Loading...
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