Loading...
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