010703 planning
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 7, 2003
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDERThe New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Landy, O’Brien,
Svendsen
Absent: Oelkers
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC02-23 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, An Ordinance
Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities
Item 4.1
as Conditional Uses in the I Zoning District, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated that staff
originally had recommended that this issue be tabled due to the fact that
the applicant for the CUP had issues with the ordinance. Late this
afternoon, the applicant delivered a letter withdrawing the CUP application.
Staff recommends that the Commission consider the ordinance at this
meeting. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this issue in
December and was recommending approval. The applicant may look at
another building in the City in the future and does support this use in an I
Zoning District.
McDonald explained that the petitioner had opened a dog day care in the
8801 East Research Center Road building this summer and was shut down
by the Animal Control Officer and General Inspector because the use was
not allowed in the I District. Staff informed them that the use was allowed in
the CB, Community Business District. When the applicant submitted plans
three months later for the Post Haste Shopping Center, staff felt this use
would not be a good match due to the fact that it would be located adjacent
to a day care center and a restaurant. Staff asked the City Council to
impose a moratorium to allow staff and the Planning Commission ample
time to study the issue and make recommendations. After several
meetings on a staff/consultant level, a draft ordinance was written and
presented to the Codes & Standards Committee for review.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, indicated that this issue had gone
through a number review processes and the ordinance had been shared
with the architect that was working with the subject property. The architect
raised a number of additional questions. The performance standards in the
ordinance were recommended by the city’s Animal Control Officer,
including allowing 100 square feet per dog. The Animal Control Officer also
raised issues with regard to odors, ways to maintain a sanitary condition
within the building, air circulation/ventilation, and cleanup. Extensive
research was completed prior to writing the draft ordinance, not only by the
Animal Control Officer, but also by the consultants to validate the
performance standards as proposed.
Brixius stated that subsection (a) controls the size of the facility, and limits
the facility to a maximum of 30 dogs. A minimum of 100 square feet per
dog, excluding office and storage area, must be contained in the building.
The facility must provide one cage or air kennel per dog. The project
architect maintained that the Animal Humane Society was using a smaller
floor space per dog ratio, 25-35 square feet as a comparison. Research
indicated that, based on the statutes for dog kennels and keeping of
dogs/cats, regulations set up by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture
for Dogs and Cats Best Management Practices, it appeared that the floor
space ratio was based on confinement areas for dogs, such as cages or
kennels for separating individual dogs, and was based on a specific
formula for confinement not overall floor space. The 100 square feet per
dog included any confinement space, plus run areas, plus other ancillary
space necessary for the maintenance of these animals. The square footage
requirement also allows the City some control on the number of dogs at
any given facility. The second element the architect raised issue with the
requirement of one cage or air kennel per animal. The statutes do allow for
the intermixing of dogs in these confinement spaces, provided that they are
compatible breeds and temperament. The Planning Commission should
discuss this requirement to determine if it could be less restrictive.
Item (b) provides for one handler/staff person per ten dogs, per the Animal
Control Officer’s recommendation.
Item (c) provides 100 square feet per dog in the outside exercise area that
would occupy that area at any one time. The outdoor exercise area must
be fenced, have a pervious surface, and be cleaned regularly. A big
concern was that someone might just want to fence part of the parking area
and utilize that as the outdoor dog run. Staff was concerned with
interrupting the parking and circulation area with regard to traffic control
and fire access to the building, as well as sanitation and cleanup, and how
the area would be maintained. Public Works expressed concern with
drainage and the possibility of contaminants draining into the storm water
ponds if the dog run would be allowed on a portion of the parking lot. The
pervious surface would allow for percolation of water into the ground and
day care staff would be responsible for picking up the solid waste.
Item (d) was one of the most onerous conditions inserted into the
ordinance. The ventilation system must be capable of exchanging internal
air at a rate of 1.00 cfm/square foot of floor space. This was identified by
the building inspectors and a mechanical contractor, who felt that an even
higher exchange rate would be appropriate. The ventilation system must be
completely separate and independent of other tenant space within the
building. The City does not want odors to permeate other tenant bays. The
temperature control is stipulated by state statutes and the 60-80 degree
range was taken from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture Best
Management Practices.
Item (e) provides for sufficiently sized room/cage separate from the kennel
areas to separate sick or injured animals from healthy animals.
Item (f) deals again with sanitation issues, such as wall finish materials
below 48 inches in height, floor finishes, liquid-tight curbing to be installed
along shared walls for sanitary confinement of water wash-down cleaning.
A concern of staff was that the existing kennel ordinance only allowed
kennels in the commercial business district. The potential odor and
seepage from this use would not be appropriate adjacent to other
commercial businesses.
2
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2003
Item (g) deals with animal wastes which should be cleaned up immediately,
kept in an enclosed container sufficient to eliminate odors, and disposed of
daily.
Item (h) requires the business to obtain a kennel license.
Item (i) states that the property owner shall provide the City with at least 14
days notice of the animal kennel/day care’s intention to vacate the
premises and to allow the City ample time to inspect the premises.
Item (j) provides for proper lighting of the building.
Brixius stated that these items had been shared with the applicant. After
the Design & Review meeting, the applicant was asked to provide his
contact at the Animal Humane Society so that person and the city’s Animal
Control Officer could discuss the square footage requirement; however,
that information was never received.
Commissioner Svendsen indicated that at the Design & Review meeting
the Committee understood the 100 square feet in Item (a) was inclusive of
the exterior dog run. For item (b) he suggested that the ordinance require a
minimum of two staff/handlers. Regarding item (d), he explained that the
2000 International Mechanical Code stated that autopsy rooms only require
½ cfm per square foot. A question was raised whether the ordinance
included veterinary clinics and boarding of dogs and how the ventilation
was regulated for those uses. Brixius replied that this ordinance included
boarding of dogs, and that veterinary clinics were allowed in the
Residential-Business District. He also stated that additional services for
dog care, such as grooming, might be done in conjunction with dog day
care. Those services could be ancillary to the day care use as long as they
did not consume any of the space requirements associated with the
keeping of animals. Specifically, this ordinance does not address boarding
of animals at veterinary clinics. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, stated
dog kennels were regulated under Chapter 7, licensing, of the City Code,
but Chapter 7 did not apply to vet clinics. For clarification, an animal at the
vet clinic for several days for a medical situation was not the same as
keeping an animal for an owner who was out of town for a few days.
Brauch indicated that if the City allowed a dog day care use, then the
ordinance should be structured so that the business would be profitable.
Svendsen pointed out that the Mechanical Code requirements would need
to be met. Brixius indicated that staff looked at what the Best Management
Practices were that would be associated with good care of the animals. The
primary concern was for the businesses adjacent to the dog day care use
and that they would not be negatively impacted. Brixius added that if the
Commission wanted to reduce the square footage per dog, the number of
handlers, etc. that could be accomplished, but not the features that
affected other tenants in a multi-tenant building.
Svendsen questioned whether there should be a specific amount of
distance to a food establishment. Brixius responded that restaurants are
allowed in an industrial district, but the dog day care uses would likely be
located in industrial buildings. Svendsen initiated discussion on the proper
district for vet clinics, pet stores, and the ancillary uses. It was pointed out
that the draft ordinance would not allow a vet clinic to board a dog unless
the vet clinic was located in an industrial district. Sondrall suggested that
the day care use could be a conditional use in the R-O and R-B Districts,
with a stricter limitation on the number of dogs.
3
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2003
with a stricter limitation on the number of dogs.
Barrick initiated discussion on pet shops and the fact that animals were
kept overnight. Brixius noted that this was a retail use and the animals
were owned by the shop keeper. If pet shops were to be considered the
same as a dog kennel, then pet shops would need to be located in an
Industrial Zoning District. This ordinance merely deals with dogs, not all the
other pets typically found in a pet store.
McDonald interjected that many good points were offered through this
discussion, and that the moratorium was in effect until April 30. He
recommended that this ordinance be tabled and studied further including
issues such as pet shops, the licensing ordinance, veterinary clinics,
boarding of dogs, and ancillary uses. A more comprehensive report could
be developed and presented to the Codes & Standards Committee. Barrick
suggested that other cities’ ordinances be reviewed as well. Brixius added
that other cities allow boarding at veterinary clinics, and stated he felt that
would be appropriate as long as the boarding was ancillary to the vet clinic.
A suggestion was made to utilize the Minnesota Department of Agriculture
regulations rather than rewriting all those regulations into the New Hope
Code. Sondrall explained that it was the policy of the city code and staff to
have a set of ordinances that were specific and so staff did not need to
refer to other locations for regulations. It was also helpful for staff to
enforce the regulations if they were all found in one place that would be
convenient for staff and the applicant to analyze. Also, staff would need to
be continually reviewing the regulations of some other agency to insure
that those regulations were not changing detrimentally to what the City may
want to see.
Sondrall stressed that through the conditional use permit, the City tried to
eliminate any discretion on the part of the governing body in making a
determination whether the conditions of the CUP were being complied with
or not.
A question was raised regarding ancillary services at the dog day care
facility. Brixius noted that accessory care services could be included in the
ordinance, such as grooming and training, providing that the services did
not reduce the floor area requirement for active play. Brauch indicated that
from a business standpoint, the ancillary services could be as important as
the primary business.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission the public
hearing was closed.
Motionseconded
by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner O’Brien,
to close the public hearing
. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION Motionseconded
by Commissioner Hemken, by Commissioner
Item 4.1 to table Planning Case 02-23, Ordinance 03-02, An
Svendsen,
Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day
Care Facilities as Conditional uses in the I Zoning District, City of
New Hope, Petitioners.
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Landy,
O’Brien, Svendsen
Voting against:
None
Absent:
Oelkers
Motion passed.
4
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2003
PC02-26 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for
Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Dog Day Care Facility in an Industrial
Item 4.2
District, 8835 East Research Center Road, New Hope Properties Limited
Partnership and Judy Jo Paskiewicz, Petitioners.
Landy stated that the City received a letter from the applicant this
afternoon withdrawing the conditional use permit request for a dog day care
facility.
MOTION Motionseconded
by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner Barrick,
Item 4.2 to accept the letter of withdrawal for Planning Case 02-23, Request
for Conditional use Permit to Allow a Dog Day Care Facility in an
Industrial District, New Hope Properties Limited Partnership and Judy
Jo Paskiewicz, Petitioners.
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Landy,
O’Brien, Svendsen
Voting against:
None
Absent:
Oelkers
Motion passed.
COMMITTEE
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in December
REPORTS
with the dog day care applicant and were faced with three issues: 1) the
Design & Review
ordinance to allow a dog day care in an Industrial Zoning District, 2) the
Committee
building owner was not at the meeting to discuss unauthorized changes to
Item 5.1
the building, and 3) the dog day care operation. Brixius added that the City
asked for specific information from the architect, and the architect
challenged staff on not documenting anything; staff had, in fact,
documented how the City came to its conclusions.
McDonald reported that staff was expecting Navarre to submit an
application for the February Planning Commission meeting; therefore, the
Design & Review Committee would be meeting in January.
Codes & Standards Hemken reported that the Codes & Standards Committee met in December
to discuss the dog kennel ordinance and bus transit shelters. Brixius stated
Committee
that he would be putting together information on how the bus shelters fit on
Item 5.2
certain properties, which would be presented at the next Codes &
Standards meeting.
Landy stated that Commissioner Hemken would be the chair of the Codes
& Standards Committee meetings for the year 2003.
OLD BUSINESS Landy reported that he had been appointed by the City Council to be the
representative from the Planning Commission on the City Center Task
Miscellaneous Issues
Force.
Commissioner Svendsen reported that after attending several meetings at
the City of Richfield on First Ring Suburbs, that the information provided
was not fitting for New Hope and that Chairman Landy, city staff, and he
would not be attending any more meetings. He recommended that the
Commission work with city staff and consultants to coordinate our own
workshops on redevelopment issues.
NEW BUSINESSMotionseconded
was made by Commissioner Svendsen, by
to approve the Planning Commission minutes
Commissioner O’Brien,
of December 3, 2002.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
5
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2003
City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald informed the Commission that the City Council would be
interviewing candidates for city commissions on January 13 and a new
member would probably be appointed at that meeting. The oath of office
for the new member would take place at the February Planning
Commission meeting.
Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion on the increased fees for the
planning applications. McDonald responded that planning application fees
had not been increased for 13 years, and a comprehensive survey of what
other cities were charging was completed. The fees are easily justified by
the staff time spent on processing applications.
The Commission discussed the proposed workshops as suggested by staff
and the consensus was to have monthly workshops, with someone
discussing tax increment financing in February, stormwater/watershed
issues in March, and Smart Growth Principals and Blue Print 2030 on the
agenda for April.
ELECTIONS Chairman Landy opened the floor for nominations for Chair, Vice Chair,
and Third Officer.
Motion seconded
by Hemken, by Barrick, to nominate Roger Landy as
Chair and Steve Svendsen as Vice-Chair. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Motionseconded
by Svendsen, by Brauch, to nominate Kathi Hemken as
Third Officer. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Landy offered thanks to the Commission for its support during the last two
years.
ANNOUNCEMENTSThere were no announcements.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:06
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
6
Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 2003