Loading...
070610 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 2010 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 Houle called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Sunday Onadipe (arrived 7:05), Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: Pat Crough, Kimberly Johnson, Ranjan Nirgudé Also Present: Eric Weiss, Community Development Assistant, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC09-16 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.1, Request for conditional use permit for personal wireless service antenna tower, 7716 Winpark Drive, Clearwire Item 4.1 Communications, LLC, petitioner. Mr. Eric Weiss stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit to allow a 65-foot cell phone tower in an industrial zoning district. The property is located on the north side of Winpark Drive and east of Winnetka Avenue. Adjacent land uses include community business to the north, high density residential to the northeast and industrial to the west, south and southeast. The site contains approximately 2.96 acres. Mr. Weiss explained that the tower would be a monopole type tower and would be placed to the north of the existing building. The tower would be a high speed phone-internet connection technology. Clearwire Communications is an affiliate of Sprint. Sprint would be leasing a 10-foot by 10-foot area in the northwest corner of the property to hold the tower, equipment cabinets and security fencing. The tower would close an existing coverage gap in New Hope and Crystal. The original application was filed in November 2009, however, several items were missing from the application. The applicant agreed to waive the 60-day zoning rule. Mr. Weiss stated that due to safety concerns cell phone towers require multiple setbacks. The tower must be set back 75 percent of the 65-foot height, or 48.75 feet, from adjoining property lines; the proposed setback from adjoining property would be 51 feet. The tower must be set back 50 percent of the height from any buildings on the property, or 32.5 feet; the proposed setback from the existing building is 112 feet. Towers must also be separated from other towers by 1,000 feet; no other tower is located within this 1,000-foot radius. The applicant would access the tower by a 12-foot wide easement secured from the property owner. Traffic to the tower would occur approximately once a month for maintenance. Sprint service trucks would have adequate space to temporarily park a vehicle in the existing drive area. The applicant would install pavement from the existing paved drive area to the tower. The applicant proposed a six-foot wood fence to screen the base of the tower and mechanical equipment. City code requires an eight- foot fence to surround the tower and equipment, therefore, a condition of approval should include an increase in the fence height. City code also requires an anti-climbing device for cell phone towers. Due to the fact that the proposed tower is a monopole, staff is not requiring an anti- climbing device. Staff suggests the city code be amended to reflect the new technology. The Federal Aviation Administration only requires lighting on towers over 200 feet, therefore, no lighting was proposed. No advertising other than emergency contact information would be allowed at the tower site. The cell phone tower would be painted grey to help minimize the visual impact. Property owners within 350 feet were notified and staff did not receive any comments. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the planning report. Chair Houle initiated discussion on the proximity of this tower to one at 3401 Nevada Avenue, which was determined to be outside the 1,000-foot area. Mr. Steve Stulz, agent for Clearwire Highspeed Wireless Broadband, 11225 90th Avenue North, Maple Grove, Minnesota, came forward to address the commission. He thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their efforts in processing the application. He stated that Clearwire was bringing high-speed wireless broadband to the Twin Cities. The application was similar to Wi-Fi, only much faster. It is a subscriber-based service, but would allow anyone who subscribes to have wireless broadband anywhere they go. Mr. Stulz commented that over 500 sites would be operated in the Twin Cities area, with six sites in New Hope. Clearwire researches an area to find existing sites where the towers can communicate with each other. Of the six New Hope sites, five are existing sites: three towers, a water tower, and an existing building. Sprint will utilize one tower just outside the 1,000-foot circle to the west. There is a tower to the south about 1,400 feet away, however, it is not tall enough for their coverage purposes. The two tallest towers in New Hope are AM/FM towers and cell provider service and Wi-Max service conflict with the frequency on AM towers. 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010 Commissioner Svendsen reminded the applicant of the emergency contact information signage requirement. Mr. Stulz confirmed that all of their sites have a steel sign with site ID, address, an 800 number to call, and a website for additional information. Commissioner Brinkman inquired whether or not the applicant intended to construct an eight-foot security fence and the response was that an eight-foot, chain-link fence was planned. The Commission agreed a chain- link fence would be acceptable. Commissioner Svendsen inquired as to the use of a backup generator. Mr. Stulz replied that their equipment was low usage and no generators were required. Backup batteries could provide service for days, if needed. There would be a small two-foot by two-foot by five-foot equipment cabinet on site. Chair Houle questioned if there would be any interference in the area with the signal or health risks for nearby residents. Mr. Stulz answered no. This tower would be a wireless broadband and operated at 35-40 percent of the output for typical cell providers. Commissioner Anderson inquired of the lease agreement. Mr. Stulz stated that they have a 25-year lease, which was renewable in five-year terms. Discussion ensued regarding removal of the tower if it was no longer in use. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 09-16. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Svendsen initiated discussion whether the lease may be transferrable if the current property owner sold the property. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, indicated that would be subject to the terms of the lease between the property owner and the tower operator. Chair Houle questioned whether the city was concerned with the 12-foot easement on the property for Clearwire to gain access to the tower. Mr. Sondrall stated that the easement should be recorded with Hennepin County, and Mr. Stulz indicated that Clearwire would have the easement recorded. Typically, the lease does not get recorded, only a memorandum of the lease agreement and any easements. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 09-16, request for a conditional use permit for personal wireless service antenna tower, 7716 Winpark Drive, Clearwire Communications, LLC, petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010 1.Enter into site improvement agreement and provide financial guarantee. 2.Construct an eight-foot security fence (building permit required). Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Onadipe, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Crough, Johnson, Nirgudé Motion approved. Chair Houle stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council at its meeting on July 26 and encouraged the petitioner to be in attendance. Therapeutic massage Chair Houle introduced Item 4.2, Discussion of an ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code by establishing license regulations Item 4.2 for therapeutic massage, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Weiss stated that the City Council requested that the Codes and Standards Committee of the Planning Commission research a potential therapeutic massage license ordinance. Currently, no license is required to operate a massage business in the city, nor are there any state or county laws requiring licensure. Regulation is usually handled at the county or local level. A majority of neighboring communities require massage therapists to be licensed. The Codes and Standards Committee reviewed ordinances from Crystal, Edina, Plymouth, Brooklyn Park, Robbinsdale and Maple Grove and recommended New Hope model its ordinance after Crystal’s ordinance. The purpose of this license would be to regulate the massage therapy businesses to ensure proper training, provide for a healthy and hygienic business, safeguard against illegitimate business practices, and minimize the risk of the spread of communicable diseases. The proposed license would require an individual or business to register annually with the city. The license would require the applicant to provide background and contact information to the city. A one-time background check fee would be required, as well as an annual renewal. Mr. Weiss explained that the ordinance outlined who would be eligible or ineligible to receive a license. For example, anyone with a criminal background related to massage therapy would be ineligible for a license. The ordinance would outline restrictions regarding health and sanitation practices. The license would require 500 hours of training for licensed therapists, which is the standard minimum training throughout the industry. As suggested by the city clerk, proposed fees would include a one-time background check fee of $100 as well as an annual fee of $100 for individuals and $200 for businesses. Mr. Weiss stated that the Codes and Standards Committee and staff felt this would be a fair amount to cover 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010 administration costs, while still being reasonable for businesses. Other neighboring cities charge much higher fees. The Codes and Standards Committee reviewed this issue at length and the committee and staff recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated that during a previous study on pawn shops, the city determined tattoo parlors, massage therapists, etc. are personal service land uses, and would be allowed in specific zoning districts. This ordinance proposes the business licensing requirements. Commissioner Landy stated he was comfortable with the ordinance, however felt the one-time fee of $100 would not cover the city’s expenses and would like to see that fee increased, such as $300 to $500. The annual fee of $100 was fine. Mr. Weiss indicated he had discussed the fee amounts with the city clerk, who had indicated the proposed amounts would cover staff time. The proposed amounts were in line with what the city of Crystal charges, although some cities charge a much higher amount. Chair Houle stressed the fact that the cost could go much higher if an applicant had a lengthy background check. Other commissioners felt the $100 charge would be adequate. Discussion ensued on the amount of staff time required to review all pieces of information required by the ordinance. Chair Houle questioned the difference between barbers and a beauty culturists and why they were exempt from licensing. Mr. Sondrall explained the definitions were taken from state licensing standards. Both entities could do head massages during the shampoo. Both have state licenses, which would make them exempt from the city’s licensing process. Chair Houle mentioned he would like to have the word “intentionally” removed from (k) general license restrictions – (5) prohibited massage – where it states “a therapist may not intentionally massage...” A question was raised why a temporary license would be issued. Mr. Sondrall responded that, for example a therapist could perform massages in a booth at the Farmers’ Market or for runners at a marathon. The temporary license would be effective for four consecutive days. Discussion ensued regarding raising the fee for background checks to $300. Mr. Sondrall stated that the New Hope Police Department would conduct the background check, including criminal or felony records. All existing massage businesses and therapists would need to apply for a license upon publication of the ordinance. Discussion ensued on the appropriateness for existing businesses to go through the background check procedures or would this apply to new businesses only. The consensus was to have all businesses submit to the background check. 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010 Chair Houle wondered whether or not a person could be licensed for massage therapy if they had been convicted of a crime not related to the business. He also wondered who would decide if a person was not of good moral character or repute. Mr. Sondrall stated that the City Council or staff would have to make those decisions once the background check report was received. The city would need a legally sufficient reason, factually supported in the record, to deny a license. Commissioner Schmidt clarified that licenses would be required for the business and each therapist working at that establishment. Commissioner Hunten stated that it seemed that there was a negative connotation associated with massage businesses, and she stated she did not feel the city should assume these were criminal-type people moving into the city to take advantage of the residents. Commissioner Anderson wondered why, if the city has had no problem with massage establishments in the past that it was putting such strict regulations together and such high fees. With the higher fees as suggested by the Planning Commission, the licensing may be cost prohibitive for existing businesses. Commissioner Onadipe suggested that the city determine how much time it would take for each person to gather and review the information and assign a dollar amount to the time. The fees should be high enough to cover the city’s costs. Mr. Sondrall reminded the Commission that the city cannot make a profit on what it charges. Chair Houle stressed building a case for denial of a license would cost the city a lot more than the application fee. An example was given that the greater share of the applications would not require the entire fee collected and that portion could be applied to the few that may cost more. Mr. Sondrall interjected that generally massage businesses are smaller shops with the owner and a couple additional therapists or the therapists may be independent contractors in a shop. A question was raised whether the owner of the shop had to apply for an individual therapist license if that person also gave massages, and Mr. Sondrall stated the owner would just be required to apply for the business license. Mr. Sondrall suggested the Planning Commission make a recommendation on the ordinance; the City Council would ultimately make a decision on the fees. He added the time involved would be minimal as an applicant would submit a school certificate for the number of hours of training and insurance information. The site would possibly be checked through the building permit process. Commissioner Svendsen stated he thought the verbiage in the ordinance was fine with the couple recommendations as discussed. He stated he felt suggesting fees was not in the commission’s purview. Staff should do additional research on the background check procedures and the time it 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010 requires and then make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Brixius reiterated that the ordinance required an inspection of the facility from a zoning and building code requirement, compliance of specific performance standards for each massage room, personnel background checks, training and insurance requirements, and licensure of all owners of the business. A suggestion to staff was to find out more information about the background check, how extensive it is, and what the police department does. Mr. Weiss stated he would discuss the fee structure again with the city clerk and police department prior to the City Council meeting. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Item 4.2 Schmidt, to approve an ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code by establishing license regulations for therapeutic massage, city of New Hope, petitioner, subject to the following change: 1.Section (k)(5) – remove the word “intentionally.” 2.Add verbiage that if the owner was a masseuse only a business license was required, not both the business and individual licenses. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Onadipe, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Crough, Johnson, Nirgudé Motion approved. Chair Houle stated that this ordinance would be considered by the City Council at its meeting on July 26. Livable Communities Chair Houle introduced Item 4.3, Review of Livable Communities study. Item 4.3 Chair Houle stated the City Council suggested the Planning Commission review previous studies done in the city. The Livable Communities study was completed approximately nine years ago and involved several sites at the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue intersection. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated that the city secured a Livable Communities grant in 2001-2002 to examine redevelopment opportunities in the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue area. The Livable Communities effort was to focus on the redevelopment of underutilized or marginal properties within the city. Some of the specific goals were to promote public participation in the planning process, provide market rate housing objectives, address life-cycle housing needs, integrate housing near job centers, create a livable community by creating efficient, environmentally sensitive and creative environments, compact higher density neighborhoods, encourage a diversity of housing choices and costs, promote mixed use development, promote transit oriented 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010 development, utilize in-place infrastructure, preserve open space, promote high quality exterior finishes, and promote underground parking. Within the study area, four areas were specifically identified: the Hosterman site, southwest corner of Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue (Winnetka Green development), northwest corner of the intersection including Wincrest Apartments and the former Franks Nursery site, and the Bass Lake Road Apartments site west of the city’s golf course. The task force included approximately 60 members from the community including citizens, business owners, city commission members, and school district representatives. The task force identified issues surrounding the neighborhoods, identified the underutilized sites, issues pertaining to traffic and land use characteristics, substandard homes, transportation, and existing infrastructure. The Winnetka Avenue East area produced two concepts. 1) represented 21 single family homes and 50 townhomes and 2) included 25 single family homes and 42 townhomes with underground parking. Each time the task force went through the effort, the financial consultant evaluated existing infrastructure, the cost of the properties, and the value homes on the parcels. In facilitating a reasonable land use development and redevelopment effort, higher density was suggested. Subsequently, the city sought Requests for Proposals from various developers and the City Council selected Ryland. In 2004, Ryland constructed the Winnetka Green development, which included 117 urban townhomes and 58 condominium units. The net result was a 9.66 units per acre density. The Northeast Bass Lake Road/Winnetka area included the Wincrest Apartments and the former Frank’s Nursery site. One option only looked at the Frank’s Nursery site with the anticipation that the site could be redeveloped as a commercial site. Another option examined both sites and proposed a 96-unit, four-story apartment building. Both options were analyzed by the city’s financial consultant. The second option, based on the number of apartment units at Wincrest, along with acquisition, possible relocation and demolition, made this option cost prohibitive. Therefore, the Frank’s Nursery site was the only parcel studied. An RFP was sent to several redevelopers and the Council chose Armory Development/Masters Development Group. In 2004, the Winnetka Townhomes project was approved with 44 townhomes at 12.6 units per acre. The Bass Lake Road Apartment site was studied and produced four options: 1) included 19 to 38 three-story townhome units; 2) expanded the site to include four additional properties to the north and proposed 32 to 64 three-story townhomes; 3) called for a 64-unit, three-story condominium development; and 4) also expanded the development to the north and called for a four-story apartment building. Through the RFP process, a developer was selected, however, the project did not move forward. The city has since purchased and demolished the five buildings on the site. 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010 The task force study area also included the Hosterman/Winnetka Learning Center, current CVS site, and vacant furniture store. One option envisioned Hosterman remaining along with the playfields. Redevelopment would only be on the eastern portion of the site, which would include apartments and townhomes, and keep the school facilities intact. The second option would redevelop the entire site with townhomes, apartments, and duplexes, along with a park in the center of the site, and retain the playfields and drainage in the center of the parcel. The third option provided for an all townhome design. The fourth option included single family residential on the western portion of the site and concentrated the density on the eastern portion of the property. To date, CVS is the only part of this area that has been redeveloped. A concept has been received from District 287, who intends to purchase the western 10 acres of the site, demolish the Hosterman building, and construct a new school designed for its specific education needs. Storm water drainage would be coordinated throughout the site with District 281. This may extend the ponding area closer to the east and south of the CVS site. Preliminarily, there are several entities that would have influence on the redevelopment of this site, including Districts 287, 281, and the soccer club. Decisions need to be made concerning the type of development that would be appropriate for the balance of the site. City staff encouraged District 287 to provide some additional open space and recreation components as part of its site plan. If District 281 divests of the balance of the property, some type of redevelopment would probably occur in the future. Mr. Brixius stated a major sanitary sewer pipeline runs through the center of the property. There is also a fairly steep slope to the east of the Hosterman building. The pond to the south of the CVS site addresses CVS’s drainage needs as well as a portion of the school’s drainage needs. If a project would be proposed for this property, ponding would need to be significantly enlarged. Another major issue would be traffic circulation that would work with both existing land uses and future transportation needs. Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue are both county roads and access permits would be required. There has been some reinvestment in the homes surrounding the Begin Park area and the city should be sensitive to that. Mr. Brixius summarized that two projects from the Livable Communities study are complete, the Bass Lake Road Apartments site has been acquired, the buildings demolished, and the site is ready to market. There currently is interest in the Hosterman site. Chair Houle indicated that the recommendation at the last divestiture committee meeting was to divest of the Winnetka Learning Center and the soccer fields. Another meeting is scheduled for July to confirm the recommendation and in August present it to the school board. 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010 Chair Houle initiated discussion on the ponding requirements for District 287. Mr. Brixius stated that the proposed location of the pond in the northeast corner of the new lot would function better at another lower elevation, possibly utilizing an area along the northern property line and further to the east, possibly near or including the CVS pond. At this time, there are no definitive answers on access points, land uses or densities. It was confirmed that District 281 currently owns all of the parcels including Hosterman, the soccer fields, and Winnetka Learning Center. Mr. Brixius added that there was a purchase agreement on the western 10 acres. Chair Houle mentioned that the Livable Communities study indicated it was important to retain the Winnetka Learning Center due to the value it brought to the community. Mr. Brixius responded that the concepts represented what could be done without having to acquire 100 percent of the property. The thought may have been that the WLC was to be retained for an adult education facility. If the school district approves divesting the entire site, it is likely that most of it would be redeveloped. The city should determine whether it wishes to retain any public green space, the type of development desired, circulation patterns, and how the city could provide an efficient and effective land use component. If the school district divests of this property, the vacant Marketplace Furniture site may also become an opportunity for redevelopment. Chair Houle pointed out that for the two projects that were realized, the initial densities were about half of what was actually constructed. In reviewing the concept plans for the Hosterman site, these proposed densities are low as well. Commissioner Svendsen commented that during discussions in the Livable Communities study, the financial consultant reported on costs associated with redevelopment for low density versus higher density projects. The high density project was the only one that was feasible. Mr. Brixius interjected that this project was a single ownership as opposed to the Winnetka East project that had multiple property owners. Chair Houle stated that the district’s divestiture committee met with two different real estate agencies, who indicated that there would be an interest in commercial and possibly a high density project. Mr. Brixius stated that before the school district markets the property, they should meet with staff and the City Council to determine the city’s long-range goals and vision, the type of project would fit in the city’s infrastructure, how traffic could be handled, and market the property accordingly. He also pointed out that the land would sell at a different value depending on how the land was zoned. Currently, the area is a public land use with R-1, single family residential, zoning. Brixius stressed that the city should look at this site as well as the city center area and try to integrate development patterns and not handle each area independently. 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010 Chair Houle stated that, per Ryan Company’s discussion with the City Council, the interim agreement between Ryan and the city would expire in August. Mr. Sondrall stated it was his policy opinion that since the city does not own the property, he would suggest waiting to see what happened. Commissioner Svendsen suggested the Planning Commission develop several new options that eliminate the 10-acre Hosterman site. Mr. Weiss stated that the city’s Livable Communities agreement with the Metropolitan Council expires at the end of 2010 and should be renewed for another 10-year period. By renewing that agreement, the city would be eligible to apply for grant money from the Metropolitan Council for planning purposes. Commissioner Hunten reminded the commission that this was private property. The city should only get involved when a potential buyer contacts the city with a purchase agreement in hand and inquires what type of redevelopment could be accomplished. Mr. Brixius summarized that the city should establish a vision for the site and then when a development application was submitted, the city would have something to evaluate it against to determine if that plan achieved those goals. The Planning Commission and City Council, as decision makers, should define the land use, establish the zoning, and make a determination based on what the site is capable of accommodating and amend the comprehensive plan accordingly. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen stated that the Design and Review Committee did not meet in June. Mr. Weiss added a planning application was Committee received from a resident requesting a variance to expand his driveway Item 6.1 and the curb. A committee meeting would be conducted on July 15. Codes and Standards Commissioner Schmidt reported that the Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in June. Committee Item 6.2 Project Advisory Mr. Weiss stated that the Planning Commission and City Council conducted a joint meeting in June and discussed the block exercise Committee (TOD associated with the Transit Oriented Development study. He added that Study) the PAC meetings would be on hold for a while. There would be another Item 6.3 joint Planning Commission/City Council work session in August to provide an update on the TOD meetings. Design and financial issues will be presented and information as to how nearby communities accomplished redevelopment activities. Commissioner Landy stated that he needed to step down from the Project 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010 Advisory Committee due to other commitments. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Miscellaneous Issues Item 7.1 NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ANNOUNCEMENTS A joint meeting with the Citizen Advisory Commission is tentatively scheduled for September. Chair Houle read a note he received from Mayor Hemken thanking the Commission for a great discussion with the Council at the work session. Commissioner Svendsen commended staff on the Shop New Hope coupon book and stated that in the first four days residents had the book approximately 70 coupons had been redeemed at Frattallone’s Ace Hardware. He stated he felt it was a wonderful program and thought there had been great community participation. Mr. Weiss added that the coupon books were mailed to residents’ homes this year. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010