050509 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 5, 2009
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 Oelkers called the meeting to order at 7
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten,
Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt,
Steve Svendsen
Absent: Paul Anderson
Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Eric
Weiss, Community Development Assistant, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC09-04 Chair Oelkers introduced Item 4.1, request for conditional use permit to
operate an animal kennel facility, 9440 Science Center Drive, Hearing and
Item 4.1
Service Dogs of Minnesota, petitioner.
Mr. Eric Weiss stated the petitioner was requesting a conditional use
permit to allow an animal kennel in an industrial zoning district at 9440
Science Center Drive, a variance to allow two dogs per kennel, and two
text amendments to allow a caretaker apartment in conjunction with the
kennels and to allow a guest room within a kennel facility to be used by
persons receiving training from the kennel facility in the industrial zoning
district. The Commission considered the request on April 7, tabled the
request for further review, and a 60-day extension for action was
approved by the City Council on April 27.
The proposed use is a dog kennel and training facility for hearing and
service dogs trained to assist people with special needs. The dogs live and
train at the facility until they are fully trained and placed with an
applicant.
Mr. Weiss pointed out that the applicant’s initial proposal requested
approval of conceptual plans that were to take place over an unspecified
timeline. The city attorney had indicated that a concept plan not clearly
authorized by city ordinance was problematic. Therefore, the applicant
revised their proposal and met again with the Design and Review
Committee, along with staff, the planner and the city attorney. The
applicant would initially remodel the existing building to include offices,
meeting rooms, training rooms, 10 kennels and outdoor runs on the north
side of the building, veterinary care, indoor loading/unloading,
warehouse and a mock-up apartment for training purposes. The
applicant requested conceptual approval of additional elements to be
added in future phases, including dog isolation room, caretaker
apartment and guest room, additional kennels and outdoor runs, and
parking lot expansion. The applicant met all the requirements of the CUP
except the number of dogs per kennel. Staff recommended approval of
the CUP.
Mr. Weiss stated the applicant requested a variance to allow two dogs per
kennel to aid in the socialization skills of the dogs in training. Sufficient
kennel and outdoor run space has been provided to accommodate the
dogs. Staff recommended approval of the variance.
The existing code does not specifically authorize a kennel facility to have
an on-site caretaker apartment or guest room as proposed by the
applicant. Two minor text amendments to Section 4-20 would specifically
authorize those uses under the CUP in the industrial district. The
applicant would need to supply adequate indoor parking for the
caretaker and guests staying on site.
Mr. Weiss reiterated that Hearing and Service Dogs of Minnesota was a
non-profit currently located in Minneapolis. The applicant would initially
construct a minor building addition for the 10 kennels on the north side
of the building, along with other remodeling on the interior. He stated
that staff had reviewed the proposal and found it met the requirements of
the conditional use permit. The variance was reasonable due to the large
amount of space provided for the animals. The two text amendments
were reasonable changes to the city code. He stated that staff was
recommending approval of the requests.
Commissioner Houle questioned whether or not there was need to specify
a maximum length of stay for people utilizing the guest room. He was
concerned that the guest room may be used as another caretaker
apartment. Mr. Jacobsen responded that he didn’t feel it was necessary
due to the fact that the people using the guest room were there to train
with the dogs. Commissioner Nirgude stated he remembered discussion
at the Design and Review Committee meeting about including a specific
length of stay, such as four to six days, for people using the guest room
and that the guest room was accessory to the business. Mr. Jacobsen
pointed out that the text amendment would be in the section of code
dealing with a kennel in an industrial zoning district. Chair Oelkers
agreed that the committee had indicated it wanted a specific length of
stay attached to the guest room. Mr. Jacobsen questioned what would
happen if a particular client needed additional training time with the dog
and was at the facility longer than the suggested four to six days.
Mr. Peter Hilger, Rylaur LLC, representing Hearing and Service Dogs,
came forward to answer questions of the Commission.
Mr. Hilger indicated that the city could tie the length of stay to the
conditional use permit. A question was raised as to how the city would
2
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2009
monitor the length of time a client was living on site and the response
was that the situation would have to be brought to the city’s attention by
an outside source. If a specific timeframe was inserted into the city code,
city staff would have a recourse to take action.
Commissioner Houle wondered whether any of the dogs were sold to
other organizations. Mr. Al Peters, executive director of Hearing and
Service Dogs, stated that they did not make a practice of selling the dogs.
Exchanging of breeding stock did occur and sometimes there is a charge
associated with that. Usually dogs that do not make the program are
given away not sold.
In answer to a question, Mr. Hilger stated that they rarely have anyone
stay longer than three to five days at a time, therefore, they were
comfortable with a maximum of 10 days inserted into the text
amendment. A suggestion was made to use 10 business days. Discussion
ensued on whether there is a charge for the use of the guest room and the
response was there no charge as it is part of the service. Mr. Jacobsen
stated there was some discussion on constructing a small motel on the
site to accommodate multiple guests at the same time and then there may
be a minimum charge. Mr. Jacobsen suggested the following text be
added to the proposed ordinance amendment: “Guest stays are limited to
a maximum of 10 business days per training visit.”
Chair Oelkers clarified that for any future expansion, the applicant must
come back to the city for a CUP amendment.
Mr. Peters inquired of the parking requirement associated with the
caretaker unit. City code requires one garage stall for all residential units
and the proposed indoor parking area can be used to comply with this
requirement.
Commissioner Nirgude confirmed that the building ventilation would be
per code.
Commissioner Brinkman questioned who the caretaker would be. He
wondered if the caretaker was paid or if it was a volunteer position. Mr.
Peters answered that they are a non-profit charity and completely
supported by contributions from individuals, foundations, and groups
like the Lions Club. They do not charge for their services. The caretaker
would be compensated by free living space in exchange for taking care of
the building and taking care of the dogs when staff is not present. They
may do other work for them and get paid in addition to the living space.
Currently, there are 16 people on the payroll (12 full time and 4 part time
employees) and paid through the funds contributed to the organization.
The number of staff may grow over time. They have a couple hundred
volunteers around Minnesota who raise the dogs and help in countless
other ways.
In answer to a question regarding security, Mr. Peters stated that
3
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2009
currently they have a security system tied to the police and fire
departments. They would install the same type of system or an expanded
system with video monitoring. Some of that need would be eliminated
with an on-site caretaker.
Commissioner Brinkman inquired about the dogs. Mr. Peters stated that
the dogs are generally adult dogs (approximately one and one-half to two
years old) at the facility and are there for the final part of their training.
They have puppy raisers throughout Minnesota who are raising dogs
from about eight to 10 weeks old to 18 months old. Periodically those
dogs spend a week or so at the facility so staff can determine how the
dogs are progressing in their training and to gradually get the dogs used
to kennel life.
No one was in the audience to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
to close the public hearing on Planning Case 09-04. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy,
Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 09-04, Planning Commission Resolution No.
09-02 approving conditional use permit, variance and text amendment to
operate an animal kennel facility, 9440 Science Center Drive, Hearing
and Service Dogs of Minnesota, petitioner, subject to the following
conditions:
1.Approval of the conditional use permit to allow a dog kennel and
training facility on industrial (I) zoned property.
2.Approval of the variance to allow Hearing and Service Dogs of
Minnesota to keep two dogs per kennel for socialization purposes.
The kennels are adequately sized.
3.Approval for adding text to specifically allow a caretaker apartment
in conjunction with kennels in the industrial zone.
4.Approval for adding text to specifically allow a guest room within a
kennel facility, the guest room shall only be used by persons
obtaining services or receiving training from the kennel facility.
Guest stays are limited to a maximum of 10 business days per
training visit.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Crough, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Nirgudé,
Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Anderson
Motion carried.
Chair Oelkers stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council at its meeting on May 26 and asked that the petitioner attend
that meeting.
4
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2009
PC09-06 Chair Oelkers introduced Item 4.2, request for conditional use permit for
personal wireless service antenna tower, 5040 Winnetka Avenue North,
Item 4.2
FMHC Corporation, agent of T-Mobile Central LLC, petitioner.
Mr. Eric Weiss reported that the petitioner was requesting a conditional
use permit to allow a personal wireless service antenna tower in the
industrial zoning district at 5040 Winnetka Avenue North. Adjacent land
uses include industrial to the northwest, north, east and south, and R-1,
R-2, and R-O to the west and southwest. The site contains approximately
3.22 acres. The site currently houses office and storage space for Victory
Packaging.
T-Mobile has proposed to construct a 110-foot cell tower within a 40-foot
by 40-foot area in the rear of the property, which is well hidden from the
street and adjacent properties. The area would be surrounded by barbed
wire fencing and accessed by access and utility easements.
Mr. Weiss stated that T-Mobile has been aggressively pursuing tower sites
as demand on cell phone providers has grown substantially due to cell
phone only households. T-Mobile is looking to fill existing coverage gaps
between the tower at Victory Park and a tower in Crystal. This tower
would help support the E911 system and enhance public safety.
The city and T-Mobile had previously discussed a tower location at the
Ice Arena, however, those discussions fell through and T-Mobile
expressed no interest in that location.
Mr. Weiss mentioned that T-Mobile has a co-location at the 29th and
Hillsboro avenues water tower. He indicated staff had continuous issues
dealing with T-Mobile at that site. T-Mobile failed to obtain a necessary
utility easement with the property owner, nor did they secure the site
(fence left open) as required by Homeland Security. Mr. Weiss stated that
staff was recommending the applicant enter into a site improvement
agreement with the city and provide a financial guarantee for this site.
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff
received no comments.
The development review team met to discuss the proposal and had the
following comments: tower must comply with 1,000 foot separation rule;
provide elevation/photo of equipment with regard to color, cabinet,
security, and fencing; emergency generator; parking/maneuvering/drive
area to be surfaced with bituminous; no curbing on site, provide
information on drainage for the site and finish grading; tree removal/site
restoration/ground cover; clean up debris on the site and graffiti on east
wall of building. The Design and Review Committee met with the
petitioner to review the proposal and recommended a site improvement
agreement and financial guarantee as part of the approval of this project.
The tower is permitted by conditional use permit in the industrial district
and meets all of the requirements for height, distance between towers,
5
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2009
structural design, advertising, color, security, and compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The project meets the required setbacks including
distance from lot line and the building. The setback from the lot line must
be 75 percent of the total height of the monopole or 82’ 6” and the
proposed setback is 88’ 9”. The setback from the building is 50 percent of
the height of the monopole or 55 feet, and the proposed setback is 55 feet.
A 20-foot wide access easement would be secured by T-Mobile from the
property owner. The property owner has agreed to re-pave the existing
gravel drive to the south of the building. No additional parking would be
required for this improvement. T-Mobile’s service trucks would have
ample space to temporarily park in the existing drive area. The cell tower
would be a 110-foot monopole with galvanized finish. The T-Mobile
antennas would be located at 107 feet with potential co-locations at 95 feet
and 83 feet. The tower equipment would be contained within the 40-foot
by 40-foot leased space and secured by an eight-foot fence with barbed
wire at the top. Tower equipment and emergency battery would be stored
in a cabinet. The leased space has room for additional equipment.
The existing vegetation would be cleared and removed and no additional
plantings are proposed. The area is well screened from adjacent
properties by a berm and vegetation. The base of the tower would not be
visible from the street or nearby residential properties. No issues are
expected due to sound. The tower would have a battery-powered backup
supply in emergency situations. No generator was proposed except for
extreme emergency situations, and then T-Mobile would provide a
generator and comply with city code. The only sign would be for
identification and emergency/maintenance information per city code. A
10-foot wide utility easement would be secured by the applicant. Some
grading and drainage work would be necessary for the project. The city
engineer reviewed the proposal and did not point out any issues. The site
drains to the wetland area to the east. The proposal was in compliance
with the Design Guidelines.
Mr. Weiss stated that staff recommended approval of the cell phone
tower subject to the following conditions:
1.Enter into a site improvement agreement and provide financial
guarantee (due to the past working relationship with T-Mobile)
2.Gravel drive on south end of the property shall be replaced with
bituminous surface.
3.Properly clear out timbers, plant overgrowth and debris from site.
4.Erosion control measures shall be approved by the city before any
clearing activities commence.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether co-locators must follow the
same CUP guidelines, such as an on-site generator rather than battery
backup. Mr. Jacobsen stated that a co-locator would need to apply for a
CUP amendment for any change to the agreement.
Commissioner Hunten inquired how this building owner or a future
6
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2009
owner would expand with the proposed tower location so close to the
building. Mr. Weiss stated that the building owner had submitted a letter
to the city indicating support of the project.
Discussion ensued on the responsible party for something that a co-
locator may do wrong. The property owner would be responsible,
however, the property owner would have a lease agreement with T-
Mobile and probably with any co-locator.
Commissioner Landy expressed concern over the fact that T-Mobile had
not followed the rules for the site at 29th and Hillsboro avenues. He
stated he would like to see a substantial financial guarantee required for
this site and possibly a fine for non-compliance, such as leaving the
property unsecured. Ms. Swenseth, T-Mobile’s representative, stated she
was not involved with that site and was not fully aware of all the
circumstances and, therefore, could not speak about that situation. When
asked how the city could be assured that would not happen again, Ms.
Swenseth stated that they would abide by the site improvement
agreement as drafted by the city attorney. They would also provide a
financial guarantee for the site. Commissioner Landy stressed that the site
must be maintained in the future, not just assurances during the time of
obtaining permission and during the construction of the tower.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that there are certain requirements for the conditional
use permit for the tower that must be met, a site improvement agreement,
a performance bond during the construction of the project to assure the
project would be built according to the plan submitted, and possibly a
bond for the life of the project and duration of the lease with the property
owner.
Commissioner Houle confirmed that the bond had to be tied to the value
of the construction of the project. Chair Oelkers pointed out that it was
the job of the Planning Commission to recommend to the Council certain
conditions. The Council could determine an amount for the bond.
It was noted that the graffiti on the east side of the building had been
removed.
Commissioner Houle called attention to the fact that no information had
been submitted indicating the location of other cell towers. City code
requires a 1,000-foot separation. It is the applicant’s responsibility to
provide this information. Ms. Swenseth responded that there were several
items requested by the Design and Review Committee and she had
requested the information be provided by T-Mobile’s construction
manager and engineer but they were not able to make the April 24
deadline. She was not aware until today that the Commission was going
to consider the application at this meeting and apologized for not having
the information.
Commissioner Nirgudé indicated he was bothered by the fact that the
7
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2009
tower site at 29th and Hillsboro avenues had not been secured and was
supportive of a penalty if requirements are not met.
A question was raised as to whether a clause could be inserted into the
current CUP agreement to meet all conditions on the other site. Chair
Oelkers replied that had been discussed with the city attorney previously
and he indicated that could not be done.
Chair Oelkers inquired if the city owned the water tower. Mr. Jacobsen
stated the city did own the tower, but it was operated by the Joint Water
Commission. Oelkers wondered whether the lease agreement included
the conditions and whether the lease could be terminated. Mr. Jacobsen
stated that due to the fact that the JWC was also involved, he could not
speak for them.
Chair Oelkers asked that the dimensions be provided for the area that
was to be re-paved.
Chair Oelkers invited the audience to address the Commission.
Mr. Daryl Norby, 7908 50th Avenue North, came forward. He spoke
against the project. He was concerned with potential interference for
televisions, satellite radio, etc. and wanted a guarantee there would be no
interference. He was also concerned with the past history of T-Mobile and
wondered why the city was considering working with this company. He
indicated disappointment that the city was considering this request.
Mr. Harold Lucs, 7917 51st Avenue North, stated he was in direct line
with the towers in Arden Hills when the changeover was completed for
analog to digital television. He stated he was very concerned with
interference from the signals for cell phones. He asked who FMHC
Corporation was and was told that FMHC was the contractor for T-
Mobile. He reiterated he was against the project. Commissioner Schmidt
asked Mr. Lucs if his opinion would change if he was assured the tower
would not interfere with the television signal. Mr. Lucs stated he did not
like the aesthetics and felt the tower was out of place along Winnetka
Avenue. If it was located at the Ice Arena, it would be in a more isolated
area.
Mr. Wendal Brateng, 7925 51st Avenue North, wondered whether there
would a flashing light on top of the tower. Mr. Jacobsen responded that
the tower was not tall enough to warrant a light and it was not near an
airport. Mr. Brateng stated he was against the project.
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 09-06. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
8
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2009
Ms. Swenseth responded to questions raised. All of the frequencies for
cell phones, radios, and television are all strictly regulated by the FCC. If
there were any violations, the company can lose its license, therefore, it
stays within its frequency. Engineers study potential sites to be sure they
would comply with frequency regulations. Per the FAA, any tower over
200 feet requires a light at the top. The proposed tower would be 110 feet
in height. Commissioner Nirgudé inquired who residents would contact
if they did find some interference in their signals, and Mr. Jacobsen stated
that residents would contact the city first and city staff would contact T-
Mobile. Frequencies utilized by cell phone towers are not the same as
what is utilized by television transmissions.
A question was raised whether the rear of the building would be lit and
the answer was no.
Ms. Swenseth stated that the planning report indicated the property
owner was responsible for the development of the access road and to re-
pave the road; however, T-Mobile would be responsible for that work per
the lease agreement with the property owner.
Chair Oelkers suggested tabling this planning case. He asked the
petitioner to attend the next Design and Review Committee meeting and
provide a schematic of how the tower would look from Winnetka
Avenue, a statement regarding the 1,000-foot cell tower separation, and
information on all other outstanding issues from the previous meeting.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
Item 4.2 to table Planning Case 09-06, request for conditional use permit for
personal wireless service antenna tower, 5040 Winnetka Avenue North,
FMHC Corporation, agent of T-Mobile Central LLC, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: Crough
Absent: Anderson
Motion carried.
Chair Oelkers stated that the petitioner should meet with the Design and
Review Committee on May 14 to address the concerns of the
Commission.
Mr. Jacobsen requested a letter requesting a 60-day extension to the 60-
day rule for approval of the planning application.
Chair Oelkers thanked the audience for their input and informed them
the Planning Commission would discuss this issue again on June 2 and
make a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission was bound
by city code and, if the request met the ordinance requirements, the
Commission had to recommend approval. The City Council would make
the final decision.
9
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2009
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee
met with representatives of Hearing and Service Dogs and T-Mobile. Mr.
Committee
Jacobsen mentioned staff conducted several pre-application meetings but
Item 5.1
didn’t know yet if any would move forward. The committee would be
meeting again with T-Mobile on May 14. Chair Oelkers suggested staff
check with the city attorney to determine what conditions could be
attached to this application and an amount to recommend for the
financial guarantee/bond.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Schmidt reported that the Codes and Standards
Committee did not meet in April.
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS Mr. Jacobsen gave a brief update on previous planning cases as
previously requested by the Planning Commission: Planning Case 07-15,
Miscellaneous Issues
New Hope Bowl, 7107 42nd Avenue, CUP for outdoor volleyball courts,
Item 6.1
and Planning Case 08-07, residential addition at 4551 Flag Avenue, rear
yard variance.
Mr. Jacobsen commented that at the next meeting he would review the
Karges new home construction project and Conductive Containers
expansion project.
Chair Oelkers asked for a review of the Village on Quebec and Winnetka
Green projects in the near future.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion to Approve Motion by Commissioner Houle, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
Minutes to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 7, 2009. All voted
Item 7.1 in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Jacobsen informed the Commission that commissioner applications
would be accepted until the end of May.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:37
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
10
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2009