Loading...
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