Loading...
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