040709 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 7, 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: Paul Anderson, Pat Crough, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten,
Roger Landy, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen
Absent: Jim Brinkman, Ranjan Nirgudé
Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Eric
Weiss, Community Development Assistant, Steve Sondrall,
City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Jason
Quisberg, City Engineer, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC09-03 Chair Oelkers introduced Item 4.1, request for conditional use permit
amendment to provide expanded outdoor recreational opportunities
Item 4.1
related to the day care facility, 7601 42nd Avenue North, YMCA of
Metropolitan Minneapolis, petitioner.
Mr. Eric Weiss, stated the petitioner requested an amendment to its
existing conditional use permit (CUP) for day care facilities to allow for a
splash pad area on the north side of the property and an enclosed
outdoor play area for the existing on-site day care on the south side of the
property. The site is zoned community business and adjacent land uses
include CB to the north, east and west and industrial to the south and
east. There is a pond to the southwest that is owned by the city, YMCA
and school district.
The at-grade splash pad area contains slides, fountains and areas that
spray water. The entire front yard would be enclosed by a five-foot fence
and the splash pad would be enclosed by a separate three-foot fence. The
area along 42nd Avenue would be screened with additional landscaping.
The play area on the southern portion of the property would be
completed in three phases. The area closest to the building would be for
children ages two to five and new play equipment would be installed. The
second phase would be the southernmost portion of this area and remain
an open lawn area for games. The third phase would be the middle
section for children ages five to 12. Each area would be surrounded by a
three-foot fence and the entire area would be enclosed by a five-foot
fence.
The Northwest YMCA is affiliated with the YMCA of Metropolitan
Minneapolis and Greater St. Paul. The New Hope location has been in the
city since 1976. It operates athletic and aquatic facilities, as well as
educational, youth and recreational programming, and a child day care.
This child care facility is the largest in the Twin Cities YMCA system and
is allowed by CUP. The petitioner desires to amend its CUP to include
landscaping and outdoor recreational improvements. The improvements
would enable the Northwest YMCA to better meet the needs of its
members. The improvements would ensure compliance with state and
local regulations for licensed childcare outdoor recreation and expand
summer youth program activities.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff
received no comments.
Mr. Weiss reported that the Northwest YMCA met all requirements of the
city code for the day care facility and for the conditional use permit
amendment, including consistency with the comprehensive plan,
compatibility with the neighborhood, performance standards, traffic, etc.
The existing day care facilities are permitted under the YMCA’s current
CUP agreement, but due to the fact that those facilities are proposed for
expansion, the applicant must enter into an amended CUP agreement
that includes the expanded facilities.
The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant and revised
plans and narrative were submitted subsequent to that meeting. The
proposed expansions meet the CB district setback requirements. No
changes to the parking lot were proposed. Pavement upgrades and areas
of expansion are proposed for both improvement areas. The splash pad
would expand the impervious area by approximately 1,200 square feet.
Additional sidewalk improvements are included in the south-end
expansion area. Both the north and south areas would be secured and
surrounded by a five-foot, vinyl clad, chain-link perimeter fence. The
splash pad and separate age group play areas would be enclosed by a
separate three-foot chain-link fence. The splash pad area would be
accessible from the inside of the building. The southern play area would
be accessible from inside the building and a staff-monitored, exterior gate
to be used for parent drop-off and pick-up. The splash pad would be
utilized during the day in the summer months. The hours of operation
would be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The building footprint would remain the same.
The splash pad and play areas are considered landscaping
improvements. Any future interior remodeling included as part of the
capital campaign would require building permit approval.
The splash pad area would be screened by existing and proposed trees
and shrubs. Flowers would be planted along the fence near the parking
lot. The southern area is currently well landscaped. No lighting
improvements are proposed as the areas would be utilized during the
daylight hours. A wall pack would be added in the front area for security
purposes. Noise is not anticipated to be an issue due to the location of the
facility and the surrounding commercial uses. No additional signage was
2
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009
proposed.
The YMCA proposed to remove the berm on the north and the entire
front yard would be re-graded to drain toward a catch basin near the
northwest corner of the building. The southern area would be graded and
drain toward an infiltration basin. Mr. Weiss stated that the city engineer
had indicated those improvements would be adequate for the site.
In summary, the YMCA proposed to construct two outdoor recreational
areas for use by its day care programs and members. A splash pad area
would be constructed on the north end of the building and the existing
play areas on the south end of the building would be renovated to
provide updated playground equipment and separate the lawn into three
play areas. These improvements are considered an expansion of the
existing day care facilities and this application would amend the existing
conditional use permit. Mr. Weiss stated that the proposal met the
conditions of the CUP, the expansion would be an improvement to the
day care facility and be an asset to the community. Staff recommended
approval of the request.
Commissioner Hunten initiated discussion of the fence along 42nd
Avenue. Mr. Weiss confirmed that there would be a five-foot fence along
42nd Avenue. The applicant initially had proposed heavy landscaping
along the fence, however, the Police Department suggested cutting back
on some of the plantings to allow open space for police officers to view
the area when driving by the site.
Commissioner Schmidt questioned the security of the play area to the
south and whether or not the five-foot fence was adequate.
Chair Oelkers questioned when the different phases would be completed.
Mr. Weiss responded that the splash pad would be completed by July
2009, as well as the play area closest to the building. The other two play
areas would be completed as funds become available through the
YMCA’s fund-raising campaigns.
An explanation of the splash pad and equipment was requested.
Mr. Brian Kirk, YMCA employee, came forward to answer questions of
the Commission. He thanked the Commission for considering their
request and stated the YMCA was excited about the project. He explained
that the splash pad would have no standing water; therefore, no lifeguard
would be required. The water is sprayed out from the fountain, play
structure or down the slide, caught in a shallow catch basin, filtered, and
re-circulated. There are a series of drains in the concrete pad area where
the pad slopes down to the drains. The equipment would be 21 feet high
at the top of the spout that fills the splash bucket. The bucket fills and
disperses the water over a canopy that splashes the water to different
areas. As the water gets to a certain level in the bucket, a bell rings so the
children know when it will tip and water will splash. No music would be
3
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009
played.
Commissioner Houle questioned the color scheme of the equipment and
recommended using primary colors.
Commissioner Houle inquired who would be utilizing the splash pad.
Mr. Kirk answered that the YMCA has the licensed child care center that
operates year round. During the summer, the YMCA operates summer
camps, including day-long, on-site programs, and for children that are on
site before and after field trips to other locations. These areas would be
open to these “campers,” the regular day care children during the week,
and YMCA members, both during the week and on the weekends. Houle
questioned whether or not the number of children in either the day care
or summer programs would be increased. Mr. Kirk stated that he hoped
there would be some increase, but felt it would be difficult to measure as
far as parking. The existing building is large and sized to be a fitness
center with gyms, studios, racketball courts, etc. Attendance by members
decreases significantly in summer during the day, therefore, the
children’s programs would fill that time.
Commissioner Houle stated that during the Design and Review
Committee meeting there was mention of a six-foot decorative fence
along 42nd Avenue, which has now been changed to a five-foot vinyl-
chain-link fence. Mr. Kirk confirmed that the change was partially due to
financial reasons and also due to the fact that the balance of the property
would utilize the vinyl, chain-link fence. He stated he felt the landscaping
would be a pleasant addition. Houle mentioned that 42nd Avenue was a
primary commercial corridor in New Hope and asked the petitioner to
reconsider utilizing decorative fencing. He did not want to set a
precedent for other property owners. Mr. George Watson, Brauer and
Associates, stated that the cost difference between decorative and chain
link fencing was approximately 50 percent. For example, the decorative
fence may be $60-75 per lineal foot versus $25-30 for chain link fencing.
For the street frontage on 42nd Avenue, the difference could be
approximately $2,000. Commissioner Hunten stated that she felt the
existing black vinyl chain-link fence was fairly attractive. Mr. Watson
stated he felt the black vinyl fence somewhat visually “disappeared” with
plantings around it. He added that there was some discussion at the
Design and Review meeting as to the height of the fence and five feet had
been agreed on. Mr. Watson stated that landscaping was planned for the
north side (street side) of the fence.
Commissioner Svendsen stated that the planting schedule and plan did
not match and inquired whether there would be eight or 10 black hills
spruce planted on the west property line and the answer was eight. Mr.
Watson stated that they had tried to comply with the request by the Police
Department with the shorter plantings and over-story trees along the
fence at the front of the property. They were planting the spruce along
with west property line between the YMCA and auto repair facility.
Svendsen inquired of the irrigation system for the landscaping and was
4
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009
informed that the site was currently irrigated and that system would be
adapted to meet the new landscape requirements.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned how the depression in the southern
play area would drain. Mr. Watson responded that there would be a
structure and outlet at a lower elevation which would go under the trail
into the pond so that, in the event of a large storm, the water would not
flow over the trail. He noted that the depression was sized larger than
required for this site. Commissioner Svendsen suggested the YMCA work
with the city engineer on finalizing these plans.
Commissioner Schmidt inquired of staff regarding decision to change to
chain-link fencing. Chair Oelkers stated he remembered the Design and
Review Committee suggesting a six-foot, one-inch picket metal fence
along with plantings. Commissioner Hunten added that as a parent she
felt heavier screening along 42nd Avenue was desirable so other children
walking along the sidewalk would not try to get into this area without
going through the building. Oelkers stated that the Police Department
had been consistent with all applicants and screening requirements to
allow some open space in the landscaping. The YMCA has suggested
heavier understory plantings with taller over-story trees so police officers
can use flood lights at night to see into the site.
No one was in the audience to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 09-03. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Houle reiterated that he did not want to set a precedent by
allowing chain-link fence along 42nd Avenue, which is a very visible
commercial corridor. He stressed he did not want to detract from the
value of other neighboring properties. The original plans indicated a
decorative fence with vertical pickets. He stated he understood the money
issue, but the entire chain-link fence could not be hidden with plantings.
Chair Oelkers agreed that chain link fence was not appropriate along
42nd Avenue. He suggested the Commission make a recommendation to
the Council and let the Council make the final determination on the fence.
Commissioner Hunten stated that she would be upset about a regular
chain-link fence, however the black vinyl coated fence looked nice. The
fence was there to protect the children. Mr. Weiss commented that the
design guidelines could be amended to include further explanation on
fencing requirements.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy,
Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 09-03 request for conditional use permit
amendment to provide expanded outdoor recreational opportunities
related to the day care facility, 7601 42nd Avenue North, YMCA of
Metropolitan Minneapolis, petitioner, subject to the following
conditions:
5
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009
1.Update landscape plan/planting schedule with correct number of
trees and incorporate the original irrigation system and proposed
modifications for the current planting schedule.
2.Coordinate with city engineer on proposed pond in the southeast
corner of site to assure no water flows over the trail.
3.The fence along 42nd Avenue should be decorative metal picket
rather than chain-link fencing.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Crough, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Oelkers,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Brinkman, Nirgudé
Motion carried.
Chair Oelkers stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council at its meeting on April 13 and asked that the petitioner
attend that meeting. He added that this would be a great addition to the
facility.
PC09-04 Chair Oelkers introduced Item 4.2, request for conditional use permit to
operate an animal kennel facility, 9440 Science Center Drive, Hearing and
Item 4.2
Service Dogs of Minnesota, petitioner.
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, stated that the petitioner was requesting a
conditional use permit to operate a kennel and training facility in an
industrial zoning district. Industrial land uses surround the property. The
site contains 4.3 acres and the existing building contains 21,700 square
feet. Lot area ratios include 12 percent building, 12 percent paved, and 76
percent green/gravel area. The primary goal of planning district no. 3 is to
preserve and enhance the industrial land uses. Hearing and Service Dogs
of Minnesota is a non-profit entity which provides training to dogs that
assist persons with special needs. The existing building at 9440 Science
Center Drive has been vacant for the past two years. The site is under-
utilized from a development standpoint and could accommodate a more
intensive use. Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified
and no comments were received.
Animal kennels are allowed by conditional use in the industrial zoning
district and must meet specific conditions as follows: 1. A minimum of 75
square feet must be provided for each dog. The applicant proposed to
provide 246 square feet of space per dog for kenneling, veterinary care,
training and kitchen functions. Each kennel would have 108 square feet of
area including the outdoor dog run. 2. No ancillary services are proposed
for this site other than training. 3. The applicant is proposing an outdoor
exercise area of 21,725 square feet, or 517 square feet per dog, at
maximum capacity (100 square feet per dog is required). An eight-foot
chain link fence would surround the outdoor exercise area. Two
additional planting areas of three evergreen trees each along the length of
the fence would provide additional screening. Animal waste would be
6
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009
picked up immediately and disposed of in the sanitary sewer system. 4.
The petitioner indicated the facility would provide a ventilation system to
prohibit the transmission of odors or organisms between tenant bays. The
facility temperature would be maintained between 60 and 80 degrees
Fahrenheit. 5. A separate area in the building would isolate sick or injured
animals from healthy animals. In the future, the petitioner intends to
construct a separate building to quarantine animals and provide a
caretaker unit. 6. The kennels would be constructed of Mason FRP metal
and polyethylene/fiberglass reinforced plastic that is fully washable.
Kennels would be cleaned daily with industrial disinfectant and pressure
washed weekly. A six-inch liquid-tight curb would not be utilized as
required by code due to the fact that the kennel system being used offers
the same protection using a different design element. 7. Animal waste
would be removed from kennels daily and waste outside would be
cleaned up immediately. 8. The applicant would apply for appropriate
licensure. 9. The applicant would provide the city with at least 14 days’
notice if the animal kennel intends to vacate the premises. 10. The facility
must provide adequate lighting throughout the interior of the facility. The
applicant indicated they would add several wall packs on the back of the
building by the dog runs.
The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant and reviewed
the proposal. The applicant submitted a revised narrative indicating
compliance with all zoning code requirements. A 20-foot deep kennel
annex on the north side of the existing building would be constructed,
which would be compliant with city code setback requirements. The first
phase would not require any modification to access or circulation
patterns on the site. The existing lot would provide for current parking
needs, and the eastern gravel area would provide for overflow parking.
The existing one-story building is constructed of brick on the front corner
and painted block for the balance of the building. The proposed annex at
the back of the existing building would be 20 feet deep, painted
decorative block, prefinished sheet metal cladding, standing seam steel
roofing and overhead garage doors. The annex would be enclosed by
chain-link fence which would enclose the outdoor exercise area for the
animals. The existing building would contain office space, training and
exercise areas, meeting rooms, veterinary care, warehouse, storage, and
garage space for the vans.
Mr. Jacobsen reported that the applicant proposed to remove several
nuisance type trees behind the building and plant two additional clumps
of evergreens to the west of the rear yard fencing. These two clumps
would provide some screening and allow adequate visibility for police to
monitor the back of the site. The applicant desired to have visibility to the
street for training the dogs. Additional wall packs would be added near
the kennels for security purposes. The dogs are well trained and have a
handler with them while in the outside exercise area. The location is
isolated within the industrial park so there would be no disturbances to
residential properties. The existing sign on the southwest corner of the
site would be refaced and an additional sign would be added near the
7
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009
ingress to the site. No changes are proposed with regard to utilities.
Loading would take place either in the storage area or near the delivery
door. The trash container would be inside the storage area and there
would be no outside storage. No grading or drainage changes have been
proposed. The proposal fits within the requirements of the design
guidelines.
In summary, Mr. Jacobsen stated that the applicant is a non-profit
corporation. They are requesting a conditional use permit to allow a dog
kennel and training facility at 9440 Science Center Drive. A small building
addition on the north side of the building would be constructed for 20
dog kennels and dog runs. The proposal meets the requirements of the
CUP. The applicant suggested future expansions of the facility may
include an accessory building or an addition that would house a caretaker
unit with guest rooms and an isolation kennel. The parking lot would also
be expanded at that time. Only the first phase of the proposal should be
considered at this time. Future phases would be considered as a CUP
amendment. Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff felt the proposal met all the
CUP requirements and recommended approval of the request.
Chair Oelkers and Commissioner Houle pointed out that at the Design
and Review Committee meeting the applicant had indicated he wanted
conceptual approval of a master plan, specifically the applicant wanted to
construct a separate building to house the caretaker in the future.
Commissioner Svendsen added that he thought the applicant wanted to
know if the conceptual plan was workable as a whole and whether it
could be completed in phases. Future phases would be brought back to
the Planning Commission and City Council for formal approval.
Mr. Peter Hilger, Rylaur Consulting and volunteer architect for Hearing
and Service Dogs, came forward and introduced AJ, Mr. Al Peters, and
Mr. Richard Garon, building owner.
Mr. Hilger stated that Hearing and Service Dogs of Minnesota was asking
for long-range plan approval, not in detail, but in function. The reason for
this was that as a non-profit they were making a significant investment in
the building and hoped to be in this location for a long time. It was
essential that certain conditions could occur on the site in the future. The
most critical function would be the quarantine area. He explained that
when dogs are brought in from a shelter, they need to be quarantined for
a period of time to be sure they are healthy and not spreading disease to
the other dogs. It may be possible to have the quarantine area in the
existing building, however, the best practice is to have a separate facility.
When funds are available in the future, they would construct a separate
building to house up to six kennels for quarantine and related vet
facilities for those dogs. Attached to that building would be a caretaker
facility,. which would be similar to mini storage where there is a caretaker
living on site. A caretaker on site is important as the dogs are inside all
night. Ancillary to the caretaker facility would be guest rooms for the
clients, who live a long distance from the training facility, that need to be
8
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009
trained for a period of time with the dog and a trainer. These clients, in
most cases, are disabled and the units would be appropriately designed
for them and convenient to the training facility. Mr. Hilger added that, as
he understood the city code, the caretaker facility is allowed in the
industrial zoning district. He thought the industrial zone allowed hotels,
which could apply to the guest rooms. He was requesting Commission
approval of the concept. He realized there were design issues that needed
to be addressed latter. The site allowed ample room to make adjustments
to their proposal. They would also have room to expand the offices or
kennels to the north of the existing building. He reiterated that they were
asking for long-range master concept approval so when they come back
to the city to amend the CUP in the future, it could be accomplished.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, stated it would not be feasible for the
Planning Commission to recommend, nor the City Council to agree, to
some type of long-range plan for which the city had not seen a plan. The
current City Council could not bind a future Council to something that it
may not want to do. Zoning codes change. The Commission could only
approve a plan that was before them, and not offer an advisory opinion
or guarantee that a future use would be legally binding or acceptable.
Any plan the applicant brings to the city in the future would be reviewed
under the current ordinances. Commissioner Oelkers pointed out that a
plan for the future layout of the site had been submitted and wondered
whether or not the Commission could approve that subject to design
approval. Mr. Sondrall maintained he did not feel it would be appropriate
to approve a potential future plan at this time. The Commission could
approve the annex, which would be constructed in the immediate future.
If a plan had been submitted with a building that would be constructed in
a reasonable period of time, approval would be appropriate, but the
Commission could not approve a plan for a future use that it had not
seen. Mr. Jacobsen reiterated that the Commission could approve the
current plan, and indicate to the City Council that, from the discussion
regarding future plans, the Council could imply to the applicant that
under the current ordinances in the city, the future plans may be
acceptable. The city could not approve something that does not yet exist.
Mr. Hilger stressed that they had to know they could do something on the
site prior to purchasing it.
Discussion ensued on zoning changes and publication of notices for
either a specific property or an entire zoning district.
Mr. Hilger maintained that the opinion they would like from the city was
that if they brought in a plan that was fully compliant that they could
have an outbuilding with a caretaker facility. Mr. Sondrall stressed that
the city could not give an opinion like that. When properties are
purchased, businesses take a certain amount of risk in determining the
use of a particular building. There is no guarantee prior to the purchase of
the property that the future expansion would be allowed. The
Commission could only react to the current proposal. Mr. Hilger asked
for concurrence of his interpretation of the code. Mr. Sondrall stated he
9
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009
did not concur with the residential use of the property. He thought the
caretaker unit may be acceptable, but not the guest rooms. He suggested
that staff and the planning consultant review the request.
Commissioner Houle asked the applicant whether they were on a specific
timeframe or if the Commission could postpone a decision and bring the
issue back at the May meeting. Mr. Hilger stated they wanted to close on
the property prior to June 1. Mr. Jacobsen stated that if this matter was
brought back to the Commission in May and approved, it could be heard
by the City Council on May 11, which would be within the 60-day
timeline. Commissioner Houle asked for a recess to talk to the petitioner.
Chair Oelkers called for a recess at 8:12 p.m. The meeting was reconvened
at 8:17 p.m.
Mr. Jacobsen corrected his previous statement regarding the 60-day time
limit which would expire prior to the Council considering this planning
case, therefore, an extension would need to be approved. Mr. Hilger
stated he was agreeable to furnishing the city with a letter requesting an
extension. He added he would like to review the zoning issues with staff
and consultants and bring a revised plan back to the Commission.
A question was raised whether or not a plan could be approved if the
applicant brought back a plan with the outbuilding they plan to
construct. Or, if approved, what would happen if the building was not
constructed within the next few years? Mr. Sondrall stated that if a
conditional use permit was not acted upon the CUP dies by operation of
law after one year. The applicant would have to apply for another CUP
when ready to construct the accessory building. Chair Oelkers
recommended that the applicant, staff, and consultants meet to work out
the details.
Commissioner Svendsen called attention to the ventilation systems – one
for the dog area and another updated system for indoor truck parking in
the warehouse –and reminded the petitioner that any rooftop units
needed to be screened from the public right-of-way. Mr. Hilger stated
that new ventilation equipment would be used for the kennel area. The
truck area only needed an exhaust system. The existing rooftop units are
not screened, but allowed through sightlines.
Mr. Hilger stated that the interior design may change somewhat. He
added that they do not plan to remove cottonwood trees during phase
one, only if or when an accessory building would be constructed. He
mentioned that city ordinance required one dog per kennel, however, he
pointed out that they house two dogs per kennel for training socialization
purposes.
Commissioner Houle questioned whether retail sales were allowed in an
industrial district and it was determined that if the sales were accessory to
the principle business it was allowed. The applicant would be selling
10
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009
leashes and other related items.
Commissioner Landy asked for clarification on the non-profit business
and inquired where it gets the dogs and how the dogs and clients are
paired. Mr. Alan Peters, executive director and founder of Hearing and
Service Dogs of Minnesota, stated that they continuously receive
applications from potential clients. They are always checking animal
shelters for new candidates. They have a breeding program and work
with approximately 80 puppy raisers. Puppies are raised in people’s
homes and donated back to the program when they are about 16 to 18
months of age for final training. Total training takes about two years.
Depending on the need, a mobility-needs client and service dog train
together approximately three weeks. The client and dog come together to
meet and learn the basics, which is the time where the client would stay
on site. After three or four days on site, the training continues in the
client’s home environment and surrounding area.
Commissioner Anderson questioned night security. A security system
would be installed. The building is sprinkled. The caretaker concept
would add to the security especially in an emergency, as well as the extra
benefit of someone on site for maintenance issues. The caretaker would
live on site in a small apartment. Mr. Sondrall stated he felt this would be
similar to a caretaker unit at a storage facility which was acceptable with
the city code. He pointed out that as a general rule, performance
standards could be varied, but not use standards. If a particular use was
prohibited in a zoning district, a variance could not be granted to allow it.
Commissioner Houle questioned the no parking signs along Science
Center Drive and if this area was required. Mr. Jacobsen responded that
the applicant had indicated they would visit with the business to the
south to determine if they could utilize some of its off-street parking. It
may be possible that the Police Department could provide bags for the
signs during weekend graduation ceremonies.
Mr. Jacobsen mentioned that there would be an eight-foot chain-link
fence around the entire back of the property for security purposes. The
kennels would be locked as well. Discussion ensued on the request by the
applicant that the police K9 units not enter the building and whether or
not this had been discussed with the Police Department. Mr. Jacobsen
replied that the police do not go into a building unless there was a
specific need. Generally, the police have emergency numbers to contact
the owner first. They may enter only if they suspected a break in or an
alarm was sounding. Mr. Hilger indicated the reason they do not want
the police dogs in the building was in case of disease. Mr. Sondrall added
that the city and Police Department could not guarantee that the K9 units
would never be in that facility. If there was a public safety reason, the K9
unit would enter the building.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Houle, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
Item 4.2 to table Planning Case 09-04 until the May 5 meeting, request for
11
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009
conditional use permit to operate an animal kennel facility, 9440
Science Center Drive, Hearing and Service Dogs of Minnesota,
petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Crough, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Oelkers,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Brinkman, Nirgudé
Motion carried.
Chair Oelkers recommended that the applicant meet with the Design and
Review Committee on April 16 at 7:15 a.m.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee
met with representatives of the YMCA and Hearing and Service Dogs.
Committee
Mr. Jacobsen mentioned staff conducted three pre-application meetings
Item 5.1
and thought at least one would move forward. The committee would be
contacted if a meeting was necessary on April 16.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Schmidt reported that the Codes and Standards
Committee did not meet in March.
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS Mr. Jacobsen stated he could give a brief update on previous planning
cases as requested at the last meeting. Chair Oelkers stated that due the
Miscellaneous Issues
time he preferred to hold the updates to the next meeting. He suggested
Item 6.1
reviewing a couple items per month to learn how the projects progressed
from a planning standpoint and the positive and negative parts of the
projects. For example, he wondered whether the finished Village on
Quebec project looked like it did when presented to the Commission or if
the front yard setback variance for Conductive Containers worked out
like expected. He suggested staff provide a few photos of the projects and
a short report of the original request and outcome, and the minutes from
the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion to Approve Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Minutes approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 3, 2009. All voted
Item 7.1 in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Oelkers announced the Business Forum on April 8 at 7:30 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:47
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
12
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
13
Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 2009