The URL can be used to link to this page

020591 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 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 91-01 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Convenience Food Establishment, 4219 Winnetka Avenue North, Timothy Johnson/Taco Johns, Petitioner 3.3 Case 91-04 Request for Variance from Sign Ordinance Requirement, 9400 36th Avenue North, Randy Rau/Noliday Station #505, Petitioner 3.4 Case 91-05 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Convenience Food Establishment, 3556 Winnetka Avenue North, Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership/Frankies To Go, Petitioners 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee Set meeting date for a February meeting re: flood plain ordinance and parking ordinance (memorandum enclosed) 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Election of officers 6.2 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 1991. 6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of December 27, 1990, and January 14, 1991. 6.3 Review of EDA Minutes of December 27, 1990. 6.4 Review of HRA Minutes of October 22, 1990. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEW HOP] PLANNING CASE RE~RT 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: February 1, 1991 Meeting Date: February 5, 1991 UPDATE Staff is recommending that this case be tabled for one month. As stated at the last Planning Commission meeting, the City Engineer completed his review of the K-Mart parking lot plan on December 28th and drafted a revised/recommended plan for K-Mart's review. Time schedules did not permit a meeting between the staff and K-Mart prior to the January Planning Commission meeting, therefore this case was tabled until the February meeting. Staff met with Weis Builders and K-Mart officials on January 16th to review the plan drafted by the City Engineer (outline of meeting attached). Prior to meeting with K-Mart the plan was submitted to the Planning Consultant for review. The Planner's report and the parking plan are attached for your information (Attachment A). K-Mart officials had mixed reactions to the plan. While they viewed the plan as an improvement to the existing site, they were concerned about the cost to make the improvements. At the original Design & Review meeting they indicated they had a $26,000 budget for landscaping/site improvements. They they had their original plan costed out after Design & Review (to include perimeter cUrbing) the estimated cost was $80,000- $100,000. Corporate officials declined to approve such a large expendi- ture on landscaping/parking improvements. The cost estimate on the City Engineer's plan is approximately $90,000. The staff indicated that we were aware of the original amount that was proposed to be spent on site improvements, but that the Design & Review Committee and staff had discussed a 3-5 year plan to improve the site with K-Mart and they seemed agreeable to a plan where the costs could be spread out. The consensus reached at the meeting was that the City would refine the plan and break it down into three different phases to lower the cost impact and then forward the plan to K-Mart for comment. The City Engineer has recently completed the phasing of the plan (Attachment B) and the city is in the process of forwarding the plan to K-Mart with a letter indicating our expectations. We will be notifying K-Mart that if they wish to appear on the March Planning Commission agenda they will need to meet with Design & Review again on February 14th. Although this has become a long process, the City will benefit if K-Mart agrees to upgrade the site and implement Design & Review and staff recommendations over a several year period. Attachments: 1/16/91 Meeting Outline/Update Attachment A, Planner's Report Attachment B, City Engineer's Phasing Plan 1/16/91 MEETING OUTLINE~UPDAT~ Original application - 2 purposes *1. CUP convenience food 2. Site/Building plan review for modification of glass windows -submit landscape plan in conjunction with request *-City Code lists standards to be considered for granting CUP: A. Architectural compatibility B. Five-foot landscaped green strip at residential district boundaries C. Light standard island in parking lot to be landscaped D. Continuous curbing on parking area 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. -CUP was granted subject to cooperation on parking lot issue - Site/Building plan review approval still needed -Landscape plan - Design & Review met and expressed concerns: -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 agreed that City Engineer would draft plan with recommendations and that would be presented to K-Mart -Purpose of meeting - review plan of Engineer and comments from Planning Consultant -K-Mart revises plan to incorporate recommendations of Engineer, Planner and Design & Review Schedule - Design & Review meets January 17th for February Planning Commission. They want to review revised plan before it goes to Planning Commission Probably will have to wait until March 5th planning Commission meeting - Design & Review meets on February 14th - plan should be submitted to City by February 10th ATTACHMENT A Northwest ssociat Co. nsul a ts,. Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Elizabeth Stockman/Alan Srtxius DATE= 14 January 1991 RE: New Hope - K-Mar= Parking Lot Review FILE NO: 131.01 - 90.35 As requested, ~ have reviewed the parking lot layout for the New Hope K-Mar= located a= Xylon Avenue and 42nd Avenue. The majority Of the plan is ~unc=ionally and aesthetically acceptable. There are, however, several issues which I feel should be addressed further. P~rklnq Along Main Driving Aloles The .parking of vehicles along the main driving aisles of a parking lo~ (aS shown on the included plan} is no= recommended. The backing of vehicles into one or both of the driving lanes and area mos% likely attract only minimal use for mos= of the year and when the po:eh=iai exis=$ for their increased use during the holiday season, ~he addition of ~r&E~i~ along the main driving maneuver in and out of. According to the New HOpe Zoning Ordinnance, the K-MAr~ lo: has ample space enough =o compensate ~Or ~he removll of the spaces in quos=ion and ads,ua=ely supply ~heir customers wi~h places to.park. Parking Abutting 42nd Avenue A portion of ~he parking space~ (as shown in the included plan), project, need to be re evaluated. The eight spaces proposed au 60 degree and one a~ 90 degree represent a confusing si%ua%ion, especially when located along a narrow aisle proposed as one way. The area may be be=tar utilized as landscape amenity space %0 avoid ~he confusing si=ua=ion. The lisle should be of uniform width along its en:i£e=y to proven= vehicles from turning down it =he wrong way. 4601 Excelsior Blvd.. Suite 410. Minneapolis, MN 55416, (612) 925-9420. Fax 925-2721 The redesiqn of the K-MarC parking lot, specifically :he addi%ion of many curb areas, wall gre9%ly affect :he d~rection and speed of snow/rain runoff traveling across the s~te. The exis%ing drainaqe system must be evaluated for ~s ability and efficie~lcy to permorm and Be upgraded, if necessary, to mae= all standards associated with the new design. Llqhtinq The existing lighting also needs :o be re-evaluated for its efficiency, location and physical condition. The relocation of existing lights is possible if they still meet the required ~ooc candles per area. I~ not, the addition of accessory ligh%s may be necessary to adequately light :he s%ail and driveway areas. Landscaoinq Many iSSues need to be considered when choosing plant materials for a ~arking area. They are as ~ollows: 1. Height. I~ is very important chat =he area from about 2-1/2 ~eet to 5 feet above the ground be clear of growth, with =ho exception of the trunks of trees. Shrubs and hedges wich£n chis heigh~ range o= Chat have dense branch/leaf should be avoided in areas where cars and pedestrians have =o be fully visible. 2. Purpose. vegetative plan%~nps may bm used for many p'U=~SeS. I~ is importan~ =haC a decision be made up front in the design pcocess as to the needs and desires for =he plantings; i.e., screening or enhancing, monotone or colorful, variety or uni~ormi=y, shady or open, simple or elaborate, etc. 3. Plan~ sties ~ca~ion. The tyl~ee of trees and shrubs C~ fo~-a _d~Jt~n-a~-~irec~ly dependent on chei= location within the plan. A. pa~king a:e~ gene~all~ :ends ~o dec:ace restricted, curbed plan~ing areas where any plan% ch:sen limited by Che man-made surroundings. Zn 1~9h% o~ ~acc, ~he choice o~ plan% ma%erials is a difficul~ process, bu~ %~ey can conCclbu:e ~o :he overall bea~cy and success a design when :he p~ope~ Ipiciem a~e chosen fo~ Che desired The Shape, height, root depth/spread, density of brpnches and leaves, soil suitability, hardiness, susceptability to disease, and tolerance %o heat/cold or drought sro pa=ame%ers to consider %hat will either encourage or inhibit %he choice of plant materials for a specific site. The medians and perimeter areas provided for the inclusion of plant materials in the New HOpe K-Mart parkig lot are of sufficient size to provide for the successful growth ~ compa:ible species. Xowever, =he inclusion of additional median areas for plantings in place of the pain%ed marking areas a% she en~s of the parking rows, especially closes: =o the building, would add %o ~he quality of %he design and give the site a more aes%heti¢ appeal %o shoppers as well as passers-by. cc: Mark Hanson Dan Donahue Doug Sandstad JAN-- I $-- ~:~ 1 T U~:' 1 MAIN ~ N ; ,, , , [ I I k , , ' , , ~ .~ ~ , ~-= -~ ~.~ , ' [ RE-EVALUATE NECE~ITY OF PARKING; CO'USING SITUATION ATTACHY~ENT B K.MART PARKING LOT & SITE IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION PHASING January, 1991 Phase I (Xylon Avenue ..Parkiw,) 1,700 S.Y. Bituminous removal ~ $1.50/S.Y. $2,550.00 2,100 L.F. B612 Concrete curb @ 7.00/L.F. 14,700.00 700 S.Y. Bit. patch (2" Thick) @ 7.00/S.Y. 4,900.00 22,600 S.Y. Seal coat @ 0.45/S.Y. 10,170.00 Lump Sum Landscape @ 4,000.00/L.S. 4,000.00 Total $36,320.00 Phase II (42nd Avenue Parkine) 1,400 S.Y. Bituminous removal @ $l.50/S.Y. $2,100.00 1,800 L.F. B612 Concrete curb @ 7.00/L.F. 12,600.00 600 S.Y. Bit. patch (2" thick) @ 7.00/S.Y. 4,200.00 5,600 S.Y. Seal coat @ 0.80/S.Y. 4,480.00 Lump Sum Landscape @ 2,000.00/L.S. 2,000.00 Total $25,380.00 Phase III (Perimeter Curb} 500 $.Y. Bituminous removal @ $1.$0/5.Y. $750.00 2,450 L.F. B616 concrete curb @ 7.00/L.F. 17,150.00 820 S.Y. Bit. patch (2" thick) @ 7.00/S.Y. 5,740.00 200 S.Y. Bituminous drive @ 10.00/S.Y. 2,000.00 Lump Sum Landscape @ 2,000.00/L.S. 2,000.00 Total $27,640.00 34.COR CITY OF NE~ HOPE PLYING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-01 Request: Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Convenience Food Establishment 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: February 1, 1991 Meeting Date: February 5, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner has submitted an application requesting a conditiona~ use permit to allow a convenience food establishment in a B-4 Community Business Zoning District, pursuant to Sections 4.123(3) and 4.134(1) of the New Hope Code. 2. Tim Johnson/New Hope City Center/U.S.Swim Partnership is proposing to open a 3,000 square foot Taco John's eating establishment at the New Hope City Center. This matter was tabled at the January Planning Commission meeting because, although application had been made, detailed plans had not been received. 3. The convenience food establishment would be located adjacent to and just south of the existing Subway Shop. The petitioner has operated the Subway Shop for the past 2-1/2 years and would like to expand the fast food service operation by opening a Taco John's. 4. The use would be eat in/take ~out for consumption on and off the premises. The dining area would provide seating for 34 customers and service would be from a counter. 5. Planning Case 86-12 approved the 79,000 square foot expansion/renova- tion of the New Hope Mall PUD. 6. Restaurants are allowed as a permitted use in a B-4 Zoning District, however "drive-in and convenience food" establishments require a Conditional Use Permit. By City Ordinance definition, this use is convenience food which is defined as "an establishment which serves food in or on disposable containers...for consumption on or off the premises. Customers are generally served at a pick-up station by clerks rather than served at tables...by waiters of waitresses". Planning Case Report 91-01 ~ February 5, 1991 Page -2- 7. Ten conditions are listed for "Drive-in and Convenience Food". No drive-thru is possible or proposed. The conditions that are appli- cable to this use include: A. Compatibility - architectural appearance of building to be compatible with surrounding uses so property owners are not impaired, B. Green strip -at boundaries of residential district, a 5-foot green strip to be landscaped, C.Curbing - parking areas and driveways to be curbed, D. Vehicle access - access points to be limited so there is a minimum of conflict with through traffic, E. Drainage - entire area to have drainage system subject to City approval, F. Surfacing - entire area other than occupied by buildings/plantings to be surfaced to control dust/drainage, G. Refuse storage - refuse to be stored in containers, which shall be screened and enclosed by a fence. 8. Other issues to be considered for conditional uses in Business Districts include: A. Traffic - the use should not cause traffic hazards or congestion, B. Nearby residences - adjacent residentially-zoned land should not be adversely affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or other nuisance characteristics, C. Effect on other businesses - existing nearby businesses should not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customers trade brought about by intrusion of unduly heavy non-shopping traffic or general unsightliness. 9. The applicant was infozme4 by letter an4 phone that he must s~bmit plans an4 meet with Design & Review to insure that his request woul4 be considered by the Commission. The plans were not submitted in time for Design a Review. The Commission has two alternatives: A. Table the case until Design & Review has had an opportunity to review the plans, or B. Consider the request, due to the simplicity of the case and due to the fact that Design & Review does not routinely review conditional use permit requests. 10. Property owners within 350' of the subject property have been notified. ANALYSIS 1. The majority of issues and conditions listed under $7 and #8 above were addressed in Planning Case 86-12 when the New Hope Mall PUD was approved and are met. While drainage, curbing, landscaping, surfacing, and traffic would be important considerations if this was a new free- standing business, these matters were previously addressed for the entire shopping center development. ~-%Planning Case Report 91-01 February 5, 1991 Page -3- 2. The city Code requires one parking space for each 15 square feet of gross service and seating floor area excluding the kitchen, but not less than 15 spaces for drive-in and convenience food establishments. The Code would be applicable if this was a free-standing establishment. However, the parking requirements for shopping centers were applied at the time of the PUD approval and tenants are included in that number. A total of 440 spaces are provided at the center. 3. There are currently three "convenience" food establishments in the New Hope Mall (TCBY Yogurt, Little Ceasar's Pizza, and Subway) and this Taco Johns application will represent the fourth fast food outlet in the center. While staff support the filling of vacant spaces and does not oppose the opening of Taco Johns, one point to consider is the point at which the center may become saturated with food operations. Five (including Applebee's Restaurant) of the 15 tenants in the center will be eateries. With one-third of the tenants selling food, the center is probably at or near the limit for such uses in a balanced Community Business District, which includes commercial and service activities. 4. The petitioner has submitted no signage plans and a condition of any approval should be that sign plans be submitted to the City for approval and be in conformance with the sign code and the comprehensive sign plan for the center. 5. Staff has the same concern about front sidewalk trash receptacles for this center, due to the number of food establishments, and requests that the owner develop a suitable plan and submit it to the City for approval prior to implementation. 6. No outside rear trash enclosures are shown on the plan and these details need to be submitted to the City for review/approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a convenience food establishment in a B-4 Zoning District, subject to the following conditions: 1. Signage plan be submitted to city for approval. 2. Owner to develop plan for front sidewalk trash receptacles and submit to City for approval. 3. Details of outdoor trash storage be submitted to City for approval. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map City Center Site Plan Current Tenant Roster Floor Plan Equipment List Correspondence 1985 Planner's Report-New Hope Mall Renovation US Swim & Fitness VACANT Blockbuster Video VACANT ~ Chiropractoi-- Subway VACANT ~ ~ PROPOSED TACO JOHN'S Plan Case 91-1 VACANT Cost Cutters Satin Style NEW HOPE MALt TENANT ROSTER Grea~t Carpet as of J'~0'~[ Applebees o~ ~ SWIM ~ o · FITNESS Alpha Den~l Little Caesar~ Pizza BLOCKBUSTER [ -- VIDEO ~: 'I. J~N 2 9 1991 [ .... I 1. New Hope City Center Space Plan [1 Fl.._O OH f::L A I¥ 28. Walk-in Cooler and Freezer 1. 2. Drink DS.spenser 29. Ney Age Can Rack 3. Cash Register 30. Wire Shelving (fo'r coo~r) &. Cup Dispenser 31. Floor Safe 5. Coffee Maker 32. Mop Sink 6. [ce Tea Dispenser 33. Water ~eater 7. Bag-in-the-Box System 3&. C02 Bottles 8. Food Warmer 35. Shell Warmin8 Cabinet 9. Double Drawer Freezer 36. Ticket Holder 10. Fryer 37. Trash Container 11. Exhaust Hood 38. Counter Top Oven 12. 39. Trash Container 13. Fresh-O-Mstic 40. Condiment Stand, 14. 41. Dorton Bean Whip 15. Front Service Counter 42. 16. Hand Sink 43. 17. Steam Table 44. Exhaust Hood 18. 45. Blender 19. Griddle 46. Time Clock 20. Waste Disposal 47. 21. Ice Maker 48. Base Cabinet 22. Three Bay Sink 49. Base Cabinet 23. Shelves 50. 24. Yegetable Sink 51, Stainless Steel Table 25. Stainless Steel Table 52. Steam Table Extension 26. Steamjacketed [ettles 53. Ice Cream Dispensers 27. Wire Shelving 5&. Base Cabinet 55. Churro Displa! 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 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 northwest associated consultants, inc. i~ DEC 2 1985 , PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 27 November 1985 RE: New Hope Mall Renovation FILE NO: 131.01 - 85.38 BACKGROUND Offices America, Inc. has a contract to purchase the New Hope Mall. They have applied for several development requests to allow for the redevelopment of this existing shopping center. These applications include: 1. Text amendment to permit a commercial recreational use in the B-4 zoning district. 2. Conditional use permit for a PUD amendment. 3. Variance from parking stall and aisle dimensions. 4. Subdivision to combine two lots. TEXT AMENDMENT The applicant is proposing to expand the existing New Hope Mall to 91,800 square feet, of which 43,650 square feet is intended to be occupied by U.S. Swim and Fitness, a health club. The health club facility is a commercial recreational use which is not allowed in the B-4 zoning district. Currently only New Hope's B-3 district allows this type of facility as'a permitted use and the industrial district allows it as a conditional use. The proposed health facility is consistent with the findings of the 42nd Avenue/ City Center Market Study which identified the lack of recreation and entertain- ment facilities in the City Center area. The introduction of the health club to the shopping mall would be a step to improving the area's market attraction by introducing a use that would serve to draw people to this commercial area. The increased attraction created by the health club should serve to benefit the new and existing commercial establishments in the New Hope City Center area through bdsiness interchange. ~820 m~nnetonka bird. m~nneapohs, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420 Dan Donahue 27 November 1985 Page Two Based on New Hope's planning objectives for the City Center, we would recommend that the City strongly consider amending its Zoning Ordinance to allow such a use in the B-4 zoning district. Health club facilities are generally characterized by having large buildings to house their activities, high client turn-over and traffic generation. These use characteristics must be addressed in any zoning text amendment. The City has two options in considering a possible zoning text amendment: 1. Permitted Use: Due to their high traffic generation and more regional market attraction, commercial recreational uses were listed as permitted uses in New Hope's B-3, Automobile Oriented Commercial Zoning District. The City must consider the impact of such a use in the B-4 zoning area. The intent of the B-4 zoning district is to provide for the establishment of commercial service and retail activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or subregion. Commercial recreation use would be consistent with this stated intention. Review of the New Hope Zoning Map reveals three B-4 zoning districts, each containing shopping centers ( City Center area, Midland Shopping Center, and Poste Haste Center). While each of the areas is located along major traffic carrying streets, only the City Center provides sufficient buildable area to accommodate a health club and its related parking area. As noted earlier, the impact on adjacent land uses is expected to be beneficial due to increased market draw to the area. 2. Conditional Use Permit: If the City would like to be more discretionary on the review and approval of commercial recreational uses in the B-4 district, the use could be allowed by conditional use permit, as it is in the industrial districts. The New Hope commercial recreation facilities con- ditional use requirements are listed as follows: "Commercial Recreation Facilities. Commercial Recreation, provided that: (a) Access. The site of the proposed use has direct access to an arterial street as defined in the City Code, without utilizing public streets of a lower traffic handling classification to reach the arterial street, and (b) Proximity to Residential. The outside perimeter of the site, as legally described is, 500 feet or more from the boundary of a residential zoning classification, or (c) Compatibility. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence. Dan Donahue 27 November 1985 Page Three (d) Screening from Residential. Parking areas shall be screened from view of residential districts and shall be curbed with continuous concrete curbs not less than six inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade, at the curb line. (e) Access. Vehicular access points shall be limited and designed and constructed to create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. (f) Lighting Shielded. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the right-of-way or from a residential zone or use. (g) Surfacing. The entire area other than that occupied by buildings, structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a bituminous or concrete material which will control dust and drainage. The material and grading shall be subject to the approval of the City. (h) Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided and the type of planting material and the number and size of plants shall be subject to the approval of the City." With the exception of provision (b), most commercial uses in the B-4 zoning district are required to meet the provisions outlined above through the City's general zoning provisions. The conditional use process does require a more detailed review process which may be desired by the City. Commercial recreational uses in the B-4 zoning district appear to be acceptable. As described in either option, the City determines how they would like to treat the uses. Upon making this decision, City staff can prepare the appropriate text amendment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Due to the integration of uses and shared ancillary amenities, shopping centers are required to be planned unit develoPments. Planned unit developments are reviewed and processed in three stages. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for review at this time. The following is a site plan review based on the City's Zoning Ordinance and the 1977 Commercial Core Guidelines. Building Massing and Appearance The applicant is proposing a 91,800 square foot shopping center, 43,650 square feet will be occupied by the U.S. Swim and Fitness Health Club. The balance will be leased for retail sales and service and 6,650 square feet is designated as service area. Dan Donahue 27 November 1985 Page Four The southern building extension raises a concern over the isolation of the K-Mart facility from the remainder of the City Center area. While the site plan provides a driveway connection between the Mall and K-Mart, the southern building serves as a visual barrier separation of the two commercial facilities. The building orientation is toward Winnetka and as such the building elevation visible to east bound motorists on 42nd will be the back of the building. This layout is undesirable and we would suggest a consistent architectural and landscape treatment on all sides of the southern building expansion. Display area exposure is also suggested along the southern wall to provide added exposure to 42nd Avenue. The archi- tectural changes are suggested to promote a continuous and coordinated appearance for the City Center area from all directions, as recommended in the City Center guidelines. The applicant is proposing a canopy along the south and east elevation, which will provide an attractive mall image. The owner of Winnetka Shopping Center has expressed some interest in continuing this architectural element to the Winnetka Center. The west elevation is proposed to be concrete block painted to match the brick ] front facade. This elevation is highly visible from 42nd Avenue and properties to the west. As such, the back of this building should be treated in an architectural and landscape manor consistent with the front of the building. Extending the canopy may not be desirable, however, the building materials should be consistent. Circulation and Parking Review of the proposed site plan indicates a well designed internal traffic circula- tion system which accomplishes the following items: 1. Limited direct access points to Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue. 2. Utilization of a shared access drive from Winnetka in conjunction with Winnetka Mall. 3. The site plan provides internal driveway connections to the other commercial area in the City Center. 4. The site plan shows a pedestrian sidewalk connection between the New Hope Mall and the Winnetka Shopping Center. The following parking items must still be addressed: Based on the New Hope parking requirements of six parking stalls for every 1,000 square feet for shopping centers over 30,000 square feet, the following parking calculation was made: Gross floor space 91,800 square feet Cover hallway -6,280 square feet ~ square feet 10% parking credit -8,550 square feet Net Floor Space 76,970 square feet 76,970 ~ 1,000 = 76.97 x 6 : 462 parking stalls Dan Donahue 27 November 1985 Page Five The applicant shows 460 parking stalls, however, the site plan indicates that some of the parking stalls are substandard in dimension when compared to the City's size requirements. The City requires 90 degree parking to provide 64 feet inter- lock to interlock to provide for a 20 foot stall length and 24 foot aisle width. We strongly recommend that City dimensional requirements be observed. We estimate that by enlarging the existing parking stalls approximately 20 stalls will be lost. The parking deficiency can be accommodated in a number of ways: 1. Reduce the shopping center building size to reduce the parking demand. 2. Reduce available green space to accommodate more parking. The site already lacks space for snow storage. As such, this alternative is not recommended. A snow storage plan should be provided. 3. Promote shared parking between the shopping centers under the PUD design. This alternative appears to be the most efficient. The over-flow traffic could use Winnetka Center parking. The New Hope Bank being a day time use and the health club more night time oriented could compatibly share parking as needed. - The parking area located on the west side of the building contains 41 parking stalls. This area should be designated for employee parking since it will be inconvenient for customer use. A sidewalk should be provided to allow pedestrian access to the employee parking lot. This sidewalk should also provide access to the loading dock area and the trash and service area. Loading Area The site plan shows a loading area sufficient to accommodate two large delivery trucks. An internal building hallway provides access to the loading for the majority of the shopping center, however, the southern extension has no access to this loading area. The service area should be designed to accommodate all deliveries. Direct deliveries from the western driveway to the southern extension should be dis- couraged rather pedestrian access to the loading area and trash area should be provided. .. Lightin9 Plan In the subsequent development stage of the PUD, a lighting plan for the parking lot and building must be provided. Said plan should address location, illumination, and lighting fixture styles. Styles and location should be coordinated with adjacent shopping centers. Dan Donahue 27 November 1985 Page Six Landscape Plan Review of the landscape plan shows an extensive landscape layout providing a variety of landscape material. The type and size of the material is acceptable by City standards. Signage The building elevations show that wall signs will be mounted on the canopy. The site plan proposes two pylon signs. The New Hope Sign Ordinance requires the submission of a comprehensive sign plan for a shopping center. SUBDIVISION The parcel exists as two parcels of land. A subdivision must be approved to combine these existing parcels into a single parcel. CONCLUSION - The City of New Hope has conducted numerous studies regarding the City Center area. The opportunity now presents itself to implement some of the City's planning objectives for the area. The applicant is now presenting only a concept plan for City approval. As noted in this report, there remains several design elements that must be resolved between the City and the applicant. These design elements should be discussed to allow any revisions to be shown in the future development stage. cc: Doug Sandstad PLANT SCHEDULE KEYOU COMMON HAME i BOTANICAL NAME ROOT SIZE I --- ~'~E;. u~...,.. · o'=~~'~ ...... ~.~'Z"~'~ · . . __~~ ~~~. ~,~~r~ 42nd AVENUE NORTH ~OCKFORD ROAD) -- '"' - ASSOCIATES CITY OF NE~ HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-04 Request: Request for Variance to Sign Ordinance Requirement Location: 9400 36th Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21 33 0102 Zoning: B-3 (Auto-Oriented Business) Petitioner: Randy Rau/Holiday Station ~505 Report Date: February 1, 1991 Meeting Date: February 5, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner has submitted an application requesting a variance to expand a non-conforming off-premise ground sign and a variance to exceed the sign area (square footage) requirement pursuant to Sections 3.456(3c) and 3.47, respectively, of the New Hope City Code. 2. Randy Rau has recently installed three new signs (Express Teller, Car Wash, Live Bait/Tackle) on the existing Holiday Station ground sign located at the northeast intersection of 36th Avenue North and Highway 169. The request is to allow the current signs to remain in place. 3. Sectuion 3.465(3c) of the New Hope Code states that ground signs on principal arterials shall not exceed 200 square feet in area. Sign area is defined as that area within the marginal lines created by the sign surface which bears the advertisement (the smallest geometric figure which can be made to circumscribe the message). The total area of the sign with the recent additions is 229 square feet, thus a Z9 square foot variance from the sign area requirement is needed. 4. The original Holiday ground sign is a permitted non-conforming ground sign, as it is not located on the premises of the Holiday Station but received previous approval. Section 3.47 of the Code states that non- conforming signs may not be expanded, changed to another non-conforming sign, or structurally altered; thus a variance is needed to expand/structurally alter a non-conforming sign. 5. A service station was first built on the site in 1967. When the Poste Haste Shopping Center was constructed in 1972, an agreement was reached to permit Shell Oil to maintain their visibility on County Road #18 by erecting a ground sign on the adjacent shopping center lot. The sign was described as an "identification" sign. Planning Case RepOrt 91-04 ~ February 5, 1991 Page -2- 6. Planning Case 90-8 was approved in April, 1990, for the new Holiday Station/store/car wash built on this site by the petitioner. No variances were requested and Mr. Rau indicated that he would install signage which complied with code requirements (a condition of the approval). 7. In October, 1990, Mr. Rau contacted the City in regards to changing the Amoco ground sign and was informed by the Building Official that he could replace it with a similar sized Holiday identification sign. Sign Permit #2124 was issued for a 98 square foot Holiday identification sign on the adjacent lot. 8. Approximately seven weeks later, three more separate signs had been added to the ground sign and in December the City received complaints about the signage on the property and investigated, which resulted in the filing of this variance application. 9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. ANALYSIS 1. The New Hope Code allows the following signs acccessory to single occupancy businesses: A. Front wall signs - not more than two signs, total area not to exceed 15% of the area of the front face of the building. B. Side/rear wall signs - total area not to exceed 9 square feet. C. Ground signs - not more than two ground signs on any lot or one ground sign if the building should contain more than one wall sign over ten square feet. Ground signs must conform to maximum area and height requirements in relation to the appropriate street classification. Highway 169 is designated as a principal arterial, thus a 200 square foot area and 30 foot height is allowed. 2. The sign ordinance was recently amended to allow limited tenant identi- fication on shopping center ground signs, but the amendment is not applicable to this case because this is a single occupancy business and does not have multiple tenants. 3. This sign could be interpreted either as exceeding the number of signs permitted or as exceeding the area requirements. A. Number - this could be considered as four separate signs with 12 inches of air between them - only one sign was approved. B. Area - if considered as one sign, the total sign area (including the gap between the signs) is 229 square feet. City code allows a 200 square foot sign. Planning Case Report 91-04 February 5, 1991 Page -3- 4. City Code also prohibits the expansion of non-conforming signs, which this sign is because it is an off-premise sign. 5. When considering a variance to the sign ordinance, a finding of fact must be made based upon the following conditions: A. Unique conditions - to the particular parcel of land or use involved. B. Variation purpose - the purpose of the variation is not exclusively based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. C. Cause of hardship - the hardship has been caused by the sign code and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the parcel. D. Effect of variance - the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. E. Impairment of light/air - the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase congestion of public streets. 6, Staff does not find that any hardship exists to justify a sign size that exceeds code requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the variance request to expand a non-conforming sign by increasing the area in excess of code requirements be denied, based on a finding of fact that no hardship exists to justify the granting of the variance. Attachments: Section Map Site Plan Elevations Applicants Sign Detail Photo of Sign Sign Permit Staff Sign Detail - One Sign Four Signs 4/3/90 Planning Commission Minutes 4/9/90 City Council Minutes Resolution 90-77 i~,o83 · NORTHWOOD PARK NORTHWOOD ~ PARK CIRCLE · ST. JOSEPH'S ? ,CATHOLIC c.u.c. .! 33 33 33 194 square feet total (FOU~ S~PAIIAT~ SIGII~) r Sign · NOTE' | back to back , ' , ta 15'-0" ~ofa , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i size * ONE SIGN * 229 sq. ft. 97 sa. ft, 33 33 11 space between 11 signs 11 229 sm. feet C~se 90-8 ~ ~. ~ si~ of a f= ~ ~ti~. ~ ~ ~ ~11 ~ ~ ~t ~ ~iti~ pl~ ~ ~ ~ ~f's ~ a ~i~ of ~i~ ~~iz~~of ~ ~ ~ ~i~i~ ~ ~ of 752 ~ f~. = ~ ~ ~ Pi~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ bri~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ff's off ~ si~. C~m/s~icrmr ~u~ ~ up the subject of deliveries to the ccr~m%ienoe storm ar~ hours of trash picJa~. and 2:00 in the after, mostly ~'~ a mid-size truck, and trash ~ickup is ,~m-.~,lly in t.t'J moz~. C~m~_~sic~er Gundershau~ asked if the designated loading arma ~ld be striped ar~ if the drive aisles would have ~ indicating traffic C~.~issi~r (am~-shaug ~oint_,~_ ~ut the CitT's strict sign or~inan~ and guestic~ed if the petiti~ was aware if it. Mr. Rau ex~laine~ he %ms amore of the ordinanom ar~ is working on a plan to install a 10 s~m foot sign abo~e the car wash door _~{~ic~er Gurz~rshaug asked if the landscaped ar~as ~ld be seeded C-~.~-~ic~r GLF~lershau~/ wcl~Jered if thez~ w~tlld be 8n~ roof-to~ facility si~:e %heZ~ will ~ot b~ a service ~az-a~e, but he worzJermd if there %~re s~scial z%Lle~ fc~ haTz11~ rub-off frc~ the car wash or if wash, wi~h the ~ter out/et to the se~.r set at a higher elevaticl~, and a sSmcial fla~t ~ the fl~ of ~ter when a certain level is c~t~. C~m~si~ ~a ~:~dermd about the use of amplified speakers at the at Super America static~, and ex~ her desire that it not be used at this facility. Mr. Ovick ir~icated that they are plannir~ a ~ectica~al type of ~ to s~mak to custom.rs at ~ .mT~, but it will not be an a~lified ~ublic a~klz~ss s~ ar~ will carry sound c~ly about ten be. Mr. ~au indicated there will ~e c~ ~ eac~ of four colUm~ and ex, la/ned that the main use of the ~ will be to instxuct ~ c~ the use of the ne~ style pum~ because they are not C~%ssi~ So~si~ ~---tic~ed the use of old ta~ks a~d other old equi~, ar~ if soil borings wex~ ~ to test for contaminatic~ of Mr. ~au ~mhasized that every~%i~ will be ne~, includ/r~ a cc~pl~y n~w k~ldir~. He stated that the old tanks belor~ to Standard Oil, wells c~ site to test for cc~um~inatic~ in c~mplianoe with the ~io~er S~in further ~mm~i~ the ~fc of traffic volume that is a~ci¢i~mte~, how mm~y car wmshes a~cicipated per day, if 36th Ave~mm will be ~he o~ly acomss or if the si~e street ~oin~ out tm ~-o will also ~e use~ for in ar~ cut traffic. Mr. R~u projected about 300 cars per da~ for gasoline and pexhaps 20 ~ of ~oods. C~sic~.r Zak w~ered if the petitioner %~s f~~ ~ ~ la~~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~ f~ cl~fi~ ~ ~r~ o~ ~. ~u ~1~ ~t ~ ~11 ~ ~~ pl~ for ~r~ ~ ~t ~~c 1~ ~, ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ a of~ 1~ ~,~, ~~~ f~t ~. ~, ~~ if ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~i~ ~i~ ~ ~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ of ~ W~ ~, 9~ 3~ A~ ~, ~~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~ f~ a ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~y ~ s~, ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~fic ~ 36~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~ bi-l~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ly~ la~ cl~ ~~i~ j~~. J~ J~, 3~1 ~ A~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ 36~ A~ ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ for a ~, ~ ~ ~~i~ of ~ ~~ ~ ~ 24~ Mr. Rau ~~st that he had tried an aLl-night operati~ at another locati~ for alm. riod of six mo~ths and that was enough. He ~ that, aside ~ the fact that City ozd/nance here requires closing at midni~, he also did not believe it would be practical to stay open l~r. it wuuld take to establish a s--~.~re at the locati~ in questi~. Mr. D~lahue expl~ir~R that 36th is a Stat~ Aid ~ owr~d by New Hope and it is requirmd that traffic counts be taken every two years to ese~hlish the tlmi~ of the need for a semaphore. ~ic~er ~mE~mrshau~ asked about the ~ition ar~ co~Linuation of the low he~3m type of greenmrf ~ the islan~ in fr=m of the pum~ to ~ a slight berm and sound azma there. c~.issioner, Oja ~ a qu~s-~ 'co ~r. ~ ~ u~ ~ oxmrol secti~ of the ooze and if the ~ ~ wuuld om~ u~ ~r those re]ulati~s. Mr. D0~mbue replied that the regulations of the co~e w~re extensive and w~uld have to be s~_~ied as to the violatic~ criteria applicable for AN~x~e. 4. ~ ~ ~ ~ u~ ~ ~¥ with t~ m~ m~ si~n v~ ~.' ~ t~ ~ a fine operation. D~sign ar~ Review Mst in c~nection with Planni~ Case 90-S. hc~e. ~s request is ma~e la/rsuant to Secticm 4.038 of the New }k~e ~ of ~. ~e Pi~ ~i~ ~i~ ~4~ ~ ~ ~ 3, 1990, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ foll~ ~ti~: 1) ~t ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8:~ a.m. 2) = ~i~ ~1~ ~ 1~ ~ 2 ~ 3 ~i~ ~ ~ ~i~. 3)~t ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~~ ~t ~ly. 4)~t ~ ~~ ~ ~t ~1 ~ a~ti~ly if ~. ~~ ~, 44~ ~ A~ ~, ~ ~z~. ~ ~~ ~ of ~ ~ of ~i~ ~ ~d ~e at ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~1~ ~l-t~ ~76 i~ ~~: ~~~ ~ ~ ~7 ~ 8.2 A~~~~~~A~~~~ ~ A~~ (~ %~-~-21 21 ~)'. ~ ~ f~ ~ W~I~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ foll~ v~ ~ f~ ~f: L'~t, ~, ~~, ~, W~l~n; ~ ~~ ~ f= ~i~ I~ 8.3, Pl~ ~ Si~ ~ 9,~8~ PI~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~~ of a ~ ~, ~ ~, ~ ~~ at 94~ 36~ A~ ~ (1~~ f~ly ~ ~ ~e's ~ ~~). ~ ~ ~~~P~~i~i~~~~~ 3, 1~, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ foll~ ~tio~: 1) ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 2) ~ ~~ 1~~ ~ pl~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~ 36~ A~. ~ Ci~ =~ ~ 9, 1990 ~4 4) ~lat a~y si~s c~ the ~0erty o:~ly with the New ~ si~ ~i~ ~ f~i~ ~ ~ ~1 pl~ ~ z~ ~. ~. ~~, 11920 53~A~~, ~ ~z~ ~ ~ he w~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ f~i~. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 1~~ ~i~. ~. Ja~ ~i~, ~t~ of ~ ~~, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~f~ ~of f~ f~~~~~, ~, ~~ ~ ~f ~ ~d ~ li~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ti~ of ~ ~ of ~, ~ 1~~ f~~. ~ ~ ~ a ~ li~~~ ~f~ ~ ~i~ li~t~ f= ~ ~ s~. i= ~ ~~ f=a ~, ~~~i~~~~ ~ ~ Ci~ =~ ~ ~, ~o a b~3m will be extended around to the island ~ 36th to softe~ the vie~ of the steti~. Mr. Ovick stated there will be thzme--~ for the car w~sh and one Coun=il~ Often ~ of the hours of businmss. Mr. Ovick stete~ business hours wi// be 6:00 a.m. to mi~xight. work. Mr. Rau ~ there will be i~-~-~ traffic and ~a~nt a traffic signal. Bm askmd Mr. Rau ~hether be w~uld ~x~i~er assisting the City in financin~ a s~m~horm if the need arises in the future. ~jtic~al traffic. Bm sta~ be ~oes not feel the static~ will draw traffic ~ d/ffermnt parts of the City to ~ traffic to the int~rs~-tic~ and at this time he ~uld mot be willin~ to assist the City. He stated, if in the future, a traffic prubl~n arises and it is ~etermipe~ that his business is the cause of the traffic congestion, nm w~ul4 :~+~inl¥ be willing to ~ with tbe City Council to d/scuss the traffic F~yor Ericksc~ aske~ whether cigarettes will be sold over the counter or in a ve~ng machine. Mr. Bau stated they will be sold C~x=~l~ Willism~m inguir~ of ~e beit sh~. Mr. Rau stated o=N~ni~om store to the k~it shog. He ex~lainsd the h~urs of c$~ra~m~ of the bait sho~ will differ fr~n the co~venienoe stor~. ~ti~ ar~ the Ix~sible ~*-~nati~ at the site. Mr. Rau foun~ ~m~nati~. Mr. I~u explained that the Minnesota Pollution reeolu~i~l ~ staff to pre~az~ a d~vel~ ~ for City Counoil A~ri~ 9, 1990 JUn~ 1st. Mayor EricXs~ wmlc~d Mr. ~au to the Ci~ ~ ~~ $2,~3,~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $1,7~ ($1,000 for ~e New ~ City O:~nc~ A~il 9, 1990 P~3e7 CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 90-77 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 90-08 REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONVENIENCE STOR~ GAS PUMPS AND CAR WASH AT 9400 36TH AVENUE NORTH PID #18-118-21 33 0102 WHEREAS, the applicant, Randy Rau, has submitted a request for a planned unit development conditional use permit and site/building plan review to allow construction of a convenience store, gas pumps and car wash at 9400 36th Avenue North, pursuant to Sections 4.124(1)(a-n), 4.124(2)(a-r), and 4.124(4)(a-g) of the New Hope Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Planning Case No. 90-08 on April 3, 1990, and recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to conditions. WHEREAS, the City Council on April 9, 1990, considered the report of the city staff findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the comments of persons attending the City Council meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope that the planned unit development~ conditional use permit and site/building plan review to allow construction of a con- venience store, gas pumps and car wash at 9400 36th Avenue North, as submitted in Planning Case 90-8, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That snow be removed from the site. 2. That additional landscaping be placed on the island on 36th Avenue. 3. That any intercom system that is placed on the pumps be directional and faced to the north or west only. That any signs on the property comply with the New Hope sign ordinance. 5. That staff is directed to prepare a development agreement for signature by the petitioner and to obtain appropriate financial guarantee for public improvements on the site. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota this 9th day of April, 1990. Mayor City Clerk CITY OF NEW HOPE P~ING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-05 Request: Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Convenience Food Establishment Location: 3556 Winnetka Avenue North PID No.: 20-118-21 22 0012 Zoning: B-4 (Community Business) Petitioner: Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership/Frankies To Go Report Date: February 1, 1991 Meeting Date: February 5, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner has submitted an application requesting a conditional use permit to allow a convenience food establishment in a B-4 Community Business Zoning District pursuant to Sections 4.124(3) and 4.134(1) of the New Hope Code. 2. Frank Stocco/Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership is proposing to open a 900 square foot Frankies To Go Chicago Style Pizza establishment in the Winnetka Commons Shopping Center, to be known as "Frankies to Go". The food establishment would be located in tenant space 19, adjacent to and just west of Bruegger's Bagels. 3. The use would be eat-in, take-out, and delivery, for consumption on and off the premises. The dining area would provide 39 seats and a stand-up counter. The food variety would include sandwiches, ribs, chicken, pasta, lasagna, and a deli counter, besides pizza. 4. Hours of operation would be from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., except for Friday and Saturday nights when the establishment would be open until 12:00 p.m. 5. Employee parking would be in the rear and deliveries would be through the rear door, with the area in front to be used for customer parking only. 6. Restaurants are allowed as a permitted use in a B-4 Zoning District, however "drive-in and convenience food" establishments require a Conditional Use Permit. By City Ordinance definition, this use is convenience food which is defined as "an establishment which serves food in or on disposable containers...for consumption on or off the premises. Customers are generally served at a pick-up station by clerks rather than served at tables...by waiters of waitresses". Planning Case Report 91-05 t~ February 5, 1991 Page -2- 7. Ten conditions are listed for "Drive-in and Convenience Food". No drive-thru is possible or proposed. The conditions that are appli- cable to this use include: A. Compatibility - architectural appearance of building to be compatible with surrounding uses so property owners are not impaired, B. Green strip -at boundaries of residential district, a 5-foot green strip to be landscaped, C. Curbing - parking areas and driveways to be curbed, D. Vehicle access - access points to be limited so there is a minimum of conflict with through traffic, E. Drainage - entire area to have drainage system subject to City approval, F. Surfacing - entire area other than occupied by buildings/plantings to be surfaced to control dust/drainage, G. Refuse storage - refuse to be stored in containers, which shall be screened and enclosed by a fence. 8. Other issues to be considered for conditional uses in Business Districts include: A. Traffic - the use should not cause traffic hazards or congestion, B. Nearby residences - adjacent residentially-zoned land should not be adversely affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or other nuisance characteristics, C. Effect on other businesses - existing nearby businesses should not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customers trade brought about by intrusion of unduly heavy non-shopping traffic or general unsightliness. 9. Property owners within 350' of the subject property have been notified. ANALYSIS 1. Design & Review met with the applicant on January 17th and the major issues discussed were hours of operation, signage, eating area, employees/customer parking, food delivery and number of delivery drivers. 2. The majority of issues and conditions listed under #7 and #8 above were addressed in Planning Case 89-11 when the Winnetka Commons Shopping Center PUD was approved (August 14, 1989) and are met. While drainage, curbing, landscaping, surfacing, and traffic would be important considerations if this was a new free-standing business, these matters were previously addressed for the entire shopping center development and Frankies To Go is a tenant in the center. 3. The Building Official has indicated that the majority of the site work has been completed. Nine tenants have either opened for business or are in the process of finishing their space prior to opening. Approximately ten spaces are still vacant. Planning Case Report 91-05 February 5, 1991 Page -3- 4. The City Code requires one parking space for each 15 square feet of gross service and seating floor area excluding the kitchen, but not less than 15 spaces for drive-in and convenience food establishments. The Code would be applicable if this was a free-standing establishment. However, the parking requirements for shopping centers were applied at the time of the PUD approval and tenants are included in that number. A total of 246 spaces will be provided at the center. 5. Staff concerns or items that should be noted by the Planning Commission include the following: A. Trash Storage 1. Rear - a wood screened trash enclosure with wood gates is shown on the plan at the rear of this tenant space and details are provided. 2. Interior - trash storage should be clarified for the interior of the building because it is a food establishment - no trash containers are shown on the floor plan. 3. Front sidewalk -when the last food establishment was approved for Winnetka Commons, staff requested that a plan for front sidewalk trash receptacles be submitted. A plan has been submitted, as per the attached correspondence, and staff has agreed to the style and location of the outdoor receptacles. Staff is requesting that tho receptacles be installed prior to the opening of another food establishment. B. Si~na~e - the approved comprehensive sign plan for the center allows for a 12 foot x 3 foot (36 square feet) tenant sign for this space. As of this date the applicant has not submitted a detailed sign plan. It was made clear at Design & Review that any signage must comply with the approved comprehensive plan. c. Outdoor eatinq area - although not connected to the Frankie's Pizza establishment, the site plan submitted continues to show a proposed outdoor eating are" behind Bruegger's Bagels. This eating area has not been approved and would require an amendment to the PUD. Staff requests that this eating area be removed from this and future site plans of the center. D. Parking - It should be emphasized that employee parking should be in the rear. E. Deliveries - the applicant estimates that the business may utilize from 7 drivers up to 10-12 drivers (on weekends) for deliveries. It should be emphasized that all deliveries should be made from the rear of the building. Planning Case Report 91-05 February 5, 1991 Page -4- RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a convenience food establishment in a B-4 zoning district, subject to the following conditions: 1. Clarify inside trash storage and implement front sidewalk trash receptacle plan. 2. Signage to comply with approved comprehensive sign plan. 3. Outdoor eating area behind Bruegger's Bagels to be removed from site plan. 4. Employee parking and deliveries to be at rear of building. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Site Plan Partition Plan Floor Plan Site Statistics Approval Sign Plan Rear Trash Enclosure Detail Front Sidewalk Trash Receptacle Plan BETHEL I LIONS CEMETERY ' PARK REZONED FROM R-O to B-4 August 14, 1989 (Res.89-153) 36 TH l~lTUl~ldOU~ B~,o ~o I I I APPROVED TENANT SIGN PLA5 October 1~ 1990 J JACKSON-SC01'I' E~ ASSOCIATES, INC. 3433 Broadway Street N.E., Suite 150 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 (612) 623-0153 FAX # (612) 623-4813 Shooping Center Management, Leasing and Develol~ment Januar~ 9, 1991 J'~". Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Winnetka Commons Trash Receptacles Dear Mr. McDonald: I am enclosing a copy of a sheet from a brochure that describes the type of trash receptacle I am proposing placing at Winnetka Commons Shopping Center. I am proposing a brown Rubbermaid container with a hood and doors for our customers use. I am also enclosing a site plan indicating the locations I am proposing to place these on the sidewalk. The containers will have plastic liners and will be emptied as required on a weekly basis by our Janitorial service company. Please advise if the above is acceptable or feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from yOU. Yours very truly, Jackson-Scott & Associates GWJ:al Enc. ,.,.,.a,,o.., Co..c. o, '4.(~. ~ Glutton® containers can No. C~:r,~o. Co~, Pack handle a crowd. Glutton· containers are perfect '2568 56 gat. Brown, 4 for areas that handle large 25~"x22~'x31 ~"h. Oyster crowds. Holds 56 gallons, so white it needs to be emptied less 256v Hoede(~ Top Brown, 1 w/o doors Reo, ~ .,~...~ often. It can withstand extreme 26.~'x23'x 13"h. Orange weather and handling without 256x HoededTo~ Brown. rusting, denting, losing shape w/doors Re,~. ?.~ 26~"x23"x 13"h. Orange or color. The practical hooded 256K Rigid Liner Gray top features Trimeld® rainshields 23¼ "x201~ 'x29"h, ~J~.4 ¢,~'J for extra strength under tough 256w Hold d~wn Slack conditions, ba=~ (fd~ w,n wat~ sand, ~'.~ · Easy to clean, needs no or gravel) maintenance. 21 ~"x 18"xS"h. - Tuffmade Polyiifler= Bag 100 "~'~ ~ ' - No. 5013 :" ' " ' ' U.S. Pat. No. 0-233.127 f256B. 256V. 2.56Xi 2568 "Pitch-In" Standard hot stamped ~/ ~,~ -55 des~Jnavaiiabie, 2 s~des, green ~mDrLnt ~ 2568 Standard silk screeneci cles~jn ~.~ -94 avadaPle: .., KEEP OUR CiTY CLEAN KEEP AMERICA SEAUTIFUL SE A WASTE WATCHER PLEASE DONq' UTTER "Cuslom ~mDnntlng evadable. Contact your Rubbermaid representative for details. container has 45 gallon capacity, '~452 45 gal. BeK~e. 1 rainshields to complement w/Decorator Brown decorative woodgrain panels ~.nMet & Brown ....... 'i and permanently attached R~inehiMde hinged tops to prevent loss. 21~"SCl.X40~"h. ,: - · Ranger® containers available 3567 Rigid Liner, Gray 4. 45 gal. · :';~'~ in 35 or 45 gallon capacity. ?8~"s~.xag~.h. Tufflllacle Polyliner~' Big 200 No. Descnotion Color Pack No. 5016 · '8430 35 gel. Bede 1 Contact your Rubbermaid representative 19~"SCl. x39~"h. Brown for detads. · '8432 35 gal. Bede, I U.S. Pa~. No. D-217,248 (8452, 8450) 19~"sa.x39~"h.BroWn fColors for decorator panels: walnut or teak w/decoraor ~anetst wooclgram. 8430 $3566 Rigid Liner, Gray 4 Exarnole of order: #8432-be,:je (color of ?" 35 gal contmner), walnut (color of panel) 16V'"scl'x28~"h' Example of order: f18452 0e~ge Icolor). Tuffmade 8442 NO. 5015 brown). 8440 *'8440 45 gM. Beige, t · Th~s product nas been approved 0y tt~e 21~"sq.x4034"h. Brown Caiiforma State Fire Marshall (CSFM) Ranger* and signed for outdoor use ~n all .-8442 45 gal. Be,ge, 1 pursuant to Sectmn 13144.1 ofrneCahfom,a 21 ~"sq.x40~,i"h. B~own ,t~eal~ and Safety Code. See CSFM LJshng kinds of weather-ideal for w/decorator panetsl' No. 4480-460:104 (8430, 8432); 4.480- 460:102 (8440. 8442) material presenteO WeatherGard® Ranger* municipal street corners, parks, =3567 Rigid Un~, Gray 4 in flys document. It is subiect to re-exam,n- 45 gal. containers take on the playgrounds, stadiums and 18~ "SCl. X29~"h. ation, re*as,ons ancl I:x~s,~e canceller,on. .1:Liner mee~s CSFM aporoval vVnen uses ~n elements, fast food restaurants. Tops are Tuffmede PMyliner' Ba~ 200 conlunct~On w~rn CSFM approveO Ranger" The Ranger® containers are built permanently attached to prevent No. 5016 containers. to withstand summer's heat and loss or theft, and rainshields are "'"'~'~ ..... '8450 45 gal. Se~ge, t Rubbermaid representative for details. winter's cold. The seamless Our- available to match the decora- w/Brown Brown amold® construction won't rust, live woodgrain panels. ReiflehiMda corrode or warp. · Good for all kinds of outdoor Our 45 gallon WeatherGard® uses. Ranger® containers are de- · WeatherGard® Ranger® 3 Put A Great Name to Work."' VVIiNIXlE IKA L.L)IVlMUINb 36th & Wt4klE'[KANEW HOPE, JvC. ~SOTA 1 4200 Tires Plus 2 1844 3 1400 4 1400 Chiropractor 5 2800 Hayta& 7 1200 8 1200 9 12OO 10 1200 11 1812 Gun& Ho Oriental 13 1488 14 900 Bilelow Video 15 900 Shoe Repair/Tailor 16 900 Emerald Cleaners 17 900 New Hope for Hair 18 900 19 1670 Frankie*s Chicago- Style Pizza 20 1930 Bruegger~s Bagels 21 2820 Bi&elow Video 22 11890 ~el&reens CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: February 1, 1991 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: ITEMS TO BE REFERRED TO CODES & STANDARDS~ 1. FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE 2. SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REQUIREMENTS 1. FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE The Department of Natural Resources has sent the City a new model flood plain ordinance which reflects changes in federal regulations. Every community in the National Flood Insurance Program is being required to amend their flood plain zoning ordinances. Federal law allows only 90 days from the time of the "official" DNR/Community contact for the ordinance to be amended. The letter the City has received does not constitute the "official" contact, however the DNR is requesting a copy of our draft ordinance by September 1st. The City Manager has referred this matter to the Planning Commission. Staff would recommend that the ordinance changes be reviewed by Codes & Standards and then be presented to the full Commission, with a recommendation being forwarded to the City Council. The model ordinance has already been sent to the City Attorney, City Engineer, Planning Consultant, and Building Official for review and comment. Staff suggests that Codes & Standards meet to discuss these comments and review the ordinance. 2. SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REQUIREMENTS The New Hope Zoning Ordinance currently provides three different off- street parking standards for shopping centers according to facility size: Building Area Parking Required 0-20,000 square feet 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet 20,000-30,000 square feet 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet 30,000 square feet and over 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet In the past the current standard has worked Well for centers less than 50,000 square feet in size, but the application of the standard of six spaces per 1,000 square feet for shopping centers of 50,000 square feet in size has been questioned. The idea of creating new standard which would specifically address shopping centers greater than 50,000 square feet in size has been discussed with the Planning Consultant and a brief report is attached. Staff would recommend that Codes & Standards study this issue to determine the pros/cons of a new standard, identify the shopping areas that would be impacted, and bring a recommendation back for consideration by the full Planning Commission. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DNR INFORMATION 500 LAFAYE1-FE ROAD · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA · 55155-40. (612) 296-6157 January 4, 1991 Kirk McDonald Community Development Coordinator City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue No. Minneapolis, MN 55428 Dear Mr. McDonald: Enclosed is a new model floodplain ordinance which most closely meets your community's needs. As you are probably already aware, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Minnesota DNR have negotiated this model ordinance to reflect the changes in federal regulations which were actually effective in 1986. Because of these changes every community in the National Flood Insurance Program is being required to amend their floodplain zoning ordinances. The purpose of this letter is to give your community a chance to review the model which best relates to your current ordinance, and to get a head start in the adoption process. Please note that the new model is also available (at no charge) on floppy disk for a personal computer. Available formats are Microsoft Word and ASCII. A draft form of the revised ordinance should be submitted to your Area Hydrologist for preliminary review so that any omissions or inconsistencies can be found prior to final adoption. It is a good idea to amend the zoning ordinance as early as possible to avoid any potential federal sanctions. (Federal law allows only 90 days from the time of the DNR/Community contact for an ordinance to be amended.) Although this letter does not constitute your official contact, we would like to have a copy of your draft ordinance no later than September 1, 1991. Please feel free ~o contact your Area Hydrologist (listed below) or myself (612-296-9224) if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~dr~ FEMA-CAP Hydrologist cc: Mayor Edward Erickson Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist (772-7914) John Stine, Regional Hydrologist AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Sample Three District Floodplain Management Ordinanace Two-Map Format October 17, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE 1 1.1 Statutory Authorization 1 1.2 Findings of Fact 1 1.3 Statement of Purpose 1 SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1 2.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies 1 2.2 Establishment of Official Zoning Map 1 2.3 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation 2 2.4 Interpretation 2 2.5 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions 2 2.6 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability 2 2.7 Severability 3 2.8 Definitions 3 SECTION 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS 4 3.1 Districts 4 3.2 Compliance 5 SECTION 4.0 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) 5 4.1 Permitted Uses 5 4.2 Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses 5 4.3 Conditional Uses 6 4.4 Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses 6 SECTION 5.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) 9 5.1 Permitted Uses 9 5.2 Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses 10 5.3 Conditional Uses 10 5.4 Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional Uses 10 5.5 Standards for Ail Flood Fringe Uses 12 SECTION 6.0 GENERAL FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT 13 6.1 Permissible Uses 13 6.2 Procedures for Floodway and Flood Fringe Determinations 13 SAMPLE THREE DISTRICT FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TWO-MAP FORMAT* SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE 1.1 Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and (Zoning Enabling Statute) delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the of (governing body) , Minnesota does ordain as follows: (local unit) 1.2 Findings of Fact: 1.21 The flood hazard areas of , (local unit) Minnesota, are subject to periodic inundation which results in potential loss of life, loss of property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures or flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 1.22 Methods Used to Analyze Flood Hazards. This Ordinance is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing flood hazards which is consistent with the standards established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1.3 Statement of Purpose: It is the purpose of this Ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to minimize those losses described in Section 1.21 by provisions contained herein. SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies: This ordinance shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of shown on the official Zoning (local unit) *A Flood Boundary and Floodway Map and a Flood Insurance Rate Map have been published for the community. ordinances inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. 2.6 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability: This Ordinance does not imply that areas outside the flood plain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This Ordinance shall not create liability on the part of or (name of local unit) any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. 2.7 Severability: If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby. 2.8 Definitions: Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this Ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as to give this Ordinance its most reasonable application. 2.811 Accessory Use or Structure - a use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. 2.812 Basement - means any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level. 2.813 Conditional Use - means a specific type of structure or land use listed in the official control that may be allowed but only after an in-depth review procedure and with appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the official zoning controls or building codes and upon a finding that: (1) certain conditions as detailed in the zoning ordinance exist and (2) the structure and/or land use conform to the comprehensive land use plan if one exists and are compatible with the existing neighborhood. 2.814 Equal Degree of Encroachment - a method of determining the location of floodway boundaries so that flood plain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share of flood flows. 2.815 Flood - a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas. 2.826 Structure - anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on-site utilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins, manufactured homes, travel trailers/vehicles not meeting the exemption criteria specified in Section 9.31 of the ordinance and other similar items. 2.827 Variance - mea~s a modification of a specific permitted development standard required in an official control including this ordinance to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable in the official control, but only as applied to a particular property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship, practical difficulty or unique circumstance as defined and elaborated upon in a community's respective planning and zoning enabling legislation. SECTION 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS 3.1 Districts: 3.11 Floodway District. The Floodway District shall include those areas designated as floodway on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section 2.2. 3.12 Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section 2.2. 3.13 General Flood Plain District. The General Flood Plain District shall include those areas designated as unnumbered A Zones on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 2.2. 3.2 Compliance: No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be located, extended, converted, or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this Ordinance and other applicable regulations which apply to uses within.the jurisdiction of this Ordinance. Within the Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Flood Plain Districts, all uses not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses in Sections 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 that follow, respectively, shall be prohibited. In addition, a caution is provided here that: 3.21 New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured homes and certain travel trailers and travel vehicles are subject to the general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically Section 9.0; 3.22 Modifications, additions, structural alterations or repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures and 4.34 Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines, and pipelines. 4.35 Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials. 4.36 Placement of fill. 4.37 Travel trailers and travel vehicles either on individual lots of r~cord or in existing or new subdivisions or commercial or condominium type campgrounds, subject to the exemptions and provisions of Section 9.3 of this Ordinance. 4.38 Structural works for flood control such as levees, dikes and floodwalls constructed to any height where the intent is to protect individual structures and levees or dikes where the intent is to protect agricultural crops for a frequency flood event equal to or less than the 10-year frequency flood event. 4.4 Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses: 4.41 Ail Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent), fill (including fill for roads and levees), deposit, obstruction, storage of materials or equipment, or other uses may be allowed as a Conditional Use that will cause any increase in the stage of the 100-year or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. 4.42 All floodway Conditional Uses shall be subject to the procedures and standards contained in Section 10.4 of this Ordinance. 4.43 The Conditional Use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning district if one exists. 4.44 Fill: (a) Fill, dredge spoil and all other similar materials deposited or stored in the flood plain shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method. (b) Dredge spoil sites and sand and gravel operations shall not be allo~ed in the floodway unless a long-term site development plan is submitted which includes an erosion/sedimentation prevention element to the plan. (c) As an alternative, and consistent with Subsection (b) immediately above, dredge spoil disposal and sand and gravel operations may allow temporary, on-site storage of fill or other materials which would have caused an increase to the stage of the 100-year or regional flood but only after the 4.47 Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 105. Community-wide structural works for flood control intended to remove areas from the regulatory flood plain shall not be allowed in the floodway. 4.48 A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway shall not cause an increase to the 100-year or regional flood and the technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream. SECTION 5.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) 5.1 Permitted Uses: Permitted Uses shall be those uses of land or structures listed as Permitted Uses in the underlying zoning use district(s). If no pre-existing, underlying zoning use districts exist, then any residential or non residential structure or use of a structure or land shall be a Permitted Use in the Flood Fringe provided such use does not constitute a public nuisance. Ail Permitted Uses shall comply with the standards for Flood Fringe "Permitted Uses" listed in Section 5.2 and the "Standards for all Flood Fringe Uses" listed in Section 5.5. 5.2 Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses: 5.21 All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including basement floor is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the outside limits of the structure erected thereon. 5.22 As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory structures that constitute a minimal investment and that do not exceed 500 square feet for the outside dimension at ground level may be internally flood proofed in accordance with Section 4.45 (c). 5.23 The cumulative placement of fill where at any one time in excess of one-thousand (1,000) cubic yards of fill is located on the parcel shall be allowable only as a Conditional~Jse, unless said fill is specifically intended to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 5.21 of this ordinance. 5.24 The storage of any materials or equipment shall be elevated on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. (2) That the enclosed area will be designed of flood resistant materials in accordance with the FP-3 or FP-4 classifications in the State Building Code and shall be used solely for building access, parking of vehicles or storage. 5.42 Basements, as defined by Section 2.812 of this Ordinance, shall be subject to the following: (a) Residential basement construction shall not be allowed below the Regulatory"Flood Protection Elevation. (b) Non-residential basements may be allowed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation provided the basement is structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with Section 5.43 of this Ordinance. 5.43 Ail areas of non residential structures including basements to be placed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be flood proofed in accordance with the structurally dry flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code. Structurally dry flood proofing must meet the FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code and this shall require making the structure watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of bouyancy. Structures flood proofed to the FP-3 or FP-4 classification shall not be permitted. 5.44 When at any one time more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill or other similar material is located on a parcel for such activities as on-site storage, landscaping, sand and gravel operations, landfills, roads, dredge spoil disposal or construction of flood control works, an erosion/sedimentation control plan must be submitted unless the community is enforcing a state approved shoreland management ordinance. In the absence of a state approved shoreland ordinance, the plan must clearly specify methods to be used to stabilize the fill on site for a flood event at a minimum of the 100-year or regional flood event. The plan must be prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer or other qualified individual acceptable to the Governing Body. The plan may incorporate alternative procedures for removal of the material from the flood plain if adequate flood warning time exists. 5.45 Storage of Materials and Equipment: (a) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. (b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the time available a floodway or other encroachment limit has not been specified on the Official Zoning Map. 5.56 Standards for travel trailers and travel vehicles are contained in Section 9.3. 5.57 All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse apd lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. SECTION 6.0 GENERAL FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT 6.1 Permissible Uses: 6.11 The uses listed in Section 4.1 of this Ordinance shall be permitted uses. 6.12 Ail other uses shall be subject to the floodway/flood fringe evaluation criteria pursuant to Section 6.2 below. Section 4.0 shall apply if the proposed use is in the Floodway District and Section 5.0 shall apply if the proposed use is in the Flood Fringe District. 6.2 Procedures for Floodway and Flood Fringe Determinations Within the General Flood Plain District. 6.21 Upon'receipt of an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a use within the General Flood Plain District, the applicant shall be required to furnish such of the following information as is deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator for the determination of the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and whether the proposed use is within the Floodway or Flood Fringe District. (a) A typical valley cross-section showing the channel of the stream, elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross-sectional areas to be occupied by the proposed development, and high water information. (b) Plan (surface view) showing elevations or contours of the ground~D~rtinent structure, fill, or storage elevations~ s~ze, location, and spatial arrangement of all proposed and existing structures on the site~ location and elevations of streets~ photographs showing existing land uses and vegetation upstream and downstream~ and soil type. (c) Profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream for at least 500 feet in either direction from the proposed development. SECTION 7.0 SUBDIVISIONS2 7.1 Review Criteria: No land shall be. subdivided which is unsuitable for the reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. Ail lots within the flood plain districts shall contain a building site at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. All subdivisions shall have water and sewage treatment facilities that comply with the provisions of this Ordinance and have road access"both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. For all subdivisions in the flood plain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe boundaries, the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labelled on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents. 7.2 Floodway/Flood Fringe Determinations in the General Flood Plain District: In the General Flood Plain District, applicants shall provide the information required in Section 6.2 of this Ordinance to determine the 100-year flood elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries and the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the subdivision site. 7.3 Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100-year flood elevation. FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi-structure or multi-lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. 2This Section is not intended as a substitute for a comprehensive city or county subdivision ordinance. It can, however, be used as an interim control until the comprehensige subdivision ordinance can be amended to include necessary flood plain management provisions. flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. 9.3 Travel trailers and travel vehicles that do not meet the exemption criteria specified in Section 9.31 below shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance and as specifically spelled 'Out in Sections 9.33-9.34 below. 9.31 Exemption - Travel trailers and travel vehicles are exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance if they are placed in any of the areas listed in Section 9.32 below and further they meet the following criteria: (a) Have current licenses required for highway use. (b) Are highway ready meaning on wheels or the internal jacking system, are attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and trailer parks and the travel trailer/travel vehicle has no permanent structural type additions attached to it. (c) The travel trailer or travel vehicle and associated use must be permissible in any pre-existing, underlying zoning use district. 9.32 Areas Exempted For Placement of Travel/Recreational Vehicles: (a) Individual lots or parcels of record. (b) Existing commercial recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds. (c) Existing condominium type associations. 9.33 Travel trailers and travel vehicles exempted in Section 9.31 lose this exemption when development occurs on the parcel exceeding $500 dollars for a structural addition to the travel trailer/travel vehicle or an accessory structure such as a garage or storage building. The travel trailer/travel vehicle and all additions and accessory structures will then be treated as a new structure and shall be subject to the elevation/flood proofing requirements and the use of land restrictions specified in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this Ordinance. 9.34 New commercial travel trailer or travel vehicle parks or campgrounds and new residential type subdivisions and condominium associations and the expansion of any existing similar use exceeding five (5) units or dwelling sites shall be subject to the following: (a) Any new or replacement travel trailer or travel vehicle will be allowed in the Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts provided said trailer or vehicle and its contents are placed 10.23 State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a Permit or processing an application for a Conditional Use Permit or Variance, the Zoning Administrator shall determine that the applicant has obtained all necessary State and Federal Permits. 10.24 Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered, or Nonconforming Use. It shall be unlawful to use, occupy, or permit the use or .pccupancy of any building or premises or part thereof hereafter created, erected, changed, converted, altered, or enlarged in its use or structure until a Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall have been issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this Ordinance. 10.25 Construction and Use to be as Provided on Applications, Plans, Permits, Variances and Certificates of Zoning Compliance. Permits, Conditional Use Permits, or Certificates of Zoning Compliance issued on the basis of approved plans and applications authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement, or construction. Any use, arrangement, or construction at variance with that authorized shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance, and punishable as provided by Section 12.0 of this Ordinance. 10.26 Certification. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Flood- proofing measures shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect. 10.27 Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the flood plain. The Zoning Administrator shall also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures or alterations and additions to structures are flood-proofed. 10.3 Boar~ of Adjustment: 10.31 Rules. The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules for the conduct of business and may exercise all of the powers conferred on such Boards by State law. 10.32 Administrative Review. The Board shall hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an 10.37 Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and 2) Such construction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. A community shall ma£htain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. 10.4 Conditional Uses. The (Governing Body/Planning Comm./Bd. of Adjust. shall hear and decide applications for Conditional Uses permissible under this Ordinance. Applications shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator who shall forward the application to for consideration. (Designated Body) 10.41 Hearings. Upon filing with the an application for a (DesignAted Body) Conditional Use Permit, the shall submit (Designated Body) by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed Conditional Use sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. 10.42 Decisions. The shall arrive at (Designated Body) a decision on a Conditional Use within days. In granting a Conditional Use Permit the shall prescribe appropriate (Designated Body) conditions and safeguards, in addition to those specified in Section 10.46, which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use Permit is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance punishable under Section 12.0. A copy of all decisions granting Conditional Use Permits shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. 10.43 Procedures to be followed by the (Designated Body) in Passing on Conditional Use Permit Applications Within all Flood Plain Districts. (f) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. (g) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. (h) The comparability of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the forseeable future. (i) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan a~d flood plain management program for the area. (j) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. (k) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transpor~ of the flood waters expected at the site. (1) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this Ordinance. 10.45 Time for Acting on Application. The shall act on an application in the (Designated Body) manner described above within days from receiving the application, except that where additional information is required pursuant to 10.44 of this Ordinance. The shall render a written decision within (Designated Body) days from the receipt of such additional information. 10.46 Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon consideration of the factors listed above and the purpose of this Ordinance, the shall attach such (Designated Body) conditions to the granting of Conditional Use Permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities. (b) Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. (c) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. (d) Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. (e) Flood-~roofing measures, in accordance with the State Building Code and this Ordinance. The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood-proofing measures are consistent with the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. SECTION 12.0 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION 12.1 Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of Variances or Conditional Uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. 12.2 Nothing herei~ contained shall prevent the from taking such other lawful action (local unit) as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to: 12.21 In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and Local Government may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The community must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. 12.22 When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, the Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of the violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably possible, this information will be submitted to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources' and Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the Community's plan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible. 12.23 The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected party of the retirements of this Ordinance and all other Official Controls and the-nature and extent of the suspected violation of these controls. If the structure and/or use is under construction or development, the Zoning Administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a pro,er permit or approval is granted by the Community. --If the construction or development is already completed, then the Zoning Administrator may either (1) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls, or (2) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit/development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30-days. NAc 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 ES E A R C H MEMORANDUM TO: Doug Sandstad/Kirk McDonald FROM: Robert Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 17 January 1991 RE: New Hope - Shopping Center Parking Requirements FILE NO: 131.00 - 91.01 BACKGROUND At your request, I have conducted a comparative analysis of the City's off-street parking standards for shopping centers and the standards for similar facilities offered by the Institute of Transportation Engineers within the ITE Parking Generation Manual. The analysis has been initiated by a perceived need for the City Zoning Ordinance to specifically address shopping centers over 50,000 square feet in size. ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Standards. Currently, the New Hope Zoning Ordinance provides three differing off-street parking standards for shopping centers. The said standards vary according to facility size and are listed below per Section 4.036 (10) (2). (2) Shopping Centers. (i) 0-20,000 square feet of building area - ten spaces per one thousand square feet. (ii) 20,001 - 30,000 square feet of building area - eight spaces per one thousand square feet. (iii)30,001 square feet and over of building area - six spaces per one thousand square feet. All areas are cumulative and refer to gross leasable building area and do not include covered or enclosed walkways, malls or lanes between stairs and similar public areas not intended or used for sales, display or other commercial purposes. 4601 Excelsior Blvd.. Suite 410.Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420. Fax 925-2721 CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: February 1, 1991 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS Section 2.134 of the New Hope City Code, Planning Commission - Organization, states that "the Planning Commission shall elect one of its members as Chairman, one as Vice-Chairman, and another as Secretary, each of whom shall hold office until December 31st, following their election". It appears to be the intent of the City Code that Planning Commission officers are to be elected on an annual basis. In reviewing past Planning Commission minutes it is apparent that officers have not been eleCted on an annual basis. The last election that staff could find noted in the minutes took place in January, 1983, with Robert Cameron being elected Chairman and Paul Gustafson being elected Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gustafson later resigned and in September, 1984, Robert Gundershaug was elected to fill the vacant position of Vice Chairman. I do not believe any elections have taken place since that time. The City Manager and City Council have requested that the election of officers for the Planning Commission be placed on this agenda so that the elections can be officially recorded in the minutes and be in conformance with the City Code. Hereinafter I would suggest that the election of officers be held at the first Planning Commission meeting of the year (January) on an annual basis. Excerpts from the City Code pertaining to this matter and previous minutes regarding officer elections are attached for your information. 2.13, 2.131, 2.132, 2.133, 2,134, 2.135 2.13 PLANNING COMMISSION. 2.131 Establishment. The Planning Commission heretofore established may be abolished by two-thirds vote of all the members of the Council. 2.132 CompositiOn. (1) Number. The Planning Commission shall consist of ten members appointed by the Council. Every appointed member shall, before entering upon th9 discharge of his duties, take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. (2) Term. Unless sooner removed by a four-fifths vote of the Council, nine of the members shall serve a term of three years, and the person appointed as the tenth member shall serve a term expiring the first business day of January in the year following the year appointed. All members appointed and qualified shall serve until their successors qualify. (3) Councilman May Be Tenth Member. The Council may appoint a member of the Council to be the tenth member of the Planning Commission who shall serve a term expiring on the first business day of January in the year following the year appointed. (Code 072684) (4) Residency Requirement. Ail members of the Planning Commission shall be a resident of the City of New Hope. (Ord. 89-19) 2.133 Purpose~ Authority and Duties. The Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the Council. It is hereby authorized and directed to carry on City Planning activities and to adopt a plan for the regulation of the future physical development of the City, and to prepare and adopt an official map of all proposed alterations of existing lands and public spaces, and the future development of unplatted properties and shall recommend approval or disapproval of subdivisions of land. The Commission shall make a study of future developments of the City, including proposed public buildings, street arrangements and improvements, public utility services, parks, playgrounds, and other similar developments. The results of all studies made by the Commission, together with the recommendations of the Commission shall be submitted to the Council. The Planning Commission shall upon request of the Council, make recommendations to the Council regarding matters affecting zoning, platting, the making of public improvements and other measures affecting the future or present development of the C~ty. 2.134 Organization. The Planning Commission shall elect one of its members ae chairman, one as vice chairman, and another as secretary, each of whom shall hold office until December 31st, following their election. (Code 072684) 2.135 Meetings. The Planning Commission shall hold one regular meeting each month, on such day and at such time as established by the Council. Special meetings shall be called by the Chairman upon his request not more than two days after receipt by the Chairman or Secretary of a written request for a special meeting signed by three or more members of the Planning Commission. Special meetings shall require two days written notice to each member. No meeting shall be held during the month of July unless called as a special meeting according to the procedure of this section. (Code 072684, Ord. 85-11) 2-9 0726~4 2.136 Minutes. The Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business, and shall keep a public record of its resolutions, motions, transactions and findings. One copy of the minutes of each meeting shall be delivered to the Clerk prior to the next regular meeting of the Council, and the glerk shall record the same as a permanent record of the City. 2-9A 07268~ C~ssion~ ~erson ~o a ~C~on r~ndin~ 4~val o~ ~he. ~n~n= Co =~ Condition1 Use ~c scarf ~d rlvi~ ~l ~K~ s~cion ac six ~nch ince~als. Co~ss~one~ F=ie~r=ch second. VoC~g ' : ~l City ~g~ rev~ for ~ ~ssione~l, ~e r~c deve~o~s with cbs Chiles s. E~ards tale, which ~d ~ C~ b~ PlYing C~sl~on ~e ~r~oul ~n~. He noc~ c~C ~cause of =he in ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ forc~ ~ ~c ~y - ~fore Sepc~ ~, 1984. ~s was CAe :eason ~o: ~e f~c~al mC~nq of PI~ ~slim. ~ ~'~C ~ :~llc ~or a v~i/nco ~or ~ho cowe~, had been h~ sec ~ ~ns~c~ofl ~81 v~ ~ only a~ fl~. ~. ~la~e: ~ Mr. ~a=ds had CAm ~e~flq. C~Cy ~CZl .~~y a~ ~ ~ C~on s~c~ c~c he ~e~ ic ~ ~ ~ ~oz~Ce MC of ci~nces. . X ~ f~ ~C c~ ~ ~ ~fic~ vL~ ~X~n of the C~Xsaion. w~ll ch~K off 3. Pla~ing C~e 82-46 was r~v~ fr~ ~ ~e City Manager not~ that =tall had not heard fr~ Mr. ~ohn. He stated that Council had been pri- marily conceded ~u= the si~e yard. ~ey h~ felt that perhaps =he Planning C~ission h~ not given enough weight to =he sideyard screening and what was =~uired by Ordinance and whether Russian 01ives were ad~ua=e screening. C~ncil would like the Planning C~ission to require Chai~ C~eron stated he ~d gone ~ck and re-read the minutes and he thought that the screening quirement was for ~, metal, deciduous trees, or evergreens, and ~ssian Olives are certainly decidu- ous trees. He had no= been confus~ by the ordinance. ~e had been ~ite willing to accept Russian Olives as screening. Me asked whether anyone else had ~en Discussion foll~ ~u~ deciduous trees and whether Russi~ Olives fi= =ha: classification. It was the concensus of the C~ission =ha~ they ~d no= be~ confus~ when ~e7 approv~ the Russian Olives as scr~ning for =he ~ai~an Cameron express~ the feeling that perhaps this case should be reviewed by Design and Review at their next regular meeting because of =he m~y concerns involve~. Me r~uested that Mr. Krohn ~ invi=~ =o =he next D ~d R meeting to review i= with the c~ittee. He noted that his o~ concern was the front of the building and the landscaping in the front. The City Manager ~tated ~taff would try and reach Mr. Kro~. Co~s~omer Gundershaug aske~ whether the co~is~ion/council really had to be that concerned about the east side of the si=e? The requirement for screening was in the ordinance but was it practical? ~e Manager noted that there was a concert ~cause of the single family residence to the east, but added that' apparently that ~er did not care a~u: ~rm screening. T~issioner Edwards no=~ that ~. Jacobwi=h was also a life ti~ tenant onl~. C~issioner Gulenchyn moved to =~le Case 82-4~ until the meetin9 of February 1, 1983. Commissioner Gus=arson second. voting in favor: Fri~rich, Gulench~, Sar:ol, C~N~, Gul~af~n, G~dershaug, ~ards Voting against: Motion carried. C~I~E~ ~PORTS 8. ~ere was no report fr~ =he Desi~ ~4 Rmvi~ 12. ~e COcci1 m~u=es of D~ 7, ~ =~i~. ~e ~u~s of ~c~ 27th, h~ not ~n as disCribuC~ ~ Che 13. /~e C~=7 ~n~ s=a~ ~ a~ C~cil dir~, =~ city was going ~o delay ~king ap~in~ents ~iSlionl ~i1 a m~cl ~ld ~ ~lish~ info,rig ~ ~iCy of ~he vacuoles. ~e Council be Vice Chai~ of ~he Plann~ C~si~ fo~ ~983. ~ssi~e~ Sa~os ~o~. Voting a~ns~: Mo~ion ~oyce ~dekez,