised by residents at the last meeting are not addressed. Anticipated noise and dust levels, both during construction and operation, must be indentlfied and steps for miti- gation should be described. 10. Traffic is still a concern to the staff. Traffic implications have not been addressed and a traffaic engineer has not been involved with analysis of the project. A 41% building expansion will have traffic implications and these need to be addressed by the petitioner. 11. Platting is the last major concern of the staff. Creamettes was informed by the City Manager that they must plat the property to resolve the easement issues. No plat application has been received. Any approval should be subject to the platting. RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the Creamettes expansion plan and feels that the revised plans address a number of issues. However, there are sill several major issues to address: -Platting -Environmental Worksheet -Noise/Dust/Odor -Traffic -Engineer/Planner Comments Planning Case Report 90-40 January 2, 1991 Page -4- Any approval should be subject to addressing the concerns outlined in this report. Because the concerns are major issues, perhaps it would be more appropriate to table this case for one more month so that the petitioner can address the remaining concerns. Attachments: Revised Plans: Site Plan Grading/Utility Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Floor Plan Light Fixture Details & Footcandle Pattern Consultant's Report: EAW Comments Comments-Revised Plan Environmental Assessment Worksheet City Engineer's Comments-Revised Plan Graph re: Complaints Chronology of City Approvals Original Report & Attachments , ~ , · , I I,,'/&~-- i / ~.~- tl Illl~ '~ '"" '~ ....................... 5'.,~,~.,~ .................... S~ L~ flALROAO ~D A~T~ F~: I ~ I ~,'.VA'~: ~',~':r:~ ..... ~TE DATA THE CREAMETTE COMPANY SITE PLAN RARK~ DATA SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP. WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES, INC. 7685 C~ATE WAY 920 2~ AVE~ ~TH PROPOSED ADDITION FOR: I J~ J THE CREAMETTE COMPANY GRADING and UTILITY PLAN 7300 36th AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MIM~SOTA CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP. WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES, INC. ,,c :_.: ¥ :: I ' ' CREAMETTE COMmNY , ~- .... - .............. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN "~-- "~,, ~'- ...... . ,.=~ SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP. WALSH BISHOP ASS~IATES. ....... [1;: 3 ~* ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 7685 C~ATE WAY 920 2~ AVE~ ~TH ........ ~- ~ E~N ~A~. ~TA 55344 ~A~. ~TA 55402 ' i ' ~ ....~"""' '~ '~ , ~ / .... · ,t '~ '' il a ; ; ~ .................. THE CREAMETTE COMPANY SWEO~N~O~ CONSm~ CORP. W~LSH 7~ ~lh AVE~ ~IH 7685 CCATE WAY 920 2~ AVE~S~TH ~ 4 ~W ~. ~TA E~N ~A~, ~)A 55344 ~A~IS, ~TA 55402 ~lT ~JJ~T~ IJ ~TY ~ FEtE ~CT~ FEtE E~VAT~ THE CREAMETTE COMPANY SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP. WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES, 7~ ~lh AVE~ ~TH 7685 C~ATE WAY 920 2~ AVE~ ~TH ~W ~, ~TA E~N ~A~. ~TA 55344 ~lS, ~TA 55402 4 I THE CREAMETTE COMPANY SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP. WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES, 7~ ~h AVE~ ~H 7~5 C~ATE WAY 9~ 2~ AVE~ ~TH ~W ~, ~TA E~N ~A~. ~TA 5~4 ~A~. ~TA 55402 PROPOSEO ADOITION FOR: CONTRACTOFI. ARCI'iTECT: '";~,=:'."..~,.'r..~-. r""1 r i THE CREAMETTE COMPANY SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP. WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES. INC. 7300 36lh AVENLIE NORTH 7685 CORPORATE WAY 920 2nd AVENU~ SOUTH NEW HOPE, IvlINI'~SOTA EDEN PRAIRIE. ~SO~rA 55344 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 ~,,'/~'~'o -- ~ FLOOR PLAN HEMILIPSE SERIES /." DEC 2 T 1990 i .... " APPLICATIONS WALKWAYS ENTRANCES SECURITY LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS HOUSING: EXT~UC~;O ALUMINUM .125 WALL BAFFLE: MULTI-GROOVE, EXTRUDED ALUMINUM. TRANSFORMER: CONSTANT WATTAGE AUTO- REGULATED BRACKET: CAST ALUMINUM ' FINISH: HOUSING, PAINTED AND BAKED DARK BRONZE. ~AFFLE. PAINTED AND BAKEO FLAT BLACK. UNION LA~EL: (I.B.~_W.) __ CATALOG NUMBER SIZE LAMP H..W-R-I(N)R I~ r {)IA. 100W R40 INCANDESCENT H,.W-~i.I~OR INC,-~ r DIA. I~V R40 INCANDESCENT H-W-R-~00MV-&-VOLT r DIA. lOOW R40 ME.R__C,I~Y VAPOR il /~ I~W-I~HP~-IR-VOLT ' r DIA. 70W LU?O HIGH I~IES~uRE t~ODIUM u ~W~tnOH~S~m-VO~T r ~ W~w LUt00 HIGH PnESSUAE SODIU~ 8" or rI ~.w.q.w~ iG r 0lA. ~00tN R40 INCANI~)ESCEN...T, 17S ~TT MERCURY VAP<)R CAPACITO~I IS MOUNTED IN 2"x OPTIq~,~ OI~CRtPTIQN in - INTERNAL RE~LECTOR P -- PHOTO ELECTRIC CF. IA. r DIA. ~ ONLY I~F --__ I~OI'ECTIVEF~ GUARD ~ ~ FINI~'I -- DM - OURANOOIG BRONZE 7 Paul Kohn~r PIaM, P.O. (.~ C~.~ BR - SATIN ,AL.L,IMINUM ANODIZED Elmwoo4 PM'k, N.J. TEJ.: ~O1-781..0M0 TELEX: HEJ4IL,IPSg OR MOD . ..,_ iNCANDESCENT 1bOW ME~C~YvApO~ ~LUX~ LAMP ~d0 FLOOD WHITE (WIDE FLOO0) L UN[NS ~00 S Y00 TEST DISTANCE ~ b'. 0" ~PAC/NG RATIO TO MOUNTING HEIGHT 800 450 ~"' ~00 ' llOO ~00 r INITIAL FOOTGANDLE PATTERN 1SOW INC. .175W NERcvAPOR: '.Z'.';'f~ DEC--2?--90 THU 9 : 15 P - 02 MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 27 December 1990 R~: New Hope - Creame%te's EAW FIL~ NO: 131.01 - 90.40 We have reviewed the Creamette's EAW and offer the following comments: 1. Sanitary Sewer: The existing and projected sewer £1ows should be presented and assessed against in-place infrastructure. 2. Storm Sewer: The building addition will change on-site s%ormwater drainage patterns. The proposed ~dditlons to the on-site drainage system should be described for EAW review. 3. Potential pollution concerns raised by the residents at the last Planning Commission meeting are not addressed. Anticipated noise and dust levels both during constructinn and plant operation should be identified. Step~ for noise and dust mitigation should be described and r~viewed to established appropriate standards for both during construction and during plant operation. cc: Dan Donahue Doug Sandstad 4601 Excelsior Blvd,.Suite 410.Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420.Fax 925-2721 D£C--27--90 THU .ort,_,h..we,st Associated,, Consultant PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Elizabeth Stockman/Alan Brixlus DAT~: 27 December 1990 New Hope - Creamette Company CUP and variance FILE NO: 131.01 - 90.40 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUNDt This report is to serve as an addendum to our November 27 and 29, 1990 planning reports. This report addresses revised site plan issues discussed at the December 4, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATIONt Although many issues have been addressed by %he applicant after review of previous planning reports, several issues remain outstanding. Our office recontmends approval, of the CUP and varipnce based on %he revised site plan, provided the fo]lowing conditions are met~ 1. The existing Creamette Company parking lot is resurfaced to meet City performance standards. 2. The applicant p~ovide information to the City regardi, ng the acoustical and aesthetic adequacy of the proposed metal panel walls which would screen the roof tod equipment or relocate the ventilation fans west of the masonry wall. 3. The loading berth located in the southeast corner of the Creamette Company building be removed or limited to u~e by trucks less than 50 feet in length due to maneuvering conflicts within the 36th Avenue North driveway and right- of-way. 4601 Excelsior Blvd.. Suite 410.Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420. Fax 925-2721 ]~l E C-- 27-- 90 THU 9 : i 6 P = 04 4. A new variance be obtained for the proposed decorative wood ~¢reen fence on the east side of the site due to height conflicts. 5. The utility easement shown on %he site plan be changed to meet with City recommendations after the final plat documents are complete. 6. An environmental assessment worksheet be completed on the Creamette Company site and plan. Loadin~ Berths. The redesign of the eastern most loading berth from an angled position to a 90-degree position parallel to the east edge of the Creamette Company building has eliminated the problem of noise and proximity to the residential area. The new design maintains the 57' screening and buffering zone on bhe east side of tpe building, but also presents a new problem regarding the spatial requirements necessary for the semi-trailer trucks maneuvering space when backing into the berth, it is our concern that in order to achieve the proper backing angle, a 50' or larger semi-truck would need the use of the exit drive, sidewalk right-of-way, and a portion of the 36th Avenue North right-of- way. This is a major design and safety hazard which should be avoided. A possible solution tO the problem would be the regulated usage of the berth for trucks less than 50 feet, so as not to obstruct the exit drive and rights-of-way at any time. Parking, The Creamette Company has adequately addressed the issue of handicapped parking requirements raised in previous reports. The site plan now shows five stalls of the proper size and location to comply with the City's design standards. The total number of standard parking stalls has been reduced from 266 to 265 %0 allow the additional space necessary for the inclusion of the handicapped stalls. This slight reduction still adequately satisfies the required number of off-street parking spaces. C~~ The recen~ revision tO the Creamette Company ~lte plan includes a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lo=. This issue, as raised in the previous reports, has been satisfied with this addition to the plan, however, the related issue of resurfacing the existing drives and parking areas has not yet been addressed on the site plan. At a minimum, the driveways and parking stall areas should be resur~aced with a six inch class five base and bituminous topping to meet City performance standards. 2 DEC--2?--90 THU 9 : 1T P. 05 Green SDa~9.. The proposed green area of 281,412 square feet as verified from the previous proposal is 40.3%. This area remains more than adequate by exceeding the required 35% minimum required by ordinance. Roof Top Equipment Screeninq. In response to the issue raised in ~P~vious reports, the applicant has provided for the inclusion of metal panel screen walls to buffer =he noise and visual effects of %he roof top equipment on the proposed addition to the building. The roof top equtpmen% on the existing building is to be screened by means of a decorative' masonry screen wall along the existing £acade. Our concern lles in %he adequacy and ability of the metal to buffer the sound and also in the architectural compatibility of the metal with the masonry screen. Of utmost importance is the minimization of noise levels from the roof top units. The acoustic control qualities of metal tend to be less effective than those of masonry or other materials. Many options need to be addressed by the applicant to improve on this proposal. For instance, the usage of spray on acoustical foam, wood in association with metal siding, sound blankets and/or the total enclosure of the equipment in a penthouse with louvers would all provide for better control of acoustical noise. Another option may also be the relocation of the proposed roof top equipment to a point behind the existing masonry screen wall. Decorative Wood Screen Variance. Application for a variance on The height of the wood screen fence on the east side of the site would be necessary as the plan currently shows it, due to the proposed fence exceeding the allowable 8 foot height limit. Although a fence of 8 feet would probably be adequate in association with the proposed vegetative plantings.t? ~creen the abutting residential property from industrial activities, a 10 foo% variance may also be acceptable to satisfy the applicant's concerns and/or accommodate the wishes of the abutting residential neighbors. Utility Easement. It has been relayed to us that the placement and width of ~he u~ility easement on the Creamette Company site is negotiable until the final plat has been completed. It should be noted that the sanitary and storm sewer lines (which will run parallel) need to be setback a minimum of 60 feet from the building. I:II~ C-- 27--':-)0 THU 9 : 1 8 P . 86 gnvl~onmen~al Assessmen~ WoNkshee~. I% ia required that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed and reviewed by the appropriate individuals and/or organizations in response to the final site, grading, u~ility and landscape plans. CONCLUSION We recommend approval of the ou=s=anding CUP and variance requests based on ~he ~evised site plan, subject to the conditions outlined in the Executive Summary of this report. cc: Dan Donahue Doug Sands%ad ]) EC-- 27--90 THU 9 : 18 P . 0 ? ~/ !:-.,~.r ..... ~= .... ....... ,,= .-.-.'::.. :~..,,':.::...'~r': ,,~: t. . ........ ,,,., ~di,:"l :, ,, ,,I:; ~ ,*i """I, "" ~ ..... ~'..' .., ' 'il ~ EXHIBIT A: REVISED SITE PLAN E. R. I (filled ! E~) 10/1/82 Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) NOTE TO REVIEI~ERS: Written c~mments should acidness the accuracy and completeness of fha E^w Info~matlon, ~otentlal Impacts that ~ey warrant i~vestigatlon and/o~ the need for an ElS. Such ccewnents must be sub~lt~ed fo t~e Responsible Government Unit (RGU) during the 30 day i~rlod follo~l.~g notice of the E^~I~s avatlablll~y In the EQ8 Monitor. Contact the EOf) (512/296-3985) o~ the RGU to find out when the 30 day conment period ends. INSTRUCTIONS: Guidel Ines for assisting i~ completion of thls ~o~ksheef ~ey be obtalned from E~)8. ,~'ovlde all Information which Is reasonably accesslSle. A~fach additional sheets If necessary. F_XPLAI~I ALL N~SWERS. I Name Creamette Plant Expansion 2 ~o~oser The Creamette Company ~ ~u City of New ~f~ P~.. ~ ~n ~tterer ~nf~f Per~. ~u~ ~dstad Ad~s 7300 ~ 3Otb Avenue North Ad~s ~0] Xylon Avenue North New Hope, ~ 55~27 New Ho~, ~ 55~28 P~ne 333-~285, Ext. ~16 P~ne 533-1521 ~¢oJ~ L~atio,: ~/~ ~/4 S~¢lon 17 Tow.ship ]18 Range 21 a. ~un~ ~ Hennep~n Ci~y~ow.sh~ ~ New Ho~ b. *?~h e~h of ~ foll~l~g ~ f~ dl~r~s ~ ~lel p~ ~lch cle~l~ Indicate ~ s~clfl¢ ~ dacl~ a~ ~hy of ~ ~ site. ~.a sl~e plan s~wl~ ~ I~flon of slgnlfican~ fea?~ s~h as ~s~ s~uct~, ¢~s, ~en~ of fl~ plain, ~tlands, ~1 Is, 4. 'an ~ls~lng lend u~ ~, a~ If ~all~le, a zonl~ ~p of ~ I~ Construction of 73,8~ sq. ft. of additional builEin~ ~d ~if~tioa of 18,~2~ sq. ft. of existi~ building. It ~s es~i~t~ that aRproxi~tely six ~aths to coaplete the pro]ect. 1 Requested by the 6 ~eason ~' ~ ~'~a~a.o.: City o.f ~ Sope , 7 Es~ime~ ~s~.~tion c~ appro~tel~ ~.8~.000, N~e of ~esl~n~l~l ~l~s --- oe ~cl~l. i~us~lel. ~ l~stl~ *~ona~ ~e f~ 73~ ft. tnd~t~ial 10 ~r of ~d ~.kl~ ~c~ 68 additional s~ for a total qf 265 s~ces. ~1: C~y oE Ne~ ~o~ ~nsc~ccion Permi~ Pendin~ b. ~t~ ~nslve 1~ u~ plsns? If ~s, ~plaln: Y~i~ce ~d C~ 3 Describe current e~l r~®.t past la~d use end development o~ and ~ f~ slte, Surrounding Z~d ~ is ind~trial, single ~d ~ltiple f~ily residential, co~rcial ~d a c~tery. ~Ima*ely vha* ~r~flq of ~ si~ Is lfl e~h of ~ roi I~I~ caf~i~? Af~ Crm~ ' 0 S 0 S ~(S~y) Bldg. cation ~s, If khan. Clay Explei~: ~ 17 "* "*' -'""+' '.+" "" '-+' ~: a. ~d~at~. ml~, avg. b, ~dr~ ,, ml~. ,. avg. c. Sta~ ~ finally ~slgna~ rlv~ leM u~ dls~lct? I~nti fy wa~ ~y ~ ~pl Ic~le state classlf a. suefac:e wa1.er qual Ity (on o~ off b. groundwater quality Con or off 1.l~e ¢. groundwa1.ee levels in any wells (on or off Explain bo~h during and afte~ construc*lon Including any discharges Desorlbe tyl)e of treatment sys~ii and ~ount 1rea*ed In gal Ices/day. Show l~:a- 1'Ion of ~on-munlclpal sys~s ~ sl~e nmp and *~ r~ul1.s of laer¢ola1.1on~N~1. If warranted. Indlca1.e If pre-l~'e es will be used, ~- .:~ ~ L--- wal~r run-off. Include size and local.Ion of any retention basins, and discharge '~ ~~ d~ ~,~,~..', ~..~ d~,+~.:~..~~ ~ '~ ~_. L . / ~' there should not ~ ~y d~t or appr~ab2e ~i~. ~e building is approxi~te]y 60 ft. fr~ residenti~ pro~rty. end *be met.hod and local.ion of dl s~osal: JVone 3 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Explain (sho. re~oucce~ on a sit® map and desc~'lbe Impact)= e. o*~er ~lq~ ~s (s~clfy)? Explain= 2 /~hat r~s will r~elve Increa~ ~afflc? (F~ e~h r~ l~lcefe ~ c~r~t ' aver~ dally ~afflc (~T) e~ Inc~ In ~T con~Ibu?~ by ~ ~.) Summary of Issues ga?lye ~as~ f~ t~ Iss~s. CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIgL. E GOVERNII~.NTAL UNIT I I~y c~f'tlfy float the rnfocmatlon co~tal~ed In this documn* Is ~-ue and cocrect to tt~e best of ~ kn~l~ a~ t~e~ ~1~ of ~ ~ple*~ EAW h~e ~n ~ Title Bonestroo Otto G. Bonestroo, RE. Keith A. Gordon, P.E. Kenneth P Anderson. RE. Miles B. Jansen, RE Rober~ ~L4 Rosene, RE. Richard ~'. Foster, PR. Mark R. Rolls, PE. L. Phillip Gravel IlL P.E Joseph C. Anderiik, PR. Donald C. Burgardt, RE. Ro~er~ C. Russek, A.I.A. Eerie C. Pluma~ A.I.A. Rosene Marvin L. Sorvala. P.E. Jern/A. Bourdon, P.E. Thomas E. Angus, RE. Agnes M. Ring, A.I.C.P Richard E. Turner, RE. Mark ^. Hanson, P.E. Howard A. Sanford, D James C. OIson, P.E. Ted K. Field. RE. Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. Cecilio Otivier, P.E. Associates Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Michael [ ,au:mann, P.E. Mark A. Seip. Rober~ G. Schunicht, PR. David O. Loskota, P.E. Ismael Martinez, RE. Charles A. EricSon Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A. Thomas ~ Paterson, P.E. Mark D, '&'allis, P.E. Leo M Pawelsky Michael C. Lynch, I~E. Thomas R. Anderson, AJ.A. Harlan M. Olson Engineers & Architects James R. Maland, P.E. Gap/F Rylander, P.E. December 26, 1990 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Attn: Mr. Kirk McDonald Re: Creamette's Expansion Our File No. 34 Gen. Dear Kirk, We have reviewed the revised grading plan for the above project and recommend the following: - The previously recommended storm sewer has been incorporated along the east side of the building and driveway. However, a small detention area for collection of storm water still needs to be provided. - It's recommended the Creamette's expansion be reviewed by Bassett Creek Watershed for conformance with their requirements. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONF:~OO, I~ENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Marl~A. Hanson 34-Gen. 2335 ~Vest Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 · 612-636-4600 ~ o z n cr n ? "0..~ =~,,.c .". · . .""". ¢' ~ '.< . . . · · . · . . · . . · I I I ~ Permit ' i/ 'i i Bu t I F I I ~ ~! i I I I 0 L-'~ t'"~ ~ , ,, ~z -- [ I'..,'" i CD ' 0 ~ -I- o . ._.. ,, , CHRONOLOGY Creamettes Warehouse 7300 36th Ave. 1959 Sanitary & Storm sewers installed from 36th to 38th Avenues 1961 Adjacent Vern Donnay Office Built (7324 36th Ave.) 1972 Site Plan approved P.C.72-50 (No Variances-No public Notices sent) 1972 Waiver of Platting approved- P.C.72-56 (Comments made about confusing lines) 1973 Council accepts Quit Claim Deeds for 38th Avenue street '1975 Variance for building setback to east approved with addition P.C.75-47 1987 CUP approved for front-loading berth & Construction approval P.C.87-28 1988 Small addition made not requiring Council action per Site Plan Ord. NOTE: ONLY ONE VARIANCE APPROVED [1975] CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 90-40 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Modify Existing Building and Construct Building Addition, Variance to Side Yard Setback, Variance to Expand a Non-Conforming Building, and Conditional Use Permit to Allow Loading Berth in Front Yard Location: 7300 36th Avenue North PID No.: 17-118-21 34 0003 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Creamette Company Report Date: November 30, 1990 Meeting Date: December 4, 1990 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting site/building plan review approval, a variance to the side yard setback requirement, and a variance to expand a non-conforming building and construct a building addition, pursuant to Sections 4.039(A), 4.034(4A), and 4.032(2, 10) of the New Hope Code. The petitioner is also requesting a conditional use permit to allow a loading berth in the front yard, pursuant to Section 4.037(2d) of the New Hope Code. 2. The petitioner is proposing construction of 73,895 square feet of additional building on the north side of the existing building and the modification of 18,525 square feet of the existing building on the east side. The petitioner has stated that these additions will completely eliminate all truck loading/shipping and movement on the east side adjoining residential dwellings while providing the necessary space for increased production, product storage and distribution. 3. The existing building is located 57 feet from the east side yard property line and the City Code required a 75-foot side yard setback in light industrial zoning districts, thus the existing building is considered a non-conforming structure and a variance is needed for expansion. 4. In addition, the portion of the building to be modified on the east side will be built along the present building line (57 feet from the east property line), therefore an 18-foot variance to the ?5-foot side yard setback requirement is needed. Planning Case Report 90-40 December 4, 1990 Page -2- 5. The existing building has 4 loading berths on the south side (front yard) and the proposed addition includes one new additional loading berth. City Code prohibits loading berths in the front yard, but allows them as a conditional use for non-residential uses if they do not conflict with pedestrian movement or obstruct the view of the public right-of-way. 6. The site contains 16 acres, has two street frontages (36th and 38th Avenues), and the adjoining Soo Line Railway provides transportation for incoming wheat. 7. The original building was constructed in 1972 and additions were built in 1975, 1987, and 1988, bringing the building to a present size of 176,295 square feet. The original owner continues to manufacture various Creamettes pasta products. 8. In the past there have been complaints from residential property owners on the east about this industry. The nature of the complaints has been noise (roof-top equipment and trucking/loading) and odor. The petitioner's plans have taken these past complaints into account. 9. The petitioner met with Design & Review and a number of issues were discussed including: additional loading berth and curb radius, landscaping on the east/south, driveway drainage problems, building materials, lighting, parking, snow storage, roof-top equipment and screening, environmental assessment, trash screening, truck traffic, 60 foot clear area requirement, and interior floor plan. 10. In addition, Design & Review discussed a preliminary fire protection report that was submitted by the Fire Marshall regarding an access road on the north, fire pump, standpipe system, and hydrants. The petitioner subsequently has met with the Fire Chief and Fire Marshall to discuss these issues. The petitioner submitted revised plans as a result of these meetings. 11. Property owners within 350' of the site have been notified and staff has received a number of inquiries about these requests. The petitioner has met with the neighborhood as a group to explain the plans on several occasions. ANALYSIS 1. The Planning Consultant has provided a detailed report on this request, which is attached. Staff supports the granting of the setback variances because the building addition will not expand an existing setback non-conformity and offers an'improvement in regard to land use compatibility. By removing truck loading activities from the east, adjacent residential concerns regarding vehicular noise are eliminated and the building itself acts as a buffer. Planning Case 90-40 December 4, 1990 Page -3- 2. This expansion will add 41% to the present building size, totalling 250,190 square feet. This results in a building/lot area ratio of 35% and meets the 40% code requirement. The green area ratio/ percentages need to be clarified. The submitted plan shows 43%, however staff has calculated about 38%. The code requires 35%. 3. The petitioner has not submitted the required Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet and that should be a condition of any approval. 4. The majority of the recommendations by Design & Review have been incorporated into the revised plans except for: type of new curbing, sizes of new trees, and trash compactor screening/ designated recycling space. 5. Four out of six of the recommendations by the Fire Marshall have been met or resolved (items 1, 2, 5, and 6). The petitioner is in the process of supplying water flow information to the Fire Chief and he will make a final determination on the standpipe system and number of required fire hydrants. 6. The Building Official has informed the petitioner that the Uniform Building Code requires this size of a building to have a 60-foot yard setback (clear area) on the southwest corner of the building or a Protective Covenant on the titles of both properties (Creamettes & Rainbow) prohibiting development in this area. The petitioner is in the process of discussing acquisition of a small strip of property from Rainbow to address this requirement. Any approval should be subject to the condition that "space separation" require- ment be resolved. The petitioner is actively pursuing several other options, should the property acquisition not materialize. 7. Staff has a concern about the new loading berth proposed at the southeast corner. The original plan was revised to recess the loading berth into the facility, fully enclosing the truck. This revised plan reduces concerns with regard to proximity to adjacent properties (adverse noise). However, staff still finds inadequate semi-truck maneuvering room exists to serve the new end dock which is perpendicular to the front wall. The design creates truck traffic conflict where the proposed new dock "meets" the existing angled dock (as shown on Attachment A). 8. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and recommends that: A. A new storm sewer be extended from 36th Avenue into the Creamettes property to address storm water runoff from the east side of the building, and B. The new loading dock will not function unless the easterly drive is reconstructed. Planning Case Report 98-40 December 4, 1990 Page -4- 9. Overall, staff finds this addition/modification to be a major improvement because it will shift trucking noise to the west side. The wall height along the east residential side of the building will be increased to provide a visual screen of roof-top equipment and provide for an effective noise barrier. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site/building plan review approval, the side yard setback and expansion of non-conforming building variances, and the conditional use permit for the loading berth in the front yard subject to the following conditions: 1. Clarification of the green area ratio 2. Compliance with the Fire Department recommendations 3. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations regarding new storm sewer 4. Revision of plan for new loading berth that is acceptable to City Engineer and Building Official or elimination of loading berth or reconstruction of easterly drive to accommodate loading berth 5. Resolution of 60-foot yard setback problem at southwest corner of building 6. Revision of site plan to illustrate handicapped parking stalls 7. All off-street parking areas are provided a perimeter curb around entire parking lot 8. Parking lot resurfaced to meet City standards 9. All roof-top equipment to be screened or painted to match building 10. Plans be modified to show designated trash areas and enclosure construction detail 11. A detailed signage plan be submitted indicating sizes and materials of all on-site signs 12. Submit required Environmental Assessment to City Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Site Plan Grading and Utility Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Floor Plan Planning Consultants Report City Engineer Comments Fire Marshall Comments Attachment A - Loading Berth Problems SCHOOL BUS ~.~oo BETHEL J LIONS CEMETERY ' PARK ,, $$T~ AVE N SINGLE FAMILy ~ --- - ..... '- -,X~T,,~CO~^.W MULTI-FAMILY 'x ...... 11 l l-Il I 1 II IH Hl-~J-~ [1tl t I H ; __ 800 ~ .~ ~TA THE CREAMETTE COMPANY SITE PLAN TOTAL ~ Afl~A ~,1~ I~. ~ ~W ~. ~T~ PARKWG DATA SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP. WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES. ~C. 7685 C~TE WAY ~20 2~ AVE~ ~TH ' . . . . .. ................. ~ .............................. ~ ....... '-~-~-' / h., i i t ;IiTitlI'IIII ~.,t~ SOO L~ RA~O~ THE CREAMETTE COMPANY GRADING .~ UTILITY PLAN 73~ ~lh AVE~ ~TH C~[~CT~ ARC'TIC[: SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP. WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES, INC. 7~5 C~ATE WAY 920 2~ AV~ ~TH E~N PRA~, ~SOIA 55344 ~A~, ~TA 55402 F ' ~ ~ L~ ~ROAD ........... THE CREAMETTE CO.ANY ~' ~' ~ - - % ,='~ SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP. WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES, ~C. c~ c ~ ~ E~N ~. ~TA 55344 ~. ~TA 55402 ~ .':'~."']i',,,-~ '~ ~i~ ~ ,. . ~ , ~ ..... CREAMETTE COMRANY SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES, ~C.~',. '~",~ I ~ I THE t WiPE . ~5OIA EDEN PHA~. ~SOIA 55344 ~AP~IS. ~IA 55402 '" .1-~ ,-,- ~*?.ELEVATION~ - ~ EAST ~.EYATIO~ st PROPERTY LiNE PROPOSED A£)~tION FOR CON ] HACIOR ARCItI'[EC] ......................... . ;,%'," '--~ THE CREAMETTE COMPANY SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES, INC. 7'JO~) 3~,m AV~ NU~: NORf~t 71~i.~5 CQ"4~PORAI E WAY ,920 2,~d AVE~J~ SO~IH ~ 5 NEW IIOPE. JCNI'~O~A EDEN PRAIRIE ICJ',i~E$OfA 55LJ44 IVIINiNIEAPOLt$. MINI,~SOIA 55.402 ~'~ ELEVATION-~ -, THE CREAMETTE COMPANY SWEDENBO.~ CONSmUCT,ON CO.P. WALS. ~,SHOP ASSOC,A~[S..C. ~~~ , ~ , 761~5 C~ATE WAY 920 2~ AVE~ ~TH -.-- ~ ~ - ~ FLOOR PLAN THE CgEAMETTE COMPANY SWEDENBOgG GONS~flUCTION COgP. WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES, INC. :~:"'z=":"~'="- ~ ~ I ~" Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C URBAN P L A N N I NG · DES I G N · M AR K E T R ES E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Robert Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 27 November 1990 RE: New Hope - Creamette Company CUP and Variance FILE NO: 131.01 - 90.40 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background: The Creamette Company, located on 36th Avenue North and parallelling the Soo Line Railroad wishes to construct a 73,895 square foot addition to their existing 176,295 square foot structure. In conjunction with the proposed expansion the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the purpose of adding a loading berth to the front of the Creamette building. The applicant has also requested a variance from the I-1 required side yard setback of 75 feet to allow a 57 foot setback on the facility's eastern side yard which abuts a residentially zoned area. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Landscape Plan Exhibit C - Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit D~- Landscape Plan Exhibit E - Building elevations Recommendation: Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of a variance to allow the proposed Creamette Company building addition to lie within a required side yard. The allowance of such a setback shall improve an existing condition and not exceed an existing nonconforming setback. 4601 Excelsior Blvd.. Suite 410.Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420.Fax 925-2721 Compatibility. In addition to the said front yard loading berths, a number of loading berths are located on the east side of the Creamette Building which abuts a residential district. As part of the proposed eastward building expansion, all east side loading berths would be eliminated. In terms of compatibility with the neighboring residential area, the proposed front yard 0 loading berth does present some concerns. In addition to a vehicular maneuvering problem, it is believed the additional loading berth will generate adverse noise impacts upon neighboring residents. If the loading berth were to be constructed, the tractor of a semi-trailer truck would lie approximately 30 feet from adjacent multiple family residents. Noise generated from the truck tractors would be most evident in the summer months when the diesel truck engines will be fully audible to open windows of neighboring residential buildings. It is also believed that the land area to be consumed by the additional loading berth would be better utilized for screening and buffering the adjacent residential use. As such, the submitted site plan should be revised to eliminate the easternmost loading berth within the site's front yard. Green Space. The subject size is 16.02 acres in size. The proposed 73,895 square foot building addition would result in a facility size of 250,190 square feet. Resultantly a green area of 43 percent is proposed, far exceeding the required 35 percent minimum required by ordinance. Setbacks. Aside from the requested east side yard variance, all proposed building addition setbacks are shown to conform to minimum I-l, Limited Industrial District standards as listed below: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Required 50 feet 75 feet 75 feet Proposed 85 feet 57 feet 240 feet Parkinq. The existing Creamette facility provides 197 parking stalls. To accommodate the proposed building addition, 69 additional stalls have been provided, thus resulting in a total off-street parking supply of 266 spaces. Landscaping/Screeninq. According to the submitted site plan most landscaping and berming efforts occur at the eastern and southern borders of the site and in key areas where specific screening is desired. Specifically a mixture of coniferous Ash, Olive and Crab trees are proposed and shall provide a year long visual screening of the site's loading and parking activities. It . should be noted that the only new plantings noted on the site plan are 15 additional green Spruce trees which are to border the eastern edge of the site. It also should be recognized that a major impetus behind original screening efforts along the east side of the subject property was the proximity of loading activities to the nearby residential district. With the proposed removal of east side loading activities, adverse impacts to residences should be considered minimal. Landscaping currently proposed shall primarily hold an aesthetic function by breaking up a long expanse of barren building facade. Although not identified on the submitted plans, all roof top equipment should be either screened from the adjacent street and residential district or painted to match the principal building. Gradinq and Utilities. A grading and utility plan has been submitted and shall be subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. Lighting. According to the submitted site plan, all exterior lighting is to be a down lit type fixture attached to the principal building. According to the City Zoning Ordinance, any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be arranged to deflect light away from adjacent public streets. In this regard, the proposed down lit lighting fixtures should pose no significant problems. Trash Areas. The submitted site and building plans have not designated specific trash areas. The site plan should be modified to include locations of dumpster enclosures. The said enclosures should be constructed of materials consistent and/or complementary to the principal building. Signage. Neither the submitted site plan nor building elevations have indicated where specific site signage is to occur. A detailed signage plan must be submitted indicating sizes and materials of all signs to be used on the property. This includes wall and canopy signs as well as freestanding signs. The said plan must be fund to be in accordance with Section 3.40 of the City Ordinance and be approved prior to occupancy of the proposed building addition. 5 CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of a variance to allow the Creamette Company to exceed required I-1 side yard setback requirements. The granting of the variance shall remove existing compatibility concerns resulting from semi- trailer truck activities. Conversely, our office cannot recommend approval of the applicant's request to construct an additional loading berth within the front yard of the subject site. Denial is recommended due to both compatibility and site circulation concerns. Variance and general site plan approval shall be subject to those conditions listed within the Executive Summary of this report. cc: Dan Donahue Doug Sandstad 7 PLANNING REPORT - ADDENDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DAT~: 29 November 1990 RE: New Hope - C~eame%=e Company CUP and Variance FII,E NOz 131.01 - 90.40 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background~ This report is %0 serve as an addendum to our 27 November 1990 planning report. This report addresses revised site plan drawings from Creamette received 26 November 1990. The revised plan has responded to a number of issues cited in tile earlier planr~ing report. Recommendationt Subject =o ~he following conditions, our office would recommend approval of the CUP and variance based on the revised site plan. 1. The site plan iS revised ~o illustrate handicapped parking stalls. 2. Ail o£f-stree= parking areas are provided a perimeter curb around ~he entire parking lo=. 3. The Creamette Company parking lot is resurfaced to mee~ City performance standards. 4. Ail roof top equipment shoul~ be either screened £rom the adJacen~ residential district and s~ree= or pain=ed to ma~ch the principal building. 5. The grading and utility plan is subject to review and comment by ~he City Engineer. 4601 Excetsior BNd..Suite 410. Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420. Fax 925-2721 NOV--29--90 THU i 6 -' 26 P . 04 The expansion of =he Creamette building will elimina=~ truck traffic from =he east side of =he building. Through this bu£1d£ng alteration, a number of the nuisance concerns along the eastern property llne are reduced. We recommend approval of the CUP and variance requests based on =he revised site plan, subject =o =he conditions outlined in the Executive Summary of this report. cc: Dan Donahue Doug Sands~ad ! EBMIHATE EASTERLY I LOADING BERTH ' ' ~ 176,295 SF EXISTING ILLUSTRA~[ -~ 'LOADIK6 BEmH~ ....... - ::11 ~-~ ' --/ ~ ......... ~~ . ~ ~ '~ · 1- ~ ~-¢;"""'"'~"-~ .... · ....... ~ ~ I t ~ ~~ PROVIDE PERIMETER CURBING ~ ~ : L ...... ~ PROVIDE HANDICAPPED ~~ ~ ~ ~ PARK~G STALLS ~ ~ ~ ~ Z 0 .¢ I I "1' I r ~r!-" ,~. ............. . .... , I II -"_ t' ' - I I; ~% - ,:5 ~NG BERTHS !tl[- ~1~ ..... , ....... ' --~. E-- - --=~' ~l_, m PROVIDE HANDICAPPED PARKING STALLS -- Bones t roo mo o. 8onestmo, RE. Keit/n ^. ~n, RE. Ja~ R. Ma~. PE. Thomas R. An~n, A.I.A Jo~ C. ~ ~E. ~a~ C. R~a~ E. Turner. ~E. Mark A Han~n. ~E. ~omas E. A~us. EE. ~ne C. Pluma~. ~ Ja~s C. Olin. PE. Ted K. FieU, ~E. H~a~ A. ~n~. ~E. ~nes M. Ring. R.IC.~ Anderlik a ~,~,, c~ PE. Mic~.lT.~utmann. Thomas E. N~ ~E. ~ff R, ~e. ~n M. E~in. C.~A. Thomas W. ~e~n. ~E. lsmael Ma~ez. PE. ~ M P~lsky Michel C. Lynch. PE, Ma~ D. ~aJlis. PE. Haflan M. OI5on Engin~rs & Archit~ts Novembe~ 23, 1990 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Attn: Kirk McDonald Re: Creamette Expansion Our File No. 34-Gen. E-90-3 Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the expansion at the above site and recommend the following: The storm water runoff from the east side of the existing building and its roof drains south onto 36th Avenue. Due to the amount of runoff, it is recommended that a new storm sewer be extended from the existing storm sewer in 36th Avenue northerly onto the Creamette's property collecting the storm water runoff before it discharges onto 36th Avenue. It is recommended that catch basin inlets be provided 'both in the driveway and northerly of the driveway intercepting the runoff from the roof drains and green area located on the east side of the building. A small berm shall be constructed providing a small retention area for storm water ponding in the green area. The new loading dock located on the south side of the new addition will not function as designed for a tractor/trailer. Therefore, major reconstruction of the easterly drive is required or the loading dock shall be eliminated. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:lk cc: Doug Sandsted 34/34-gen.cor 233S gffest Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 · 612-636-4600 MEMORANDUM City of New Hope DATE: November 15, 1990 TO: Chief Douglas C. Smith FROM: Allen M. Nelson SUIMECT: PRELIMINARY FIRE PROTECTION REPORT FOR CREAMET'FES CO., 7300 36TH AVENUE NORTH To provide proper fire protection for the Creamettes building with the new additions proposed, the following items would be needed: 1. Per Section 10.207 of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, the Fire Department access road would be required along the north side of the building. This road would have to be a minimum of 20 feet wide with turn-around provisions at the end. It would need signage on the railroad tracks indicating that the road must be kept clear at all times. It would also need signage on the road that it is for emergency vehicles only. 2. Since the Fire Department access road would not be extended as required, per exceptions 1 and 2 we would be requiring per Section 10.30lB a fire pump with a capacity to be determined at a later time, however, it would probably be in the 2000 gpm range. 3. We would also require a standpipe system independent of the sprinkler system with 2 1/2" outlets in locations to be determined by the Fire Department. This system would also be supplied from the fire pump with the ability for the Fire Department to supply it independent of the fire pump. All of the above items will have to be engineered at Creamette Co. expense. 4. We would require sufficient fire hydrants on site to supply the required fire flow to the building per 10.301C. Alt flow would be calculated in accordance with Appendix 3A of the Fire Code. Location of the fire hydrants will be determined by the Fire Department based on the require fire flow. 5. The underground storage tank would have to be covered with s~ficient material to protect it per the UFC. 6. The gate at the entrance to the driveway at the Creamette Co. must be tied into the fire alarm system so as to provide access automatically in case of activation of this It should be noted that these provisions are designed to provide fire protection only to this building and at this time are not being proposed to allow any exceptions or provide an,,' alternatives to any building code provisions that may be required. - EXISTING FENCE MULTI.FAMILY · t' +~ -EXISTING ~ " BITUMINOUS DRI gE - - C.B.'~ BOL.LARO ' BOLLARDS BUILDING TO REMAIN / ~ '~ FIRE HYD. t EXISTII% o · ¢3 /"i ,DRIVE ~'~ / I · EXISTING u~ I ! q~i SIDEWALK ~, '~'~-'--EXISTING 'ITU"I"OUS O"lYE \\ __ ~238.20 N 0-13-33 W ..... "- LIGHTJ ~'-- ~ ~ OFFICE ,~ - UTILITY EASEMENT CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNIN~ C~SE REPORT Planning Case: 91-01 Request: Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Convenience Food Operation Location: 4219 Winnetka Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21 11 0016 Zoning: B-4 (Community Business) Petitioner: Timothy C. Johnson/Taco John's Report Date: December 28, 1990 Meeting Date: January 2, 1991 BACKGROUND The petitioner has submitted an application to request a conditional use permit to allow a convenience food operation in a B-4 Zoning District. The petitioner has operated the Subway Shop in the New Hope City Center for the past 2-1/2 years and would like to expand the fast food service operation by opening a Taco John's Restaurant. Although the application was received on time, detailed plans were not submitted in time for Design & Review and have not yet been received. Staff has placed this case on the agenda to acknowledge receipt of the application only and recommends that the case be tabled until the February Planninq Commission meetinq. The applicant has been informed, as per the attached letter, of the staff's recommendation. Attachment: Management Assistant's Letter 12-19-90 4401 X¥1on Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55425 Phone: 533-152 ? December 19, 19902 Mr. Timothy Johnson Subway Shop 4219 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, MN 55445 Subject: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONVENIENCE FOOD/TACO JOHN'S Dear Mr. Johnson: I am writing to acknowledge the City's receipt of your application for a conditional use permit application to operate a convenience food establishment/Taco John's at 4219 Winnetka Avenue North. The City has not received adequate plans or information as of this date regarding your request, therefore the matter will be tabled until the February 5th Planning Commission meeting. If you want to pursue your request in February it is imperative that you submit the required detailed plans to Doug Sandstad, Building Official, by January llth. You should then plan on appearing before the Design and Review Committee on January 17th at 3:45 p.m. Please contact Mr. Sandstad or myself if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/iD cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Family Styled City'~~ For Family Living CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-02 Request: Request for Variance to Exceed Required Fence Height Location: 7300 36th Avenue North PID No.: 17-118-21 34 0003 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Creamette Company Report Date: December 28, 1990 Meeting Date: January 2, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to exceed the maximum fence height requirement of eight (8) feet for the purpose of constructing a fence ten (10) feet in height, pursuant to Section 4.033(3A) of the New Hope City Code. 2. This application is being made in conjunction with the pending con- struction/conditional use permit/variance application. Because the application for the variance to exceed the maximum fence height requirement was submitted after the original application, it is considered a separate planning case. 3. Creamettes has stated that the application for the fence variance is being submitted at the request of the east adjoining property owners to provide screening in addition to the proposed landscaping. 4. The fence would be 10 feet in height and 225 feet in length and would abut the rear yards of the properties located between 3709 and 3725 Maryland Avenue North. The fence would be constructed of pressure treated wood and would consist of 1" x 6" alternating boards. The proposed 10-foot fence would replace an existing 4-foot chain link fence. 5. The City Code states that "where any business or industrial use abuts property zoned for residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight feet in height or be less than six feet in height." 6. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and no comments have been received by staff. Planning Case Report 91-02 January 2, 1991 Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. The Planning Consultant has reviewed this request and states that although a fence of $ feet would probably be adequate in conjunction with the proposed landscaping to screen the abutting residential property from industrial activities, a 10-foot fence may be acceptable to satisfy the applicants' concerns and/or accommodate the wishes of the abutting residential neighbors. 2. The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the Zoning Code where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration, and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code. Staff feels that the Creamettes operation and location is unique and that the intent of the Code is to provide an adequate buffer between residential and industrial zoning districts. Due to the number of complaints received in the past regarding noise, etc. staff feels that the granting of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit of the Code. 3. The applicant could make reasonable use of the property without the granting of the variance, however the abutting property owners feel that a 10-foot fence would improve the buffer between the two zoning districts. 4. If the variance were granted, the essential character of the locality would not be altered significantly as existing fences currently separate the properties. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to exceed the maximum fence height to construct a fence 10 feet in height based upon: -the uniqueness of the property, -the request is being made on behalf of abutting property owners, -the fence will serve to further buffer the residential district from the industrial district, -the variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the city Code Attachements: Zoning Section Map Excerpts - Consultants Report Address Locations Site Plan Landscape Plan Elevation - New Fence Fence Detail SCHOOL ! BET~EL I LI08S CEMETERY ' PARK The proposed green area.of 281,412 square feet as m the previous proposal }? 40.3%. This area remains more than adequate by exceeding the required 35% minimum required by ordinance. Roof Top Equipment Screenin~. I~'response to the issue raised in previous reports, the applicant as provided for the inclusion of metal panel screen walls to buffer =he noise and visual effects of the roof top equipment on the proposed addition to the building. The roof top equipment on the existing building is be screened by means of a decorative masonry screen wall along the existing ~acade. Our concern lies in the adequacy and ability of the metal to buffer the sound and also in the architectural compatibility of the metal with the masonry screen. Of utmost importance is the minimization of noise levels from %he roof top units. The acou.stic control qualities of metal tend to be less effective than those of masonry or other materials. Many options need to be addressed by the applicant to improve on this proposal. For instance, the usage of spray on acoustical foam, wood in association with metal siding, sound blankets and/or the total enclosure o~ %he equipment in a penthouse with louvers would all provide for better control of acoustical noise. Another option may also be the relocation of the proposed roof top equipment to a pein= behind the existing masonry screen wall. .~. Decorative wood Screen Variance, Application for.a varianc% on ~ ~he height Of the wood screen fence on the east szde of the site would be necessary as the plan currently shows it, due to proposed fence exceeding the allowable 8 foot height Although a fence of 8 feet would, probably be adequate in association with the proposed vegetative plantings to screen =he abutting residentlal property from industrial activities, a ~0 foe= variance may also be acceptable to satisfy :he applicanc's concerns and/or accommoda=e =he wishes of the abutting residential neighbors. It has been relayed to us that the placement u~llity easement on the Creamette Company site is negotiable until the ~inal plat has been completed. It should be noted that the sanitary and storm sewer lines (which will run parallel) need =o be setback a minimum of 60 feet from =he building. FURTHER STUDY OF SCREENIHG OPTIONS HECESSARV VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR FENCE it~IGitT PFIOPOSED ROOF TOP UNITS ; ; REMOVAL OR LUdlTED USE OF LOADING BERTt~ ·_ . "'-- ., ' ' .... ' .... -.I"~,,~- ~; T : ~ .... . .............. ~.__. ~ ...... :~ ._~ :'. , : ~--~ , · - 'I i ' ~.~-~ , .: . .. ~ · .... L-, ........ ,.,,_j:._., --:~"--":~'""" · L '-'----~ ' / - ; -~-;.~,-Ft::~--=4-.,.; =-:lJ~ / . ; -PA Ii STALLS . ~r · ,; ~'~:- :l 1- :i ' ---= :- :~' -i i I · / _.._, :J ~'..~ :-I E ~:-I :;/:". , - : / .,&~'-.-,~. i _~ ~_~ ---::L L' ~ . :-I .--'_/ · ./ : - : , : ./ ,,, _ --- /' . ..: .~.~: ..... I . . l /' '*~- ~-' ........ "' :' ' - 'i .... ... , .,~i~ii:;;I:l. ::_, ' -,/:j - :' J: . ii / - - _:-- / - ~-- :.r &UTiLiTY EASE'MI:NT PLACEMENT AH __ . "WIDTH STILL N~GOTIABLE DRIVES 'Am STAEL' ~-~:i~ NEED'OFI~iNE~' ' ' :" :'"'"" "' ....... ~]0 UHE I,IJJ~g, m o ~ , ~iDEc 2 T 1990, '- ?~~ .......t'- '!'~~ ~--'.-- . . , ........... 7~"~'~-~" :-~*. .... ~ .......... ~' . '?~.??~ ....... aT~ ~T* THE CREAMETTE COMPANY SITE ~, , THE CREAMETTE COMPANY ~ LA APE ~AN ~W ~. ~TA m~ ~ SWE~G C~T~T~ C~P. WAL~ ~ AS~IATES. E. , ~5 C~ATE ~Y 9~ ~ A~ ~TH FENCE SECTIOfl FENCE ELEVATK~N THE CREAMETTE COMPANY SWEDENBORG CONSTRUCTION CORP. WALSH BISHOP ASSOCIATES, IqC. ~~_ 5 7685 CO~ll:q3flATE V4A. Y 920 ~ AVENLII~ ~IH ELEVATION~ ", Z300 36th AVENUE NC~TH EEX:N PRAIRIE. I~IqNE~OTA 55344 ~APOLIS, MI~SOIA 55402 mm~ # m~ # NE W HOI:~, MeIMESOTA m~w~ 1 x6 WOOD I I ALTERNATING BOARDS 1) .~ /~ ;} 6x6 WOOD POST "" [~ ) " FENC 2x6 WOOD RAILS ! GRADE .- ~ ~ NOTE: ALL WOOD TO BE PRESURE IREATED WOOD. FENCE SECTION FENCE ELEVATION PROPOSED ADDITION FOR: THE CREAMETTE COMPANY 7300 36th AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA I t ~ I ~ "~ ~ ~'2x6 WOOD RAILS I ! ' : ~ , - 6x6 WOOD POST BOARDS 5 ) '" ~x6WOOD i ALTERNATING BOARDS i.^,LS ) : FENCE PLAN I~j~ilE PRESURE TREATED WOOD. FENCE ELEVATION ~ED ADDITION FOR: CONTRACTOR: CREAMETTE COMPANY SWEDENBORG CON 36th AVENUE NORTH 7685 CORPORATF WAY NEW DECORATIVE WOOD SCREEN FENCE ~ (10'-0" H. x 225'-0"+- L.) FLOOR EL: ~ 910'-0" 15 CGS NEW REMOVE 17 EXISTING R.O. NEW DECORATIVE WOOD SCREEN FENCE (10'-0" H. x.225'-0"+ L.) -,,,~ 15'-0" O.C. REPLACE WITH 17 EVERGREENS / , .,,,. % ~.-~.-~ ........... REMOVE lO_/i EXISTING NEW DECORATIVE WOOD SCREEN FENCE (10'-0" H. x 225'-0"+- L.). .... ~, 30'R. ~. ,, ADDITION ~_ nr'nl~ll~ F Al IT('tM ATIP CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: December 28, 1990 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Codes & Standards Issues A. DISCUSS W/%REHOUSES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE "I-1" LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT At the November 13th city Council meeting a Council member questioned the number of warehouses that are being built in the City and wondered whether the zoning should be changed to promote more high tech industry that would create quality jobs. The issue was raised in regards to the warehouse building that was approved for the Don Harvey Addition at 3970 Quebec Avenue North. The Council requested that permitted uses in the I-1 Zoning District be reviewed and that a recommendation be brought back to the City Council. The Planning Consultant prepared the attached position paper on the issue to review the pros and cons of allowing warehouses as permitted uses and Codes & Standards met on December 13th to discuss this matter. The report recommends maintaining warehousing as permitted use in the I-1 Zoning District and states that greater community promotion and economic development incentives should be considered for attracting desired industrial types. The recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. Warehousing has been effective in fulfilling the I-1 District purpose ... to provide for the establishment of industrial development in a well-planned, residentially compatible setting. Special performance standards governing site design (35% green space, 40% lot coverage) were included in the I-1 District to promote attractive industrial development. 2. Warehousing is a predominant land use in the I-1 District and limiting or prohibiting warehouse would result in existing uses becoming non-conforming (out of approximately 400 acres of I-1 zoned land, about 6% remains undeveloped). If existing industrial sites were to become non-conforming, this action could be detrimental to industrial development patterns and tax base. The number of undeveloped sites that would be affected by an ordinance change is very limited. 3. New industrial development has been high quality construction and has contributed to an expanded tax base. Most buildings that have been constructed are designed in an office/warehouse design that offers flexible lease arrangements for a variety of tenants according to their space and use needs. The City has worked hard to insure that these buildings are of high quality and valuation. 4. Development of the remaining vacant I-1 sites will represent a small proportion of the industrial traffic in the City. Other types of high tech industries may reduce truck traffic volumes, but would generate more employee traffic. 5. More aggressive marketing of economic development in New Hope may accomplish desire industrial goals without a zoning change. High tech industries are an attractive economic development and competition among communities for this type of industry is great for a limited number of opportunities. Instead of relying on the private sector to promote industrial development, the City should be more aggressive in attracting the desired industries. Codes & Standards agreed with the conclusions of the report and felt that the elimination of warehousing from the I-1 District would narrow the industrial market for the remaining undeveloped sites. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above conclusions, Codes & Standards recommends that no change be made to the permitted uses under the existing ordinance for the I-1 Zoning District. Codes & Standards further recommends that a marketing strategy be developed to attract desired industries. Staff recommends that the Commission endorse or revise the position paper and send a recommendation back to the Council that the I-1 Zoning District not be amended to restrict ware- houses based upon the facts outlined in the report. B. DISCUSS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCEDURE ALLOWING THE DEFERRAL OF REQUIRED PARKING As stated at the last meeting, this parking deferment concept was discussed with the Planning Consultant this past summer when Hardware Hank requested a variance to the parking requirements due to their automized plant. The request was withdrawn, but the Planner provided the City with information regarding how other communities deal with this issue. Codes & Standards reviewed this concept at their November 19th meeting and made some minor revisions to the proposed ordinance at their November 28th meeting. The original/revised version of the report and ordinance were enclosed in the December Planning Commission packet. Subsequent to the Codes & Standards meeting, the City Attorney expressed a concern with the proposed ordinance. It was his initial feeling that a restrictive covenant could accomplish the same objective without providing for a cOnditional use permit. Staff recommended that the matter be tabled for one month so that the staff, City Attorney and Planning Consultant could meet to discuss the ordinance further. The matter was tabled at the December Planning Commission meeting. On December 19th a meeting was conducted to further discuss the ordinance. The City Attorney recommended that "Item e" in the ordinance be changed to require the property owner to record a restrictive covenant against the title to the property providing that additional parking shall be constructed rather than entering into a development contract, as proposed in the original ordinance. It was the Attorney's opinion that a restrictive covenant would provide far more effective means of future enforcement and staff concurs with his opinion. The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached report on the revised ordinance and discusses the benefits of the ordinance. While the City has allowed for some parking deferment in the past on a case-by-case basis, the criteria or process have not been clearly defined. The adoption of the ordinance will clearly identify the process and the criteria to be used. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the revised ordinance so that the process for obtaining a parking deferment and the criteria to be used are clearly defined and so that said deferment is recorded as a restrictive covenant against the title to the property. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N P L A N N I NG DES I G N M A R K E T R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 11 December 1990 RE: New Hope - I-1 Warehousing Land Uses FILE NO: 131.00 - 90.09 BACKGROUND The New Hope City Council raised the issue as to whether the I-1 Zoning District should be amended to restrict the future proliferation of warehousing and to promote more high tech industries. ISSUES ANALYSIS I-1 Purpose. The I-1 Zoning District is intended to provide for the establishment of industrial development in a well planned, residentially compatible setting. In accomplishing this purpose, the zoning district was very selective in the type of land uses permitted within the district and special performance standards governing site design were included in the I-1 Zoning District. Through enforcement of the I-1 performance standards, the City has been effective in promoting attractive industrial development. Historically, warehousing has to be viewed as a land use that was consistent with the purpose of the I-1 Zoning District. I-1 Zonfnq District. New Hope has approximately 400 acres of I-1 zoned land, of which approximately 6 percent remains undeveloped. Review of the existing I-1 development reveals warehousing as a predominant land use in New Hope, both as a principle and accessory use on a site. A change in the Ordinance addressing or limiting warehousing in the I-1 Zoning District could result in a number of existing industrial sites becoming non-conforming. The implication of this zoning action could be detrimental to New Hope's industrial development patterns and tax base. 4601 Excelsior Blvd.. Suite 410. Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420. Fax 925-2721 The number of undeveloped I-1 sites that may be affected by a change of Ordinance is very limited. The City must be cautious when considering a Zoning Ordinance amendment limiting warehousing to understand the ramifications of such regulations may have on existing development. Type of Use. The character of New Hope's industrial development has been small site development. Sites range from two to six acres in size. Property owner and development companies have been constructing buildings that offer flexible lease arrangements for a variety of tenants. In this light, buildings are designed in an office/warehouse design that may be arranged in a manner that suits the space and use needs of the tenant businesses. Developments such as the Harvey industrial site, Hoyt 5000 Winnetka, Rosewood Corporation 9401 Science Center Drive, and the Tarnanen office/warehouse are each examples of this type of development which has contributed to the City's industrial base. The City has worked hard to insure that the construction of these buildings is of the highest quality and valuation of any comparable building within the City. In this regard, this new construction has benefitted the City through expanding the local tax base. Traffic. Truck traffic generated by warehousing facilities has been cited as a community concern. While other industrial uses may reduce truck traffic volumes, this issue becomes more of a locational issue. The industrial district abutting railroads present concerns with regard to traffic travelling through non- industrial areas. These industrial areas are accessed via collector streets and the continuation of these industrial land uses is anticipated. Changes from industrial to high density residential for the Minnegasco site and Harvey site were rejected in support of neighborhood opinion. Marketinq. The City has relied on the private sector to promote industrial development within New Hope. This has resulted in development projects that reflect the market available to the developer. High tech industries is attractive economic development throughout the Metropolitan Area. The competition among communities for this type of industry is great for a limited number of opportunities. The City of New Hope must be more aggressive in promoting economic development to attract the desired industries. 2 The elimination of warehousing from the I-1 District would serve to narrow the industrial market for the balance of the available undeveloped sites. This would serve to reduce the development potential of these sites. CONCLUSION Based on the aforementioned review, we recommend maintaining warehousing within the I-1 District. Greater community promotion and economic development incentives should be considered for attracting desired industrial types. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. Warehousing has been effective in fulfilling the I-1 District purpose. 2. Warehousing is a predominant land use in the I-1 District. Limiting or prohibiting warehousing would result in existing uses becoming non-conforming. 3. New industrial development has been high quality construction and has effectively contributed to an expanded tax base. 4. Development of the remaining.vacant I-1 sites will represent a small proportion of the industrial traffic in the City. 5. More aggressive marketing of economic development in New Hope may accomplish desired industrial goals without a zoning change. cc: Dan Donahue P L N G D N · M A R K E R E S E A R C H MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 26 December 1990 RE: New Hope Ordinance - Parking Deferment FILE NO: 131.00 - 90.07 Attached please find the attorney's draft of the proposed ordinance amendment that would allow for the deferment of required parking. This draft ordinance requires the deferred parking arrangement be established in the form of a restrictive covenant versus a development contract. This change has been suggested by the City Attorney to provide for more effective means of future enforcement. The proposed ordinance allows a property owner some flexibility to construct parking based on demonstrated need rather than on conservative city ordinance standards. While the City has allowed for some parking deferment in the past, the review criteria and performance standards have not been specifically identified. Adoption of the ordinance may bring the availability of a parking deferment to the attention of the developers and promote its use. In this light, the City must make a policy decision as to whether this ordinance is consistent with the development objectives of the City. The benefits of this ordinance will include: 1. The amount of required parking would only be deferred until need is demonstrated. 2. The parking deferment would increase the amount of on-site green space until full parking supply is needed. 4601 Excelsior Blvd.. Suite 410. Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420.Fax 925-2721 3. The developer would experience reduced initial construction costs by reducing the parking lot construction. This serves to benefit the developer and serves as an incentive for development. Based on the remaining vacant parcels in New Hope the application of the proposed ordinance will be limited. The City must, however, determine if there is benefit in the adoption of such an ordinance. cc: Steve Sondrall CORRICK & SONDRALL A PARTNIf~EHIP OF PNOFi'IIIONAL ¢ONPORATIONI 3811 WEST BROADWAY . ROBB~SD~4.E, M~_...~3TA 55422 CORRICK LAW OFFICES, P.A. FAX (~ I ~l) ~33-224,~ LeGAl. ASSISTANTS WILLIAM J. CORRICK /AVONNE E. KESKE STEVEN A, SONDRALL, P.A. SHARON O. DERBY STEVEN A. SONORALL MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR MARTIN P. MALECHA WILLIAM C. STRAIT December 19, 1990 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Deferment of Required Parking/Conditional Use Permit Our File No. 99.40037 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance Establishing a Conditional Use Permit Procedure to Defer Required Parking that we discussed in our December 19th meeting. This proposed ordinance is for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall swl Enclosure cc: A1 Brixius (w/enc) Daniel J. Donahue (w/enc) ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ADDING SECTION 4.036(13) ESTABLISHING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCEDURE ALLOWING THE DEFERRAL OF REQUIRED PARKING The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.036 (13) "Off-Street Parking Requirements" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (13) "Deferment of Required Parking" to read as follows: (13) Deferment of Required Parking. A reduction in the number of required parking stalls may be permitted by conditional use permit provided that: (a) Evidence is provided demonstrating that the parking requirements of the proposed use will be less than the parking required under §4.036 of this Code during the peak demand period. Factors to be considered when reviewing the proposed parking demand shall include, but not be limited to: (i) Size, type and use of building. (ii) Number of employees. (iii) Projected volume and turnover of employee and/or customer traffic. (iv) Projected frequency and volume of delivery or service vehicles. (v) Number of company owned vehicles. (vi) Storage of vehicles on site. (b) In no case shall the amount of parking provided be less than one-half (i/i) to the amount of parking required by Ordinance. (c) The property owner can demonstrate that the site has sufficient property under the same ownership to accommodate the expansion of the parking facilities to meet the minimum requirements of §4.036 of this Code if the parking demand exceeds on-site supply. (d) On-site parking shall only occur in areas designed and constructed for parking in accordance with §4.036 of this Code. The area reserved as "proof of parking" shall be sodded and seeded and maintained as green space or a recreational area. No permanent buildings shall be permitted in the "proof of parking" area. (e) The property owner shall record a restrictive covenant against the title to the property providing that additional parking shall be constructed in accordance with §4.036 of this Code if the site parking demand exceeds the actual on- site parking supply in the sole opinion of the City. The form of the restrictive covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney before the issuance of the conditional use permit. (f) To qualify for a parking deferment, the site plan must comply with all current zoning standards. (g) Application for and approval of a conditional use permit for deferment of required parking shall also be subject to the provisions, of §4.20 et al of this Code. Section 2. Effective Date. The ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1990. Mayor Attest: City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the day of , 1990. ) 2 NAC Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. URBAN I~L A N NI NG·DESIGN ·MARKET R ESE A RC H MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius/Elizabeth Stockman DATE: 28 November 1990 RE: New Hope Ordinance - Parking Deferment F£LE NO: 131.00 - 90.07 BACKGROUND Earlier this fall, Hardware Hank requested a reduction in the amount of their required parking supply. The company claimed that their parking supply exceeded their actual employee parking demand nd requested to use the excess parking area for outdoor storage. With the automation of contemporary industries, ther~ are cases where parking demand is less than the amount of parking required based on the City's floor area ratio. To address these individual instances, the following proo~ mt parking ordinance language has been prepared for the Ci[y's cons£deration. This preliminary draft ordinance would allow the construction of parking based on actual need demonstrated by the developer, provided the site has sufficient area to accommodate additional parking in full compliance with the City parking standards if parking demand exceeds supply. The attached ordinance attempts to do the following things: 1. Allow for a parking amount exception without need for a variance. This will require City review and public hearing. 2. Require the property owner to demonstrate that their parking demand is less than what is required by ordinance. 3. Require the property owner to demonstrate sufficient space for parking lot expansion to City requirements if actual demand exceeds the provided parking spaces. 4. This ordinance requires all area used for off-street parking to be constructed to City standards. 4601 Excelsior Blvd..Suite 410.Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420.Fax 925-2721 5. The property owner must enter a development contract to insure that if the provided parking area is insufficient to meet the parking demand, the property owner will expand the on-site parking in conformance with City standards. 6. In order for a property owner to qualify for a parking deferment, the site plan must be in conformance with all performance standards. After reviewing this ordinance language thoroughly, please contact me with any comments or changes. cc: Dan Donahue Steve Sondrall Doug Sandstad CITY OF NEW HOPE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY ADDING SECTION 4.036(13) PARKING DEFERMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended by adding Section 4.036(13) to read as follows: (13) Parking Deferment. The City may allow a reduction in the number of required parking stalls by conditional use. permit provided that: (a) Evidence be provided that demonstrates the proposed use will have a peak during demand less than the required parking under Section 4.036 of this Ordinance. Factors to be considered when reviewing the proposed parking demand shall include, but not be limited to: (i) Size of the building. (ii) Type and use. (iii)Number of employees. (iv) Projected volume and turnover of employee and/or customer traffic. (v) Projected frequency and volume of delivery or service vehicles. (vi) Number of company owned vehicles. (vii)Storage of vehicles on site. (b) In no case shall the amount of parking provided be less than one-half (1/2) of the amount of parking required by Ordinance. (c) The property owner can demonstrate that the site has sufficient property under the same ownership to accommodate the expansion of the parking facilities to meet the minimum requirements of Section 4.036 of this Ordinance if the parking demand exceeds on-site supply. (d) On-site parking shall only occur in areas designed and constructed for parking in accordance with Section 4.036 of this Ordinance. The area reserved as "proof of parking" shall be sodded and seeded and maintained as green space or a recreational area. No permanent buildings shall be permitted in the "proof of parking" area. (e) The property owner shall enter into a development contract with the City guaranteeing that additional parking shall be constructed in accordance with Section 4.036 of this Ordinance if the site parking demand exceeds the actual on-site parking supply. (f) To qualify for a parking deferment, the site plan must comply with all current zoning standards. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its publication according to law. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an ordinance this day of , 1990. CITY OF NEW HOPE By: Edward J. Erickson, Mayor ATTEST: By: Dan Donahue, City Administrator