Loading...
120109 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 1, 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; Vice Chair Houle called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Jacobsen administered the oath of office to Ms. Kimberly Johnson and welcomed her to the commission. ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, Jeff Houle, Kimberly Johnson, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: Sandra Hunten Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC09-06 Vice Chair Houle introduced Item 5.1, request for conditional use permit, 5040 Winnetka Avenue North, FMHC Corporation for T-Mobile Central Item 5.1 LLC, petitioners. Mr. Jacobsen stated 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. The site is surrounded by industrial, single and single/two-family residential and residential/office properties. The site contains approximately 3.22 acres. The site currently houses office and storage space for Victory Packaging. T-Mobile has proposed a 110-foot tower to be enclosed in a 40-foot by 40-foot area east of the existing building. The leased area would be secured by a chain link fence with barbed wire and would be accessed via an access road and utility easement. Mr. Jacobsen stated that T-Mobile was aggressively pursuing tower sites due to growing demand as consumers move toward cell phone only households. In 2006, the usage of cell phones exceeded landline phone usage. The additional tower would help support the E911 system and enhance public safety. The Design and Review committee reviewed this application in April and recommended approval subject to T-Mobile entering into a site improvement agreement with the city and posting a financial guarantee. Mr. Jacobsen explained that the tower is a permitted use in the industrial zoning district and met all requirements of the CUP with regard to height, distance between towers, structural design, advertising, color, security, and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The project meets all required setbacks from the building and lot line. T-Mobile will secure a 20-foot wide access easement with the property owner that would run from Winnetka Avenue along the south property line to the rear of the building. A turnaround area would also be provided near the leased area. As part of the lease agreement, the property owner agreed to re-pave the existing, deteriorated gravel driveway to the south of the building. T-Mobile’s service trucks would have adequate space to temporarily park vehicles in the existing drive area while tending to the tower. No additional parking would be needed. There would be space in the leased area for the 110-foot, galvanized finish monopole and three equipment cabinets. T-Mobile’s antenna would be located at 107 feet with potential co-locations at 95 feet and 83 feet. Existing vegetation would be cleared and removed. No additional plantings are proposed. The area would be well screened from adjacent residential properties. The base of the tower would not be visible from the street or nearby residential properties. The tower would have a battery- powered backup supply in emergency situations. A temporary generator would be brought to the site only in emergency situations and would comply with city code. No noise issues are anticipated. The only signage proposed is for identification and emergency/maintenance notification as required by city code. A 10-foot wide utility easement would be secured by the applicant. Minor grading and drainage work would be necessary for the project. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the city engineer had reviewed the proposal and did not foresee any issues. The site drains to the wetland area to the east. The proposal complies with the city’s Design Guidelines. Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff and the Design and Review Committee recommend approval of the proposal subject to the conditions listed in the planning report. The Commission reviewed this proposal in May at which time the recommendation was to postpone approval until several existing issues, including access, security, burying lines, etc., at another site had been resolved. At the July meeting, the Commission recommended denial due to the fact that the issues had not yet been resolved. At the July City Council meeting, the Council accepted a waiver of the 60-day rule to allow T-Mobile time to resolve the outstanding issues to the satisfaction of staff, the Public Works Department, and the city engineer. Commissioner Landy questioned how the dollar amount for the financial guarantee was established. Mr. Sondrall, city attorney, stated that a financial guarantee and site improvement agreement were necessary when improvements were being made on a property in the public right- of-way where the city had a vested interest in insuring that the work got completed, especially as it relates to boulevards, planting of trees, curb 2 Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 2009 cuts, and the storm sewer system. However, in the past, the city has also required financial guarantees for improvement to the bituminous on the site, fencing, and the completion of the landscaping. The city engineer reviews the various items the city may have a concern with relative to completion in conformance to city standards. He estimates the cost of those items and the bond is 150 percent of the cost. The city engineer’s recommendation is then incorporated into the site improvement agreement. Once the improvements are completed, the city releases the financial guarantee. Mr. Sondrall reiterated that typically the financial guarantee was for work in the public right-of-way; however, New Hope has also required a financial guarantee for other types of improvements on the property. Mr. Sondrall indicated T-Mobile and the property owner have an agreement which would protect the property owner and ensure T-Mobile complies with the requirements of the CUP. The city could go back to the property owner if there are problems or revoke the CUP if the applicant does not comply with the recommended conditions. Sondrall explained that to revoke the CUP, the applicant would be notified and a public hearing conducted, per city code. Commissioner Nirgudé wondered about the nighttime sound requirement if emergency equipment had to be brought to the site. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the city followed state pollution control guidelines, and the applicant would need to comply with the decibel level as stated in city code. He reminded commissioners that sound tests are taken at the property line. The tower location is a fairly large distance from residential properties. Vice Chair Houle pointed out that this site drained to the wetland to the east which is located on another parcel. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the elevation change on this site is approximately six inches and it would be unlikely that the impervious surface added would impact runoff to the wetland. He also mentioned that this was one of the few areas in the city with sandy soil; therefore, staff was not concerned with runoff to adjacent properties. Ms. Amy Dresch, FMHC Corporation and agent for T-Mobile, came forward to address the Commission. She stated that the access road and turnaround area at the entrance of the compound would be asphalt. Class 5 gravel would be inside the fenced area. Erosion control measures would be utilized by adding a silt fence around the construction area of the project. She added that detailed notes were added to the drawings regarding the removal of trees and shrubs. The entire area would be restored as much as possible to its previous condition. Ground elevation contours were added to the survey to depict ground issues. T-Mobile would remove snow from the site and access road after a two-inch snowfall. Ms. Dresch pointed out that she recently came into this project and had 3 Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 2009 tried to resolve the outstanding issues to the satisfaction of the city. She stated that some of the issues involved multiple parties. She apologized for any previous miscommunication and stated they do not anticipate that happening again. Commissioner Svendsen stated the city appreciated her efforts in resolving the outstanding issues. He reminded the applicant of the requirement to submit proof that there were no other towers within 1000 feet of this site. Ms. Dresch stated that an aerial photo showing the 1000- foot separation had been submitted. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the city had received this and showed the map depicting the 1000-foot area. Discussion ensued regarding the life expectancy of the tower. Ms. Dresch stated that the tower would be constructed of galvanized steel and are designed and constructed according to wind-loads and ice requirements per state regulations. The towers have a long-term life expectancy and modifications could be made throughout the years, if needed. The lease for this site is 20-25 years. A question was raised as to the diameter of the monopole and the reply was that it would be wide enough for all of the cables to fit inside for T-Mobile, as well as cables for two additional carriers. T-Mobile’s towers are designed for each specific location. Vice Chair Houle reminded Ms. Dresch of the 55-foot setback of the pole to the building as measured from the outside of the pole not the center point. 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 09-06. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, Item 5.1 to approve Planning Case 09-06, request for conditional use permit, 5040 Winnetka Avenue North, FMHC Corporation for T-Mobile Central, LLC, petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1.Enter into site improvement agreement and provide financial guarantee. 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 activity commences. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Houle, Johnson, Landy, Nirgudé, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Hunten Motion carried. Vice Chair Houle stated that this planning case would be considered by 4 Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 2009 the City Council at its meeting on December 14 and asked that the petitioner attend that meeting. PC09-15 Vice Chair Houle introduced Item 5.2, discussion regulating setbacks for temporary signs, city of New Hope, petitioner. Item 5.2 Mr. Jacobsen stated the Codes and Standard Committee discussed this item at its meeting in November. He stated that enforcement of the current ordinance for placement of small temporary signs (not requiring a permit) – behind the sidewalk or 10 feet from the curb – has been an issue for several years. The inspections staff had been directed to be proactive in enforcement of the city code. Signs that are placed in the wrong location are picked up and placed in a shed at the Public Works facility. He explained that adjacent cities essentially have the same code regulations regarding placement, but do not seem to enforce that regulation. The Codes and Standards Committee tried to eliminate the need for enforcement for these small temporary signs and proposed that the signs could be placed two feet from the curb or behind the sidewalk, and continue to maintain the sight triangle at the corner. Subsequent to the Codes and Standards meeting, the city attorney drafted an ordinance amendment that would allow placement of these small temporary signs a minimum of two feet from the back of the curb or behind a sidewalk. The sign’s placement should not interfere with the use of the sidewalk. All other temporary freestanding signs must be placed 10 feet from the curb or behind the sidewalk. The corner lot provisions would not change. Mr. Sondrall added that the ordinance in adjacent cities may prohibit signs in the right-of-way, which also left some leeway as to where the lot line began. New Hope staff determined to establish a set number of feet from the curb for sign placement. The Codes and Standards Committee recommended reducing the placement of the signs from 10 feet to two feet behind the curb. Commissioner Brinkman added that the change only pertains to signs three feet in height and six square feet total. Larger temporary signs not requiring a permit must still be placed 10 feet behind the curb or behind the sidewalk. Mr. Brixius stated that the definition of a temporary sign in this ordinance amendment would allow “temporary signs six square feet or less in size, not to exceed three feet in height, only in residential zones. Temporary signs shall not be erected for more than 10 calendar days.” Mr. Brixius initiated discussion regarding the corner sight triangle. At this time, no signs are allowed in the corner sight triangle. Mr. Jacobsen pointed out that at an intersection with no sidewalks and the signs placed two feet from the curb, the visibility for a driver in a small, low-to-the- ground car could be hindered. A small child could be behind a sign placed at the corner and not be seen by the driver. A question was raised whether the city would be liable for an accident due to blocked vision if 5 Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 2009 signs are allowed on the corner closer to the curb. Mr. Sondrall indicated that staff could check with the League of Minnesota Cities regarding a liability issue, but he stated he did not think the city would be liable. Mr. Sondrall suggested that if the Commission desired to include signs not exceeding three feet in height in the sight triangle, he could revise the ordinance and include that phrase, which would then read” “on all corner lots, temporary freestanding signs not requiring a permit “and exceeding three feet in height” shall not be permitted within 20 feet of any corner….” Another suggestion was to combine proposed sections 3- 50(j)(2)(b and c) to make it easier for residents to understand and eliminate the 20-foot sight triangle rule. The consensus was to revise the ordinance and bring it back to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Svendsen stated he was okay with leaving the 20-foot sight triangle provision in the code and temporary signs not requiring a permit and three feet or less in height would be allowed in that area. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Item 5.2 Svendsen, to table Planning Case 09-15, an ordinance amending New Hope Code section 3-50(j)(2) regulating setback requirements for temporary signs, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Johnson, Landy, Nirgudé, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Hunten Abstain: Crough Motion carried. PC09-14 Vice Chair Houle introduced Item 5.3, discussion of corner lot definitions, city of New Hope, petitioner. Item 5.3 Mr. Jacobsen explained that there had been a recommendation for the Commission to discuss the corner lot definition due to the number of front/side yard variance requests received to construct additions onto the existing home and/or garage. The legal front of the property is defined in code as the narrowest street frontage regardless of how the home is placed on the property. Drawings included in the planning report indicated a larger buildable area for the property per the current definition. The city reviews these requests on a case-by-case basis. Jacobsen suggested that city staff review these requests without the help of the planning consultant in an effort to reduce costs for the applicant. He stated that the Codes and Standard Committee and staff recommended no changes to the ordinance. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, Item 5.3 regarding Planning Case 09-14, to make no changes to the New Hope 6 Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 2009 Code definition for corner lots, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Houle, Johnson, Landy, Nirgudé, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Hunten Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Vice Chair Houle stated that the representative for Clearwire requesting a communications tower on Winpark Drive did not attend the meeting. Mr. Committee Jacobsen added that the applicant did not have all of their materials ready Item 6.1 to submit and did not have the property owner’s signature, but hoped to move forward early next year. He added that District 287 would be meeting with city staff on Friday to discuss options at the Hosterman site. The committee would be notified if a meeting is necessary on December 17. Codes and Standards Commissioner Schmidt reported that the Codes and Standards Committee met in November and discussed the two issues brought Committee forward at this meeting. The committee also began discussion on Item 6.2 licensing solicitors, massage parlors, vacant property registration, and reviewing the city’s current rental registration ordinance. Mr. Jacobsen added that the City Council recommended Codes and Standards Committee review on several of these items. The next committee meeting was scheduled for December 15 at 6 p.m. OLD BUSINESS There were no Miscellaneous Issues items to discuss. Miscellaneous Issues Item 7.1 NEW BUSINESS Comprehensive Plan Vice Chair Houle introduced for discussion three areas that have been recommended for redevelopment at various times: Midland Center, City Item 8.1 Center area, and Hosterman/Winnetka Learning Center. Most recent discussions have been at the City Center area and the proposal by Ryan Companies for a SuperTarget, which was recently put on hold for several months. He commented that a couple parcels had been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment in the City Center area, but not the entire area and questioned whether or not the Comp Plan should have identified all of the City Center parcels. The school district’s Divestiture Committee was tasked with studying the Hosterman and Winnetka Learning Center sites, which contain approximately 20 acres, and determining the highest and best possible use for the various parcels. Soccer fields are located on the Hosterman site, and the district has a lease with the soccer entity for another couple years. District 287 recently expressed interest in purchasing some acreage at the Hosterman site and constructing a new building. 7 Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 2009 Following discussion on whether or not to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include additional properties, Mr. Brixius stated that the upside of an amendment would be that the city was serious about the redevelopment of the sites. The downside would put private property into a redevelopment area and may put pressure on the Council to follow through. Any time a change of use is identified, it could be perceived that the city was attempting to redevelop the area. The Plan was formulated to allow flexibility in the application of zoning. Identifying specific properties as a marketing tool and an opportunity for redevelopment is positive. The city identified everything in areas as deemed appropriate during the review, but that would not limit the city to only those parcels for redevelopment. Mr. Sondrall added that it could hamper the city if something was being done without the consent of the property owner and contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Houle initiated discussion regarding private properties marked for redevelopment in the Comp Plan and whether or not those sites could be improved or rebuilt by the private property owners, such as the school district administration building and bus garage. Mr. Sondrall responded that as long as the school district owned the property and was utilizing it for school purposes the city could not interfere with the schools use of the property as long as it was in compliance with land use regulations. Even if the city changed the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan, the school would be a legal non-conforming use. The city could not force them out by zoning and land use regulations. Mr. Brixius added that statutes have changed on non-conforming uses where previously if an act of God destroyed a non-conforming structure or use it could not be reestablished outside the ordinance. The statute has been changed so that now an individual property owner can rebuild it as long as a permit is pulled within 180 days of its damage or destruction. If the use changed, it would have to meet all zoning requirements. The bus garage could not be located in a residential zoning district where an elementary school is located. An elementary school could not be located in a commercial/industrial zoning district. The entire Hosterman/Winnetka Learning Center site is all zoned R-1, single-family residential. If the bus garage would relocate to this site, it would require a change in the Comp Plan, rezoning and various other applications. Schools are allowed by conditional use permit. Mr. Jacobsen mentioned that it may be possible for the bus garage to relocate there by rezoning to a planned unit development zoning classification (PUD). This would allow the bus garage and district offices for 281 and 287 and possible athletic fields on the same property. Commissioners wondered what could be done to encourage the redevelopment of the City Center area and get the city to take a more aggressive stance on redevelopment. Houle reminded the commissioners that the school district could not be seen as taking a lead role in the redevelopment due to the fact that they represent seven cities, including 8 Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 2009 New Hope. Mr. Brixius suggested that if this issue was brought back to the Planning Commission for discusson that commissioners consider 1) does the bus garage site represent an area appropriate for Target, and 2) if the bus garage and the administrative offices move, is Hosterman the best site due to the fact that the site is surrounded by residential properties. What components are appropriate for the Hosterman site? Wings Soccer is an important component for the community. If the redevelopment would eventually move forward, there may be many additional issues that develop with each individual site component. Motion to Approve Motion by Commissioner Brinkman, seconded by Commissioner Crough, Minutes to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 7, 2009. All voted Item 8.2 in favor. Motion carried. Committees Commissioner Svendsen suggested that Commissioner Landy join the Design and Review Committee and Commissioner Johnson join the Assignments Codes and Standards Committee. Item 8.3 Vice Chair Houle stated that commission officers would be elected at the first meeting conducted next year. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Crough recognized that Mayor Hemken attended the meeting until 9 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary 9 Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 2009