010808 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 2008
City Hall, 7 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chair Hemken called the meeting to order at
7 p.m.
OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Kirk McDonald administered the oath of office to Sandra Hunten and
welcomed her to the Commission.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, Kathi Hemken,
Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé,
Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen
Absent: None
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, City Manager, Curtis Jacobsen, Community
Development Specialist, Eric Weiss, Community
Development Intern, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan
Brixius, Planning Consultant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC07-15 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 5.1, request for conditional
use permit to allow construction of two seasonal volleyball courts, 7107
Item 5.1
42nd Avenue North, Greg Bender/New Hope Bowl and Lounge,
petitioner.
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen stated that the petitioner was requesting site plan
review and a conditional use permit for two outdoor, sand volleyball
courts at New Hope Bowl. The petitioner met with the Planning
Commission on December 4, and after a lengthy discussion and
comments from the public, the matter was tabled to allow the petitioner
time to meet with adjacent neighbors.
The property is zoned CB, community business, and is surrounded by
commercial uses to the north, commercial and multifamily uses to the
west and residential to the south and east. The properties to the east are
in the city of Crystal. The site is 2.44 acres in size, and the building
contains 27,160 square feet.
The proposed sand volleyball courts would be installed on the north side
of the building in the existing parking lot and be utilized for seasonal use
only, from May through August. The courts would be removed at the end
of the season. Mr. Jacobsen reported that the petitioner had been meeting
with city staff since mid-July regarding the possibility of adding sand
volleyball courts on his property. The petitioner’s goal was to generate
some business during the off season so he wouldn’t have to lay off staff.
The facility is heavily utilized from September through April with 200 to
500 customers per day. During the summer months, business declines
dramatically to approximately 50 people per day.
Jacobsen explained that the petitioner was proposing to construct two
temporary sand volleyball courts. Matches would be scheduled at 6:30,
7:30 and 8:30 p.m. and the courts would close at 10 p.m. The petitioner
would benefit by retaining six to 12 trained employees, bringing new
customers into the business and community, and help the bowling center
remain viable during the slow season.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified of the request for
the December meeting, including the city of Crystal. Staff received several
calls both for and against the proposed use and many residents attended
the Planning Commission meeting in December and offered comments. A
map was displayed indicating residents that attended the December
public hearing and/or the neighborhood meeting and their proximity to
the bowling alley.
Mr. Jacobsen explained the purpose of a conditional use permit was to
provide the city with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of
discretion in determining suitability of certain uses upon general welfare,
public health and safety. The city must consider the nature of the
adjoining land or buildings, similar uses, the effect upon traffic into and
from the premise or on any adjoining roads.
Mr. Jacobsen reported that there is an existing fire lane around the east
and south sides of the building and a mature tree line and six-foot privacy
fence the entire length of the east property line. After the meeting with
the neighbors, the petitioner revised plans to indicate the deck would be
smaller than originally proposed, but somewhat larger than the current
deck area. It would be set back 40 feet from the northeast corner of the
building to allow a greater distance from the residential properties.
There are currently 170 parking spaces provided on the site. The two
volleyball courts would utilize 32 of the parking spaces. The balance of
the parking stalls would be adequate for summer usage of the facility.
Jacobsen stated that the official court size was 30 feet by 60 feet with a 10-
foot buffer area around the outside, therefore, the total area for the two
courts would be 100 feet by 80 feet. The outer edges of the court would be
made from a treated wood product and staked down into the parking lot.
The court would be lined with a 10-foot wide landscape fabric to allow for
drainage. The courts would be designed for a sand surface up to 18 inches
thick. Lighting would be provided by lights mounted to the north face of
the building and would be directed to the north. A photometric plan was
submitted and was compliant with city code for recreational lighting.
Criteria to be considered for approval of a conditional use permit include:
2
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
1) consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2) compatibility with
adjacent land uses; 3) conformance with applicable performance
standards; 4) would the use cause a depreciation in land value; 5) does it
meet the criteria in the zoning district; 6) would traffic patterns cause
hazards or congestion; 7) would nearby residences be adversely affected;
and 8) would nearby businesses be adversely affected by non-shopping
traffic.
The development review team reviewed the plans and was generally
supportive. Concerns included the temporary lighting, drainage,
containment of sand, employees outside as crowd monitors, and details
of the deck expansion. The Design and Review Committee met with the
petitioner in October and requested additional information. The
petitioner submitted revised plans and met with the committee again in
November, at which time the committee supported the CUP application.
Mr. Jacobsen reported that the neighborhood meeting was conducted on
December 19 and issues discussed included: 1) fencing – where currently
located and whether or not it would be beneficial to replace it with a
higher fence; 2) fire lane – petitioner agreed to post drive aisle on east
property line as a fire lane; 3) deck size – petitioner agreed to decrease the
proposed size of deck and move eastern edge 40 feet from edge of
building; 4) court lighting – petitioner agreed that lights would be out on
the courts by 10 p.m.; 5) litter – petitioner agreed to police grounds for
trash twice per week; 6) garbage truck (early pick up) – this issue was
resolved; 7) dumping of beer bottles into recycling containers late at night
– issue resolved; 8) east side building exits – petitioner will convert exits
to exit only with crash bars for emergency exits; and 9) noise – city
attorney to follow up on this issue. The general consensus of the meeting
was that these changes would be beneficial to the properties in the area A
concern was raised by one resident regarding New Hope Code section 8-8
(noise associated with a bowling alley operation). The city attorney
provided an opinion on this issue in correspondence to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff recommended approval subject to the
conditions in the planning report.
Commissioner Houle raised the issue of noise levels per code section
9-42(c)(1) and asked for clarification on the day and nighttime decibel
levels. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, explained the daytime decibel
levels are L10, which was for every six minutes the decibel level could be
65 and for the L50 range the decibel level would be 60. Mr. Jacobsen
added that the city does have a noise level meter and the inspectors can
monitor noise levels to determine compliance with the city code.
Similarly, the conditional use permit (CUP) approved for the Cooper
High School stadium was monitored by this system and met code.
A question was raised as to policing the grounds for trash and the reply
was that the petitioner should check the entire property, including the
3
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
parking lot, along the fence line, around the building, etc., for trash and
be sure it was picked up. The petitioner indicated this was being done
currently. Commissioner Brinkman stated issues from the December
meeting included beer bottles and trash being thrown over the fence and
questioned whether this would also be checked. Mr. Jacobsen stated the
city would not require the petitioner to go on private property to remove
trash, due to the fact that would be considered trespassing.
Commissioner Nirgudé commented that a minimum of two times per
week for debris pick up should be considered and suggested it should be
more often.
Mr. Greg Bender, owner of the property at 7107 42nd Avenue North,
came forward and indicated he did not have a problem with picking up
trash daily. Currently, he picks up trash in the front of the building and in
the parking lot as often as needed when he arrives for work and walks the
back of the property twice a week.
Discussion ensued on a comparable for 65 decibels. Mr. Sondrall added
that problems arise when there are differing zoning districts adjacent to
each other. The residential decibel level would be the lowest and the least
amount of noise should be impacting residents. The levels are set by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and those regulations were adopted
as part of the city code. Part of the problem in determining the noise level
for a particular use, includes filtering out background noise. Sondrall
stated he was not aware of any violation of decibel levels for the bowling
alley. He explained that the “10” of the L10 signified a fraction of an hour
(six minutes) and the decibel level would have to be maintained for that
entire time. A spike of sound did not constitute a violation of the noise
ordinance. The noise level would have to be maintained on the L50 for 30
minutes over the course of an hour. The city has the equipment and
inspectors are trained to measure those levels. A question was raised as to
the decibel level of the human voice and what other types of noise might
be generated with the volleyball use. The maximum numbers of players at
any one time would be 24. There may be additional people watching the
matches, or during the transition time. Mention was made that a good
comparison might be the sand volleyball courts at Alligators in Maple
Grove. In answer to a question, Mr. Sondrall stated that 10 p.m. was time
for switching to the lower nighttime noise levels.
Commissioner Oelkers mentioned the noise problem with Scherer
Brothers. Sondrall stated that in the Scherer Brothers situation, the City
Council determined to contribute the dollars that would have been spent
on another noise study to helping with a solution to the noise problem.
Oelkers added that the Cooper stadium sound system was in compliance
with the noise levels, however, residential properties were possibly a
greater distance away.
Chair Hemken inquired if anyone wished to address the Commission.
Mr. Kurt Moe, 4133 Kentucky Circle, Crystal, read into record an email he
4
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
sent to the City Council and city manager on December 26, 2007, and
which was included in the planning packet. Excerpts of the email include:
“one of the main concerns of the nearby residents is the noise generated
by the volley-ball activity…The noise issue comes down to everyone
acknowledging there will be increased noise. There are not proposed
solutions from the petitioner to address the increased noise. There are no
noise conditions in the conditional use permit. The city code already
prohibits a ‘ loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs…’
the people enjoying their property. Mr. Jacobsen stated at the December 4
meeting the criteria to be considered for approval of a CUP including
‘compatibility with adjacent land uses’ and ‘would nearby residents be
adversely affected.’ He also stated ‘the city desires that the bowling alley
be a good neighbor to adjacent properties and that neighbors are
reasonably comfortable with the expanded usage of the site.’ It is the
opinion of the adjacent neighbors that the increased noise will adversely
affect their property use. The nearby residents are not comfortable with
the expanded usage of the site. Prior to the December 4 meeting, I was
concerned about the volleyball activity. The neighborhood meeting was
held to resolve the issues in the neighborhood; the noise issue was not
resolved. The meeting did confirm the normal bowling alley noise (beer
bottle dumping) was addressed, the city code for garbage pickup was
enforced (after 6 a.m.) and the New Hope Bowl has intentions of
installing ‘no parking’ sign soon in the fire lane. A New Hope police
sergeant stated he couldn’t find police reports mentioned by me at the
December 4 meeting. The next day I had a copy of one of the reports
printed for me by the Crystal police department secretary…there will be
adverse affects to the nearby residences that will violate the city code and
only a vote against the CUP can be cast by the city representatives.”
Mr. Moe stated that from discussion tonight, it appeared that the noise
issue would not be a violation if the elevated noise decibel level was not
prolonged over an extended period of time. He stated he felt the noise
bursts throughout the evening every night of the week was unacceptable
and would have an adverse affect on the neighborhood. He suggested
obtaining noise decibel levels from the volleyball usage at Alligators, or a
demonstration of decibel levels of a train or other use.
Commissioner Brinkman questioned Mr. Moe’s view of the December 19
meeting. Mr. Moe stated he felt the meeting was a waste of time. He
agreed the petitioner had made some improvements and he commended
Mr. Bender for those – dumping of beer bottles at night and early garbage
pickup. Those items did not address the future volleyball use. Mr. Bender
indicated he had an estimate for an eight-foot chain-link fence, which
may reduce trash thrown over the fence or people climbing over, but it
would not reduce noise. Nothing was resolved at the neighborhood
meeting. Commissioner Houle interjected that the noise issue was
brought to the forefront and he stated he felt the meeting was worthwhile.
There just may be no resolution to the noise issue.
Mr. Scott Van Wey, 4125 Kentucky Circle, Crystal, stated he was located
5
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
closest to the bowling alley property. He stated the nets would be
approximately 30 to 40 feet from his back yard, where his family spends
the summers. They purchased the property because of the large back
yard. He is very concerned about the noise. He stated he had been at
Alligators during the volleyball games and the noise was loud. That kind
of noise would be very disruptive to the neighborhood. Mr. Van Wey
stated that his real estate agent indicated that the volleyball use may make
resale of his property difficult and the value of his home could decrease.
When his family purchased the property, they were aware of the bowling
alley and the potential for noise during the winter, however, the summer
months were quiet and windows could be open. Three hours of volleyball
matches every evening was a long time to not have peace and quiet.
Commissioner Schmidt wondered what would alleviate Mr. Van Wey’s
concerns and Mr. Van Wey responded that possibly the higher fence or
some type of sound blankets on the netting. He suggested that the city
could help with the cost of the fence if the cost was too prohibitive for Mr.
Bender. Chair Hemken asked for clarification on the distance from the
back of his house to the courts and it was determined to be approximately
100+ feet.
Ms. Peggy Nemitz, 4117 Kentucky Circle, Crystal, read for the record a
letter written by her husband to the City Council and which was included
in the planning report. Excerpts of the letter include “…I am stating now
that I absolutely object to this plan…and informing you that if the city
allows this disruption in my peace and quiet in a yard that I love and
work hard for I will be forced to take legal action against the owner and
city for such irresponsibility and obvious self interest.” Ms. Nemitz stated
she enjoys the piece and quiet of her back yard and asked the Planning
Commission to vote no. She stated she felt the sport of volleyball was too
rowdy for the area and she didn’t feel she could live with this next door.
No one can control the reactions of the people on a given night or the
alcohol level of those people; therefore, it would be difficult to measure
the noise levels. The bowling alley owner would be the benefactor of this
use at the expense of the adjacent neighbors.
Ms. Naomi Davidson, 4141 Kentucky Avenue, Crystal, stated that she
appreciated the steps taken to date by Mr. Bender to alleviate the
concerns of neighbors. She pointed out that sound travels. The biggest
disappointment so far was not having adequate fencing. The proposal to
make the east door an exit only may help, but no one can predict what
will happen when many people are outside during the matches. Ms.
Davidson stated that some of the neighbors had gotten a detailed estimate
in the amount of $21,000 for a wooden, eight-foot fence, which would
help with privacy issues and noise. She wondered whether the city could
help Mr. Bender with the cost of the fence. The homeowners are not in
favor of having to finance half of the cost of the fence because they are not
reaping any monetary benefit.
Chair Hemken inquired as to the owner of the fence. Commissioner
6
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
Svendsen stated that from discussions at the Design and Review
Committee meetings, the fence does not belong to the bowling alley. Mr.
Moe interjected that he had called a former resident and the fence had
been constructed by several of the adjacent residents. Ms. Nemitz added
that she did not want the view of an eight-foot fence in her back yard. The
existing six-foot fence in her yard was acceptable.
Mr. Bender returned to the podium and stated that there continues to be
disagreement on the fence – some residents want an eight-foot fence,
some do not, some want him to build it, some want the city to help pay
for it. He stated he was not asking the city to build it for him. He added
that he did not feel the revenues generated during the summer months
would be significant. Mr. Bender indicated he had reduced the size of the
deck and moved it farther to the west away from the residential
properties. Property owners located closer to the front of his property and
in direct visual line to the courts have not indicated they do not like the
proposal. Yet, residents voicing concern are located behind the bowling
alley and should not be highly affected.
Another resident spoke to the meeting notices that were sent to
homeowners in the area.
No one else in the audience wished to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 07-15. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Chair Hemken asked for clarification on the meeting notices that were
sent. Mr. McDonald stated a notice was sent to Crystal city hall for the
November Planning Commission meeting and again for the December
Planning Commission meeting, along with notices to Crystal properties
that received the first notice.
Commissioner Houle inquired if New Hope staff had any contact with
Crystal council members or staff since the December 19 neighborhood
meeting. Mr. Jacobsen stated New Hope had not had any formal
communication with Crystal since that time. Mayor ReNae Bowman and
a Crystal council member were at the neighborhood meeting and did not
indicate an opinion either for or against the project.
Commissioner Schmidt stated that the two homes most affected by the
use would be Mr. Van Wey’s property and the property at 7025 42nd
Avenue. He wondered whether or not the city had heard from that
property owner and the response was no. Mr. McDonald added that all
correspondence and phone calls received by the city had been included in
the planning report.
Commissioner Nirgudé stated he was concerned that there were several
residents still apprehensive about the noise issues. He suggested putting
7
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
some type of barrier along the property line, approve the request for use
for 2008 and get feedback on the noise levels from residents after one
year’s use, or explore other options as to what other cities have done in
this situation and bring that information back to the Design and Review
Committee for further review. He stated he was not comfortable voting
on the request at this time. Mr. Jacobsen explained that due to the timing
of the original submission, the city was closing in on an extended 60-day
review of the application. It would have to go to the City Council on
January 14 or it would be approved by operation of law because the city
did not act on the request in a timely manner.
Commissioner Houle stated that he was not comfortable forwarding this
item on to the City Council with the noise issue unresolved.
Commissioner Svendsen commented that he was at the neighborhood
meeting and heard comments from the Crystal city officials. He reported
that the Planning Commission was charged with making a determination
with regard to existing ordinances and whether or not the proposed use
complied with those ordinances. The city’s sound ordinance was viable
and was a good vehicle for monitoring the noise, as well as regulations
from the MPCA. Mr. Bender offered to put up signs indicating the fire
lane and he would police the area a minimum of two times per week for
trash. The petitioner has met all the requirements of these ordinances for
the conditional use permit. Commissioner Oelkers concurred. He added
that if the petitioner did not meet the noise ordinance in the future, the
CUP could be revoked. A noise study could not be completed at this site
until the use was in effect. Oelkers stated this was a good community
business; he understood the concerns of the neighbors, but was in favor
of the proposal.
Commissioner Brinkman stated he appreciated the residents coming
forward to offer their comments. He explained that the noise concerns
could not be used to deny the approval of the request from New Hope
Bowl. There had been some progress on issues identified at the December
meeting. He indicated he was in favor of the use.
Commissioner Crough wondered whether the petitioner had considered
putting the volleyball courts on the west side of the building. Mr. Bender
stressed that he wanted to be able to control who was in the courts and
what was going on there. The entrance to the proposed courts and deck
would be through the bar, and in order to enter the bar, patrons must be
21 years of age or older. Everyone had their own perception of what
constituted noise and the amount that affects them. Mr. Bender added
that he also intended to post a code of conduct statement and teams must
abide by those terms. If not, the team would be pulled from the roster. He
added his goal was that eventually the adjacent neighbors would come to
him and say the use did not have any negative impact on the
neighborhood.
The location and size of the deck was clarified. The east edge of the deck
8
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
would be located 40 feet from the northeast corner of the building. The
deck would be 15 feet wide and 40 feet long, which would be larger than
the existing deck but smaller than the original proposed deck, and would
be farther away from the adjacent properties than the current deck.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
Item 5.1 to approve Planning Case 07-15, request for conditional use permit to
allow construction of two seasonal volleyball courts, 7107 42nd Avenue
North, Greg Bender/New Hope Bowl and Lounge, petitioner, subject to
the following conditions:
1.On-site traffic circulation patterns must be maintained and the east
property line shall be posted as a fire lane.
2.Court lighting shall be directional toward the courts and shall not
exceed that shown in the photometric plan submitted with the
application.
3.Court lighting shall cease at 10 p.m.
4.No public address system shall be authorized.
5.The petitioner shall be responsible for court security and no direct
court access from the parking lot shall be allowed.
6.Petitioner shall police the grounds twice per week for trash.
7.Petitioner shall reduce the size of the proposed deck to 15 feet deep
by 40 feet long and be located 40 feet from the northeast corner of
the building.
8.Petitioner shall make the east building exits, exit only, including
the installation of panic hardware.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Hemken, Hunten, Landy,
Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: Crough, Houle, Nirgudé
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Chair Hemken stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council at its meeting on January 14, and asked that the petitioner
attend that meeting.
Commissioner Svendsen reminded the audience that the Planning
Commission was an advisory body for the City Council and the Council
made the final decision. He asked the audience to attend that meeting if
they had further comments.
PC07-06 Chair Hemken introduced Item 5.2, public hearing for ordinance
amending Chapter 4 of the New Hope City Code relating to off road
Item 5.2
vehicles, recreational vehicles and exterior storage and to add a definition
of recreational vehicles and the storage of those vehicles, city of New
Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Eric Weiss stated staff was requesting that the Planning Commission
review the proposed amendments to the recently adopted ordinance
9
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
relating to recreational vehicles and the storage of those vehicles. The City
Council conducted a public hearing and adopted the exterior storage
ordinance at its meeting on August 27. After comments were reviewed
from residents at the September 10 Council meeting, the Council
suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review. The
Council directed that the Planning Commission revisit the issue. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing in November to gather
input from residents. The Codes and Standards Committee discussed
potential amendments to the ordinance at meetings in November and
December and recommended approval of the proposed ordinance
amendments.
Mr. Weiss stated that the definition of recreational vehicles is “self-
propelled vehicles or vehicles stored on licensed trailers which are used
primarily for recreational-leisure time activities including, but not limited
to, campers, tent trailers, motor homes or other vehicles used for
temporary living quarters, boats, all terrain vehicles (ATVs),
snowmobiles, golf carts, race cars, stockcars, motorcycles, utility trailers,
off-road vehicles and similar vehicles or equipment.”
Proposed changes to the ordinance include: 1) recreational equipment
and vehicles may be stored in the front, side or rear yards except that
recreational vehicles and equipment not licensed for or permitted to be
operated on public streets such as boats, ATVs, off-road vehicles,
snowmobiles, golf carts, race cars and stockcars must be stored or placed
on or in licensed trailer or licensed motor vehicle. Canoes, kayaks or other
small boats not on trailers may be stored in the side or rear yard if hung
off the ground on a garage or other accessory building or structure. Side
and rear yard standards include: 1) the designated storage area behind
the front building line of the principal building shall maintain at least a
three foot setback from the side or rear yard property lines (previous
ordinance was five feet), 2) shall be screened to break up visual
appearance of the exterior storage from adjoining properties through
landscaping or fencing (was 80% opacity), 3) fences shall not exceed eight
feet in height (was six feet), and 4) recreational vehicles and equipment
shall not be placed closer to the principal structure on any adjacent lot
than to the owner’s principal structure.
Mr. Weiss explained that recent additions to the ordinance include: 1)
addition of motor homes, golf carts, race cars and stockcars to the
definition, 2) front yard storage must be on two inches of rock or rock-
type material, 3) limit of three recreational vehicles or equipment stored
on a property, and 4) prohibited list of vehicles/items. These items remain
with this amendment.
Weiss stated that staff and the Codes and Standards Committee
recommend approval.
A question was raised whether a canoe hung on posts in the back yard
was acceptable as a structure. The consensus was in the affirmative.
10
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
Canoes, kayaks, small boats are defined as recreational equipment and
are included in the three pieces of equipment.
Clarification was given regarding the three foot setback at the side and
rear property lines. The three-foot setback begins at the front face of the
building back toward the rear of the property. Recreational vehicles and
equipment should be placed closer to the property owner’s principal
structure than the adjacent property owner. This language was taken
from Crystal’s ordinance.
Commissioner Nirgudé initiated discussion on adding illustrations in the
ordinance to clarify its meaning. Mr. Brixius suggested that the
inspections department have help sheets at the counter to clarify the
ordinance.
Chair Hemken inquired if anyone wished to address the Commission.
Mr. Scott Anderson, 8308 33rd Place, questioned whether the three
recreational vehicles per property included stored recreational equipment
in the garage. Mr. Brixius clarified that the three vehicles meant what was
stored outside.
Mr. John Brandenberg of Maple Grove came forward and stated he was
speaking for his father-in-law, Ray Bona, 8801 46th Avenue North. He
questioned what screening was required to “break up the view” from
adjacent properties. He asked for guidance on the size and weight of
trailers. Mr. Brixius responded that any commercial vehicle was restricted
to 12,000 pounds or less. There was no restriction on the size of trailer.
The size of the licensed trailer would be regulated through the placement
on the property and screening. The trailer would count as one vehicle no
matter how many items were stored on the trailer. Screening could be
accomplished through landscape plantings, not necessarily just a fence.
Deciduous plantings, even through during the winter there would be no
leaves, would be adequate. Bicycles are not included in this ordinance.
Mr. Alan Nelson, 4933 Wisconsin Avenue North, agreed that the
ordinance had loosened up the screening requirements, limited
properties to three vehicles stored outside, added items stored on trailers,
added a list of items not permitted, and the storage of items closer to the
property line. He wondered what problem was being addressed with
these changes. Mr. Brixius stated that the city had an ordinance
addressing exterior storage for several years. There had been issues in the
city, such as vehicles stored on grass and other unsightly issues. Staff
wanted to further define setback and screening requirements. Specific
issues had been raised through the Planning Commission and City
Council in the past several months and the inspections division had
identified specific issues that needed to be addressed.
Mr. Nelson stated that one of his issues was the prohibition of tractors in
the proposed ordinance. He stated that he had spoken to Mr. McDonald,
11
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
who indicated previously that in the history of the city there was one
complaint about a farm tractor and now tractors are being outlawed. He
was concerned that this was a public hearing and there were not many
people in attendance. At the last public hearing, many people spoke on a
number of issues and were told they did not need to be concerned as the
ordinance would be enforced on a complaint only basis. At the Codes and
Standards meeting he attended, it was mentioned that city staff would be
looking for violations. Therefore, he felt the people at the Planning
Commission meeting were given inaccurate information. A gentleman
with a large RV parked too close to the curb was told not to worry. Mr.
Nelson stated that he and his brother attended all Planning Commission
meetings and the Codes and Standards meetings so they were aware of
items discussed. He encouraged careful consideration by commissioners
voting on this amendment. He added that a comment had previously
been made that the city does not get involved in neighbor disputes.
Nelson stated he felt this proposed ordinance amendment suggests the
city does get involved in neighbor disputes.
Mr. John Brandenberg added that there were 36 names on the petition
submitted regarding the tractor.
Mr. John Nelson, 8711 46th Avenue North, came forward and stated he
had owned his home for 20 years and never received a complaint from
anyone. He stated he had his home highlighted on television by
Commissioner Schmidt in a presentation to the City Council behalf of this
Commission urging passage of this ordinance. He questioned the city’s
due process to notify someone being highlighted. City code indicates the
person should receive written notice, and he received nothing. During the
presentation, Mr. McDonald and Commissioner Schmidt stated that the
issue had been resolved. Mr. Nelson explained that the complainant’s
home was placed at an angle on the property to his, but he stated he felt
he should be able to utilize his property the same as any other resident.
He had since gotten rid of the tractor. At the last public meeting,
attendees were assured enforcement of the ordinance would be lax,
therefore, if one property owner got an exception to the code, everyone
should. Mr. Nelson also mentioned that many people utilize a tow bar for
transporting vehicles rather than trailering them.
Mr. Nelson stated he contacted the League of Minnesota Cities regarding
conflict of interest issues. He was concerned that one complaint was
received by the city and the son-in-law of the complainant was a member
of the Commission and the Codes and Standards Committee. Mr.
Sondrall pointed out that a conflict of interest was involved when there
was a financial interest in the outcome of the vote. If there was no
financial interest in the outcome of the vote, legally there was no conflict
of interest.
Chair Hemken asked Mr. John Nelson if he had a garage and the answer
was in the affirmative.
12
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
No one else in the audience wished to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen ,
to close the public hearing on Planning Case 07-06. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
A question was raised whether or not tractors were listed in the previous
ordinance, and it was noted that tractors were not mentioned in the old
ordinance.
Commissioner Schmidt mentioned that tractors were included in the
amendment due to the fact that neighboring cities had tractors in their
ordinances. This was not based solely on a complaint. Mr. Sondrall stated
that New Hope now had a similar ordinance to Crystal relative to the
storage of vehicles. He clarified statements made regarding enforcement
of RVs and the distance from the back of the vehicle to the curb. He
stated he felt that statement was directed for RVs and a leeway of a few
inches. The city is not lax on enforcement of the codes.
Commissioner Schmidt addressed Mr. John Nelson, and the Commission,
and explained that the two of them had never spoken before this meeting.
He asked Mr. Nelson to call him if he had issues with him personally.
Schmidt mentioned that he had told his father-in-law many times that,
due to the angles of the two homes, outside storage at his neighbor’s
home would be visible from his windows. He assured Mr. Nelson he was
not on a personal vendetta against him. He added he had held back many
times from commenting on certain items at the Commission meetings so
he would not be perceived as taking sides.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy,
Item 5.2 to approve Planning Case 07-06, Ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the
New Hope City Code relating to off road vehicles, recreational vehicles
and exterior storage and to add a definition of recreational vehicles and
the storage of those vehicles, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
Hunten, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Chair Hemken stated that the ordinance amendment would be
considered by the City Council on January 28.
Mr. Sondrall informed the Commission that this ordinance amendment
would have a 2008 number when it came before the City Council.
Case 06-15 Chair Hemken introduced Item 5.3, Review and approval of amendments
to Design Guidelines relating to comments received from Shingle Creek
Item 5.3
Watershed District, city of New Hope, petitioner.
13
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
Mr. Weiss explained that this was a public hearing to discuss
amendments to the Design Guidelines relating to comments received
from the Shingle Creek Watershed District and the required changes to
the Comprehensive Plan.
Weiss reviewed the background for the Design Guidelines. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on September 4 and upon
Council approval of the guidelines on September 24, 2007, they were
submitted to adjoining communities and jurisdictions for comment.
Plymouth, Brooklyn Park and Crystal indicated approval. No comments
were received from Golden Valley, Bassett Creek Watershed, Hennepin
County and Robbinsdale Area Schools. Comments received from Shingle
Creek Watershed prompted the amendments to the guidelines and
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed changes included: 1) allowing depressed biofiltration
islands in parking lots to allow for greater water flow and stormwater
treatment provided that approved edging was installed, traffic control
measures were taken, trash management plans were in place, and some
vertical aspects were provided for greater visual appeal; 2) noting that
trees and native landscaping materials are essential components in
managing stormwater volumes; and 3) adding language permitting tall
grasses.
Mr. Weiss stated that staff recommended approval of the amendments.
Upon approval by the City Council, the Comprehensive Plan amendment
would be reviewed and approved by the Metropolitan Council. Once
approved by the Met Council, the Design Guidelines would be adopted as
an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan and could then be implemented.
No one in the audience wished to address the Commission on this issue.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
to close the public hearing on Planning Case 06-15. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt,
Item 5.3 to approve Planning Case 06-15, review and approval of amendments to
Design Guidelines relating to comments received from Shingle Creek
Watershed District, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
Hunten, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Chair Hemken stated that the ordinance amendment would be
considered by the City Council on January 28.
14
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
Case 07-09 Chair Hemken introduced Item 5.4, Ordinance No. 07-14, an ordinance
amending chapters 1 and 3 of the New Hope City Code relating to
Item 5.4
whirlpool tubs and private swimming pools, city of New Hope,
petitioner.
Mr. Weiss stated that staff was requesting consideration of an ordinance
relating to inflatable pools, in use or constructed on any property, to be
surrounded by a fence or wall. In the past several months, the city
discussed and approved new regulations requiring lockable covers for
whirlpool tubs, which was adopted by the City Council in August. At that
time, the Council requested consideration of adding building code
standards to the zoning code relating to swimming pools, especially
above ground inflatable pools. Current state building code exempts pools
from requiring a building permit when they are 24 inches or less in depth,
under 5,000 gallons of water, and built entirely above ground. Current
city code defines swimming pools as “any pool, tank depression or
excavation or other structure which shall cause retaining of water over a
depth greater than 18 inches and a water surface area of 150 square feet.
All swimming pools shall be completely surrounded by a fence or wall
not less than four feet in height. Whirlpool tubs not enclosed by a fence
must have a lockable cover.
The Codes and Standards Committee discussed this issue and
recommended including language requiring inflatable pools with a depth
greater than 18 inches and a water surface area of 150 square feet or more
to be fenced. Staff recommended approval of the ordinance amendment.
Commissioner Houle initiated discussion on the difference in pool depth
requirements between the city code and the state building code and the
fact that city code could not be more restrictive than state requirements.
Currently, the city code is more restrictive than the state code. Mr.
Sondrall responded that this ordinance amendment would include
inflatable pools in pools requiring a fence, not change the swimming pool
definition that is already in the code. Discussion ensued on whether or
not to change the New Hope code to 24 inches in depth and remove the
language regarding the 150 square foot plane surface to make it compliant
with the state code. It was noted that hot tubs with safety covers would be
exempted from the barrier provision per the state code. Language was
previously adopted per Hennepin County requirements regarding
barriers on hot tubs. According to the state building code, barriers can be
things other than a fence, such as the wall of a building. The state
building code defines a pool as any structure intended for swimming or
recreational bathing that contains water over 24 inches deep, including
in-ground, above-ground, and on-ground swimming pools, hot tubs, and
spas. The inflatable pools would be included in that definition. Discussion
ensued on whether inflatable pools needed a barrier. Mr. Sondrall stated
that the walls of the inflatable pools constituted a barrier if over 48 inches.
A suggestion was made to refer this matter back to the Codes and
Standards Committee to determine what type of barrier was sufficient for
15
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
the inflatable pools. Mr. Sondrall recommended the Commission approve
Ordinance 07-14 with the understanding that the barrier issue would be
revisited.
Commissioner Anderson requested clarification on barriers and why the
city would require a homeowner to construct a barrier that did not need
to have a locked gate, but only a gate that latched. It was explained that
the latched gate language was taken from the state building code.
Anderson maintained that if a barrier was to keep children safe and away
from the pool, the gate should be locked.
Mr. McDonald agreed that this issue could go back to committee for
further review. The current ordinance requires an in-ground pool to be
surrounded by a four-foot fence with a latching or self-closing gate. Staff
was directed to review this ordinance due to the fact that large inflatable
pools could pose a potential drowning issue for small children.
Commissioner Hunten questioned why whirlpools were lumped together
with swimming pools and wondered about a pond with fish in the back
yard that reached a depth of 24 inches. Mr. Sondrall replied that the state
building code includes a spa or hot tub as a swimming pool, but makes a
specific exemption for those things as not requiring a fence as long as
there was a cover that complied with certain requirements. A pond was
not designated for humans, therefore, no fence was required.
Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that the state building code makes
pools exempt from requiring a building permit when they are 24 inches
or less in depth, under 5,000 gallons, and built entirely above ground. He
wondered whether it would be beneficial to attach a specific number of
gallons to the ordinance as well as the depth and surface area.
Chair Hemken inquired if anyone wished to address the Commission.
Mr. Scott Anderson, 8308 33rd Place North, came to the podium and
indicated he had a hot tub with a latchable cover, however, his fence is 40
inches. He wondered what the purpose of the fencing was. If for safety
reasons, he pointed out that none of the ponds in the city parks had
fences around them.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
to close the public hearing on Planning Case 07-09. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Mr. Sondrall stated that the ordinance being considered could be passed
with the existing verbiage, due to the fact that it only included inflatable
pools as private swimming pools and does not mention the size or depth
of a pool. The sections dealing with the definition, depth and plane
surface would need to be revised.
Commissioner Houle questioned whether the last sentence of the
16
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
ordinance dealing with the locking covers for hot tubs should be changed
to read latching covers. Mr. Sondrall reminded the Commission that
Hennepin County adopted an ordinance regulating hot tubs and the city
conformed its code to match the county. It was Mr. Sondrall’s opinion,
that it may be better to make a reference to the standard outlined in the
state building code and provide a fact sheet with the requirements for
residents.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt,
Item 5.4 to table Planning Case 07-09, Ordinance No. 07-14, an ordinance
amending chapters 1 and 3 of the New Hope City Code relating to
whirlpool tubs and private swimming pools and refer the matter to the
Codes and Standards Committee for further review, city of New Hope,
petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
Hunten, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee
did not meet in December. Mr. McDonald reported there may be an
Committee
application submitted for a lot split. The committee would be contacted if
Item 5.1
a meeting was necessary.
Codes and Standards Chair Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee met in
December to finish its review of the exterior storage ordinance, continue
Committee
its review of the sign code, and discuss temporary structures/hoop tent
Item 5.2
storage structures. Another committee would be scheduled in January or
February.
Comprehensive Plan Commissioner Landy reported that the City Council would review the
plan at the Council work session on January 22. Open houses are
Update Subcommittee
scheduled for March 6 and 8.
Item 5.3
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
Motion to Approve Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman,
Minutes to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 4, 2007. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
Election of Officers Chair Hemken opened the floor for nominations for chair, vice-chair, and
third officer. Commissioner Svendsen nominated Kathi Hemken as chair,
Bill Oelkers as vice-chair, and Jeff Houle as third officer. Seconded by
Commissioner Landy. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Committee assignments include: Codes and Standards: Chair Hemken,
17
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008
Commissioners Brinkman, Crough, Schmidt, and Hunten. Design and
Review: Commissioners Svendsen, Oelkers, Anderson, Houle and
Nirgudé. Commissioner Landy will continue to serve as needed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Hemken mentioned that the February meeting would be held on
Wednesday, February 6, due to the caucus being conducted on Tuesday
evening.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:25
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
18
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2008