050603 planning
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 6, 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; Vice Chairman Svendsen called the meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Svendsen
Absent: Landy, Oelkers, O’Brien
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, Erin Seeman,
Community Development Intern, Pamela Sylvester,
Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC03-05 Vice Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for
Front Yard Setback Variance and Curb Cut Variance to Place the Driveway
Item 4.1
Closer Than 40 Feet From the Property Line Adjacent to an Intersection,
3853 Hillsboro Avenue North, Susan Pfeilsticker, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated that the
petitioner was requesting an eight-foot variance to the 25-foot front yard
setback requirement to allow a new garage addition to be placed 17 feet
from the property line and a curb cut variance to allow the placement of a
driveway closer than the required 40 feet from the property line adjacent to
an intersection. The property is located at 3853 Hillsboro Avenue, in an R-
1, Single Family Zoning District, and is surrounded by single-family homes.
The site area contains approximately 10,080 square feet. The existing
home contains 1,248 square feet and the proposed addition would be 23
feet by 29 feet for a total of 667 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan
indicates that low density residential areas in Planning District No. 12 are in
good to excellent condition. The City promotes housing maintenance and
upgrades by encouraging private reinvestment in single-family homes.
McDonald explained that a five-foot drainage and utility easement exists
on the south and west sides of the property and the proposed addition to
the north would not impact the easements. The City Engineer had indicated
in correspondence that there was a significant backyard drainage swale
along the south property line that drained the backyards of neighboring
properties and must remain open. This proposed addition would occur on
the north side of the property and not conflict with the drainage swale.
The property owner proposed to build a garage addition to the existing
single family home and convert the existing garage area into living space.
The property is a corner lot located at the intersection of Hillsboro and
Independence avenues. The addition would encroach into the defined front
yard setback area and the new driveway curb cut would be located closer
to the intersection than allowed by code, therefore, two variances are being
requested. The petitioner, Susan Pfeilsticker, indicated a desire to add a
two-car garage onto her home and place the driveway straight off the new
addition, which would be 32 feet from the street curb, rather than angling
the driveway from the new garage to the existing driveway and then to the
street. This addition would not negatively impact any neighboring
properties, and all building materials would match the existing. The reason
she desired to place the driveway toward Hillsboro rather than change it to
Independence was for safety reasons: to see her children at play in the
driveway and to see any automobiles coming into the driveway.
street. This addition would not negatively impact any neighboring
properties, and all building materials would match the existing. The reason
she desired to place the driveway toward Hillsboro rather than change it to
Independence was for safety reasons: to see her children at play in the
driveway and to see any automobiles coming into the driveway.
Property owners within 350 feet were notified and staff received several
inquiries. After review of the plans, there were no objections.
McDonald stated the purpose of a variance was to permit relief from the
strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code where circumstances
were unique to the individual property under consideration and the granting
of a variance was demonstrated to be in keeping with the intent of the
Code. The application for variance should not be approved unless a finding
was made that the failure to grant the variance would result in undue
hardship on the applicant. A hardship may exist by reason of physical
condition, which may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or
topographic conditions unique to the parcel. The hardship cannot be
created by the landowner, alter the essential character of the locality,
impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or increase the
congestion of public streets. The action needs to be the minimum required
to eliminate the hardship and cannot involve a use not allowed within the
zoning district.
The Zoning Code establishes R-1 setbacks as 25 feet for front yard and 20
feet for the side yard on a corner lot. The Code defines the lot front as the
narrowed dimension of the lot with frontage on a public street. The front of
the applicant’s property is along Independence Avenue rather than
Hillsboro Avenue, even though the front of the house faces Hillsboro. If the
new addition is located 17 feet from the front property line, which has a 25-
foot setback requirement, an eight-foot variance from the front yard
setback is required.
Originally, due to house orientation, staff looked at Independence as the
side yard with a 20-foot setback requirement and eligibility for a three-foot
side yard reduction by administrative permit. After further review of the
zoning definition of lot front, it was determined that Independence Avenue
was the front yard and the applicant would need approval of a front yard
setback variance. At that time, the request was compared to the criteria for
the three-foot encroachment and staff felt that the same reasons would
apply to the eight-foot setback. The expansion toward Independence is the
most logical, due to the split-level design of the home. No drainage or
utility easements would be affected by the proposed expansion. The
proposed addition would not negatively impact the neighbors or
surrounding properties. The applicant would blend the attached garage into
the design of the principal structure and roofing and siding materials would
match the existing structure. The applicant complied with the criteria for the
side yard setback, and McDonald stated that staff felt the same rationale
could be applied to the front yard variance request. In the past, the City has
approved many variances for houses that are oriented to the side yard
rather than the front yard.
McDonald explained that the applicant was requesting a variance from the
curb cut proximity to the intersection. The ordinance states that no curb cut
or driveway access shall be located less than 40 feet from the intersection
of two or more street rights-of-way. The distance is technically measured
from the intersection of the lot lines, not the curb lines, and the applicant
was requesting a setback of 17 feet from the intersecting lot lines of her lot.
2
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
The City Engineer indicated in correspondence that with reducing the
building setbacks, the 40-foot setback from the side lot line sometimes
becomes impractical and difficult to implement. The proposed changes in
the driveway would move the curb cut on Hillsboro closer to Independence
Avenue, which would be closer than what was allowed by code. The
application would result in a driveway only 17 feet from the adjacent right-
of-way, however, the actual distance from the curb cut would be 32 feet, or
17 feet plus 15 feet of boulevard = 32 foot separation. That distance could
be considered adequate from an engineering standpoint and a variance
could be granted.
McDonald stated that originally staff thought this may have been
overlooked in the Zoning Code, but the Public Works Department indicated
it would prefer to address curb cut variance requests on a case-by-case
basis rather than making any changes to the code. Public Works reviewed
this application and stated it would support the request as long as it was
documented the applicant was aware of the additional amount of snow that
would accumulate at the end of the driveway during snow events.
The Development Review Team and Design & Review Committee met to
review the plans and both groups were supportive of the request. The
applicant provided detailed specifications on the project and elevation
drawings. Asphalt shingles and vinyl siding would match the existing home.
McDonald stated that this was the type of addition to single-family homes
that was desired in the City, and staff was recommending approval of the
two minor variances, subject to the conditions in the report.
Ms. Susan Pfeilsticker, 3853 Hillsboro Avenue North, came forward to
answer questions of the Commission.
Commission Anderson confirmed that the petitioner was aware of the snow
issue due to moving the driveway closer to the intersection. The size of
plantings in the site triangle was discussed and it was determined that
plantings could be utilized that were no taller than 24 inches high.
Commissioner Hemken questioned whether the neighbor to the west had
any concern with the addition and the petitioner stated that there were a lot
of trees and a cedar fence along that side of the property, and the addition
should not impact that property.
Svendsen asked whether there was anyone in the audience who wished to
address the Commission.
Mr. Jeff Houle, 3872 Hillsboro Avenue North, came forward and stated that
he supported the request and the improvement to the neighborhood.
No one else in the audience wished to address the Commission, therefore,
the public hearing was closed.
Motionsecondedto
by Commissioner Brauch, by Commissioner Buggy,
close the public hearing
. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION Motionseconded
by Commissioner Anderson, by Commissioner Barrick,
Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 03-05, Request for Front Yard Setback
Variance and Curb Cut Variance to Place the Driveway Closer Than 40
Feet From the Property Line Adjacent to an Intersection, 3853
Hillsboro Avenue North, Susan Pfeilsticker, Petitioner, subject to the
following conditions:
3
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
1.
Materials of addition to match existing home.
2.
Comply with City Code regulations on plantings in site triangle
area.
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken Svendsen
Voting against:
None
Absent:
Landy, Oelkers, O’Brien
Motion passed.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on May 12 and advised the petitioner to attend.
PC03-03 Vice Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for
Site/Building Plan Review, Subdivision of an Existing Lot, and Variance to
Item 4.2
Lot Area Per Unit Requirement, 5700 Boone Avenue North, Anderson
Pattee Realty Services, Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated the request was for
subdivision of an existing lot, a site/building plan review and a variance for
lot area per unit requirement. The site is located east of the intersection of
Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. The overall site area contains 4.91
acres and the applicant was proposing to divide the site into two separate
parcels containing 2.29 acres (Parcel A) and 2.61 acres (Parcel B) in size.
The site is zoned R-5, Senior/Disabled Residential District. The proposed
use would include an 82-unit senior cooperative building that would be
located on the vacant parcel east of the existing Chardon Court apartment
building. It is a permitted use within the R-5 District. There are single family
residential properties to the north across Bass Lake Road, R-4 apartments
to the east and south, and to the west along Boone Avenue there are high
density residential and industrial properties. The existing building has
access off of Boone Avenue.
Brixius stated that several issues exist with the subdivision of this property.
The lot line would be irregular due to the configuration of the existing
building and access from Boone Avenue. He stated that staff felt the
irregular lot line would be appropriate in that it divided the property,
provided the necessary setbacks off both property lines, and provided a
utility corridor between the sites. According to City Code, the front yard was
the narrowest part of the property abutting the street. The Boone Avenue
frontage would be 42 feet and there would be 236 feet along Bass Lake
Road, which raises the issue of which street would be considered front or
side yard and the associated setbacks. Staff felt that the Boone Avenue
frontage was not wide enough to meet the minimum setbacks for an R-5
District, therefore, staff determined that Bass Lake Road would be
considered the front of the property. With that configuration, the building
would meet all required setbacks.
Within the R-5 District, City Code requires 1,000 square feet of lot area per
unit for a senior project. Chardon Court contains 129 apartment units and
the proposed building would contain 82 units, for a total of 211 units
overall. Combined units of 211 would be allowed on the total 213,719
square foot parcel; however, after the lot division, the Chardon Court
property would contain 99,866 square feet with 129 units. The new
Woodbridge building would contain 82 units with the lot at 113,853 square
feet. Two options were available to remedy this situation: 1) attempt to
reconfigure the lot line for Parcel A to allow more area for that property, or
2) apply for a variance to average the area over the two parcels. Brixius
stated that it would be difficult to rearrange the property line due to the
driveway, parking areas and building configuration setback. It was staff’s
opinion that a variance could be justified for the following reasons: 1) That
4
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
infill development on this parcel is a unique hardship related to lot
configuration and placement of the existing building, 2) The proposed
building was consistent with the City’s housing and land use goals for this
area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, 3) Except for the lot area per
driveway, parking areas and building configuration setback. It was staff’s
opinion that a variance could be justified for the following reasons: 1) That
infill development on this parcel is a unique hardship related to lot
configuration and placement of the existing building, 2) The proposed
building was consistent with the City’s housing and land use goals for this
area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, 3) Except for the lot area per
unit standard, the project was compliant with the performance standards of
the Zoning Code, and 4) overall the density had been met for the R-5
District. Brixius explained that it would be more practical to approve a
variance and tie the project together with easements for joint access and
utilities, than to reconfigure the lot.
Brixius reported that the request followed the criteria for a variance in that
the request provided a reasonable use of the property, there was some
unique hardship related to the property, and that it was in keeping of the
essential character of the locality.
The Development Review Team and Design & Review Committee
reviewed the plans and were supportive of the project. Revised plans were
submitted as a result of the meetings. The Comprehensive Plan promotes
housing diversity and the Life Cycle Housing Study encourages senior
owner-occupied units. The building meets all setbacks and site area
indicates the building would occupy 26% of the site, green area would be
51% of the site, and bituminous/concrete would be 23% of the site. The
minimum floor area per dwelling unit is shown to be in excess of code
requirements. The proposed building would be four stories high or 54 feet
between grade and roofline, which falls within code requirements. City
Code requires one parking space per unit plus one space per employee
maximum shift for senior housing. The site plan shows 83 interior parking
stalls and 19 exterior stalls, for a total of 102 stalls. Four ADA stalls will be
provided (three underground and one surface). A 24-foot drive aisle was
shown on the plans. The dimensions of the stalls in the parking lot are 18
feet long and City Code requires 19 feet. The City can allow this reduction
if the petitioner submits a snow removal plan. The petitioner indicated that
snow would be removed curb-to-curb. Additional exterior parking would be
provided in a north central parking area and the hammerhead has been
widened at the direction of the Design & Review Committee. Interior
parking meets all standards with regard to dimension and configuration.
Access would be shared along the property line and an easement had been
provided for review by the City Attorney. There are mass transit stops on
Boone Avenue and Bass Lake Road and sidewalks have been provided to
these areas. An emergency access drive has been provided for fire
department access to the rear of the building. The drive would be 20 feet
wide and a grass pavement design. No curb cut would be placed on Bass
Lake Road and snow drifting along the Bass Lake Road curb would be
removed with each snow removal service and snow would be removed
from the access drive if the snow depth exceeded five inches. West Metro
Fire has reviewed the plans and were in agreement.
Brixius continued saying that loading would be at the front entrance and the
40-foot radius would be adequate. The refuse containers would be located
in two separate underground parking areas and the dumpsters would be
wheeled out for trash collection and then returned to the trash storage area.
The temporary staging area for the dumpsters would be located at the
north parking lot across from the garage entrance. There are several snow
storage areas shown on the plans, as well as the snow removal plan.
The primary sign would be located at the corner of Bass Lake Road and
Boone Avenue and would be four feet high by 20 feet long. The secondary
sign would be located along the Woodbridge Cooperative driveway and
would be 2.75 feet high by 13.3 feet long, and would identify both buildings.
5
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
Both signs are compliant with code.
sign would be located along the Woodbridge Cooperative driveway and
would be 2.75 feet high by 13.3 feet long, and would identify both buildings.
Both signs are compliant with code.
The building elevations illustrate a four-story building, with attractive
exterior colors and aesthetic appeal. Asphalt shingles would be placed on
the roof and the balance of the building would be a cement plaster material
in a variety of building textures. There are a number of retaining walls
located on the site - near the entrance drive into the site and garage area,
as well as along the south property line. The retaining walls were necessary
to hold slope and establish elevations for the parking areas. All retaining
walls exceeding four feet in height must be engineered walls and approved
by the City Engineer and Building Official. A guardrail would be placed
along the top of the wall at the south parking lot to protect cars and
pedestrians from injury or falling over the side of the wall. The guardrail
also needs to be approved by the Building Official. The landscaping plan
illustrated a generous number of plantings in an aesthetic arrangement.
Additional plantings have been added along the south wall to provide a
break up of the wall massing to the south. Brixius stated that staff felt the
plantings would be adequate. A number of mature trees would be
preserved. The site would be irrigated. A lighting plan has been provided,
which meets the minimum requirements of the City Code.
Engineering recommendations to be considered on the lot division include:
joint easements provided for water main, storm sewer and ingress/egress
appear to adequately cover facilities shared by both properties; future
alignment of Bass Lake Road is being reviewed with Hennepin County,
which may require a nominal additional easement; recommendations on
the site plan include: 18-foot parking stalls; no curb cut at the emergency
access from Bass Lake Road; snow removal procedures on the emergency
access; recommendations on the grading and drainage plan include:
evaluate foundations and adjacent structures prior to construction of
underground parking and other earthwork; sideslope on the south side of
the building is shown at 3:1 and it was suggested that a retaining wall be
utilized or look at other options; engineered design of retaining walls to be
provided prior to construction; a request was receive to store excavated
soils on the city-owned property at 5501 Boone Avenue from June to
October which would be agreeable provided that erosion control is
maintained in the stockpile, the temporary pile is left in a neat manner, the
location and height is reviewed with the City Engineer, and in the event the
City would develop the property during the summer months, the stockpile
would be removed from the lot. The utility plan depicts an eight-inch water
main connection and the loop would be reconstructed to clear the proposed
building pad with a new lead from Bass Lake Road to be constructed in the
east side of the building. The applicant should identify where domestic
service enters the building and include a shut off valve on the exterior of
the building for fire and domestic services, and include a gate valve with
hydrant D. Coordinate with the Public Works Department on the repair of a
gate valve leak in the east service line. The water service for irrigation and
for the site water feature must be from the building per the plumbing code.
A six-inch sanitary sewer service is shown from the building to Boone
Avenue. A new manhole is proposed over the existing sanitary sewer.
Boone Avenue pavement should be patched to match the existing
pavement thickness after work in the street is completed. The storm sewer
would be connected to existing along the south property line. It appears the
system would adequately convey a 10-year storm. Recommendation was
made that the trench drain near the garage entrance be sized for a 100-
year event to that specific subdrainage basin. Flooding impacts should be
discussed. Review capacity of the eight-inch storm sewer along the south
property line. The applicant would be required to pay a cash fee toward
regional improvements in lieu of on site improvements.
6
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
property line. The applicant would be required to pay a cash fee toward
regional improvements in lieu of on site improvements.
Brixius added that the Police Department requested lighting on the rear of
the building and all lighting has been identified and levels are compliant at
the property lines.
Brixius commented that the applicant had been willing to make all revisions
as suggested by staff and the Design & Review Committee. Staff was
recommending approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Barrick questioned the land use to the east of the site, which
is an apartment complex with the garages located along the adjoining
property line. Due to the fact that the area between the garages and new
building appeared to be dark, the Police Department requested lighting for
security of the ground-level apartments. There are no windows or other
access on the back of the garages.
Svendsen questioned whether the City Engineer had anything else to add.
Mr. Vince VanderTop stated that the applicant had incorporated all
recommendations into the revised plans. The sanitary sewer connection in
Boone Avenue was shown accurately.
Mr. Ron Anderson came forward and stated that he and his wife, Mindy
Pattee, were the co-owners of Chardon Court and the whole site.Ms.
Pattee is the co-owner and chief administrator at North Ridge and is very
familiar with senior services and is site manager of Chardon Court.
Anderson introduced the development team: Fred Katter, consultant with
Pineapple Management, John Krausert, civil engineer with Rehder &
Associates, Troy Fountain, architect, Jim Beckwith, Kraus Anderson
Construction Company is the general contractor, and Jack Comings with
Coldwell Banker Burnet heads the onsite sales team.
Mr. Anderson stated that the area shown as “future“ on the plans
constitutes the underground parking. It may be possible in the future that
the cooperative corporation could ask to extend the roof or place a patio in
that location. The area on the plan intended to show the farthest point that
would satisfy the setback requirements. No further units would be
proposed.
Mr. Anderson commended staff for the great working relationship and
strong advocates of this project. He reported that they looked at the Life
Cycle Housing Study completed several years ago and tried to determine
what the best use of the vacant portion of the site would be. They worked
closely with city staff to develop a concept, commissioned market studies,
and determined that a senior cooperative seemed to be the best use of this
site. They are aware of the aging population of the community and the
need for housing for this segment of the population. The finest
development team was assembled to design the project, which will be a
significant contribution to the City.
Commissioner Brauch complemented the petitioner on the project and
stated he felt it met the future needs of the City, which were identified in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Brauch stressed that the collective number of units for the property was at
the limit and no additional units would be allowed in the future, which was
acceptable to the petitioner. Brauch stated that he felt all issues of the
Design & Review Committee had been addressed in the revised plans.
7
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
Svendsen questioned whether there was any public parking allowed on
Bass Lake Road and was told no parking was allowed there. He questioned
whether the snow storage on the property had been properly addressed
with the revised plans and the City Engineer stated that the issue had been
resolved through snow removal from the site. He also questioned whether
an additional manhole had been added to accommodate hydrant flushing
and this was confirmed.
Commissioner Hemken asked for the price range of the units. Anderson
stated that prices would range from the low $100,000s to $175,000 or
$180,000.
Commissioner Buggy wondered where the visitor parking would be located
or if visitors were expected to park along Boone Avenue. Anderson
responded that there would be only one staff person for the Woodbridge
building and there are two staff people for the Chardon Court building, so
there should be a sufficient number of stalls in the parking lot for visitors.
Brauch raised the issue of the van accessible parking stall that was
originally shown in the underground parking area. At the Design & Review
meeting, it was discovered that the garage door would not be of sufficient
height for the van. The Building Official indicated that the Minnesota State
Building Code would allow the van accessible parking stall to be located in
the outdoor parking area.
Buggy disclosed that he was a licensed real estate agent whose license
was held with Coldwell Banker Burnet and asked the City Attorney whether
there would be any conflict of interests due to the fact that Mr. Anderson
was an executive with Coldwell Banker Burnet. The City Attorney replied
that there should be no conflict of interest unless Buggy had a direct
financial interest in the proposed plan, which he does not.
McDonald pointed out that the City had received a letter from the petitioner
stating the age of the occupants would be 55 years or older. The density
issue for the variance was discovered too late for publication to hold the
public hearing at this meeting, therefore, the public hearing on the variance
would be held at the May 27 City Council meeting. The Planning
Commission should make its recommendations on the variance. The
Planning Commission should have the petitioner discuss the timeline of the
project.
Svendsen called attention to the discrepancy of plantings shown on the
plans and listed on the plant schedule at the time of the Design & Review
meeting. Anderson answered that this had been corrected on the revised
plans. He questioned whether the guardrail on the retaining wall was
adequate to prevent a car from going over the wall. Mr. John Krausert
approached the podium and stated that the guardrail was not engineered,
but the design was based on previous experience. He stated that an
engineered design could be provided, if requested.
Commissioner Anderson questioned whether the City Attorney had
reviewed the easements and whether or not the easements would identify
who would maintain the easements. The City Attorney stated he would be
reviewing the easements for the City and not for the applicant. The City
would not be responsible for the maintenance of the easements. The
easements would be drawn up to ensure that each property had a right to
use the easement to get in and out of the respective properties. There was
some discussion on what would happen if ownership changed. The
petitioner stated that they could create a maintenance agreement that
would be presented with the declaration documents. The City Attorney
8
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
indicated that it was wise to have a maintenance agreement that clearly
spelled out who was responsible for what as it related to the property
owners. The City would not get involved in a dispute between the property
owners.
petitioner stated that they could create a maintenance agreement that
would be presented with the declaration documents. The City Attorney
indicated that it was wise to have a maintenance agreement that clearly
spelled out who was responsible for what as it related to the property
owners. The City would not get involved in a dispute between the property
owners.
Svendsen asked whether there was anyone in the audience who wished to
address the Commission.
No one in the audience wished to address the Commission, therefore, the
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Anderson stated that they would begin presales immediately upon
approval and they require 50% would be sold prior to breaking ground.
Assuming that the presale requirement could be met within 60 days or so,
they would be able to start construction in August and deliver units in July
or August of 2004.
Motionsecondedto
by Commissioner Brauch, by Commissioner Buggy,
close the public hearing
. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION Motionseconded
by Commissioner Brauch, by Commissioner Hemken,
Item 4.2 to approve Planning Case 03-05, Request for Site/Building Plan
Review, Subdivision of an Existing Lot, and Variance to Lot Area Per
Unit Requirement, 5700 Boone Avenue North, Anderson Pattee Realty
Services, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
1. No additional units to be constructed in the future.
2. Comply with City Engineer recommendations dated April 16 and
April 30, 2003.
3.
Payment of storm water ponding fee.
4.
Approval of plans by Building Official.
5.
Approval of plans by West Metro Fire.
6.
City Attorney review and comment on all easement and
declaration documents to ensure all shared driveways and utilities
are properly established and maintained, and a maintenance
agreement be provided for the shared driveways.
7.
The proposed snow removal plan for the parking areas and the
emergency access drive should be incorporated into the
declarations of the driveway easement.
8.
Enter into Development Agreement with City and provide
performance bond (amount to be determined by City Engineer and
Building Official).
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken Svendsen
Voting against:
None
Absent:
Landy, Oelkers, O’Brien
Motion passed.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on May 27 and advised the petitioner to attend. He stated that the
City was looking forward to this development and thanked him for the
investment in the community.
PC02-02 Vice Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Consideration
of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 6 of the New Hope City Code by
Item 4.3
Establishing Regulations for Transit Structures on Public Rights of Way,
City of New Hope, Petitioner.
9
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
Establishing Regulations for Transit Structures on Public Rights of Way,
City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Ms. Erin Seeman, Community Development Intern, explained that the
ordinance amended language in the City Code to permit and regulate
transit structures, which included courtesy benches and transit shelters in
the right-of-way. In January 2002, the City was approached by a
representative of Outdoor Promotions, based in Colorado, who installs bus
shelters free of charge in exchange for the revenue generated from the
advertisements on the shelters. The company works with many cities
across the country, including Las Vegas and San Diego, and are currently
working on 18 – 24 contracts in the Twin Cities area, including Roseville,
Hopkins, and St. Paul. The cost is about $10-12,000 per shelter built by
Outdoor Promotions and the City chooses the style and color of the
shelters. Outdoor Promotions would like to work with Metro Transit on this
project. Metro Transit cannot afford to install shelters in cities at this time.
Metro Transit has corresponded with the City and stated that they would be
interested in working with Outdoor Promotions on current locations and
possibly adding more. All maintenance is done regularly or whenever
needed on the shelters by Outdoor Promotions, and if the transit routes
change, the transit shelters can be moved. A transportation analysis is
performed and they help the City identify the sites.
Seeman stated that the first step would be to create the ordinance. The
Codes & Standards Committee has been reviewing this issue since early
2002. Next, the contracts would be created and the sites determined.
Outdoor Promotions made a presentation to the Codes & Standards
Committee and city staff. The Committee was supportive of the program
and felt it would be a cost-effective way to improve transit stop amenities in
the City. The issue was taken to the City Council last summer and the
Council directed staff to continue working with Outdoor Promotions. In
November 2002, a presentation was made at the Citizens Advisory
Commission meeting, and at the direction of the City Council, a public
open house will be held at the May 2003 CAC meeting regarding potential
locations of the shelters.
The City does not have any standards regulating the placement of private
transit shelters. Due to the public service that the shelters serve, and the
fact hat MTC cannot financially add more shelters to the City or maintain
them, discussions began about amending the current courtesy bench
ordinance to include transit shelters. In 1999, the City amended the code to
include courtesy benches. Staff and the Codes & Standards Committee are
recommending to further amend the ordinance to include transit shelters as
a permitted use. Transit structures would be the result of the combination
of the shelters and benches in the ordinance.
Seeman explained that the Planning Consultant recommended that the
location of the structure would be set back at least three feet from the back
of the curb; structures are not to encroach onto existing sidewalks; written
consent from the property owner was needed if placed on private property;
minimum clearance of six feet from the back of the transit structure to any
structure or landscaping along any sidewalk for snow removal; transit
structures with advertising are to be placed within three feet of the public
right-of-way; maximum length for a structure is 15 feet; shelters should be
located off any public sidewalk; Provision 3.b should delete the phrase
“less than nine feet in width” and read as “on public sidewalks or on private
sidewalks or trails without consent of the property owner.” This would not
allow for any transit shelters on an existing sidewalk.
The City Attorney reviewed this ordinance and recommended changes as
follows: language be added indicating advertising signage on shelters may
10
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
consist of a single advertising panel not to exceed 22 square feet in
surface area; language added indicating consent from a property owner for
placement of a structure on private property must be in the form of a
recordable easement or license agreement; transit shelters may not be
installed on any existing sidewalk; maximum length would be 15 feet; and
follows: language be added indicating advertising signage on shelters may
consist of a single advertising panel not to exceed 22 square feet in
surface area; language added indicating consent from a property owner for
placement of a structure on private property must be in the form of a
recordable easement or license agreement; transit shelters may not be
installed on any existing sidewalk; maximum length would be 15 feet; and
language added indicating the surface in front of the structure to the back
of the curb must extend across the entire width of the transit structure and
provide for a five-foot by eight-foot landing area designated to
accommodate disability access to buses, including a chair lift landing
space. Seeman added that city staff and the Codes & Standards
Committee were supportive of amending the Zoning Code to allow transit
structures in all zoning districts as a permitted use.
The next step would be to finalize the contract with Outdoor Promotions
and deciding on specific locations for the shelters in the City. Seeman
reiterated that May 19 would be the CAC public open house. Approximately
75 property owners in close proximity to the transit shelter locations would
be invited to the open house to give input on the ordinance.
Commissioner Svendsen suggested adding the words “ADA compliant” to
the construction section 6.16(h)(3) of the ordinance. A photo was shown of
a current structure with a railroad tie retaining wall around the base of the
structure. He then called attention to section 6.16(i)(1) Removal of Transit
Structures and whether the words “concrete slab…” should be replaced
with language similar to “remove any material placed for the use of the
structure.” Svensden pointed out that Outdoor Promotions’ contract Article
II, Paragraph 2, dealt with maintenance and trash removal and wondered if
the city’s ordinance should include language regarding trash removal. He
recommended that the City include language requiring all transit structures
to post an emergency contact sign, similar to cellular towers.
Commissioner Brauch questioned the length of the permit. Seeman
answered that the permit would extend for 10 years and be renewable after
that time. The permit could also be revoked at the city’s discretion. Brauch
wondered whether this would be a revenue generating venture. Seeman
pointed out that Article III in Outdoor Promotions’ contract stated that after
the third year of the Agreement that payments would be made to the City in
the form of transit amenities, cash or maintenance services. The monthly
equivalent would equal approximately eight percent. Brauch felt that this
would be a good opportunity due to the budget difficulties faced by the City.
Concern was raised on the type of advertising that could be displayed on
the shelters. Article II, paragraph 4 discusses types of advertising. Seeman
informed the Commission of the three-sided advertising kiosk in the
structure, two sides for Outdoor Promotions paid advertising and one side
for public service announcements. The City Attorney interjected that
Section 3b needed to be changed to say a “triangular three-sided panel not
exceeding 22 square feet surface area per panel. The panel adjacent to the
sidewalk shall be dedicated to public service advertising.” The City can
control advertising with regard to time, place, and manner restriction, but
the City cannot control content. The content of the advertising cannot be
controlled by the City because that may prohibit commercial free speech
issues. Outdoor Promotions could choose what advertising it installs in the
transit shelters. With this kind of amenity, residents may have to put up
with some advertising that on a case-by-case basis may not be appropriate
depending on each person’s viewpoint. It was pointed out that there is a
clause in the contract that, with a written request by the City, Outdoor
Promotions would within 48 hours take down any offensive advertising as
requested.
11
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
Buggy questioned whether the advertising kiosks in all structures would be
three panels, or two, or one, and a recommendation was made that there
be no more than three surfaces with a maximum advertising space of 22
square feet per surface.
Commissioner Anderson wondered whether staff had talked to other cities
where Outdoor Promotions has existing structures. McDonald responded
that Roseville had several structures and was satisfied with Outdoor
Promotions. This company was also working with Minnetonka, Hopkins and
St. Louis Park. Golden Valley, Crystal and Robbinsdale are waiting until
after New Hope finishes its work with the company. Hemken remarked that
she had seen some of the structures and panels in Colorado, which looked
nice.
nd
Svendsen called attention to the possible location at 42 and Xylon where
the structure would need to be built into the retaining wall on private
property. An easement would need to be signed by the property owner. He
wondered whether it would be feasible to bring the structure closer to the
street and have bus riders enter the shelter from the back and have
pedestrians go around the structure. Brixius interjected that Public Works
was concerned with snow plowing and possible damage to the structures if
they were placed closer to the street curb. Seeman added that the Building
Official indicated that if the shelter would be turned with the glass toward
the street, the ADA pad would not be accessible from the front of the
shelter.
Commissioner Barrick pointed out that section 6.16(d)(3)(b) dealing with
the sidewalks less than nine feet in width was to be removed because it
was not consistent with 6.16(h)(1) where it mentions a six-foot minimum
clearance from the back of the structure.
MOTION Motionseconded
by Commissioner Hemken, by Commissioner Barrick,
Item 4.3 to approve Planning Case 02-02, Consideration of An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 6 of the New Hope City Code by Establishing
Regulations for Transit Structures on Public Rights of Way, City of
New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
1. Section 6.16(h)(3) add ADA compliance language
2. Section 6.16(i)(1) change “concrete slab” to “remove all
materials used for the structure”
3. Section 6.16 add language about trash removal
4. Add verbiage regarding the contact information
5. Add panel size and number of panels
6. Section 6.16(d)(3)(b) change nine-foot sidewalk comment
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Svendsen
Voting against:
None
Absent:
Landy, Oelkers, O’Brien
Motion passed.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on May 27.
PC02-23 Vice Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Ordinance
No. 03-02, Consideration of An Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal
Item 4.4
Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities as Conditional uses in the
Industrial Zoning District, and Ordinance No. 03-06, An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 7 of the New Hope City Code Licensing Dog Kennels
and Cat Shelters, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
12
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
Amending Chapter 7 of the New Hope City Code Licensing Dog Kennels
and Cat Shelters, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, explained that Codes & Standards
and city staff and consultants have studied this ordinance for several
months. It began in October 2002 when the City Council approved an
interim moratorium ordinance on the establishment of dog kennels and cat
shelter and directed staff to explore this issue from both a zoning and
licensing context. An application for a dog day care facility in a commercial
shopping center raised issue based on the age of the shopping center and
the mix of tenants and whether this was the appropriate place for that type
of facility. Concerns with regard to odors, noise, bacteria, etc. were flagged
by staff. The current ordinance stipulates that the only place a dog kennel
or day care facility could be located was in the Community Business
District. Upon review, staff determined that the best place for these types
of uses would be in the Industrial District, which would offer a degree of
isolation and the space for the overall operation.
The Zoning Ordinance would allow animal day care as a conditional use
within the Industrial District. Consultants, Codes & Standards, and city staff
members were included in the ordinance changes, including Dr. Pierce
Fleming, owner of Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital, who would be relocating
th
his business to 9200 49 Avenue. Brixius stated that these would be
conditional uses within the Industrial Zoning District. Provision (a)
establishes floor space of 75 square feet per dog and 20 square feet per
cat or other small animal. This was at the suggestion of Dr. Fleming. Office
space, storage, and ancillary use space would be excluded from this
provision. One cage per animal must be provided for separation. Svendsen
questioned whether there was a need to specify dog or cat, and just state
large or small animal. The City Attorney stated he did not agree with a
language change to define animals by weight, due to the fact that small
dogs under 20 pounds would then not be allotted the proper 75 square feet
of floor area. Buggy interjected that he remembered discussion at the
Committee meeting about including “any other ‘companion’ animal,” which
would include animals such as ferrets, rabbits, or other small animals kept
in the home as a pet. The consensus was to leave this section 4-
20(e)(16)(a) as is.
In provision (b), Brixius stated that when this issue was previous discussed
by the Planning Commission, that it was recommended that ancillary
services be included. Provision (c) recognizes that the exercise area must
be 100 square feet in size for each animal that occupies that area at any
one time. This was suggested by the Animal Control Officer. The outdoor
exercise area must be fenced, have a three-foot vegetative buffer, must be
cleaned regularly, and any animal waste must be appropriately treated
before it is allowed to enter any storm water pond or sewer. Discussion
ensued regarding the square footage of the indoor exercise area, and the
consensus was that the area as stated in the ordinance would be
appropriate.
Provision (d) requires a ventilation system that prohibits the transmission of
odors or organisms between tenant bays. The ventilation system must be
capable of completely exchanging internal air at a rate of 1.00 cfm/square
foot of floor space per area dedicated for the keeping of animals exclusive
of offices pursuant to Chapter 1346 of the Minnesota State Building Code.
An air exchange analysis could be completed and submitted to the City to
demonstrate that an existing air exchange system would function in the
o
same manner. The air temperature must be maintained between 60 and
o
80 Fahrenheit. The range of temperatures was taken from the Best
Management Guidelines from the Department of Agriculture. McDonald
stated that he had been forwarded an email from Commissioner O’Brien,
13
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
who could not be in attendance at this meeting, who identified concern
over the enforcement of another agency’s standards, in this case the
Minnesota State Building Code. Previously, in another matter, there was
discussion among the commissioners regarding utilizing another agencies
codes in New Hope ordinances. The City Attorney stated that there was no
stated that he had been forwarded an email from Commissioner O’Brien,
who could not be in attendance at this meeting, who identified concern
over the enforcement of another agency’s standards, in this case the
Minnesota State Building Code. Previously, in another matter, there was
discussion among the commissioners regarding utilizing another agencies
codes in New Hope ordinances. The City Attorney stated that there was no
problem referencing another agencies code or statute, which was common
practice. As other agency’s codes change, the City would need to
continually amend its code to address changes. The City cannot insert into
its code a blanket statement to cover any of these types of situations.
Svendsen questioned whether a stand-alone building would be exempt it
from a ventilation system. Brixius responded that the design standards in a
stand-alone building typically utilize an even greater air exchange rate.
Provision (e) provides for a room or caged area where sick or injured
animals may be adequately separated from healthy animals. Provision (f)
deals with the requirement that wall finish materials below 48 inches in
height be of a washable sealed masonry, ceramic tile, glassboard, or
marlite. Floor finish should be sealed concrete or other approved
impervious surface. Liquid-tight curbing, at least six inches high, should be
installed along shared walls for sanitary confinement and water wash-down
cleaning. Provision (g) deals with animal wastes being cleaned up
immediately and properly disposed of daily.
Provision (h) deals with the licensing of the facilities per Section 7-4 of the
City Code. Provision (i) states that the property owner provide the City with
at least 14 days’ notice of the animal kennel/day care’s intention to vacate
the premises and allow a city inspection. The concern of the Codes &
Standards Committee was that the business may vacate the facility in a
less than sanitary condition. Provision (j) states that the facility must
provide sufficient, uniformly distributed lighting to the kennel area.
Provision (k) states that veterinary clinics that board ten or fewer animals
and pet stores are exempt from this conditional use permit requirement.
Brixius reported that the other veterinary clinics in the City are not located
in an Industrial District, and some of them have limited boarding. Section 2
indicates that veterinary clinics that board without treatment fewer than ten
animals in a 24-hour period would be a permitted use. This ordinance was
designed so that existing veterinary clinics would conform to this code.
A question was raised whether or not the City could preclude specific
businesses, such as the breeding or testing or animals. The City Attorney
replied that a legitimate business could not be zoned out of the City. This
ordinance amendment was basically a refinement of what was already in
the Zoning Code. The licensing ordinance pertains somewhat to the type of
animal allowed in the City. There is a restriction on the number of animals
a residential property could have.
Svendsen suggested that the title for section 4-20(e)(16) read “Animal
Kennels and Animal Day Care,” so it would be consistent with Chapter 7.
He also called attention to section 4-2 Definitions which should be changed
from dog kennel to animal kennel.
Brauch questioned whether there was a specified number of employees
that should be on site during the day, and was informed that that
requirement was moved into the licensing requirements.
Brixius explained that the title for section 7-4 was changed from “Dog
Kennels and Cat Shelters” to “Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care.” He
further explained that the licensing ordinance states no person shall
operate without a license, the Community Business District was eliminated
and the Industrial District was inserted, license fee would be established by
14
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
Chapter 14, license expiration would be on December 31 of each year,
license would be non-transferable, standards include a fenced area,
provision of sanitary conditions, animals must be kept indoors from 9 p.m.
to 6 a.m., and at least one staff person at the facility during regular
operate without a license, the Community Business District was eliminated
and the Industrial District was inserted, license fee would be established by
Chapter 14, license expiration would be on December 31 of each year,
license would be non-transferable, standards include a fenced area,
provision of sanitary conditions, animals must be kept indoors from 9 p.m.
to 6 a.m., and at least one staff person at the facility during regular
business hours. Discussion ensued on the number of staff required and the
Commission was informed that Dr. Fleming had suggested that each
business be allowed to determine the number of staff needed. Standards
are also provided in the ordinance for revocation of license, as well as
inspections by city authorities.
Brixius maintained that the two ordinance amendments were intertwined
and through the licensing procedures the City could review the business on
an annual basis, whereas, a conditional use permit was attached to the
land.
Buggy initiated discussion on the exercising of animals in the specified
area as opposed to walking the animals. The City Attorney interjected that
there was a leash law that prohibited animal owners or handler from letting
animals run at large, so in the event animals were walked, they would have
to be leashed.
Brauch commended the Codes & Standards Committee, consultants, and
staff on all the work that went into these two ordinances.
MOTION Motionsecondedto
by Commissioner Barrick, by Commissioner Buggy,
Item 4.4 approve Planning Case 02-23, Ordinance No. 03-02, An Ordinance
Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care
Facilities as Conditional Uses in the Industrial Zoning District, and
Ordinance No. 03-06, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the New
Hope City Code Licensing Dog Kennels and Cat Shelters, City of New
Hope, Petitioner, subject to the following revisions:
1. Revision of ordinance 03-02, Item 4-20(e)(16) to read Animal
Kennel and Animal Day Care
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Svendsen
Voting against:
None
Absent:
Landy, Oelkers, O’Brien
Motion passed.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on May 27.
Design & Review Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met with both
petitioners to review their plans. McDonald added that next month the City
Committee
was expecting plans to be submitted for Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital for
Item 5.1
a CUP and site/building plan review, St. Joseph’s Catholic Church for a
CUP, site/building plan review and subdivision, and a subdivision for 8201
th
54 Avenue.
Codes & Standards Hemken reported that Codes & Standards met in April to complete
discussions on the animal day care ordinance and transit shelters.
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS
Vice Chairman Svendsen stated that the City Center Task Force would be
Miscellaneous Issues
meeting on May 15.
15
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003
meeting on May 15.
NEW BUSINESSMotionseconded
was made by Commissioner Hemken, by
to approve the Planning Commission minutes of
Commissioner Buggy,
March 4, 2002.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to suspend additional
workshops until September. McDonald added that the next speaker was to
be from the Metropolitan Council and staff was just informed that the sector
representative was changing.
ANNOUNCEMENTSCommissioner O’Brien and his wife had a baby girl last Friday and
congratulations were extended to them.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:40
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
16
Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003