The URL can be used to link to this page

1997 Planning CITY OF NEW.,~.:~ 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH - NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN. COUNTY, MINN~.SOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ::.Mamh 4, 1997 City Hall,',7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof;.-Chairman-Sonsin called the' meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Keefe, Stulberg, i. Landy, Underdahl (arrived 7:03), Sonsin, Oelkers, Dan~¥~ni, Svendsen, Kramer None Kirk McDormld, Management Assistant, Alan Brixius, Planning ~.Consulta~.t;'- -Pamela Sylvester.;` Recording Secretary ELECTIONS Chairman Sonsin ~mte~;:~ha~the.~;_,~j~rst or,er of business was election of officers since all te[m~.~expired:~as of D~cember 31, 1996, under the current ordinance. The -tht~,ee (~ffi~ers to be elected are the chair, vice chair, and first officer. Duties 'Of the chair are to conduct the meetings, appoint members to commit{'ees and~o appoint chairs of comm trees. The vice-chair takes the duties of the chair when that person is not in attendance and the first officer, ac~prdingly. Chairman Sorting, opened the floor for nominations. Commissioner Landy neminated Cha~m,~h S0nsin as chairman, seconded by 'Com_~.'~Sione?~:;l(e'~fe, and .wa:s unanimously approved by acclamation. :;{ 'Comm ss oner Stulberg nominated Commissioner Landy as vice-chair, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, and was unanimously approved by acclamation. Commissioner Oelk~s.. nominated Commissioner SvendSen as tl~'i~i:d officer, seconded-"-I~¥:~ Commissioner Landy, and was unanimously approved by acclamatior~. · OATH OF OFFICE CONSENT ITEMS Kirk McDonald administered the Oath of Office to Adam K~'amer, and welcomed him to the Planning Commission. There were no consent items~:presented. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-03 Item 3.1 Planning Commission Meeting Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for Preliminary Plat Approve, .St. Theres~ Home.~ Inc., 8000 Bass La;~Read; Mr. McDonald stated that St. Theresa-'Home, Inc. was :requesting preliminary plat approval for St.:~Therese Addition. In October~ 1:996, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a request-for .sitetbUilding plan approval to allow parking lot:expansion on the adjacent parCteLbf :land to the north of the property, which was acquired by S~;~::i Th~ese.'.There previously was a twinhome on the ~site used for a res~eP, tiai~iPU~pose; At the same time the Commission and Council appro~d~:'a' ~z'~n~ihg of the entire site, which was zoned R-2 and R-4, to R¥5, Se~ibr/Disabled Residential Zoning District per the recommendatiot~, of:~ -the Planning Consultants. All of the approvals were subject to severa! Cbnditi0ns. One of the conditions was that St. Theresa complete the platting of all the parcels of the property into one lot within six months and provide the necessary easements. The purpose of this plat is to combine ail of the parcels into one legal description as requested by the City. The petitioner informed City staff that their name was spelled wrong on the address and I March 4, 1997 zoning maps and Mr. McDonald stated that this will be corrected on the next revision. Mr. McDonald continued saying that the land uses surrounding the property include R-4 apartments to the east, B-2 retail to the south, City of New Hope golf course and R-4 apartments to the west, and golf course and R-2 duplexes to the north. The property is located in Planning District #2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The topography of the property was described in the Planning Case Report. The preliminary plat was submitted to City Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment. Mr. McDonald pointed out that City Code states that copies of the final plat should be submitted to the Planning Commission for review unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission during its review of the preliminary plat. The petitioner has requested waiver of the review of the final plat by the Planning Commission. Staff does not have any concerns with this request, however, it is up to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not to waive the review of the final plat. Staff conducted a pre-application meeting with the petitioner at the end of January. Property owners within 350 feet of the request were notified, including the City of Crystal, and staff received no comments regarding the request. Mr. McDonald explained that the total area of the plat was 12.15 acres. The area of the road dedication was 0.76 acres, therefore, the net area of the plat was 11.39 acres. The plat has a width of approximately 615 at the widest point and a length of approximately 810 feet. The R-5 requirement for lot area is 15,000 square feet and this plat contains 529,254 square feet. The minimum lot width requirement is 100 feet and this lot width is 615 feet. Therefore, the preliminary plat meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for the R-5 Zoning District. The City Attorney reviewed the plat and his comments are included in the Planning Report, however, some minor items to note are that the petitioner provide the location of existing sewer and water mains, topographic data, proposed design features on the plat, and that the petitioner provide evidence of title for the land in the plat. The City Engineer reviewed the plat and requested that the petitioner provide a location survey, which is a requirement of the Code, to specifically identify where everything is located on the property. The second recommendation is that a lO-foot wide drainage and utility easement be provided along all lot lines, including the north lot line where the preliminary plat shows a five-foot easement. The third recommendation was for a drainage and utility easement provided over the ponding area in the southeast corner of the plat. The City Engineer is requesting that the easement line near Bass Lake Road be extended down to the Bass Lake Road right-of-way so that it would eliminate the small parcel between Bass Lake Road and the easement. The main purpose of this would be that the easement include a pipe that would lay under the road. There are some drainage issues on the property and the sump discharges and draintile from St. Therese to the golf course should be directed to existing storm sewer in the golf course. The City Engineer informed staff that because this plat exceeds five acres that the water quality requirements need to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. Staff gave the petitioner an application for the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission so they can submit the plat for review. The final plat would be subject to any comments of the Watershed District. Hennepin County also reviewed the plat and are pleased with the right-of-way requirements along Bass Lake Road. The 40-foot wide right-of-way along Winnetka Avenue is consistent with similar dedication along this section of Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 4, 1997 Winnetka Avenue. The County has requested an additional seven feet, which has been provided. The lO-foot easement shown on the preliminary plat will accommodate any future bikeway or utility installations. Hennepin County comments are in the Planning Report and are basically the same as those covered by the City Engineer. NSP and Minnegasco reviewed the plat and had no comments. The Public Works Department and Building Official reviewed the plat and had no additional comments. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to all of the recommendations being addressed and incorporated into the final plat. The petitioner, Dave Bredenberg, Administrator of St. -rherese Home, Inc., came forward to address the Commission. Chairman Sonsin opened the floor for questions. He stated that he had received a call from the Fire Department and was asked if there were any buildings on the property that would be demolished as part of this project. Mr, Bredenberg stated that there was one duplex on the northern end of the site which has been moved. There are no other buildings that would need to be demolished or moved on the property. The petitioner asked the Commission whether there could be a five-foot easement rather than the lO-foot wide easement on the northern lot line of the property where the golf course jets down into the petitioner's property. There is blacktop pavement and expensive landscaping that comes right up to the lot line. They would be more comfortable if this area could be a five-foot wide easement. Mr. McDonald interjected that input should be sought from the City Engineer regarding this easement reduction. The petitioner stated that their surveyor, Del Schwans, talked to the City Engineer and stated that Mark Hanson had replied that the five-foot easement would be all right. Mr. Doug Ferren, 5813 Winnetka Avenue, came 'forward to address the Commission. Mr. Ferren stated that they had nOt been notified and would like to see the Planning Report and the proposed plat. Mr. McDonald stated that notices had been sent to everyone within 350 feet of the property, but that he would provide him with a copy of the report. Mr. McDonald stated that the platting process only combines several parcels of land into one and that there were not going to be any other changes to the property. MOTION Item 3.1 Planning Commission Meeting Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 97-03, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval, St. Therese Home, Inc. 8000 Bass Lake Road, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final Plat to incorporate all recommendations requested by City Attorney, City Engineer, and Hennepin County. 2. The Planning Commission agrees to waive its review of the Final Plat. 3. Final Plat subject to written correspondence from City Engineer agreeing to five-foot easement along northern property line. Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Underdahl, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen None Kramer None Voting against: Abstain: Absent: Motion carried. This planning case will proceed to the City Council on March 10, 1997, and the petitioner was advised to be in attendance at the City Council 3 March 4, 1997 meeting. REVIEW OF ADVISORY COMMISSION GUIDELINES City Manager Dan Donahue welcomed the Chairman and Commissioners to a new year on behalf of the Council. He stated that the Council asked him to address all of the commissions and let them know that Mayor Enck and the rest of the Council desire to work more closely with the commissions this year and in the future. They would like to create a better dialog with the commissions. The first step in this dialog would be to meet with the commissions at a Council work session and talk about issues and ideas. Mr. McDonald has been asked to work with Chairman Sonsin to select a date sometime in April. The City Manager continued by explaining that the Advisory Commission Guidelines were created by the past City Council and carried forward to the new City Council to create common guidelines for all the commissions to follow. Some of the items were taken from the existing Personnel Rules and Regulations and some items were taken from the ordinances. All of this was combined into one document for informational purposes. The Council wanted a set of common procedures and rules that all the commissions could react to. The Human Rights Commission, along with the Council, strongly encouraged that all the guidelines against harassment, drug and alcohol policies, and violence in the workplace be included in these guidelines. Commissions would not usually get involved in this, but it is a common theme for employees and citizens. Also included is the basic organizational outline of the City, the directory of programs within the City, activities, services, Roberts Rules of Order, and explanation of terms and rules of procedure. Mr. Donahue asked that the Commissioners review these guidelines and decide what needs to be included or deleted from this document and be prepared to discuss the guidelines with the Council when they meet. Mr. Donahue stressed that the Planning Commission has a very formal process. Planning cases deal with land use issues and State Statutes require the Planning Commission to act formally on these cases. The Commission also is to advise the City Council on planning issues. The Council wants the Planning Commission to give them advice on land use issues or other planning issues within the City. Staff is available to help or serve the Commission in any way that is needed. The Council is interested in the Planning Commission's ideas about land use planning, general planning, and comprehensive plans and desires that the Commission bring their ideas to staff or Council. Next month the Council will present a document that speaks of long-range planning in terms of policy statements. A mission statement will be published with some overall City goals that basically speak of how the City will move forward into the future. This includes only basic policy statements, not anything specific. The only specifics might be some workplan objectives for the coming year. There will be a set overall goals and a set of statements about vision which will speak about how the Council wants to go ahead. This will be shared with the Commission after the Council finalizes it later this month. That document will be used to determine any reorganization and how staffing and service will be dealt with. PC96-24 Item 3.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-04, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Regulations for Construction and Placement of Telecommunications Towers and Facilities, City of New Hope, Petitioner Mr. McDonald reported that this ordinance is in response to action taken Planning Commission Meeting 4 March 4, 1997 by the City Counc I in~JL~ne ~1996 when the Council passed a resolution directing that a: ~bd~ b~ ~C°ndU~t~d regarding the regulation of transmission and reception facilities of radio common carriers. The main reason the Council passed this resolution is that they wanted to determine if there is a need to amend the City's official controls relating to RCCFs. Because of the market demand, rapid advances in technology, and expanding federal licensure of radio frequencies that has occurred with the new telecommunication act, it has resulted in the proliferation of towers. The trend is expected to accelerate in the future. In the last 18 months the City has received numerous requests for towers in the City. The Council had a concern that the City's existing regulations pre-date this expansion trend and were concerned that the official controls that are currently in place are not adequate to meet the anticipated proliferation of the towers. At the time the resolution was approved, the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission, a joint powers organization of which New Hope is a member, was considering undertaking a study of appropriate locations in its member cities. The resolution authorized the study to be conducted by City staff and/or the Planning Commission or a subcommittee, and possibly in conjunction with the Cable Commission to determine if the City's controls needed to be modified. In conjunction with this resolution, the Council also passed an interim ordinance temporarily prohibiting the establishment, expansion, modification or rebuilding of any radio common carrier facility within the city. This moratorium originally extended through December 1, 1996, and was to protect the planning process while the study was being conducted. The Council had the authority to extend the moratorium for an additional lB months. It has been extended until June 11, 1997. The last moratorium would have expired on March 11. If this ordinance would be passed on to the Council subsequent to this meeting, the first time they would see it would be March 10. The Council will generally table an ordinance of this magnitude so it can be studied at a work session, which is why the moratorium was extended. The moratorium would be lifted once the Council adopts the ordinance. Mr. McDonald continued by saying that the City and Northwest Consultants cooperated with the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission on their study. A meeting was held in mid-September 1996 to discuss the new Telecommunications Act and to see if the cities wanted to joint cooperate in the ordinance. A second meeting was conducted in. mid-October to review a preliminary draft of the model ordinance and the revised ordinance was presented in November and the ordinance was also distributed to representatives of the industry for their comments and suggestions. Once the model ordinance was finalized, the language needed to be modified to be specific for each city. This draft ordinance has been compiled from the model ordinance, inserting New Hope specific language, and input from City staff and consultants. There were several meetings with the Public Works Department because of issues being located on top of water towers, with the Joint Water Commission, which is a 3-City Joint Water Commission (New Hope, Crystal and Golden Valley), the Parks & Recreation Department, to address whether towers could be located in City parks, and the Building Official. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this ordinance in detail at the January meeting and reviewed it section by section. Minor modifications were recommended and the Committee reviewed it again in February. The Committee has recommended that this ordinance be presented to the Planning Commission and then on to the City Council. The City Attorney prepared this ordinance in New Hope format based on the draft from the Planning Consultant. Planning Commission Meeting 5 March 4, 1997 Mr. McDonald stated that the Planning Consultant would be reviewing the sections of the ordinance. He also stressed that the current zoning code allows towers only in the I-1 and I-2 Industrial Zoning Districts. The towers are allowed by conditional use permit. This ordinance is basically the same. Staff is not recommending that towers be allowed to be constructed in residential or commercial Zoning Districts. Parks located in an industrial zone would be eligible for a tower, like in Victory Park. Towers would not be allowed in parks that are located in a residential zone, such as Northwood Park. Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, reported that staff and Codes & Standards recognize that the technology is coming and it is a service that is available to the citizens of the community and it is something should be iaccommodated in some fashion. An ordinance was drafted to provide for this service, but also provide some land use protections related to how it is provided. The first section addressed the definition portion of the zoning ordinance. It provides definitions of the various types of antennas, antenna support structure, and antenna towers. The way the zoning ordinance is currently established, two principal uses of a site require a planned unit development. In the specific case of adding a tower to a site or an antenna on a support structure, staff did not feel needed to go through a planned unit development. With respect to that the section regarding secondary use was added to the ordinance to recognize this as an independent use of the property separate from the principal use, and therefore, would be allowed. Mr. Brixius continued with the changes in section 2. This section was previously addressed as the communication reception transmission devices. These are antennas that are typically found in residential areas, such as television reception antennas, satellite dishes, short-wave radios, and the only thing changed in this section is the title from telecommunication to accessory antennas. The general content has been changed slightly to accommodate some wall mounted smaller antenna dishes, however, basically the only change was how these were addressed. Commissioner Underdahl questioned the height of the towers. Previously there was some concern about people owning short-wave radios and the height of the antennas. Has that been considered when making the 20- foot limitation. Mr. Brixius replied that the last time the short-wave radio issued was discussed, these regulations were drafted and this was the result of that effort. In this attempt, none of the content related to height was changed. Some changes included that ground mounted accessory antennas should not exceed 20 feet in height from the ground level. Otherwise it would have to be a roof mounted antenna. There is some exception above the roofline. This section was left intact since it was an issue previouslY. Chairman Sonsin stated that someone with a very large short-wave or ham radio antenna would still need to come to the City for a conditional use permit. Mr. Brixius stated that section 3 addresses the provision for building height exceptions. Personal wireless service and commercial broadcasting antennas exceeding 20 feet above the roof of the antenna support structure and antenna towers have been added as exceptions to the height restrictions. Each Zoning District has a building height restriction Planning Commission Meeting 6 March 4, 1997 that relates to the building. The antennas would be exceptions to that rule. ' Section 4 contains new language that addresses personal wireless service antennas and towers. Staff and Codes & Standards have established a general purpose of providing for the telecommunication service within the community. The ordinance has distinguished between personal wireless service antennas and antenna towers. Antennas were based on the information given to staff from the North Suburban Cable indicated that antennas can be located on support structures, which would be buildings, water towers or other features that would offer similar height, but not a tower. Personal wireless services located on antenna support structures would be allowed as a permitted secondary use of the site provided they meet certain conditions. Permission from the property owner would be a requirement. In commercial and industrial zones, these may be located on structures having a height of at least 20 feet and in residential districts, the recommendation is that the support structure be at a height of 36 feet. Commissioner Kramer pointed out that the language in 4.039D(2)(b) was unclear as to the district. Mr. Brixius responded that this could be clarified. He added that this leads in to say that any district other than residential would be 20 feet. The reason this distinction was made, was because staff did not want antennas to proliferate into the single family, lower intensity neighborhoods. The 36-foot height recognizes items within a residential district, such as church steeples, multiple family buildings, which are 3-story or 36 feet. This was how the distinction in height was determined. In most of the commercial/industrial buildings, a height of 20 feet is standard, with only a few taller buildings in these districts. Chairman Sonsin stated he had read an article in the local paper recently about the opening competition for local phone service in the near future. Some of the new providers may not choose to use the same wire structure used now, but rather put an antenna on the side of their customers house which would transmit to their tower for local phone service. He wondered if this was addressed in the draft ordinance. Mr. Brixius responded that this has not been addressed. A paragraph could be included under accessory antennas to give some direction to this issue. Mr. Brixius stated that some of the other provisions sited for accessory antennas/facilities that require specific setbacks, appearance, camouflage as relating to balance the building, basically to limit the exposure or the visual impact of the antennas on existing structures. Mr. Brixius continued with the antenna towers which are addressed in Section 4. These have similar performance standards as the antennas themselves, however, they are a conditional use permit rather than a permitted secondary use. They are limited to industrial zoning districts. In the initial drafts consideration was given to allow them in all zoning districts and providing restrictions as far as placement of antenna towers based on setback restrictions. After observing the zoning district map and where to allow these facilities, it was felt that the industrial zoning district offered the best geographic distribution opportunity that would cover most of New Hope's service area. There are several industrial areas that could be utilized along with the water tower sites. Other features incorporated into the tower locations are elements to reduce the visual impact on the surrounding land uses. A tower height limitation of 1 25 feet was established. Tower locations provide a coverage study so it is demonstrated where the tower would locate and the service area. Planning Commission Meeting 7 March 4, 1997 Chairman Sonsin wondered if the U.S. West cellular tower located at Highway 169 and Medicine Lake Road in Golden Valley was taller than 125 feet. Mr. McDonald stated he would find out the height of the tower. Golden Valley is part of the North Suburban Cable Commission. Mr. Brixius reminded the commission that each city adopts they own ordinance, whether it is the model ordinance, or modified for their own city. Other features of the tower restrictions include securing the tower base to prevent climbing on it. Co-locations are included so towers that are built would provide some capacity for additional services to eliminate multiple towers on a couple site. Also included within Section 4 are commercial and public radio and television transmitting and broadcasting towers. These follow similar requirements as towers for personal wireless service and are restricted to industrial zoning districts. Mr. Brixius continued by saying the final provisions in Sections 5 - 9 are amendments to each zoning district where these would be allowed, either by a permitted secondary use permit or a conditional use permit, depending upon whether the tower is allowed in that district. Commissioner Kramer stated that in Section 4(4)(a) where the ordinance states that "the applicant must demonstrate that the antenna support structure" and wondered if there is a definition for this or some other word that could be used instead of demonstrate. It is mentioned in other places that it is certified by a registered professional engineer. Mr. Brixius responded that staff would rely on manufacturer's specifications, engineering specifications, and the Minnesota State Building Code. Commissioner Kramer pointed out that staff would not know the antenna support structure of an existing building of if the existing building could support this type of antenna. The buildings should be checked out by a registered engineer to see if it is structurally sound, rather than just using the word demonstrate as in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Brixius stated that the ordinance could be changed to read "as demonstrated by structural engineer." Commissioner Underdahl questioned the effective date on page 4 of the ordinance under Section 2 and whether 1988 was correct. Mr. Brixius responded that this was existing language from the old ordinance and this was not changed at this time. Chairman Sonsin asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to address the Commission. Mr. Greg Korstad, Attorney for Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, 7900 Xerxes Avenue, Bloomington, Minnesota, came to the podium. Mr. Larkin stated he represents American Portable Telcom (APT), which is one of the licensed FCC providers that are constructing new infrastructure in the Twin Cities metropolitan region to develop wireless portable communication services. They have been actively involved with several communities, including New Hope. Their purpose in appearing at this time is to comment on specific provisions of the proposed ordinance. He distributed a letter to the Commissioners which identified specific provisions in the code that they would like the City to make additional considerations for. They did participate in a limited extent in the development of the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission and model ordinance and did provide a number of these same comments to that organization. The product that he received from the North Planning Commission Meeting 8 March 4, 1997 Suburban Cable Communications Commission was a form of model ordinance and did not have §'pacific Provisions identifying particular zones within which this use should be allowed nor particular characteristics whether this use should be a permitted use or a conditional use nor specific recommendations on height and setbacks. He expected that the general format among the cities involved with the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission would be similar, but that provisions would vary from community to community. Mr. Korstad stated there were several issues he wished to discuss, specifically the districts where this use would be an authorized use. He stated that the ordinance was in compliance with the Federal Statutory requirement that this service be available to users throughout the city and that the zoning regulations not interfere with the ability to provide service throughout the city. However, by restricting this use only to the industrial districts, the ordinance may impede the ability to provide this service at the quality level that the providers would like to have throughout the city because there are a number of terrain issues with fully developed communities. Future plans for his client include communication services that would replace the telephone in individual homes. Therefore, service to residential districts is needed. He proposed that the City insent the PCS providers to use the industrial districts by making PCS towers a permitted use subject to significant conditions, and making them a conditional use in other zones within the City. The conditional use process would insure that the uses are compatible and rely upon the tower developers dislike for going through a conditional use permit public hearing process as incentive to not seek to put the towers in non-industrial zones unless it would be absolutely necessary. Chairman Sonsin questioned the distance in geographic area around the towers his client constructs. Mr. Korstad stated that with flat terrain and a tower at 165 feet, the towers could be spaced a distance of six miles apart. A tower of 120 feet would affect the radial distance of the signal significantly. Chairman Sonsin hypothetically asked whether a 20-foot antenna on top of the water tower at Highway 169 and Medicine Lake Road would cover the City. Mr. Korstad replied the radial distance would still depend upon terrain and interference with vegetation, but he did not know exactly. Chairman Sonsin asked how many towers they would need to provide quality service for a city the size of New Hope. Mr. Korstad responded that his client minimally spend $250,000 on each tower site and would not construct any more than necessary. This is a radio frequency re-use technology, which means that the radio frequency is divided into band widths that are each assigned to a particular telephone in the coverage area and various cells are developed. Several towers can use the same frequency, except when the towers overlap. Market demand will reduce the size of the cells over time. Chairman Sonsin asked whether APT is a national organization and Mr. Korstad replied that he is working with Minnesota locations and is not familiar with metropolitan markets in other states. The issue of how many towers are needed is tied directly to height. They would like the tower height to be 165 feet and questioned how the height of 125 feet was chosen. Mr. Brixius responded that in establishing tower height, staff looked at the existing conditions of towers and from the information the Planning Consultant has obtained, towers can be efficient as Iow as 70 feet. Staff did not want to be overly restrictive and therefore raised the tower height to 125 feet. Mr. Brixius questioned the position of APT in identifying support structures rather than building new towers. Mr. Korstad answered that h~s client develops a search ring of where the antenna could be located. First Planning Commission Meeting 9 March 4, 1997 they look for existing publicly owned structures so that they have the ability to generate some revenue for the public good rather than looking at private buildings. Secondly they look at private buildings, and thirdly they look at other towers, either existing or planned, and fourthly they look at raw land. His client spends a great deal of money in constructing new towers sites and like the idea of existing structures. One problem is finding structures that are tall enough to use in the City. Mr, Korstad continued saying that another point of importance for APT is that provision be made to allow their equipment to be located at the base of the tower. They have a technology that includes a receiver/transmitter that is in a self-contained electrical box about the size of a pop machine. The proposed ordinance states that switching equipment should be placed inside a building, if using an existing structure, or that an additional building be placed in the rear yard. The ordinance does not provide for additional equipment. If the tower is not in an industrial area, this equipment is screened by plantings. An eight-foot tall fence is placed around the tower, including a work space and all equipment. Mr, Korstad stated that with respect to removal obligations, the concept of requiring the towers/antennas be removed makes sense. The 12-month period gives tower owners the opportunity to find a new tenant. His concern included renting space on another company's tower and then after removing their antenna from this tower are they liable for the tower to be taken down. Commissoner Kramer commented that his interpretation is to put responsibility on the people who want the towers and leaving the City out of the litigation. The companies need to protect themselves legally with the manufacturers or antenna owners to take care of removal. Mr. Korstad interjected that if it would be his responsibility to remove someone elses antenna from his tower, he would be reluctant to put up another company's antenna on the tower altogether. The obligation for removal should be on whoever is operating the equipment to remove their own equipment instead of putting third party obligations on people trying to conduct business in the city. Chairman Sonsin commented that the City's intent is to not have to clean up a tower site. Mr. Korstad continued with the evaluation of need for a tower. There is a provision that requires a registered engineer to provide a coverage analysis for the particular tower. That is a provision that they have objected to in all proposed ordinances. The reason to their objection is that it puts the Planning Commission in the position of making a radio frequency engineering judgment. The proposed ordinance requires a registered engineer to provide that analysis. Commissioner Kramer stated that all structural design on the mounting, which includes being sure the antenna is properly mounted to a building, be check by a registered engineer. This relates to Section 4.039D(2)(m) and this provision would require APT to redo its coverage interference analysis and capacity analysis. The ordinance would require his client to hire an outside registered professional engineer to present this information to the city when they already have this information. Commissioner Kramer stated that it was his opinion that the ordinance was requiring that this analysis be done by a technical person. There may be some PCS companies that do not engage professional engineers. Mr. Korstad pointed out that there is no electrical radio frequency engineering registration in Minnesota. There are registered civil and structural engineers who have the same training as people that do this work in the industry. Section 4.039D(2)(e) and (3)(d) relates to installation in accordance with Planning Commission Meeting 10 March 4, 1997 manufacturer's specifications which is an important concept. The would be included with.tl~e BUilding Code and Electrical Code that applies. The concept that a role a professional engineer plays in installing antennas and towers. Based upon discussions with people in charge of construction, the engineers do not climb the towers to inspect the bolts, etc. The engineers design and sign off on the plans and the construction directions and that is what is appropriate for the city to require. His suggestions was that the plans and specifications be signed and stamped by a registered engineer and the construction occur in accordance with those plans and manufacturer's specifications. The setback language in Section 4.039D(2)(k) he felt was somewhat confusing. There is an FCC requirement that obligates companies to install roof mounted towers in a way that people stay eight feet away from them, The setback will create space for people to walk in front of the tower, which would create a problem. With the eight foot setback, a shadow is created from the building, which means the antenna needs to go higher, etc. Mr. Korstad asked for explanation on how this relates to side mounted panels which would be mounted against the side of a water tower or building. The setback as stated in the ordinance is somewhat confusing. The typical bracket they use is more than six inches away from the edge of the building. Section 4.039D(2)(I) and (3)(n) contains camouflage language. Mr. Korstad stated they strive to do this in locations where it makes sense. This calls for subjective considerations that are difficult for people who are trying to determine whether a particular activity complies or not with the ordinance. Perhaps the conditional use process could influence this item and this would be hard to justify in an industrial district. Section 4.039D(3 (g,h.i, & j) relates to tower locations and speaks about setback, height, and separation distance requirements. Mr. Korstad wondered what public purpose is being advanced by these requirements and to consider whether this could be accomplished with a less restrictive requirement. He felt a 1,000 separation between towers was excessive. He felt that this could be regulated through the permitting process rather than include this in the ordinance. The provision of separation from flammable items is extremely broad and might eliminate all industrial uses within the city. Based on information from his client, he stated he was not aware of any set of facts that supports the suggestion that there is a greater danger from PCS towers than from other electrical equipment. There is a fire code and electrical code that provides for this separation from a much more specific technically evaluated perspective and the city would be better to rely on these codes rather than a straightforward separation distance. Section 4.039D(3)(rO relating to co-location is a good concept and they encourage co-location. The concern with this provision is that it does not explain exactly what could be built, such as the number of brackets, where the brackets can go, what strength, size, etc. Other ordinances include a mandate that there has to be room for at least one other provider with a similar product. Chairman Sonsin questioned the number of antenna mounts that could be installed on a tower. Mr. Korstad responded that it depend on the type of antennas, the height of the tower, type of tower. A 200-foot lattice work type tower can hold several other antenna on it, whereas a 75-foot monopole might hold one other antenna. Typically there is a need for 20 feet of vertical distance for each user's antenna. On a 75-foot tower, the second user's antenna is then Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 4, 1997 placed at about 55 feet above the ground and the signal is traveling through trees, and getting more interference. Chairman Sonsin interjected that some of the co-location requirements and spacing mean they are aesthetically driven. It is not the City's intent to have a forest of towers in the City, but do want to see sufficient height so providers can provide the level of service the public wants. Mr. Korstad commented that Woodbury offers a co-location premium, where there is a standard tower height and added 25 feet to the tower height if co-location was provided for. Commissioner Stulberg wondered whether there is an engineering study that says 165 feet is the right height or would another company want 200-foot towers. Mr. Korstad stated that the APT equipment is set up so that if antenna is 165 feet, the line loss from running the signal to the cable in the ground is greater than the gain the antenna would get being taller. As time goes on and newer technology, the size of the towers will come down. Commissioner Stulberg remarked that with the reduction in size it would follow that more towers would be needed, which is what this ordinance is trying to limit. Mr. Korstad added that with smaller antennas there is an increased flexibility where the towers could be located. The taller towers are limited in the locations in the city, but with shorter towers the number of locations increased. With the towers shorter, the visual impact is not as apparent. Commissioner Keefe wondered what the long-term planning would be as the towers get shorter. Mr. Korstad conceded he did not have an answer to that question. Many of the towers are built so that they can be resized at a later date. As the cells become smaller, the towers would still need to be above the tree line. Commissioner Kramer inquired how many more companies such as APT will be coming into the market. Mr. Korstad replied that at present there are the two cellular companies in the market, AT & T and US West. APT and Sprint Spectrum are developing similar products in this region. Nextel is developing a more closed communication system to replace some of the more traditional radio communications. APT replaces telephones. There will potentially be two other licenses issued to cover the metropolitan area that are on other frequency bands. Overall there will be four or five providers coming in doing development. Mr. Brixius called attention to the fact that with New Hope being approximately two miles wide by four miles in length, and a tower serving a six mile radius, a tower in the industrial districts would cover New Hope completely. Mr. Korstad pointed out that the six mile radius was a best case scenario and New Hope has rolling hills and is well vegetated and well populated. Highway 169 is a major thoroughfare which also affects the distance the antenna will reach. Mr. Brixius added that at one time staff.looked into allowing towers in all zoning districts and limiting the uses through the establishment of setbacks, but the geographic location of the industrial zoning districts seems to cover at least a two-mile service area, Ms. Anna Marie Solberg, SBA, Inc., a wireless communications consulting firm who does consulting for Sprint Spectrum, came to the podium to address the Commission. They appreciate the efforts on this ordinance and agree with the comments of Mr. Korstad. Ms. Solberg addressed Section 4.039D(3) where it states that towers are allowed in industrial zones, but do not specifically say I-1 or I-2 as stated in other sections of the ordinance, Mr. Brixius stated that conditional uses in I-1 roll over to Planning Commission Meeting 12 March 4, 1997 the I-2 zone. She also stated that they would like to see a provision that would exceed the"i'12~-~00t ~'hei~ht limit with a conditional use permit. Plymouth has a provision for this in their ordinance which is helpful to them in the co-location vertical separation that is necessary. It would be beneficial to allow them to exceed this height to allow for more co- location possibilities. There will come a time when the towers exceed their structural capacity to hold any more antennas and this will be the time when the 1,0OO-foot setback will be a detriment. This is a nice use for property that is otherwise unusable. They have documentation from the tower designers that states that the towers would fall in less of a distance and they would like to see a provision in the ordinance that states that the fall zone of 20 feet can be reduced if the provider can produce documentation stating a tower will not fall over. The language in Section 4(2)(b) regarding Unot less than 20 feet in height" would be cleaner if stated "20 feet or greater" so it is not quite as confusing. Section 1 (3B)(I) suggests that antennas are arranged in a circular array. Her company mounts their antennas in a triangular fashion. Chairman Sonsin asked if there were any other comments and being none it was the consensus of the Commission to take all of this information back to the Codes & Standards Committee. Staff and consultants should work together again to compile this information. The next Committee meeting is March 19. Commissioner Oelkers wondered why the towers are only allowed in the industrial zones. Mr. Brixius replied that all districts were considered. One question was whether or not the towers should be located in City parks. Next the zoning map was reviewed to see if the area could be covered by only allowing towers in the industrial zoning districts. Residential districts would possibly allow greater access for kids at the base of the towers. St. Therese is a tall building at the north end of the City and would seem to be a good location. Mr. Brixius stated that an antenna could be located on that building, since an antenna is treated differently than a tower. Commissioner Stulberg wondered if with the section regarding the fall zone could be revisited with the additional data. Mr. Brixius stated fall zone characteristics were studied when determining districts and setbacks. Commissioner Kramer added that towers are attractive nuisances to kids and allowing towers in parks would possibly produce some problems. Commissioner Underdahl pointed out that the Planning Commission puts a lot of emphasis on landscaping and the industrial areas of the City are fully landscaped. Chairman Sonsin commented that due to the fact that there was a great deal of discussion on this issue he would recommend sending this ordinance back to the Codes & Standards Committee for review and asked for a motion supporting this. MOTION Item 3.2 Motion by Commissioner Underdahl, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to table for one month Planning Case 96-24, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Regulation for Construction and Placement of Telecommunication Towers and Facilities , City of New Hope, Petitioner.' Voting in favor: Keefe, Landy, Stulberg, Underdahl, Sonsin, Planning Commission Meeting 13 March 4, 1997 Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer None None Chairman Sonsin informed the audience to contact staff if there was any additional information to share and thanked Mr. Korstad for the letter relating to specific sections of the ordinance. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 4.1 Commissioner Svendsen stated they had not had a meeting since December. Mr. McDonald stated that Mr. Hoyt had picked up an application but did not know when it would be submitted. Codes & Standards Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards would meet March 19 and continue the tower ordinance along with several other issues. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues Chairman Sonsin stated that training would be offered for new Planning Commission members, by the Government Training Service. Any Commissioners interested should let staff know, and he requested that the new commissioner attend the training. Chairman Sonsin informed the Commission that the City Council is interested in a joint work session between the Council and Planning Commission in order to improve communication between the two bodies. The Council is interested in an evening meeting around 6:30 sometime in April. David Licht, the founder of Northwest Associated Consultants, would be invited to join the group to present some planning topics for background information and to give some structure for discussion. This would be beneficial in trying to understand each other's point of view on planning issues and where the Commission and Council are trying to go as a City. The Chairman requested that Commissioners contact staff with their schedules if there is any time that specifically does not work. Mr. McDonald added that the Planning Commission should think as a whole about the issues to discuss, such as the setback variance issue from last year. Mr. Brixius suggested that Mr. Licht might discuss the Comprehensive Plan for the City. The City is under a mandate to update the current Comprehensive Plan by the end of 1998. It might be good to come up with a list of items to incorporate into the updated Plan. The visioning statement from the Council will be a good starting point for the Plan. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Sonsin next discussed committee assignments. He stated that a third subcommittee would be forming to study the Comprehensive Plan, which would encompass approximately one year's time commitment. Mr. McDonald stated that staff has asked Northwest Consultants for a proposal and the cost to update the Plan and requested that a menu of options be presented. The formal proposal will need to be approved by the Council. At that time the third subcommittee of two to three members could focus on the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Sonsin reported members could change committees if anyone wanted to do this. He reviewed the duties of each committee for Commissioner Kramer and Kramer replied that he could not meet for early morning meetings. Commissioner Landy stated he would move to the new Committee if needed. Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that there no Planning Commission Meeting 14 March 4, 1997 ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT longer is a chair of Design & Review. Chairman Sonsin stated that the chair may rotate fbr a Co~ple mOnths since there is not a senior member of the Committee. Chairman Sonsin suggested that he would attend a few meetings and let each Commissioner chair one of the meetings until a permanent chair could be appointed. Commissioners Kramer, Underdahl and Landy stated they would serve on the new Comprehensive Plan Committee. Commissioners Keefe, Stulberg, and Landy will remain on Codes & Standards along with Chairman Sonsin. Commissioners Oelkers, Damiani and Svendsen will remain on Design & Review. Chairman Sonsin reported that the practice of electing officers has been done at the first meeting of the year, therefore, technically terms expire as of December 31. He suggested the Code be changed to reflect that terms will run until the next election. This way elections can be held at the end of the meeting instead of at the beginning of the meeting with an audience for planning cases. Several other minor modifications were also suggested for the ordinance Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. Chairman Sonsin remarked that one of the ordinances enclosed with the oath of office information in the packet refers to Councilman. Mr. McDonald replied that staff would recommend changing this along with the other ordinance modifications. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ~_B~pectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 1 5 March 4, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 1, 1997 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL CONSENT ITEMS Present: Keefe, Stulberg, Landy (arrived 7:10), Sonsin, Oelkers (arrived 7:30), Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer Absent: None Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Stephanie Olson, Community Development Specialist Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary There were no consent items presented. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-04 Item 3.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment Approval, Stephen P. Boger, DDS, 9413 36th Avenue North, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner is requesting a comprehensive sign plan amendment to allow the installation of one additional ground sign at 9413 36th Avenue. The owners have a professional office building located at the southwest intersection of 36t~ & Hillsboro Avenues and have requested to revise an existing ground sign and install a new ground sign on 36,~ Avenue. This is a multiple occupancy professional building that is owned by two persons and occupied by four tenants. The Sign Code states that when a single principal building is devoted to two or more businesses that a comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted and approved by the City, therefore, an amendment is necessary for this plan. The petitioner stated on the application that they are requesting permission to install another ground sign on 36th Avenue. The installation of the new sign would require removal of one tree which would be replaced in a position that would not block the sight line from the street. The petitioner states on the application that "the request should be granted in order to give the dental practice more of its own identity and to allow current and future patrons to easily locate the practice. The new sign would not be overpowering or unattractive or change the basic Iow profile of the building." The property is located in a Residential Office Zoning District and is surrounded by twinhomes with the exception that the Mobil Mart and Post Haste Shopping Center are located to the north across 36t~ Avenue, which are B-3 and B-4 Districts. The topography of the property is flat and is extensively landscaped. Comprehensive sign plan approval does not require a public hearing, therefore, no notices were published or mailed. Mr. McDonald reported that the Code requirements were outlined in the Planning Report, which state that multiple occupancy businesses should submit a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building. The effect of the comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the owner of the multiple occupancy structure to determine the specific individual sign requirements of the tenants of the building. The sign location and size may be of Planning Commission Meeting I April 1, 1997 significant importance in the lease arrangements between the owner and tenant. It is the City's intention to establish general requirements for the overall building only, therefore, providing the building owner with both the flexibility and responsibility to deal with individual tenants on their specific sign needs. Mr. McDonald continued by saying that this is a request for a change to the ground signs only, no wall signs are involved. The Code does state that multiple occupancy structures may erect ground signs and may identify each separate tenant occupancy on the ground sign. It also states that no more than two ground signs shall be permitted on a lot or one ground sign if a building contains a single wall sign. This is not applicable to small tenant identification signs, which are located on the south side of the building. The maximum area for the ground signs is 40 square feet, the maximum height is 15 feet, and the setback requirement is no closer than 10 feet to the property line. Mr. McDonald informed the Commissioners that revised plans were submitted as requested by staff. The existing sign located at the northeast corner of the property meets the setback requirements. The existing sign has two hanging panels at the bottom to accommodate Miller Law Offices and Greystone Real Estate. The proposed revision is to remove the hanging panels and add that copy onto the sign, in the place of the dentistry signage. The revised sign would be 14' long by 2'10" high, or approximately 40 square feet, and would meet the Sign Code requirements. The new sign to be installed would be to advertise the Boger Dental Practice and would be located along 36th Avenue at the center of the property frontage, and would be setback 10 feet from the property line. The sign would be 8'3" wide by 4'4" tall for a total of 36 square feet. The sign would be placed perpendicular to 36th Avenue and would be double-faced. A small tree would have to be moved to accommodate the sign. The sign would be internally lit, similar to the existing signs. The colors of the new sign would have white illuminated copy, blue illuminated background, and a bronze cabinet and posts. Staff recommends approval. There is currently one temporary real estate "space available" sign on the property, which is allowed if there is space available in the building. The sign should not be located in the sight triangle of the property. The petitioner, Steve Boger, 9413 36t~ Avenue, came forward to answer questions of the Commissioners. Commissioner Stulberg stated that the revised plans looked good and he liked the fact that the bottom panels were being removed from the existing sign. The blue background was a nice addition to the new sign. A concern of his was the space available sign on the property, Commissioner Stulberg asked how long it would take to erect the new sign. The representative of the sign company stated that it takes about a one to one and one-half days, as a foundation would need to be poured for the sign poles, and then hang the sign. There would be no disruption of traffic on 36t~ Avenue. Commissioner Stulberg commented that there was a great deal of landscaping on the property and asked where the removed tree would be transplanted. Dr. Boger replied that a determination has not been made yet. There are a large number of trees in this area already. Several trees have died south of the building by the .parking lot and this area might be a good place to transplant the tree. Commissioner Keefe questioned whether the new sign would replace the Planning Commission Meeting 2 April 1, 1997 window sign. Dr. Boger said that those signs are unrelated. The building is an attractive; LL~liaped~' i°W:leVel 5uilding with a great deal of landscaping. Boger Dental and Reese Orthodontics are each on opposite ends of the building, with two to four businesses in the middle section. It has been difficult to display all the names of the businesses on the one sign so that all the names are visible from the street. Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether the deciduous trees to the west would obscure the sign once they leaf out. Dr, Boger replied that he would have the maintenance company trim the trees so that the sign can be seen. The current sign is approximately seven or eight feet high. Commissioner Svendsen wondered where the new sign would be located in relation to the swale on the property. Dr. Boger responded that due to setback requirements, the sign would be in the swale. The poles on the new sign would be approximately 10 feet long in order to keep the new sign at the same height as the existing sign. The objective is to not detract from the existing sign. Chairman Sonsin commended the petitioner on the sign plan and the appearance of the building and landscaping. One concern was that the building co-owner, Dr. Reese, had not signed the application, however, Dr. Reese had since submitted a letter stating his approval of the sign plan amendment. Another concern regarded the space available sign, which detracts from the entire site. Dr. Boger added that the New Hope Medical Clinic has consolidated two of their locations into one and all patients are now coming to this clinic making it extremely busy. Their lease is up in July and Dr. Boger stated that he is not sure who the tenants will be after July. Chairman Sonsin asked the petitioner to work with staff regarding the space available sign. Given the fact that there is no space available at the site now, this may not be a legal sign. MOTION Item 3.1 Motion by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 97-04, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment Approval, Stephen P. Boger, DDS, 9413 36th Avenue North, Petitioner, subject to the following condition: 1. Relocation or replacement of any plantings disturbed by the installation of the new (west) ground sign. Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the petitioner should be prepared to let the Council know where the tree will be replanted. This planning case will proceed to the City Council on April 14, 1997, and the petitioner was advised to be in attendance at the City Council meeting. PC96-24 Item 3.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.2, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-04, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Regulations for Construction and Placement of Telecommunications Towers and Facilities, City of New Hope, Petitioner Chairman Sonsin reminded the Commission that this ordinance is a continuation from the March meeting. Mr. McDonald reported that since the March meeting City staff, the Planning Commission Meeting 3 April 1, 1997 Planning Consultant and City Attorney met and discussed in detail all of the comments that were included in the correspondence received from Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. at the March meeting and from Sprint PCA which was faxed to the City after the meeting. This revised ordinance is in response to that correspondence. The Planning Consultant's report enclosed with this Planning Report explained all the changes point by point, and this ordinance was compared to the model ordinance from the Northwest Cable Commission. The City Attorney put the ordinance in final format and also described the changes in his letter, which was enclosed with the Planning Report. The City Attorney can explain the changes that were made to the ordinance. Mr. McDonald displayed the map that was prepared by the Building Official. The map identifies potential tower locations in the industrial districts, current tower locations, and potential antenna locations on buildings that were over four stories high. These maps are intended to defend the City's position that towers should not be located anywhere other than the industrial districts in the City. The Codes & Standards Committee met and reviewed all of these revisions and are fully supportive and recommending approval of the revised ordinance. The revised ordinance was also sent to the two business representatives that were in attendance at the March Planning Commission meeting. They were asked to submit written comments if they chose to do so. Sprint PCA faxed a letter stating that they were fully supportive of the revised ordinance. A representative of Larkin Hoffman called and verbally described a few minor changes in the ordinance that they would like to see included, which were forwarded to the Planning Consultant. The City Attorney stated that the changes made to the ordinance were substantially all the changes that were requested by the representatives of the two service providers that appeared at the March meeting, except for the request that towers should be allowed in all districts as a conditional use permit. The information in the packet concerning the potential location for towers within the City and the coverage that those locations would provide makes the case that it is not necessary for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of towers in all zoning districts within the City. The location of those towers in the industrial districts is adequate to meet the needs of the industry. The ordinance deals with two sections: the first one being the installation of antennas on existing support structures, such as buildings, water towers, etc., which can be done as an accessory permitted use in all zoning districts and the second section includes the construction of the monopole towers or guy wire towers that would then provide for the installation of antennas on those towers. The ordinance, as submitted, provides for co-location of the installation of antennas on towers and provides for higher towers when more tower array can be co-located on the towers. The ordinance covers the needs of the telecommunication industry and New Hope's ordinance parallels the model ordinance as recommended by the Northwest Suburban Cable Commission. Some of the setback requirements were eliminated and language that related to camouflaging, which made it easier for the service providers installing antennas or constructing towers within the City. One definition was added for temporary mobile tower. Commissioner Stulberg informed the Commission that he had interviewed recently at Sprint and was concerned that there would be a conflict of interest. There had not yet been any offer or acceptance made, nor had this issue been discussed. After checking with the City Attorney, the decision was that there would be no conflict of interest in his Planning Commission Meeting 4 April 1, 1997 Planning Commission participation. Commissioner Svendsen asked for clarification whether the City would allow antennas to be installed on any type of building as an accessory use as long as the applicant could show the building would support this. Mr. Sondrall agreed with this saying that the support structures needed to be at least 20 feet high in the industrial districts and at least 36 feet high in residential districts. Commissioner Svendsen called attention to Section 4.039D(3)(f) regarding the use of City property for towers and wondered whether or not a similar statement should be included regarding the use of antennas in order to utilize the water towers. Mr. Sondrall stated that language pertaining to antennas could be incorporated in the provisions dealing with antennas on existing structures as in 4.039D(2),.however, he did not feel that language was necessary. Mr. McDonald added that the ordinance does not prohibit the location of antennas on City structures. Mr. Sondrall reported that this is an affirmative statement in that towers are allowed on any property that the City owns that is industrially zoned. This is more of a statement of intent and purpose by the City than a regulation. Commissioner Svendsen suggested clarifying the language on the difference between an antenna and a tower, since the ordinance is split into two different sections. Commissioner Kramer questioned if the water towers in residential zones are a special use or if they are zoned differently. The ordinance states industrial zones so unless the ordinance references water towers or City property in residential areas the antennas could not be located on the towers. Mr. Sondrall responded that this ordinance has to be regarded in two sections. One being the installation of antennas on existing support structures, therefore, a water tower would constitute an existing support structure. As long as the water tower was 36 feet high and located in a residential zoning district, the antenna could be located on the water tower. Commissioner Svendsen asked about the height of the Golden Valley tower at Medicine Lake Road and Highway 169. Chairman Sonsin answered that the height is 180 feet above ground and self supporting. There is another antenna on top which brings the total height to 205 feet. This is 40 feet more than New Hope would allow. Commissioner Keefe asked about the possibilities for personal wireless service and whether small personal antennas would be permitted in this ordinance, such as telephone antennas mounted on the side of resident's homes for a network for local phone service. Mr. Sondrall responded that this ordinance would indirectly allow those antennas by not preventing them. If the reception to residential or commercial uses on a building is by something other than telephone cable, that would be permitted. The intent of the ordinance is to regulate transmitting and not receiving antennas. Mr. Brixius explained that the small antennas that in the future may be located on the side of individual houses are not directly addressed in this ordinance. The ordinance does allow for accessory direct radio antennas provided the size falls into a particular category. A new provision for these telephone antennas could be added under this new ordinance. Chairman Sonsin reiterated that the Code does not allow these antennas, however, the Code also does not prohibit them. Mr. McDonald questioned whether Section 2, 4.032(3)(j) would address this under the paragraph relating to accessory antennas and which states "antennas shall be limited Meeting 5 April 1, 1997 to radio and television receiving antennas, etc." Mr. Brixius stated he felt that language was broad enough to incorporate these antennas as long as the size requirements for the district were met. Chairman Sonsin added that these telephone antennas would be much smaller than satellite dishes, which are allowed. Commissioner Keefe maintained that this section only lists amateur short-wave radio and dispatching antennas as transmitting and receiving antennas. Mr. Sondrall responded that he felt the ordinance language should be left as is and the City should wait and see what technology develops for this purpose. Mr. Brixius confirmed the City Attorney's opinion that the language should be kept in tact until the City has a clear definition as to what would be allowed. The consensus of the Commission was to keep the language in its present form. Commissioner Keefe questioned the wording in Section I 4.022(3B)(i) and whether the word "conducive" should in fact be "conductive." It was determined that the correct word should be conductive, and this would be changed in the ordinance. Mr. Larry Martin, of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. and representing APT, came forward to answer questions of the Commissioners. Mr. Martin commended staff and the Commission on the work that had been put into revising the proposed ordinance and incorporating some of the comments made at the March meeting and from the written correspondence submitted by Larkin Hoffman. Mr. Martin asked for reconsideration of Section 4.039D(2)(j) regarding the removal of obsolete and unused antennas, and the fact that 4.039D(3)(b) coincides with this and staff was recommending something different. Larkin Hoffman's comment was that (j) was not revised to focus on land owner or tower owner but includes communication providers generally. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that 4.039D(2) does not deal with towers, but rather the installation of antennas on an existing support structure. In that case the support structure would not be removed, but just the antenna not being used any more. The reasoning for this is that the communication provider would be the owner of the antenna. It was assumed that the communication provider would be the antenna owner, however, the wording could be changed for better clarification on this item. Section 4.039D(3)(b) deals with the tower that may or may not be in use, and in that case the ordinance was changed to state that the antenna tower owner, or land owner, would be responsible for its removal. Mr. Martin replied that this explanation was agreeable. Mr. Martin's next referred to 4.039D(3)(g,h,i,j), specifically (i) which states that "all antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of 1000 feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved." Mr. Martin stated that the objection here was that a map of the network was to be provided to the City with the plarming application. He stated that this information is highly sensitive in terms of locating antennas/towers efficiently. Bargaining leverage is lost by disclosing the exact locations in a public setting. Commissioner Stulberg asked for clarification on how bargaining leverage would be lost, because the City has a map showing all possible locations for towers already. Mr. Martin stated that an example would be that as long as the location would be along a corridor and an exact property is not specified, there would not be as much leverage lost as when a provider would need to submit a plan stating that a particular property was the only one to be used. In this instance other antenna/tower providers could also be bargaining for this same property. Mr. Brixius commented that the Codes & Standards Committee did not include the language that was being proposed by the Planning Commission Meeting 6 April 1, 1997 North Suburban Cable Commission to require the mapping to show the potential Iocation~: it Wa~ t'h~ committee's recommendation that the City hold with the l O00-foot separation after studying the map prepared by the Building Official which shows the variable locations and setback arrangements. This setback offers opportunities for co-location requirements to be incorporated into the ordinance. Mr. Sondrall added that this was the reason that the coverage analysis requirement was eliminated. Mr. Martin stated that he wanted to raise this issue on the record so that when a problem does arise, everyone can work together to solve it, Mr. Jason Funk, Sprint PCS, stated that he had submitted a letter concerning the ordinance and wanted to thank everyone on the Commission and staff for the efforts put into drafting this ordinance, for the opportunity to give input into the ordinance, and to offer their support of the new ordinance. MOTION Item 3.2 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 96-24/Ordinance 97-04, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Regulations for Construction and Placement of Telecommunication Towers and Facilities, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Commissioner Kramer asked why some of the numbers on the ordinance and comments from the Planning Consultant did not match, Mr. Sondrall answered that some of the provisions were deleted from the first draft which changed the numbering system in the final ordinance. Mr. Sondrall asked if the language should be changed in 4.039D(3)(f) regarding towers on City property or should this be left as is, and the consensus was to leave the language in its present form. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer None None This Planning Case will be presented to the City Council on April 14, 1997. PC97-02 Item 3.3 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.3, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-08, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Sign Code by Permitting the Use of Non-Commercial Opinions Signs, and Amending the Purpose and Political Signage Section, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that this ordinance basically addresses three issues: 1) the length of time political lawns signs can remain in place (at the last election, it was discovered that the City Code does not comply with State Statutes), 2) the number of political signs that can be displayed on a property, and 3) opinion signs (City Code currently prohibits these signs which is unconstitutional). The purpose of this amendment is to take care of all of these items. Mr. Sondrall stated that there were several cases from the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court that would have a direct bearing on the City Code as it is currently written. This change was motivated by a request from a resident to put up an opinion sign on his property and was advised by the Planning Commission Meeting 7 April 1, 1997 Building Official that opinion signs were not permitted in the residential zoning district. The Building Official contacted the City Attorney's office to look into the Sign Code with respect to opinion signs and political signs and discovered that there is a problem. The Codes & Standards Committee spent a lot of time studying this and dealt with both the political lawn signs and opinion signs. As a result, it was determined that the ordinance needed to be loosened in order to provide for more signs, especially signs of a political nature or first amendment, free speech nature. This entire ordinance is driven by the notion that signage in speech and regulation of signage in speech needed to be content neutral. The City can impose legitimate time, place, and manner restrictions on signs and on speech, but once the City starts limiting or censoring speech, this becomes a problem. As a result, staff also reviewed the size of signs. The City Planner also pointed out that even the ordinance relative to size signage might have an inverse relationship to the protection that the City affords signage and speech. This means that the City seems to be protecting commercial speech more than political speech, because larger signs are allowed for commercial speech. From the point of view of the courts, this is backwards because the Constitution and First Amendment is clearly based on the right of individuals to express their opinions freely. By making an unreasonable distinction between the size of signs, it could be concluded that the City is attempting to impact or regulate the content of the sign because the City is giving more latitude to commercial signs than political signs. The Codes & Standards Committee and staff tried to conform this ordinance to New Brighton's ordinance, which was known to have been interpreted by the Appellate Court and upheld. Mr. Sondrall added that this ordinance is something that should be recommended to the City Council to adopt, because if it is not adopted, there is the potential risk of seeing action such as the 1983 action which was a violation of constitutional rights by an individual. In a case such as this if an individual brings action against the City and is successful, the municipality has to pay the attorney's fees. Commissioner Svendsen raised the issue of illuminated or motion signs in the residential zoning district as addressed in Section 3.437, such as temporary signs for birthdays, etc. He also wondered whether Christmas signs such as "Merry Christmas" and "Noel," most of which are in lights and are up from November to mid-January or February, are considered opinion signs and under the Code would be illegal. Mr. Sondrall remarked that it was his opinion that lights depicting "Merry Christmas" was not a sign. This would be Christmas decorations, which is not addressed in this code. Chapter 412 regulates statutory cities within the state, and one of the powers of a statutory city is to put up Christmas decorations and holiday decorations. There is a distinction between a sign and a decoration that is not intended to express a political opinion. The establishment clause says to separate church and state. Some phrases like "Merry Christmas" are now considered to be more generic and are though of as secular rather than religious. Mr. Brixius added that a portion of the Sign Code now states that there are permitted and prohibited signs. The holiday signs are permitted signs. There are also provisions in the Code that address temporary signs. Mr. Brixius stated, after checking the sign ordinance, that there are no provisions for holiday signs, but it is not atypical for communities to make this an exemption. Chairman Sonsin added that some of these items may come up on a complaint basis. Mr. Brixius pointed out that the City does have a restriction on motion signs due to the fact that in a residential area the City does not want flashing signs. Motion signs are distracting for traffic. Mr. Brixius added that if there is a concern regarding holiday lighting, etc. to make an exception to Planning Commission Meeting 8 April 1, 1997 the sign ordinance:so it does not require a permit and residents can continue this pra~fi~e. C(~is~sioner Svendsen interjected that this item could be a separate issue rather than hold up the ordinance now. MOTION Item 3.3 Motion by Commissioner Keefe, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 97-02/Ordinance No. 97-08, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Sign Code by Permitting the Use of Non-Commercial Opinion Signs, and Amending the Purpose and Political Signage Section, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carded. Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer None None This Planning Case will be presented to the City Council on April 14, 1997. PC97-05 Item 3.4 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.4, Consideration of Ordinance 'No. 97-14, An Ordinance Amending Section 2.13 of the New Hope City Code Establishing the New Hope Planning Commission, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Chairman Sonsin reported that this ordinance amendment concerns the Planning Commission and language changes within the ordinance to make it gender neutral (deleting "chairman" and replacing it with "chairperson," etc.) and to clarify when terms of officers begin and end (currently terms begin January 1 and end December 31). Technically, the Planning CommissiOn did not have a chair the beginning of this year since there was no meeting until March. This amendment will also allow the Commission to hold elections for officers at the first regular meeting of the year and terms would be extended to that time. There were also some clarifications concerning special meetings and the open meeting law. Mr. Sondrall added that this is primarily a housekeeping item and eliminated gender-based identification in the ordinance, determined the offices to be elected, and the length of time the officers will serve depending upon the meeting schedule. The City Attorney added that if there is no meeting in July, this would have to be initiated and approved by the City Council. Mr. McDonald called attention to the fact that the current ordinance states that a July meeting is not necessary. If there are issues to be discussed, the Planning Commission is made aware of them at the June meeting, and a determination would be made regarding whether or not to hold a July meeting. Based on this new ordinance a meeting would have to be held unless prior Council approval would be obtained. Mr. McDonald wondered whether holding a July meeting could be handled in the same way as before. Mr. Sondrall stated that the ordinance states that the Planning Commission shall hold one regular meeting each month on such day and at such time as established by the Council. Mr. McDonald questioned whether there could be a statement added to the ordinance that would eliminate this requirement. Mr. Sondrall answered that the Council could pass a resolution that stating that the Planning Commission could decide whether it needed to meet depending upon whether or not there were issues or planning applications to discuss. Chairman Sonsin asked for a motion to approve the ordinance subject to a condition being added that the Planning Commission could cancel a Planning Commission Meeting 9 April 1, 1997 regularly scheduled meeting if there were no planning issues to be discussed. MOTION Item 3.4 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Stulberg, to approve Planning Case 97-05/Ordinance No. 97-14, An Ordinance Amending Section 2.13 of the New Hope City Code Establishing the New Hope Planning Commission, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer None None This Planning Case will be presented to the City Council on April 14, 1997. PC96-31 Item 3.5 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.5, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-15, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay District, City of New Hope, Petitioner Chairman Sonsin reported that the Codes & Standards Committee is studying this issue and is missing one key piece of information: the ordinary high water mark determination from the DNR, which will impact setback requirements. The Committee is recommending that this be tabled for one month to allow the Committee to finish its discussions. The public hearing notice was published and that is why this item is on the agenda. MOTION Item 3.5 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to table for one month Planning Case 96-31/Ordinance No. 97-15, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay District, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer None None COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 4.1 Commissioner Svendsen stated they have not had a meeting for several months. Mr. McDonald added that there are no pending applications for May. Codes & Standards Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards would meet April 23 and will discuss the Shoreland ordinance. The Committee will begin a survey of commercial signage and follow up the holiday signage/lighting issue raised at this meeting. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues Chairman Sonsin informed the Commission that Monday, May 5, has been set for the joint Council/Planning Commission work session. Commissioner Oelkers stated he would be out of town that evening. The meeting time will be from 6 - 9 p.m. at City Hall. David Licht of Northwest Associated Consultants will be facilitating the discussion of Planning Commission issues and there will be some informal discussion on the items he presents Planning Commission Meeting 10 April 1, 1997 NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT at the work session. Chairman Sonsin stated that he will not be at the May Planning Commission meeting, therefore, Commissioner Landy would be sitting in as Vice-Chair. Chairman Svendsen pointed out a correction to be made in the Planning Commission minutes on page 14. Commissioner Kramer added that his title needed to be corrected on page 10. Commissioner Svendsen stated that this Planning Commission packet required a lot of reading and wondered whether it would be possible to send the packets out earlier in the week prior to the meeting. Mr. McDonald reminded the Commissioners of the Remodeling Fair to be held on Saturday, April 5, at the Crystal Community Center. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 11 April 1, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CALL TO ORDER May 6, 1997 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Vice-Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. OATH OF OFFICE Mr. McDonald administered the oath of office to Commissioner Kathi Hemken and Vice-Chairman Landy welcomed her to the Commission. ROLL CALL CONSENT ITEMS Present: Absent: Also Present: Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer Stulberg, Sonsin, Oelkers ~ Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Stephanie Olson, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary There were no consent items presented. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-06 Item 4.1 Vice-Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Site and Building Plan Review/Approval for Office/Warehouse Construction, 7300 49= Avenue North, Hoyt Development/Continental Distribution Partners, Inc., Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting site and building plan review/approval to allow construction of a 120,000 square foot multi-tenant office/warehouse. Brad Hoyt and Continental Distribution Partners are making the application for the single building, which would be located on the 9.6 acre site remaining from the 36 acres purchased from the Soo Line in 1988. In 1994, a building was constructed for Navarre Corporation on the property to the west of this site. In May of 1996, the City approved a PUD for two office/warehouse buildings on this site, however, that never proceeded. The site is located north of 49~ Avenue and west of the railroad tracks,, and is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial. Office/warehouse buildings are a permitted use in this zoning district. This proposal includes only a site and building plan review and no variances or conditional use permits are being requested. Mr. McDonald continued by saying that the petitioner had indicated to the City that a letter of intent to lease the south 40,000 square feet of the building had been signed with an existing New Hope company, Internet, a plastics manufacturing firm currently located on Nevada Avenue. Mr. Hoyt is workidg on leasing space for the balance of the building. Surrounding land uses include the Ice Arena to the east and Crystal residential east of Louisiana, I-1 Limited Industrial south of 49~ Avenue, I-1 Limited Industrial to the west, and vacant R-1 property to the north of the railroad tracks, which is owned by the City. The site is located in Planning District #11 and the planning report includes the general criteria for this area. Mr. McDonald stated that the intent of this report is to combine all of the recommendations/opinions from the Planning Consultant, City Engineer, Building Official, and Fire Chief. A site and building plan review does not Planning Commission Meeting 1 May 6, 1997 require a public hearing, therefore, no legal notice was published or mailed. Mr. McDonald stated that the special zoning requirements for the I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District were outlined in the report and would be discussed. The site meets all of the City's minimum lot area and width requirements for the I-1 District. The required lot area is one acre and this site is 9.6 acres. The required lot width is 150 feet and the site exceeds 1§0 feet. A variance for the narrow width on 49th Avenue was granted when the plat was approved and, therefore, does not need to be re- approved. All the setback requirements for the front, side and rear yards meet or exceed the City's requirements. Buildings within the Industrial Zoning District cannot exceed three stories in height and the proposed elevation of this building is 35 feet and is one story, which meets the City's requirement. One of the requirements in an I-1 Zoning District is that not more than 40 percent of the lot can be covered by a building. The proposed building would cover approximately 29 percent of the lot and, therefore, meets the requirement. All industrial properties are required to have at least 20 percent in green area, which can include landscaping, shrubbery, plants, ponds, etc. The proposed landscape plan indicates that 36 percent of the total lot area is devoted to green space. City staff would request that the petitioner indicate the ratios for lot coverage, building and green areas on the plans. Mr. McDonald reported that the City Department Heads and the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and discussed several issues, including the landscaping, relocation of storm sewer, building setbacks and easement vacation, off-street parking requirements, loading, curbing, consistency between survey and plans, the need for a comprehensive sign plan, lighting, building elevations/materials/details, water main and fire protection issues, and the need for Watershed Commission review. The petitioner met separately with the Director of Fire and Safety and City Engineer to further discuss and resolve the water main and fire protection issues. As a result of these meetings, revised plans were submitted and the majority of the items requested by the Design & Review Committee were incorporated into the revised plans. Based on the City's off-street parking requirements, 75 spaces would be required for the proposed use. The survey shows 149 spaces. The original plan showed 190 spaces and the Committee requested that some of those spaces be eliminated and converted to green area in the front of the building. State Statutes require that 1:25 spaces be devoted to disability parking. The plan shows four spaces on the south side of the building and one minor revision being requested would be to add another two spaces, which would correlate to the 149 parking spaces provided on the site. The parking area dimensions were found to meet City requirements in width and depth. The City Code requires that all off-street parking and driveway areas be paved and have perimeter curbing and the site plan designates parking, loading, and drive aisles would be paved and have perimeter curbing. The proposed loading berths along the north side of the building meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Consultant noted in his report that the pror~osed loading docks 13 and 14 do not provide adequate turning areas for the backing of a 55-foot semi-truck into the loading dock without interfering with the landscaping area to the north. City staff requested that the site plan be revised to provide the adequate turning radius or the truck dock location must be shifted for these two docks. The property access to the site would be from the shared driveway with Navarre Corporation. There is an existing 32-foot wide shared access from 49th Avenue and one condition of the original approval for this site was that a Planning Commission Meeting 2 May 6, 1997 joint maintenance agreement for ingress/egress and maintenance of the driveway With the ~j~e~t ~prope~ Owner be provided. The site plan indicated that there would be an outdoor trash compactor area on the west side of the building. The plans do not indicate that any outdoor individual trash receptacles would be located anywhere outside and the site plan indicates that all trash would be stored inside the building. The Planning Consultant recommended that specific detail be provided to show how the compactor area would be screened. The building materials on the elevation show the building would be insulated precast concrete wall panels with a pre-finished sheet metal fascia and insulated metal overhead doors. At the Design & Review Committee meeting, the petitioner discussed putting in upper story 4' x 4' windows to break up the length of the facade. A four-foot high painted stripe has been added to provide an architectural accent. A detailed lighting plan was submitted showing excessive light spill over in several areas and staff has requested that the petitioner reduce light levels beyond the north and south parking lots and direct light away from residential zones. Screening would be provided for roof-top units if they are visible from the property line. Mr. McDonald explained that the petitioner submitted a detailed landscaping plan which addressed the issues of screening the parking and loading areas and it met the majority of the requirements discussed at Design & Review. The planting schedule shows 126 additional plantings on the site, which would include 36 Colorado spruce and 22 junipers. Mr. McDonald pointed out the locations of the new plantings on the east and north property lines, along the front parking area, and at the southwest corner of the building. The island between the drive aisle and the parking. lot was widened as discussed at Design & Review and mirrors the landscaping on the Navarre property. A minor recommendation from the Planning Consultant was an additional three to four Colorado spruce to be added along the north property line between the two ponds to better screen the loading area from the residential property to the north. Prior to the meeting, Commissioner Svendsen had questioned what the elevation would be for the plantings. At the time of the PUD application, a recommendation was to bring some of the plantings to the top of the swale instead of all plantings at the bottom. Mr. McDonald stated he contacted the Planning Consultant regarding this issue. This plan does not have a large swale on the north side of the property line like the PUD plan had. The current plan shows the base of the building pad would be at an elevation of 894 feet and the Planning Consultant stated that the Commission could stipulate that the elevation for those plantings be at 892 feet. Mr. McDonald continued by saying that there is an existing 30-inch storm sewer and a 10-foot easement that runs north/south through the property and the applicant is proposing to relocate the line and the easement to discharge into the water treatment pond which would then discharge into a second treatment pond. The existing easement would need to be vacated and a new easement dedicated to the City over the proposed new storm sewer line. There is an existing 20-foot easement along the entire length of the rail line on the east side of the property. The building would be located within 10 feet of the rail line because the developer is planning to actively use the rail spur. The Zoning Code does allow for a building to be located 10 feet from that property line, therefore, the petitioner is requesting a 10-foot vacation of that entire easement. The petitioner has initiated this process with the City Council to vacate the easement and would be petitioning the City to install the new storm sewer. Planning Commission Meeting 3 May 6, 1997 Mr. McDonald explained that water service would be provided from an existing water main in the private drive. At Design & Review, discussion took place regarding looping the water main. After the meeting with the City Engineer and Fire Chief, it was determined that a loop was not required, but rather that an 8-inch stub be installed and that an 8-inch line would serve the property. A 1,500 gallon per minute pump would be installed in the building to serve the fire needs. The developer would need to comply with all recommendations from the Fire Chief's memorandum that was included with the report. Mr. McDonald stated that other comments from the City Engineer included that the plan would need to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed and that the no parking issue on the shared driveway would need to be addressed. The City Engineer recommended that due to the removal of excess material from the site that the removal route be hauled along 49~ Avenue to south on Quebec Avenue to 42n~ Avenue, with the stipulation that the haul route be cleaned periodically. A letter of credit or performance bond would be required with this development. Mr. McDonald reported that a Comprehensive Sign Plan was submitted and the Building Official noted in his memorandum that the Sign Plan shows one 40-square foot monument/ground sign to be located by the shared drive, which meets City code. The sign would be set back 15 feet from the property line. City staff are requesting some clarification on the Sign Plan. The text for the sign should be shown and whether the text would be a property sign or a business identification sign. There would be four tenant wall signs, two on the north side of the building and two on the south side. Each sign would be 100 square feet in size and that size complies with the Sign Code. The details that would need to be clarified are construction details, i.e., materials, illuminated or not, height above ground, and the elevations on Sign Plan do not match the architects drawings. Mr. McDonald stated that staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the report. There are a lot of conditions, however, some are in process already. The easements and water service and fire protections measures have been addressed. The Development Agreement is routine for this type of project. The joint maintenance agreement would need to be provided. The haul route needs to be addressed. The petitioner has the application for the Shingle Creek Watershed in process. The soils data normally would be taken care of when the plans are submitted for the building permit. The Comprehensive Sign Plan details should be clarified. There are some minor site plan details that need to be changed or added. Commission Kramer asked what constituted a "story' in regards to building height. Mr. Sondrall replied that he would have to look this up but would assume that a story would be 10-12 feet. Mr. McDonald interjected that the plans were approved by the Building Official and the Planning Consultant so the building height of 35 feet would seem to meet Code. Commissioner Kramer stated that according to his calculations the building size is 1,500 square feet instead of 1,200 and that the parking spaces required would be 79 spaces, including 1:300 plus I per company truck, for a total of 84. Commissioner Kramer asked to have the planning report corrected. Mr. McDonald added that there are 149 spaces provided on the site. Subsequent to the meeting, Mr. McDonald clarified with the Planning Consultant that the parking calculations are correct because they include a 10 percent reduction for overall building area, per the Zoning Planning Commission Meeting 4 May 6, 1997 Code. Commissioner Kramer questioned whether turn around for fire trucks was addressed. Mr. McDonald replied that the developer met with the Fire Chief and they looked at all the details. The developer could better address this question. Commissioner Keefe questioned the reason for specifying the haul route. Mr. McDonald responded that the reasoning for this was to keep the trucks and materials off of Winnetka Avenue. The petitioner, Brad Hoyt, president of Hoyt Development Company, came forward to answer questions. Mr. Hoyt informed the Commission that they were in agreement with the planning report and conditions of approval. He added that the driveway and parking for Navarre would be taken care of with this new development. Hoyt Development has been dealing with Navarre for the possibility of leasing the balance of the new building rather than expanding their current building to the west. In this way there could be additional parking constructed on the land to the west of the Navarre building. On the other hand, if Navarre would lease the balance of the new building, there would be adequate parking provided. Mr. Hoyt continued by saying that all of the other issues would be incorporated into the plans and that the legal descriptions for the easements would be provided. The details on the signage plan would be clarified also. He felt that this plan would be much better than the two building plan presented in 1996. The haul route would be posted for trucks to travel along Quebec Avenue. Commissioner Kramer asked what the road weight restriction is on Quebec and wondered how many truckloads of material would be hauled off the site. Mr. Hoyt responded that Quebec is a nine ton road. The estimate for dirt, both in and out, is close to 30,000 yards or about 1,500 truckloads. They would be using belly dump trucks and ~anticipated beginning hauling out within two or three weeks or as soon as the erosion control measures are in place on the site. Mr. Hoyt said that the prominent pile of dirt in the middle of the site is good dirt and would be staying there. The dirt to be removed is where the two ponds would be located. The ponding area in the northeast corner is where the spoil pile from the Navarre building is located and is about eight feet high and would need to be reduced to eight feet deep. Mr. Hoyt presented a petition for the City to install the new storm pipe on the west and north sides of the property. Mr. Hoyt explained that the purpose of the two ponds would be for treating the untreated water from Quebec Avenue. He said the ponding areas meet the standards and goals of the City for water quality. Commissioner Kramer asked.how the water would be treated. Mr. Hoyt replied that the water would be treated by sedimentation. The water comes in off the street full of sand, etc. and empties into the first pond and leaves some of the sedimentation behind and then travels into the second pond. By the time it leaves the second pond, the water meets the standards for the removal of phosphorus, etc. Commissioner Kramer wondered if there is an erosion control plan on the construction. Mr. McDonald responded that one would be required. The grading and utility plans have to be approved by the City Engineer. Commissioner Kramer wondered if there would be traffic or safety problems with the volume of trucks hauling dirt off the site. Mr. Hoyt responded that there is a clearing house of sorts for people in the construction business where dirt can be taken or picked up. It is Planning Commission Meeting 5 May 6, 1997 impossible to fill land with this dirt due to the wetlands legislation. Commissioner Kramer asked staff if the City Engineer would consider dust control measures for the site. Mr. McDonald responded that the Commission can add any other conditions to the ones recommended by staff. Mr. Hoyt maintained that by the time the trucks would leave the property, they would have traveled along the site driveway for quite a ways. The developer generally installs about 30-40 feet of large rip rap to help knock the mud off the wheels before leaving the property. The dirt that needs to be removed from the site is primarily clay. Commissioner Kramer pointed out that clay can be very slick on the roadway surface when wet. Commissioner Svendsen asked if the railroad would be picking up all the railroad ties or if the developer was responsible for the ties. Mr. Hoyt replied that the railroad ties would be given back to the railroad because they are in the construction area. Commissioner Svendsen asked whether the trash compaction area would be sufficient for the large building and whether or not there would be other outside trash storage. Mr. Hoyt replied that outside dumpsters tend to fill up with trash from neighboring properties, therefore, they would rather utilize inside space for the storage of trash. The compactors are totally enclosed and are only accessible from the inside of the building. These are leased from a refuse company. For refuse that does not go into the compactor, there are interior dumpsters on wheels that are brought to the door when the truck comes for collection. Commissioner Svendsen asked the petitioner to add more spruce trees to the northern property line between the two ponds and the petitioner agreed to this suggestion. Mr. Hoyt added that a lot of the. existing trees would remain undisturbed. Commissioner Kramer asked staff if the City required developers to repair road damage, if there was any after the completion of a project. Mr. Sondrall stated that a Letter of Credit would be required for the installation of public improvements and would probably cover things of that nature. If there was an issue, there would be a financial guarantee and there would be an obligation on the part of the developer to take care of the damage. Mr. Sondrall stated that he didn't think that this has ever been done, or that if there was damage to the roadways, that proof could be provided it was the developer's fault. Commissioner Kramer stated that there is a way to calculate lost life of a roadway. MOTION Item 4.1 o Planning Commission Meeting Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to approve Planning Case 97-06, Request for Site and Building Plan Review/Approval for Office/Warehouse Construction, 7300 49m Avenue North, Hoyt Development/Continental Distribution Partners, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Vacation of easements along railroad to accommodate 10-foot building setback and vacation of existing storm sewer easement and dedication of new storm sewer easement. 2. Provide adequate water service and fire protection measures for building, per Fire Chief and City Engineer. 3. Execution of a Development Agreement with City and provide performance bond or letter of credit for site improvements (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). 4. Provide joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress, and maintenance of shared drive and no parking shall be enforced along shared drive. Haul route for removal of excess material to be along 49~h Avenue 6 May 6, 1997 to Quebec Avenue to 42"~ Avenue; haul route to be cleaned periodically, as required° and developer to post haul route. 6. Review/approVal of plans by the Shingle Creek Watershed. 7. Provide soils data to Building Official. Clarify details on Comprehensive Sign Plan. 9. Provide details for erosion and dust control per the City Engineer's recommendations. 10. Submit revised plans that include the following changes/additions: A. Consistency between engineering and site plan B. Lot coverage ratios C. Revised illumination contours D. Revise truck dock location or additional paved surface to provide adequate turning radius at northern docks E. Revised utility plan to show eight-inch water main F. I~ovide trash compactor screening details G. Provide two additional handicapped-parking stalls H. Provide four additional Colorado Spruce on north property line between ponds to screen loading area from residential properties with elevation to be at approximately 892 feet. Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer None Stulberg, Sonsin, Oelkers Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Vice-Chairman Land¥ pointed out that this planning case will proceed to. the City Council on May 12, 1997, and the petitioner was advised to be in attendance at the City Council meeting. Mr. Sondrall added that relative to the building height, there is no definition in feet for building height. It may be covered by the Uniform Building Code. PC97-07 Item 4.2 Vice-Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-19, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Exempting UHoliday Signs" From Permitting Requirements, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Sondrall stated that the ordinance was initiated by the political and opinion sign issue discussed at the May meeting. A question arose whether holiday lights/signs would be regulated by the Sign Code. This ordinance maintains a status quo and indicated that they would not be regulated signage. The Planner completed a survey of surrounding communities and concluded that other communities in the area are leaving these s!gns and lights unregulated. The ordinance exempts holiday signage from the Sign Code. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Keefe, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 97-07/Ordinance 97-19, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Exempting 'Holiday Signs' From Permitting Requirements, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Kramer None Stulberg, Sonsin, Oelkers 7 Damiani, Svendsen, May 6, 1997 This Planning Case will be presented to the City Council on May 12, 1997. PC97-08 & 97-02 Item 4.3 Vice-Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-08, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Sign Code by Permitting the Use of Non-Commercial Opinions Signs, and Amending the Purpose and Political Signage Section, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the Commission acted on a portion of this ordinance at the April meeting, and the City Council requested that an increase in the political and opinion signs should be tied to a decrease in apartment signage. The Council also had a concern about corner lots getting double the number of political signs as interior lots. Therefore, only half of this ordinance is new. Mr. Sondrall reported that the Council reviewed this ordinance at the last Council meeting, and pursuant to the direction from the Council, this ordinance is back with a couple of changes. One change is that the size of rental/for sale signs 'has been reduced in the multiple density districts. The Code allowed that apartments with seven or more units would be allowed a very large sign of 75 feet. This has now been reduced to be consistent with the signage limitations of the opinion signs. The consistency now is for 32 square feet for all of the signage, therefore; Section 3.461 has been amended to reduce the sign size from 75 square feet to 32 square feet. The second change the Council thought was inappropriate was for corner lots to have more sign exposure based on its. street frontage, therefore, that part of the code has been changed to indicate the number of signs would be based on a per lot basis and not on a street frontage basis. The third change deals with an amortization for all signs that these amendments would make non-conforming. The Code had an amortization schedule built in for legal non-conforming signs to comply with the ordinance as it was currently amended. The amortization schedule dates back to when the Sign Code was fully revised. Legal non- conforming signs had to become legal conforming signs and a time limitation was established for this to happen based on the cost of the signage. The City Attorney reported that an amendment was included regarding the amortization schedule that says any amendments to the Sign Code would still be subject to this amortization schedule, therefore, if this amendment made a sign in violation of the Code there would be a specific number of months to make the sign conforming based on the cost value of the original sign. Codes & Standards had discussed a minimum of 24 months, however, the amortization schedule that was previously used in the Code was 36 months minimum. He stated that the Commission and Council should make a determination as to the time limitation to conform to the Sign Code amendments. Mr. Sondrall asked staff whether it was known exactly how many signs in the City this amendment would affect. Mr. McDonald answered that the Building Official conducted a random survey of the City and did not check for every sign that would be affected. The main signs that would be impacted are the apartment complexes along Highway 169 that have large signs. Commissioner Damiani wondered who would be tracking the non- conforming signs. Mr. Sondrall replied that this would be handled on a case-by-case basis and staff would not keep an inventory of signs. If staff would be made aware of a non-conforming sign, either by a random survey by the inspectors or by complaint, then staff would need to contact the owner to determine when the sign was installed and deal with Planning Commission Meeting 8 May 6, 1997 MOTION Item 4.3 COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Codes & Standards Item 5.2 the situation at that time. Mr. McDonald suggested that if the ordinance is passed, that the City send a letter to all complexes in the City with more than seven units informing them of the ordinance and letting the owners know the length of time they have to comply with the ordinance. Commissioner Damiani questioned whether the size of the signs along Highway 169 would need to be larger than along other streets, because of the signs set back further from the highway and the faster speeds on the highway. Mr. Sondrall stated that there was some discussion at Codes & Standards regarding an exception for this area of the City. There are always exceptions to the rule, and Codes & Standards decided to leave the size the same for all signs. Mr. McDonald reminded the Commission that the reason for the size change was because the sign size for political and opinion lawn signs was being changed. Commissioner Keefe questioned whether the dollar values in the amortization schedule were 1972 values. Mr. Sondrall responded that the values were from 1984 when the ordinance went into effect. Commissioner Keefe interjected that th® reference on the schedule states 1972-77. Mr. Sondrall then stated that the Code was recodified in 1979 and, therefore, were probably 1979 dollar values. Commissioners Kramer and Keefe suggested that the Council consider the dollar values and timeline before adopting this ordinance amendment. They recommended that the Council should consider whether or not to keep the dollar values at the 1979 rate or increase the values to a more current dollar amount. Motion by Commissioner Keefe, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to approve Planning Cases 97-08 & 97-02/Ordinance No. 97-08, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Sign Code by Permitting the Use of Non- Commercial Opinion Signs, and Amending the Purpose and Political Signage Section, City of New Hope, Petitioner, with the recommendation that the City Council review the amortization schedule as it relates to dollar values and the timeline for implementation. Voting in favor: Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Kramer Voting against: None Absent: Stuiberg, Sonsin, Oelkers Motion carried. Damiani, Svendsen, This Planning Case will be presented to the City Council on May 12, 1997. Commissioner Svendsen stated the Committee met with Mr. Hoyt to review the development plans presented at this meeting. There are a couple tower applications to review at the May meeting. Mr. McDonald requested that Commissioner Svendsen chair the May Design & Review meeting, to continue the Committee chair rotation process. Vice-Chairman Landy reported that Codes & Standards met in April and discussed the two ordinances presented at this meeting. He stated that not all of the information for the DNR Shoreland Management regulations is available yet, so this has been delayed. Planning Commission Meeting 9 May 6, 1997 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Staff talked to the Chair of Codes & Standards and recommended that the May meeting be .canceled due to the fact that the DNR Shoreland information was not available. The Chair requested that the June meeting be rescheduled for another week of the month, and the meeting date will be determined at the June Planning Commission meeting. Vice-Chairman Landy informed Commissioner Hemken about the Committee assignments and stated that she could visit each Committee meeting to help determine where she would like to serve. Mr. McDonald explained that the Council approved the proposal from Northwest Associates Consultants to update the Comprehensive Plan and that a committee would be formed with members from the Planning Commission, Citizens Advisory Commission, and City staff. The first meeting would be in June and meetings would be held one evening a month for one year. Commissioners Landy and Kramer have indicated that they want to serve on this committee and Hemken indicated that she also was interested in the Comp Plan Committee. There was no old business to discuss. Planning Commission minutes were approved as written. Council and EDA minutes were reviewed. There were no announcements. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:05. p.m. R~?~ectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester / Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 10 May 6, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 3, 1997 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Hemken, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer Keefe, Damiani Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Stephanie Olson, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items presented. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-09 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Variance to Allow a Second Existing Garage to Remain in Place, 5933 Boone Avenue North, Elmer Geislinger, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting a variance to allow a second existing garage to remain in place on the property. The petitioners obtained a building permit to build a detached garage ar'~cl convert the existing attached garage for storage/other use in 1981. When the construction was completed that year, the owners declined to remove or convert the existing attached garage. A decision was made at that time to defer the conversion until the "point-of-sale" housing inspection. Instead of converting the attached garage, the petitioners are now requesting a variance to allow two garages on the property, the existing attached garage and the existing detached garage. Mr. McDonald explained that Section 4.032(3)(g) of the City Code states that "no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one private accessory garage structure for each dwelling, that "each lot shall be limited to one accessory building in addition to an accessory garage," and that "no accessory building or garage for single or two family residential uses shall occupy more than 25 percent of a rear yard, or 900 square feet." Other Code language and definitions prevent a storage shed from being used for garage purposes. Mr. McDonald reported that the property is a standard 86' x 105' (9,030 square feet) residential lot, and is located on the west side of Boone Avenue south of 60th Avenue North. The property contains a single family home with an attached 288 square foot single car garage on the south side of the home. A 576 square foot detached garage is located in the southwest corner/rear yard of the property, which was constructed in 1981. The rear detached garage is accessed by an expanded driveway along the side of the home/attached garage. Total garage space on the property totals 864 square feet. The property is located in a Single Family Residential Zoning District and is surrounded by single family homes on the north/south/east/west. The topography of the property slopes down from the rear of the property towards the street front from approximately 916' to 912'. Planning Commission Meeting I June 3, 1997 Mr. McDonald stated that the Building Official reported that several instances arose in the past where a building permit for a garage was authorized with the condition to remove an existing second driveway or garage as part of the project. In this case, a garage building permit application was received in 1981, which proposed a new detached double garage, but there was an existing single attached garage on the property. Since City Code prohibited two garages, the Building Official advised the applicants to either apply for a variance, remove the second garage, or submit plans and obtain a permit to show the existing garage converted to another use at the time of the new garage construction. Many attached garages in the past have been converted to porches, recreation rooms, living rooms, storage and kitchen expansion. The petitioners understood the ordinances and agreed to comply. The plans were signed and marked to remove existing overhead door - eliminate original garage. On the final inspection of the new garage, the Building Official wrote "OK - Submit plans on second garage conversion or variance application" and no action was taken by the petitioners at that time. In 1988, the Fire Marshall and Police Department were called to the property regarding a day care operation. The garage issues were again brought to the City's attention and a memo regarding the matter was entered into the file. A determination was made to defer the garage conversion order until the property was sold and inspected at "point-of- sale." On April 30, 1997, the General Inspector made the dwelling maintenance inspection and re-issued the previous order, which prompted this variance application. The petitioners have taken good care of their property and buildings in recent years. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners have submitted several letters outlining their recollection of past events. They stated that the building permit indicated nothing about removing an overhead door - eliminate original garage or apply for a variance. They indicated that after an inspection for day care in 1988, a memorandum was filed on this matter. The petitioners indicated the reason for the second garage would be for vehicle storage and miscellaneous storage. They stated that the garage is set back with the neighbors garage to the rear and does not block anyone's view. They stated that they did not receive a copy of the file memo and would have applied for a variance at that time if they had received a copy. Mr. McDonald reported that property owners within 350' of the request had been notified and staff received correspondence from several adjoining neighbors opposing the granting of the variance. Mr. McDonald explained that the purpose of a variance is to permit relief from str. ict application of the Zoning Code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property and not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Additional criteria to be used in Planning Commission Meeting 2 June 3, 1997 considering requests for avar~ance would include that the variance would not be contrary {~ ~.~'~i3~J~'s of a variance, impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, or unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioners stated in a letter that a hardship would be created if the variance were not granted because more vehicles would be parked outside, more vandalism to vehicles could occur, and the property would not appear as well kept, and requested approval of the variance. Staff agreed that a second garage creates two additional indoor parking spaces and support the idea that garage expansion would be desirable for additional storage. However, staff also appreciate the City Code prohibition of two separate garages per lot. Very few variances of this type have been granted in the past. One is a block south of this property at 5804 Boone, where numerous complaints have been received. Regardless of what has occurred in the past, staff encourage the Commission to evaluate this request based on the Zoning Code criteria for granting a variance. This property is not unique and the "undue hardship" definition has not been met. Mr. Elmer Geislinger, 5933 Boone Avenue North, came to the podium to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Landy asked the petitioner what he felt had transpired 15 years ago. The petitioner replied that they came to the City to obtairr~a building permit to build the garage, which he built himself. There were three inspections for the garage, and at the time of the final inspection, nothing was written on the inspection report about a variance. The first time the petitioners were made aware of something wrong was in 1988. The petitioner stated that they had not received any correspondence from the City notifying them about obtaining a variance, however, there is a copy of a memorandum in the property file. Commissioner Landy clarified that at the time of the inspection there was no mention of a City ordinance prohibiting two garages and that the Building Official did not mention removing the overhead door on the attached garage, and this was confirmed by the petitioner. Chairman Sonsin asked whether the petitioners knew what the buyer would be doing with the second garage, and what would happen to the sale of the home if the City would require the seller or buyer to remove the overhead door and convert the attached garage to living space. The petitioner did not know whether the sale of the home would occur. The petitioner mentioned that a vehicle was stolen from the driveway recently. Chairman Sonsin asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Commission. Mr. John Deneka, 5924 Cavell Avenue, came forward. He stated they bought their house in 1978. The major complaint he had was the drainage of water in the back yard. All the water used to run to the north along the rear lot lines and now the water ponds in the back yards since the petitioner built the garage. Mr. Deneka stated he had lost a row of lilac bushes that stood in water in the spring each year. The petitioner also built a dam with concrete blocks along the fence in the rear yard to keep the water from its natural flow to the north. Chairman Sonsin asked Planning Commission Meeting 3 June 3, 1997 whether the garage itself hindered the flow of water and the reply was that the water would flow around the garage if the cement blocks were not there. Mr. Deneka stated that the petitioner was storing a dragster- type vehicle in the garage, which is very noisy and annoying to the neighborhood. He stated he did not feel that the petitioners had earned the right to be granted a variance because they made the neighbors to the rear of the property move their garden. Chairman Sonsin questioned whether Mr. Deneka had ever talked to the neighbors regarding any of these issues and the reply was he had not. Mr. Bill Oseth, 5909 Boone Avenue, came forward to address the Commission. He stated that his rear yard also fills up with water in the spring. He stated he did not understand how this situation could go on for so long and a variance was not obtained long ago. They should probably obtain a variance permit now, but at the 1981 fee, since that is when the detached garage was built. He stated he looked at a the Geislinger's copy of the building permit and it did not state that any additional work be done to the attached garage or that it had to be converted to living space. Mr. Oseth stated that he felt the neighbors should not be able to determine what someone has in the garage, as noisy cars are another issue. Mr. Geislinger commented on the statement made by Mr. Deneka regarding moving a garden. He stated that City staff made the request for that property owner to move the garden. The Geislingers also have water in the backyard and their swing set was under water whenever it rained hard. Chairman Sonsin reiterated that there are drainage problems in several areas of the City. -~- Mr. Warren Wilkens, 5932 Cavell Avenue, came forward to address the Commission. He stated he lived directly behind the petitioner. He informed the Commission that the railroad ties in his back yard were moved per the City's direction. Chairman Sonsin explained for the audience that the Planning Commission was an advisory group and made its decisions based on the Zoning Code of the City of New Hope. The vote taken would be a recommendation to the City Council regarding what the Planning Commission felt should happen. The City Council reviews the planning case and makes the final decision. The Council could disagree or agree with the Planning Commission and deny or grant the variance. The Council could modify the variance to what they felt was best for the City and its residents, if the Council granted the request, then everything stays as is. If the Council denies the request, changes would have to be made to the property before it was sold or as a condition of sale. The Council could also request that the attached garage be converted to living space, which would not remove the unattached garage from the property. Commissioner Oelkers asked staff what the basis for the ~)rdinance was because most people have at least two cars plus lawn mowers, snowmobiles, etc. He also wondered if the distance for the backyard setback requirement was 35 feet, how was this garage request approved at only five feet from the property line. Mr. Sondrall stated that according to City Code Section 4.032(3), a detached garage/accessory building can be setback five feet from the property line. Commissioner Oelkers mentioned that the drainage problem was irrelevant to the variance as long as the garage is not in the easement area. The noisy car would be a different issue and not related to the variance. Commissioner Oelkers Planning Commission Meeting 4 June 3, 1997 questioned why this variance was not brought before the Design & Review committee before the Pla~nin§ Commission meeting. Mr. McDonald replied that variances traditionally have not been reviewed by Design & Review, but that this process can be revised if that is the desire of the Commission. Commissioner Kramer reiterated that the water problem is a separate issue. He also stated that he felt this was not an undue hardship, but the time lapse bothered him and wondered if ignorance of the law was justification for not complying unless there were mitigating circumstances at the time the building permit was issued and the garage built. Mr. Sondrall stated that there seems to be a violation of the Zoning Code and there are a number of issues that need to be resolved. He stated he was troubled by the length of time and the failure of the City to act on this when it was first discovered, instead of waiting until time of sale inspection. Chairman Sonsin stated that this planning case could be viewed favorably either way. The water problem and noise issue are both separate from the variance and the Zoning Code. The real issue is that there is an attached garage and a detached garage and whether or not to allow one or both of them to remain. Chairman Sonsin stressed the point that any decision made would set a precedent for future planning cases of this type. Another resident could come to the City requesting the same type of variance and say that a similar request was granted for someone else, therefore, their request should be granted too. The petitioners should ke~p in mind that the Planning Commission advises the Council and the Council would make the final decision. Chairman Sonsin stated that from a zoning point of view, he would not support the variance for a second garage to remain in place. The planning case could be tabled by the Planning Commission and have the Codes & Standards Committee study the ordinance before a decision would be made. The problem for the petitioners would be that the closing on the sale of the home could not take place for at least one month. Commissioner Svendsen stated that the 1988 inspection report included with the planning report looks like it is part of a 3-part form. The first page should have been given to the petitioners, which does state that the petitioners should submit plans for garage conversion or variance application. This should have been fair notice to the petitioners. After driving through this neighborhood when preparing for the Planning Commission meeting, he stated that he noticed that the greater share of houses had single-car garages, and the rest of the neighbors seem to be dealing with the situation. Staff had requested a Police report for vandalism along Boone Avenue from 58th to 61st, and during the last three years, there were three acts of vandalism. Auto theft was not requested on this report because the petitioners stolen vehicle was recently reported. Commissioner Svendsen maintained that the Commission looks at the planning case through the zoning issues only. Chairman Sonsin stated that whatever happened in the past is past and it was his intention to move forward and the burden of proof should be on the City and there was none presented. The issue was a garage that was in violation of the Code and undue hardship had not been presented. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that the detached garage was not the problem. The problem was the failure to convert the attached garage into living space. Planning Commission Meeting 5 June 3, 1997 This would resolve the problem without the need for a variance. The Commissioners discussed the removal of the overhead garage door, and if some other type of door was installed, whether the use as an attached storage shed would be legal. Mr. Sondrall stated that the intent of the ordinance was for individuals to discontinue use as a garage, for the storage of vehicles. Chairman Sonsin stated that Council may want to know what the minimum would be that the petitioner needed to do to avoid the variance issue. Mr. Sondrall noted that according to the planning report, the indication seemed to be that if a variance was requested it would be approved. He stated that he found it difficult to believe that a permit for a detached garage would be issued prior to knowledge by the City relative to how the attached garage would be converted. Commissioner Kramer stated that a possible recommendation to the Council would be that the Planning Commission should study the ordinance and determine the applicability on how the issue should be dealt with. He suggested that some research be done and presented to the Council regarding the ramifications of the City not taking action. Chairman Sonsin reminded the Commission that the motion should be one to approve and the Commissioners could vote no if they felt denial was in order. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Stulberg, to approve Planning Case 97-09, Request for a Variance to Allow a Second Existing Garage to Remain in Place, 5933 Boone Avenue North, Elmer Geislinger, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Oelkers Voting against: Hemken, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Svendsen, Kramer Absent: Keefe, Damiani Motion failed. This Planning Case will be presented to the City Council on June 9, 1997. Chairman Sonsin questioned the Geislingers and staff as to the minimum it would take to comply with code and avoid the variance request, and whether the petitioners are willing to do it. Staff should determine whether this ordinance should be studied/updated by the Codes & Standards Committee. Commissioner Kramer asked that the City Attorney study the issue of whether inaction constitutes an automatic variance. PC97-10 Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 2900 Nevada Avenue North, CB Commercial and Northland Mechanical Contractors, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a l O0-foot tall steel monopole with antenna array for telecommunications wireless service. The application was by US West and would be located on the property at 2900 Nevada Avenue North. CB Commercial has been authorized by US West to act as their representative for planning and zoning matters. US West is proposing to construct a 100-foot steel monopole tower on the noted property. A PCS antenna array would be placed at the top of the pole. The monopole would be iocated at the northeast rear yard of the Planning Commission Meeting 6 June 3, 1997 Northland Mechanical: Contr.actors property at the end of Nevada Avenue North, just north of Medicine Lake Road. There is an existing office/warehouse building on the site, which contains 4.3 acres. Mr. McDonald explained that the foundation for the tower would be a caisson type. The tower steel and foundation would be designed following specifications as determined by the tower manufacturer. The cell site would meet both FAA and FCC requirements for the location. Tower color would be chosen to blend in with the surrounding environment and no signs or lighting would be attached to the tower. An unmanned prefabricated equipment pad measuring approximately 12' x 9'6" x 6' would be located at the base of the pole. A chain link fence and landscaping would be implemented per the City's requirements. The electrical service would be brought in underground. Mr. McDonald stated that surrounding zoning/land uses are I-1 office/ warehouse to the north, wetland/marsh zoned I-1 to the east, along with several R-1 properties along Louisiana Avenue, I-1 office/warehouse to the south, and a non-conforming home located in an I-1 zone to the west. Property owners within 350' of the request had been notified along with the City of Crystal, due to the proximity of the municipal boundary. Several people called and stopped by City Hall to look at the plans. Mr. McDonald explained that the Zoning Code requirements for a conditional use permit were outlined in the planning report. He stated that the petitioner had submitted statements in regards to the Zoning Code criteria for a CUP. The site meets the City standards for conditional u,se._~s and they felt the antenna would be visually unobtrusive and go unnoticed by the casual observer. Wireless communication technology had developed rapidly during the last few years and many new applications were vital to industrial and business uses. Both business and industry would be seeking out and adapting to the new technologies to remain competitive. The tower would enhance public safety and welfare because it would enable US West to bring cellular technology to the area, which could assist police, firefighter, ambulances, and a number of other safety issues. Cellular radio transmissions are very safe and pose no health risks. One question often asked is whether the operation of a cellular antenna would affect home radio and television reception. According to the data submitted, the cellular system would be operated at a higher frequency on the radio spectrum than home radio/television frequencies, so it would not interfere with lower frequency users. Mr. McDonald reviewed the tower ordinance regulations with the Commissioners and pointed out several of the sections that apply to this planning case, including written authorization if tower and land are not under the same ownership; removal after cessation of use; compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code; compliance with manufacturer's specifications and verification by a registered professional engineer; federal license; setbacks - the tower would be setback 44 feet from the property line instead of the required 75 feet', which could be reduced with collapse documentation; 1,000 separation from other towers; height; illumination; painting; screening; 8' security fence and anti-climb device; equipment at the base of the tower; and landscaping on all sides of the enclosure. The petitioner has submitted or is in the process of submitting all of the information requested by the Design & Review Committee at its meeting on May 15. The revised plans also show the location of the building to the north and include an Planning Commission Meeting 7 June 3, 1997 erosion control fence. Mr. McDonald commented that the Northland Mechanical property had been "unfinished," since it was built in 1984 as "Phase 1." Council allowed Northland Mechanical to defer the completion of the north half landscaping and paving/curbing until "Phase 2" was constructed. The property owner was required to apply four a CUP for the storage of six semi-trailers on the unfinished north side of the building in 1984. Staff requested that a revised Site Plan be submitted for the proposed completion of the entire property. Mr. Scott Hoelscher, CB Commercial, 2550 University Avenue, St. Paul, thanked staff for their assistance. He stated that he had requested the client provide a letter stating that the tower would be removed when operations are ceased and would forward this letter to the City. He stated that there are no attachments or pegs on the monopole, therefore, there is no need for an anti-climb device, which was confirmed by Commissioner Svendsen. Commissioner Svendsen stated that the author of the letter from Engineered Endeavors regarding the resiliency of the pole, etc., did not state who he was or whether he was a certified engineer. Mr. Hoelscher indicated that Mr. Parr was not a certified engineer. The letter from Millerbernd has a registered professional engineer stamp. Commissioner Kramer pointed out that the letter from Engineered Endeavors talks about hurricanes and bending, etc. and the letter from Millerbernd does not make any claims about whether the tower would fall over or not or any of the claims made by Engineering Endeavors. The two letters should not'.be thought of as saying the same thing, since the registered engineer was very careful with any claims made about the tower. Commissioner Svendsen reminded the petitioner that the Commission was asking for confined collapse documentation, and these letters are not specific enough. Mr. Hoelscher stated that the engineer would not provide a letter stating definitely that the pole would not fall over, because he could not guarantee that. Designing a pole that had a weak point or that would bend in half would, in fact, be designing a weak pole. These poles have withstood hurricanes and are the same as poles seen along highways. Commissioner Hemken questioned why the pole was not setback further. Mr. Hoelscher replied that the pole was not setback further because of the planned expansion on the property. There is a pond to the east and a planned expansion of the building and parking to the west. A question was raised by the Commission regarding forcing the required setback and how that would impact the building expansion. Mr. Sondrall answered that this point was discussed at Codes & Standards when designing the ordinance, and the tower setback would then hinder building expansion on this particular property. Mr. Hoelscher pointed out that on 75 to 80 percent of the sites his client had poles within five feet of a structure and there had not been any concerns about a pole falling over on a building. Commissioner Kramer stressed that the Commission had to uphold the New Hope ordinance and reminded the petitioner that there was a difference of 31 feet in the setback requirement. The setback requirement relateed to a safety issue and impacted the adjacent properties. Most of the material provided for the Commission talked about new towers, and ordinances were written to aid in possible misuse by people, unmaintained towers, or a failure of the tower itself due to unmitigating circumstances. Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether the statement in the Planning Commission Meeting 8 June 3, 1997 addendum to-the lea§e agreement regarding the lessee restoring the lessors property to its original condition after the lease is terminated was adequate to fulfill the ordinance requirement for removal. Mr. Sondrall confirmed that statement was a guarantee by the lessee to restore the property to its original condition, which would be interpreted to be the removal of the tower. The ordinance was written to keep the removal of a tower between the tower owner and land owner. Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that the planting schedule plan states there would be a six-foot high security fence and this should be changed to an eight-foot fence, Commissioner Svendsen stated that there should be more clarification on the fence and be sure to have the site plan and landscape plan consistent. Commissioner Svendsen asked whether the petitioner had gotten the soils data and the petitioner responded that information would be available at the time they obtained the building permit. Commissioner Kramer asked for clarification on the statement that the new antenna tower would be designated to accommodate at least two antenna arrays and wondered what designated means and how would this be accomplished. Mr. Hoelscher replied that the poles are ordered with two access ports 15 feet and 30 feet below the height of the tower. Commissioner Kramer stressed that the point the ordinance makes is this should be designated and asked where in their documentation this is designated. Commissioner Kramer asked who would be doing the work. Mr. Hoelscher answered that a contractor would do the work. Commission Kramer pointed out that there was a change in law 216D relative to location, which requires within 90 days to have location of all utilities in the area on the plans. This change was just passed by legislature and the petitioner should check to see if towers fall into this law. Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that information should be provided on the collapse documentation and asked for some clarification on what Northland Mechanical was going to do relative to expansion. Mr. Ron Kocher, representing 2900 Nevada Partners, part owner of the property, came forward to address the Commission. He stated that he was not aware of the details of the ordinance when this issue was first discussed with US West. Chairman Sonsin maintained that the Commission did not want to create a condition where a property owner could not expand on a particular property, because of circumstances related to a tower, that otherwise would have been buildable. Mr. Kocher stated he would like to talk to the other partners to establish concrete plans and asked for some additional time to do this. Chairman Sonsin responded that he would recommend tabling this planning case for one month to resolve all of the unanswered questions and issues. Commissioner Hemken asked 'the petitioner what tabling this would do te their timetable. Mr. Hoelscher replied that they would prefer to move ahead. Chairman Sonsin explained that he would rather see the Planning Commission complete its job rather than have this presented to the Council and be held up at that point. Commissioner Oelkers questioned the reasoning behind the collapsible pole and why manufacturers would design a pole that would bend. He Planning Commission Meeting 9 June 3, 1997 wondered if the ordinance was realistic in light of the fact that a 16§-foot pole would have a 330-foot radius that could not be built upon. Commissioner Kramer answered that design criteria used for wind load and other assumptions was based on a safety factor of 1.5, which was a common ultimate strength design. If a mistake is made on loads, or forces other than what the pole is designed for, the pole would be in jeopardy. A joint commission agreed on 75 percent of the pole height, which is based on most failures occurring one-third of the way up from the ground. The idea of a tower failing would most likely occur at one-third because the tower was anchored at the bottom and it would not fall on adjacent property. The ultimate strength design was based on the yielding of the structure to wind and repeated stress and movement. The tower has to be maintained properly with no. weak points. Something could hit the tower and drop it on the adjacent property, therefore, the premise of the 75 percent to protect the adjacent property is valid. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that the ordinance states 75 percent of the tower height from the property line and 50 percent to a building on the same lot. This ordinance was reviewed over and over by people within the industry and this was an acceptable setback requirement that was not objected to by industry people. It was also reviewed by the Joint-City Cable Commission. One problem with the ordinance might be the language relative to registered engineers and getting guarantees about collapsibility, which would seem to be futile language if no competent engineer would provide a guarantee letter that would meet the collapse criteria to reduce the setbacks. Commissioner Kramer maintained that a manufacturer could design a tower to fail at another height to guarantee the collapse. Mr. Sondrall stated that the ordinance talked about collapse in foreseeable circumstances, which would have to be determined by the Commissten and Council. Chairman Sonsin added that this ordinance was new and there may be some sections that do not work every time. In the event that the same section would be questioned on several occasions, it may have to be reviewed again. Mr. Sondrall expressed an opinion that some of the issues could be dealt with through the lease agreement between the tower owner and land owner. The setback relative to buildings on the same property may be less of a problem for discretionary judgment than the setback for the adjacent property line which should be strictly protected. The petitioners can deal with each other relative to damages, etc. from collapsing poles. Commissioner Kramer added that he would like to see a provision that an anti-climb device be installed. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to table for one month Planning Case 97-10 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 2900 Nevada Avenue North, CB Commercial and Northland Mechanical Contractors, Petitioners. Voting in favor: Hemken, Stulberg, Svendsen, Kramer Voting against: None Absent: Keefe, Damiani Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Chairman Sonsin informed the petitioners that Design & Review would be meeting on June 12 and the petitioners should work with staff on the open issues. Planning Commission Meeting 10 June 3, 1997 PC97-11 Item 4.3 Chairman Sonsin intrOduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Addition of a 20-Foot Extension onto the Existing Tower for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North, American Portable Telecom, Nextel Communications, and John Miner, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners are requesting a conditional use permit amendment to allow the addition of an extension onto an existing tower for telecommunications wireless service. The application is for a proposed PCS wireless telephone antenna cell site at the existing Nextel tower at 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North. Nextel, or OneComm as it was called in 1994, had previously been issued a conditional use permit to construct this tower at this location. This application requested an amendment of the existing CUP to allow a 23.6 foot extension to the tower, including three antenna array. The tower is controlled by Nextel and the property is owned by John Miner. APT was granted a license by the Federal Communications Commission to operate a PCS Wireless Phone System in the Twin Cities. Mr. McDonald stated that this site is zoned I-1. There would be up to nine directional panel antennas mounted at a 120 foot elevation. Unmanned prefabricated equipment cabinets measuring approximately 5' high x 3' wide x 3' deep would be located at the base of this tower. The existing lattice style tower was granted a CUP in 1994. The site contains 1.8 acres and the tower is located at the northeast corner of the property and contained within a 50' x 50' fenced enclosure. Ingress and egress to the existing tower is by a recorded easement through the Miner's property using the existing driveway from Hillsboro Avenue. An unmanned prefabricated equipment shelter measuring approximately 11' x 20' by 10' high is currently located at the base of the existing tower, which has a washed aggregate finish. The existing building and tower enclosure occupy most of this flat lot which abuts a large wetland to the east. The east side of the lot has a tall wooded buffer of softwood trees, such as cottonwoods. Because of the existing buffer, no additional landscaping was required when the existing tower was constructed in 1994. Property owners within 350' of the request were notified and staff received no comments regarding this proposal. Mr. McDonald reported that the conditional use permit criteria were outlined in the planning report, and all of the criteria were addressed and met in 1994. Additional statements were submitted by the applicant with this CUP amendment and include: 1) The proposed use was consistent with the existing use of this property; 2) The site would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and PCS uses Iow power so its signal stays within the cell and does not interfere with neighboring cells; and 3) The site would enhance public safety and welfare because APT would be able to bring PCS technology to the City and can be used by businesses and individuals using a PCS phone. Police, firefighters, and ambulances could transmit vital data quickly using PCS equipment. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner met with Design & Review on May 15 and the ordinance requirements were reviewed in detail. Additional plans and documents were submitted as a result of that meeting. The specific requirements of the ordinance to this application include: written authorization by the property owner; Building Code compliance; structural design verification by an engineer; a structural Planning Commission Meeting 11 June 3, 1997 analysis; setbacks, which the existing tower does not meet and would be grandfathered in; collapse documentation, the petitioner has stated that they are in the process of providing confined collapse information; 1,000- foot separation requirement has not been met as there is a 150-foot tower within 175 feet of the site, but because this is an application for an extension only, staff and the City Attorney feel that this application does not need to meet this requirement and that the existing tower would be grandfathered in; height; painting; security fence and anti-climb device; and equipment at the base of the tower. No landscaping was proposed or requested. The removal issue was not addressed in the report and may be something the Commission should address. Ms. Michelle Johnson, representative of American Portable Telecom, 1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington, came forward to address the Commission. Also present was Chuck Johnson, representing Nextel Communications and owner of the existing tower. Ms. Johnson stated that APT is a new telecommunications company and they are developing a new system to support PCS technology and are locating on antenna sites throughout Minnesota and western Wisconsin. They were happy to come to an agreement with Nextel and locate on an existing tower rather than construct a new tower. They are in agreement with the conditions as listed in the staff report. Ms. Johnson stated that the engineer who completed the structural analysis on the tower is creating the collapse documentation, and would be including statements regarding reasonable foreseeable circumstances and what would happen in that event. This is a conical-shaped lattice tower with the narrowest point at the top, which would be mostly affected by wind at the top. tf~a gust of wind, exceeding all safety standards arose, there would be a slight kink which would release the pressure on the rest of the tower so that, even if the wind stayed at that level for a period of time, the pressure would have been released and there should not be any further failure on the tower. Any kinking that would take place would be replaced immediately. The tower would be designed so that it would not topple over. Regarding the fence height information on the plans, this mistake will be corrected to show an eight-foot fence. The anti-climb device was discussed at length at the Design & Review meeting. The engineers found a device they believe would work and the details of the device would be included with the building permit application. Commissioner Svendsen stated that the City would still require a statement about removal of the equipment after cessation, because that does not seem to be covered in Part 18 of the lease. Ms. Johnson stated that it was standard practice to include language in the lease about removal of the tower and would come to an agreement with Nextel on this issue. Commissioner Svendsen commented that there were some tower modifications submitted, and this would need to be from a Minnesota registered engineer. Ms. Johnson replied that the engineer that submitted the report is registered and would be submitting a revised copy that included his stamp. Commissioner Svendsen suggested that the site plan include dimensions of where the buildings are located to get a better idea of setbacks and the collapse area in relation to the buildings. Commissioner Kramer stated that the tower was triangular and not conical shaped Kramer stated he was concerned about the language in the engineer's letter relating to the nearly new condition of the tower and the assumption that the tower was structural sound. Planning Commission Meeting 12 June 3, 1997 Mr. Charles Johnson, Nextel Corporation, came forward to address this issue. He stated ~ :db~r~¢ted: for a structural analysis prior to talking with APT to see if it would be possible for the tower to carry the proposed loads. The engineer did not visit the tower. Commissioner Kramer pointed out that the engineer stated in his letter that he had no knowledge of the structural integrity, therefore, this would have to be addressed in an agreeable manner. There should be some ultrasonic testing or at least some statistical probability should be accomplished. Mr. Johnson stated that the tower was less than three years old and the tower manufacturer had a 40-year guarantee on the tower. Chairman Sonsin agreed with Commissioner Kramer in that some additional testing or proof of the structural integrity of the tower with the additional loads at the top should be submitted to the City. Commissioner Kramer reiterated that the engineer stated in the letter that he did all of the analysis as if the tower was new. MOTION Item 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 97-11 Request for a Conditional use Permit to Allow the Addition of a 20-Foot Extension onto the Existing Tower for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North, American Portable Telecom, Nextel Communications, and John Miner, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with State Building Code. 2. Minnesota Registered Engineer's certification of all tower modifications, with statement on the condition of the existing tower. 3. Submittal of "confined collapse" information, which is to-lee reviewed/approved by Building Official. 4. Finalize anti-climb device details for this tower and submit revised elevation and specifications, which are to be reviewed/approved by Building Official. 5. Site plan to show all utility connections and eight-foot fence detail. 6. Site plan to identify location of all buildings. 7. Lease information on removal of antenna arrays after cessation of use. 8. Annual inspection by staff. Voting in favor: Hemken, Stulberg, Svendsen, Kramer Voting against: None Absent: Keefe, Damiani Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, This Planning Case will be presented to the City Council on June 9, 1997. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Commissioner Svendsen stated the Committee met with the two tower applicants. Chairman Sonsin requested that Commissioner Svendsen chair the June Design & Review meeting, as this would be a continuation of the tower application from last month's meeting. Mr. McDonald stated that at this time there are no new planning applications for Design & Review. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards did not meet in May due to the fact that not all of the information for the DNR Shoreland Management regulations was available. The June meeting is scheduled for Planning Commission Meeting 13 June 3, 1997 the 18th. Discussion items include continuation of the DNR Shoreland regulations, real estate signs, Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan on the Hidden Lakes development, and a concern the Council had on the pawn shop ordinance regarding second hand goods dealers. The City Attorney would be preparing some information on second hand dealers prior to the meeting. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues The Planning Commissioners expressed appreciation to the Council for the joint meeting and found the meeting to be very informative, i.e., the Council sets the policy and the Planning Commission enforces the policy. The Commissioners felt that the Planning Consultant, Mr. Licht was informative and helpful relative to planning issues. Mr. McDonald reported that the Council and City Manager asked for feedback from the Commissioners on several issues. First, when the Planning Commission recommends approval of a planning case and passes it on to the Council and if the Council disagrees with the recommendation, should the Council refer the issue back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Chairman Sonsin and most of the Commissioners agreed that they would like to study the issue again. One Commissioner felt that the Council should make the final decision. The second item the Council suggested was training for all new Planning Commissioners, either time scheduled with the Planning Consultant or Government Training Service. All were in agreement with this. The third item included some streamlining of work regarding developing procedures for administrative per. mits for minor issues that would not always have to go through the formal planning process. Chairman Sonsin explained to the newer Commission'e~s that this idea had been discussed years ago, and that possibly some type of procedure could be developed for minor variances, etc. If the case had to be approved, it could be place under consent items or the staff could request a full variance review. Commissioner Kramer commented that variances are not intended for minor items and if they are occurring frequently the ordinance should be reviewed and changed. A variance should be granted only in undue hardship cases. Mr. Sondrall added that one problem would be how to define a minor variance. Another issue to consider would be if the same variance was requested several times, possibly then the code should be changed. Mr. McDonald stated that an administrative procedure was developed for outdoor produce sales last year. Discussion ensued and it was determined that more thought and study should go into the planning process on these minor issues. The Design & Review Committee members wondered why they did not review all variances. Mr. McDonald stated that variances have never been presented to the Design & Review Committee unless the variance would be part of a site and building plan review or conditional use permit. Chairman Sonsin replied that the Committee could not review only one or two variances, but would have to review all variances. T. he Committee members felt this would be a good idea and the consensus was to review all variances for a while. Commissioner Oelkers discussed his feelings regarding the planning cases reviewed at this meeting and the failure to approve a garage that had been in place for many years, and grandfathering in a tower that was three years old. Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the ordinance was in place at the time the garage was built, and the tower ordinance was passed after the tower had been built. Commissioner Oe~kers stressed the fact that he did not want the City to be made liable for any conflicting Planning Commission Meeting 14 June 3, 1997 NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT decisions, or in the. case where an ordinance had not been enforced for many years. Mr, sbnd~ail stated there would always be the possibility of claims against the City. Commissioner Kramer stated that this could be viewed as a non-conforming use and an administrative decision was made by the inspector to leave the situation as is until sale of the property. In the case of the existing tower, it could be as non-conforming because there were two towers close together, and if one had to be replaced, under the new ordinance it could not legally be replaced. Mr. Sondrall interjected that the ordinance does speak about this issue. If the non- conforming use was destroyed or altered and would require more than 50 percent to rebuild, then the legal non-conforming use would be invalid. If there is a legal non-conforming use, then a person would be reliant on the ordinance that permitted the use at the time. As long as the original use was being maintained, it would be acceptable under the code. Commissioner Oelkers stated that he deals with a lot of people in his real estate job and today people want at least a two-car garage, if not garage space for three cars. He suggested that the section of ordinance relevant to second garages/accessory buildings should be reviewed as it seemed to be somewhat out of date. Commissioner Kramer handed out some information on the 60-day rule for planning cases that he received at the GTS training he attended recently. Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 6, 1997. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Council minutes were reviewed. Chairman Sonsin stated there would be a Planning Commission meeting on July 1. Mr. McDonald stated that West Pac may bring in expansion plans soon. He also reported that the City recently purchased the Brandell property on 49th Avenue, and several days leter met with Midwest Management, who was considering purchasing the property from the City and constructing a twin office tower in a PUD concept. Mr. McDonald stated that the Comprehensive Plan Committee may be scheduling a meeting later in June or July. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 15 June 3, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 1, 1997 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Hemken, Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Stephanie Olson, Community Development Specialist, Jacquie Desautels, Management Intern, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS Chairman Sonsin introduced the consent items for consideration and stated that all items would be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed for discussion. PC97-13 Item 3.1 Planning Case 97-13 was a Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Regarding the Hidden Lakes Development by the City of Golden Valley. The planning report stated that the City of Golden Valley was considering a development called Hidden Lakes. The development proposed to build 65 single family and 110 townhomes. The proposed site is 67.8 acres and is located near Sweeney and Twin Lakes in the eastern portion of Golden Valley. The current zoning and land use designation of the proposed site is semi-public and a change in land use and zoning to residential, Iow density would be required to allow for the proposed development. Any change in land use requires the city to apply for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and that the proposal be reviewed by adjacent cities. In accordance with Metropolitan Council's guidelines for reviewing local Comprehensive Plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council requires adjacent cities, which may be potentially affected by the proposed amendment, be notified. The purpose of thiS notification is to provide potentially affected communities the opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the proposed amendment. The amendment was submitted to the Planning Consultant, whose comments were included in the report, and City department heads. The Codes & Standards Committee reviewed the amendment and are in agreement with the Planner's recommendations, which include: 1) The change in land use of the proposed site from semi-public to Iow density residential use is compatible with land use of the area; 2) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public utilities and will not overburden the City's utilities capacity; 3) The applicant indicated that the planned amendment would potentially increase existing traffic generation, however, the location of the site in relation to the local and regional road network has the capacity to accommodate the proposed land use; and 4) Based on the project location in the City of Golden Valley, the proposed amendment will not negatively affect the land use, public utilities or transportation system in the City of New Hope. PC97-15 Item 3.2 Planning Case 97-15 was a Request for Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-22, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Convenience Food Establishments as a Permitted Use in the Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 1, 1997 B-4 Zoning District by the City of New Hope. The planning report stated that staff was requesting approval of Ordinance No. 97-22, an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code by establishing convenience food establishments as a permitted use in the B-4 Zoning District. Substantial revisions were made to the permitted/ conditional uses section of the Zoning Code for the B-1 through B-4 commercial properties in 1995 in an effort to streamline and clarify the uses. The code text does not specifically address "convenience food" in the B-4 District as a permitted or conditional use. Staff felt that this was an omission from the 1995 amendment and supports allowing convenience food establishments in a B-4 Zoning District as a permitted use. The Planning Consultant, City Attorney and Codes & Standards all reviewed the requested amendment and recommend approval of the ordinance. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to approve all items on the consent agenda. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Sonsin stated that both of these planning cases would be presented to the City Council on July 28, 1997. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-10 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 2900 Nevada Avenue North, CB Commercial, John Hollenbeck/Northland Mechanical Contractors, Ronatd Kocher Petitioners. Chairman Sonsin stated that the petitioners were not in attendance yet and asked for a motion to table this planning case until later in the meeting. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to table Planning Case 97-10, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 2900 Nevada Avenue North, CB Commercial, John Hollenbeck/Northland Mechanical Contractors, Ronald Kocher, Petitioners, until the petitioners arrived. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. PC97-12 Item 4/2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Maintenance Business to Operate Out of the Home, 3941 Winnetka Avenue North, Donald and Molly Nix, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit to allow a home occupation for a home maintenance business to operate out of the home. The petitioners operate DM&K Home Services out of their home which is located at 3941 Winnetka Avenue. The business offers such services as snow removal, house cleaning, yard maintenance, plumbing/electrical/cement repairs, etc., with the majority of the clients being senior residents. The property has been the subject of several complaints over the past several years due to outside storage issues on the property. Staff recommended that the petitioner obtain a conditional use permit if they want to continue operating the business out of the home especially since the business has grown since it began. The property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District, and is surrounded on the north/south/west by single family Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 1, 1997 homes. Across Winnetka Avenue to the east is an R-O, Residential- Office, church use and an I-1 industrial use. .Mr. McDonald continued by saying that the petitioners have an 11,000 square foot lot, which is located south of 40th Avenue and west of Winnetka and has a 75-foot frontage on Winnetka. The lot depth is approximately 145 - 150 feet. The existing house on the site has a double garage with a large curb cut driveway on Winnetka and a driveway extension on the south side of the house into the backyard. The petitioner submitted a lot of information about why they would like to obtain a conditional use permit and they explained how the business provides services to older clients. Mr. McDonald added that staff agrees that the business provides a good service, however, the question to be addressed by the Planning Commission is whether or not the business is appropriate for the neighborhood. The petitioners submitted a list of tools they use for the business and stated that they may have more than one of each tool. They stated that nearly 100% of the business is done at the client's residence. They indicated that the business requires a home office, tool storage and an occasional fabrication of an item in the garage, such as a window frame. The business is listed as an independent contractor through District #281 Senior Services Chore Project and the Senior Linkage Line. Property owners within 350 feet of the request were notified and staff received several inquiries. Mr. McDonald stated that the purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In determining whether the CUP is to be allowed, the City should consider the nature of adjoining land and buildings, whether a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises, the effect upon traffic, and any other factors that the Commission feels would have an impact on the general welfare of the residents of the City. Other criteria to consider include whether the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, whether it is compatible with adjacent land uses, and that the proposed use would not depreciate the area. Criteria to be considered for a Residential Zoning District include non-residential traffic to be channeled onto a thoroughfare; use to be sufficiently screened by distance or screened from adjacent residentially zoned land, and the structure site should not have an adverse affect upon adjacent residential properties. Mr. McDonald stated that the regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to insure that the occupational use is accessory or secondary to the principal use of the .dwelling and that the use is compatible with surrounding residential land uses. The City Code distinguishes between permitted and conditionally permitted home occupations. There are six criteria for permitted home occupations, and if the proposed use does not meet any one of the criteria, the use then requires a CUP. A permitted home occupation would not change the exterior of the structure, change the traffic pattern of the neighborhood, would include no employees outside of the immediate family, would not exceed 300 square feet of the home, have no direct sales, and have no outside storage. Mr. McDonald explained that. the proposed use would require a CUP because the proposed area of the business exceeds 300 square feet with an office in the lower level and tool storage in half of the garage. Aisc to Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 1, 1997 be considered is the fact that there have been previous complaints about outside storage on the site. A home occupation may be granted a conditional use permit if there is no adverse effect on the neighborhood, if there are no exterior changes or that the changes be screened, interior changes needed to conduct the business have to comply with all codes, and no additional traffic. Mr. McDonald informed the Commissioners that, according to the City Attorney, a CUP could allow more square footage than 300 square feet. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioners stated in a letter why they felt the CUP should be granted, that no customers come to their home so no additional traffic would be generated in the neighborhood, there are no direct sales, there are no other employees other than family, signs are placed on the vehicle which is parked in the yard, and the structure of the house will not be changed to accommodate the business. The petitioners stated that they may erect a new shed in the backyard to replace an existing shed at the back of the house. If the shed would only be used to store personal items, it should not need to be considered with this planning case. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners feel that the business would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and discussed all of the issues mentioned in the report, including renting storage space off- site for some of the outside storage. The petitioners submitted a revised site plan, which shows the home office of 130 square feet to be located in the lower level of the home and the storage area of 212 square feet inside the garage. The total area of the home devoted to the business would be 342 square feet. Mr. McDonald suggested that the Commission discuss with the petitioners the possibility of renting more off-site storage space and to establish exactly how much of the home would be devoted to the business, that there should be no outdoor storage, and establish where the vehicle would be parked on the property. Ms. Molly Nix, 3941 Winnetka Avenue, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Damiani asked for clarification on what would be stored in the shed. Ms. Nix answered that the shed would not be used for business items. The existing shed now houses family bicycles, camping gear, personal gear, and hobby items. The new shed would house all personal items. Ms. Nix stated that if they would need more storage for the business they would rent additional space off-site. Commissioner Damiani questioned whether the smaller existing shed would be removed and this was confirmed. Ms. Nix stated that the existing shed does not house any business equipment. The petitioner stated that they have looked into renting space off-site. At this time the garage stores a lot of personal items and once the new shed is built all of these items would be stored in the new shed. They have some of the seasonal items stored off-site now. Commissioner Damiani questioned where the items stored outside would be placed. Ms. Nix replied that the complaints were due to the disarray of the woodpile and some of the items stored outside during the winter before they rented off-site space. Commissioner Damiani wanted to know what the timeline was for building the new shed. Ms. Nix replied that they hoped to build sometime this summer or fall. Commissioner Hemken wanted to know if the problems with the outside storage would continue as it had in the past, and a solution found only after warnings from the General Inspector. Ms. Nix responded that they Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 1, 1997 would keep all items in the ga[age or storage shed so that there would not be any complaints from neighbors or problems with the Inspections Department. Commissioner Hemken pointed out several dates for items stored outside in April 1996 and the length of time it took to respond to the warnings. Ms. Nix replied that the items outside at that time were being donated to a charity and they were waiting for someone to pick up the items. None of the items were related to the business, which did not start until August 1996. Commissioner Damiani questioned staff whether the inspection by staff was limited to annual or whether it could be semi-annual. Mr. McDonald replied that the inspection could be quarterly or at whatever reasonable intervals the Commission determined. Commissioner Hemken wondered what would happen if during the inspection it was found that outside storage was being utilized. The City Attorney stated that the CUP could be revoked if the conditions were not being met. Commissioner Stulberg asked if the materials that were being stored outside were not business related, would that affect the CUP or not. Mr. Sondratl stated that it would depend on the item. If there was a snowblower left outside, a distinction would need to be made if it was personal or business. Commissioner Stulberg was concerned that the petitioners would be treated the same as anyone else in the event that a item was left outside. Mr. Sondrall stated that problems with outside storage would need to be well documented and not just an isolated incident or two so that a court would be able to conclude that there had not been unfair treatment to the applicant versus a neighbor. Commissioner Keefe asked if the areas on the site plan were what the petitioner expected to use for business or-if that was what was being used now. Ms. Nix replied that currently they have a desk in the proposed office space and they use some storage space in the garage. The site plan shows the space they would like to be able to use for the business. All seasonal items, such as mowers or snowblowers, would be stored off- site. Commissioner Keefe wondered if this space would become restrictive if a great deal of growth would occur. Ms. Nix replied that if the business grew beyond these limitations, they would operate from another site. Commissioner Svendsen wondered whether a precedent would be set by allowing more area than the 300 square feet. Mr. Sondrall replied that the 300 square foot limitation was for a permitted use home occupation. A conditional use home occupation could allow additional area in excess of 300 square feet as long as there would be no adverse affect on the neighborhood. There is some flexibility in the Code to deal with these issues on a case by case basis. The Planning Commission and Council could se.t a square foot limit based on the lot size and building size for the conditional use permit. The City Attorney added that the Commission may want to set a limit of 350 square feet for this particular case, and if more space was needed in the future, the petitioner would need to come back to the Commission and request an amendment to the CUP. Commissioner Svendsen asked for the definition of a shed. Mr. Sondrall stated that a shed would be a building for storage for everything except cars. Commissioner Oelkers added that there seems to be some discrepancy on the definition. Mr. Sondrall continued by saying that the Code definition of a shed or accessory building would be in addition to the principal building allowable for storage. The basic distinction would be that one permits the storage of vehicles and one does not. In this case Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 1, 1997 there is no indication that any vehicle would be stored in the new shed. Therefore, in terms of the Code, it complies with the definition in the manner in which it is proposed. Ms. Nix interjected that they were told that the shed could not have a garage door on it. Mr. Sondrall added that the maximum shed size is 500 square feet, with a total of 900 square feet incidental to the principal use of the building. Ms. Nix added that the shed would be positioned on the site within the setback requirements. MOTION item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Damiani, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 97-12, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Maintenance Business to Operate Out of the Home, 3941 Winnetka Avenue North, Donald and Molly Nix, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. Specifically limit the business use area of the property to a maximum of 350 square feet as identified on plan dated June 30, 1997. 2. Allow no outdoor storage, 3. New shed to be completed by October 1, 1997. 4. Panel van with signs should be parked on the south side yard drive. 5. Quarterly inspection by staff for the first year and annual inspections thereafter, Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Hemken, Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen None Kramer Chairman Sonsin stated that this planning case would be presented to the City Council on July 28, 1997. PC97-10 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 2900 Nevada Avenue North, CB Commercial, John Hollenbeck/Northland Mechanical Contractors, Ronald Kocher, Petitioners. Chairman Sonsin asked for a motion to remove this planning case from the table. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to remove from table Planning Case 97-10, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a l O0-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 2900 Nevada Avenue North, CB Commercial, John Hollenbeck/Northland Mechanical Contractors, Ronald Kocher, Petitioners. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. PC97-10 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 2900 Nevada Avenue North, CB Commercial, John Hollenbeck/Northland Mechanical Contractors, Ronald Kocher, Petitioners. Ms. OIson stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 100-foot tall monopole with antenna array for telecommunications wireless service. The application was reviewed in detail at the June Planning Commission meeting and was tabled until this meeting to obtain additional information and so plan Planning Commission Meeting 6 July 1, 1997 revisions could be su[~mitted. This application for a CUP by US West would allow the location of a PCS telephone antenna and cell site on the property at 2900 Nevada Avenue. A PCS antenna array would be placed at the top of the pole. CB Commercial is the representative for US West on planning and zoning matters. The monopole would be located at the northeast corner of the Northland Mechanical Contractors property at the end of Nevada Avenue. There is an existing office/warehouse building on the 4.3 acre site. Ms. Olson reported that there were several issues that were raised at the June Planning Commission meeting. The petitioners met with the Design & Review Committee again in June to discuss those issues and a revised landscaping plan and additional documentation have been submitted subsequent to that meeting. According to the tower ordinance, the setback requirements to the nearest property line is 75% of the tower height and minimum setback to the nearest building is 50% of the tower height. The petitioner has proposed a 44-foot setback to the property line and a 135-foot setback to the building. The proposed pole is to be 100 feet tall, therefore the building setback is met, but the setback to the property line is not met. The petitioner determined to leave the tower in the original proposed location and has provided a letter from Millerbernd regarding collapse documentation, which states "With the pole designed and manufactured in accordance with the criteria as stated in the letter dated June 5, 1997, Millerbernd Mfg. Co. certifies that the monopole will not collapse." Ms. Olson stated that the Design & Review Committee and staff find that this letter meets the requirements of the code and that the setback requirements from the property line can be reduced. Ms. Olson further stated that due to the fact that the monopole is a smooth surface and would be surrounded by an 8-foot fence, the requirement for an anti- climb device has been waived. The petitioner submitted a letter dated June 10, 1997, stating that the tower would be removed within 12 months of cessation of operation. A condition of approval would be the submission of a letter prior to the issuance of a building permit regarding the structural analysis by a certified engineer. Northland Mechanical has indicated possible building expansion plans for 1998, but would down- scale the expansion and eliminate the east jog of the building expansion to allow for the 50-foot setback requirement from the tower. Olson stated that revised landscaping plans were submitted to indicate the eight-foot fence to correlate with the fence height on the site plan. A revised landscaping plan and schedule that was developed specifically for this site was submitted and is acceptable to staff. Another condition of approval is the submittal of soils data prior to the issuance of a building permit. The antenna array documentation is shown on the plans. The petitioner has also submitted a letter regarding access port documentation showing the access ports at 70 feet and 85 feet on the monopole. Olson said that staff finds that the petitioner has addressed all issues raised at the June Planning Commission meeting, and recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Mr. Scott Hoelscher, CB Commercial Real Estate, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Svendsen stated that the letter from Millerbernd, which states that the tower would not collapse, is agreeable to the Commission, therefore, the setback requirement for the property line can be reduced. The petitioner stated at Design & Review that any servicing of the pole would be accomplished using a truck and ladder extension so there would be no climbing pegs on the monopole and no need then for an anti-climb Planning Commission Meeting 7 July 1, 1997 device on the pole. Commissioner Svendsen complemented the petitioner on the tower removal language in the event the tower would no longer be used. Commissioner Svendsen mentioned that the property owner did indicate expansion plans for 1998 dependent upon the real estate market and would make allowances in the expansion for the building and tower setback requirements. Commissioner Keefe questioned whether the 50-foot building setback would need to be maintained due to the fact that the petitioner provided a tetter from an engineer regarding the collapse of the tower, which is acceptable for the property line setback. Mr. Sondrall stated that the code establishes setback requirements and then provides the Commission and Council the ability to reduce the setback requirements dependent upon the collapsibility of the pole. At this point the building expansion is speculative in nature, so this issue would not need to be addressed in the CUP. At the time of the building expansion, the 50-foot setback issue could be addressed. Commissioner Keefe asked whether the letter from Millerbernd satisfied the structural analysis requirement. Mr. Sondrall stated that the letter satisfies the code in that the setback for collapsibility could be reduced due to the fact that the pole would not collapse, MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 97-10, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 2900 Nevada Avenue North, CB Commercial, John Hollenbeck/Northland Mechanical Contractors, Ronald Kocher, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Compliance with State Building Code. Structural analysis by Minnesota Certified Engineer at the time of obtaining the building permit. Submittal of soils data at the time of obtaining a building permit. Hemken, Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen, None Kramer Chairman Sonsin stated that this planning case would be presented to the City Council on July 28, 1997. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Commissioner Svendsen stated the Committee met with CB Commercial and Northland Mechanical on the tower and with the home occupation petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that there may be a July meeting regarding the AA building on Bass Lake Road. Chairman Sonsin requested that Commissioner Oelkers chair the August Design & Review meeting. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards met in June and discussed the two items presented at this meeting on the convenience food establishments and Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Committee spent some time discussing garages as accessory uses and determined to wait for further discussion until the Comprehensive Plan was updated. Planning Commission Meeting 8 July 1, 1997 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Mr. McDonald stated that a date for the first meeting of the Comp Plan Committee is being coordinated with everyone's schedule. Commissioner Svendsen mentioned that Golden Valley would be submitting another Comprehensive Plan for some changes close to where he works on the 7500 block of Madison West. There was no discussion on the miscellaneous issues. Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 3, 1997. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. Chairman Sonsin stated that the next Planning Commission meeting would be Tuesday, August 5, and that Vice-Chair Landy would be filling in for him. Commissioners Svendsen and Oelkers stated they would not be in attendance at the August meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ~es~s~ectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 9 July 1, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 5, 1997 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Vice-Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Hemken, Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Oelkers, Damiani, Kramer Absent: Sonsin, Svendsen Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-16 Item 4.1 Vice-Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 5621 International Parkway, Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc., Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner, Liberty Diversified Industries, was requesting Comprehensive Sign Plan approval to allow the installation of ground and wall signs identifying the occupants of the building at 5621 International Parkway. Liberty Diversified Industries headquarters operates out of the building at 5600 Highway 169 and also own the building located at 5621 International Parkway. The application for a Comprehensive Sign Plan is for the property at 5621 International Parkway where there are three different tenants in the building: 1) LDI Fibres; 2) Safco Warehouse; and 3) Diversi-Plast Manufacturing. The purpose of this application is to place signs on the property identifying the current tenants/companies that are occupying the building. These signs will replace the present sign, which inaccurately lists the identity of the companies at this address. Mr. McDonald explained that a Comprehensive Sign Plan had not previously been approved for this building, and that no sign permits could be issued for wall and ground signs for this multi-tenant building until a Comprehensive Sign Plan was approved. The property is located in an I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District and is surrounded by Limited Industrial properties. The property was developed in 1971 with an 81,000 square foot warehouse. Capp Homes was the original tenant, followed by several different tenants since that time. The building has housed 'from one to five tenants at any given time. Comprehensive Sign Plan approval does not require a public hearing, therefore, no notices were published or mailed. Mr. McDonald stated that Section 3.467 of the New Hope Sign Code states that "when a single principal building is devoted to two or more businesses, or industrial uses, a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building shall be submitted. The purpose of the sign plan is to allow and require the owner of multiple occupancy structures to determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of his building. Because sign locations and size, etc. may be of some significant importance in lease arrangements between owner and tenant, it is the Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 5, 1997 City's intention to establish general requirements for the overall building only to provide a building owner with both the flexibility and responsibility to deal with his individual tenants on their specific sign needs." Mr. McDonald stated that the general requirements of the Sign Code are that a building can have individual tenant wall signs if they do not exceed 100 square feet, and individual tenants in a building may be identified on a ground sign. No ground sign can be located any closer than ten feet to the property line. Mr. McDonald reported that the applicant's request for a ground sign for this building includes installing one 4' x 7' (28 square feet) with three 16- inch wide sections to identify three tenants on the sign. However, only two of the tenants will be identified on the sign, with room to add the third tenant in the future. The first tenant identification would be "LDI Fibres, Inc., An LDI Company, 5609 International Parkway." The top line of the sign would be red letters and the bottom two lines would .be black lettering. The second tenant identification would be "Diversi-Plast Manufacturing, An LDI Company, 5633 International Parkway." The top line of the sign would be blue letters and the bottom two lines would be black lettering. The rear portion of the sign (also 28 square feet) would contain the following message: "Please BUCKLE UP For Safety." The message would be in black lettering. The ground sign would be located just south of the north drive exit onto International Parkway near the north property line. The sign would be located 20 feet from the property line and would be parallel to International Parkway, with the tenant identification facing International Parkway and the safety message facing the parking lot for employees and delivery people. The ground sign height should be clarified with the representative of the sign company. Signs would be constructed of PVC waterproof plastic with vinyl lettering and mounted on aluminum posts, which would be painted white. The sign would not be illuminated. The ground sign complies with the Sign Code area height and setback requirements. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was proposing to install three business identification wall signs, each 2' x 4' or 8 square feet, on the north side of the building, one for each tenant. The first sign would read: LDI Fibres, with red lettering and would be mounted above the east entry door. The second sign would read: Safco Warehouse, with blue lettering and would be mounted above center entry door. The third sign would read: Diversi-Plast Manufacturing, with blue lettering and be mounted above the west entry door. The wall signs would all be 15' below the roof line of the building, be constructed of PVC waterproof plastic with vinyl letters, and the signs would not be illuminated. The wall signs comply with the Sign Code area requirements. Mr. McDonald stated that staff was recommending approval subject to the condition that the petitioner obtain appropriate permits from the City prior to installation. Vice-Chairman Landy asked that the petitioner come forward to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. John Cameron, Liberty Diversified Industries, and Mr. Jerry Krenz, April Graphics, came to the podiuml Mr. Krenz stated that he has done work for businesses in the City of New Hope for several years. Mr. Krenz commented on the height of the ground sign and stated that there would be four feet from the ground to the bottom of the sign. The sign would be four feet high, therefore, the top of the sign would be eight feet above the ground. The material used would Planning Commission Meeting 2 August 5, 1997 be,;3/8-inch thick ~':p!,as,t,i..c.,_,~.twhic~ isa waterproof, long-term material. It is a lightweight material, and Mr. Krenz stated he has used this material on many signs in the past and has found it to be durable. The signs would be back to back, with three tenant signs on the front and a full sheet of 3/8-inch plastic on the back for the safety message. The sign posts would be placed approximately 23 feet back from the curb. Commissioner Kramer wondered whether there was any history for signs of this type as far as wind-load and the sign bending or collapsing. Mr. Krenz stated that the posts would be 1/8-inch thick aluminum posts and that the signs are inserted into the posts with a retainer frame across the top and bottom to secure the signs. Commissioner Keefe questioned whether the address on the north elevation wall sign plan was correct as stated. Mr. Krenz replied that the correct address on the plan should read 5621 International Parkway. Mr. Krenz added that the ground sign would include the tenant addresses. The wall signs would have the name on the sign and that 6-inch high vinyl numbers would be placed on the dock doors for each tenant. The existing steel plates above each door would be removed. The numbers for each tenant would be highly visible for emergency vehicles to see. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner, Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to approve Planning Case 97-16, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 5621 International Parkway, Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following condition: 1. Appropriate permits be obtained from City prior to installation. Voting in favor: Hemken, Keefe, Damiani, Kramer Voting against: None Absent: Sonsin, Svendsen Motion carried. Stulberg, Landy, Oelkers, Vice-Chairman Landy informed the petitioner that this planning case would appear on the City Council agenda on August 11, 1997. Commissioner Hemken asked the petitioner why the lettering for the signs were different colors. Mr. Cameron stated the colors correlated with the company colors, i.e., red for LDI Fibres, and blue for Safco and Diversi- Plast. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Vice-Chairman Landy stated that the next meeting would be on August 14. Commissioner Oelkers asked what applications had been submitted. Mr. McDonald replied that one application was for a side yard air conditioner variance, and a conditional use permit for a trailer to be used for outdoor storage for the Arc Store proposing to move from Winnetka Center into Midland Center. Two other possibilities include a conditional use permit for outdoor storage of semi-trailers for Dedicated Logistics, Inc. located in the Ben Franklin warehouse and a conditional use permit amendment for 24-hour operation for the AA building on Bass Lake Road. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Vice-Chairman Landy reported that Codes & Standards did not meet in July and the next meeting is scheduled for September 24. Planning Commission Meeting 3 August 5, 1997 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Mr. McDonald reported that the City Council directed staff to study and overhaul the Zoning Code with regard to garages and accessory buildings, in conjunction with the approval of the Geislinger request for a second garage. Commissioner Kramer asked what the result was of the tower on the Northland Mechanical property on Nevada Avenue. Mr. McDonald responded that the Council approved the request due to the fact that a letter was submitted from an engineer guaranteeing that the tower would not collapse. Motion was made by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 1, 1997. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Council minutes were reviewed. Mr. McDonald stated that the first meeting of the Comp Plan Committee is scheduled for August 12. Commissioner Kramer pointed out that there was a sign in the yard at a house at 59th and Winnetka. He stated that it looked like a business sign and questioned whether this was allowed by Code. Mr. McDonald replied that if the homeowner had a permitted home occupation that a small sign identifying the business was allowed in the yard. Commissioner Hemken questioned the reason for approving the existing second garage for the property on Boone Avenue. Mr. McDonald stated that the City Attorney wrote to the City Council and stated in his letter that it would be difficult to enforce the Code after 16 years of non- enforcement. Commissioner Kramer noted that the City Attorney also stated that court cases of this type have gone both ways. Commissioner Kramer added that the petitioner had been told that they would have to comply with the ordinance upon sale of the property. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ,,~_~spectfully submitted, .. Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 4 August 5, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AvENuE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 2, 1997 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer Hemken, Stulberg, Damiani Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Stephanie Olson, Community Development Specialist, Jacquie Desautels, Management Intern, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-17 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Variance to Allow an Air Conditioning Unit in Side Yard, 4617 Del Drive, Todd and Joan Lewis, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners were requesting a variance to allow an air conditioner in the side yard less than ten feet from the side yard property line and that this was an after-the-fact application. The conditioner/condenser was installed in the north side yard of the Lewis residence in May of this year by Standard Heating and Air Conditioning. The Lewis's contacted the contractor to install the unit in the north side yard after weighing a number of options, and after discussing the installation with the neighbors on the north. The petitioners were unaware that City Code prohibited the installation of air conditioners in the side yard. The petitioners expected that the contractor would notify them of areas where the unit could not or should not be placed, and the contractor did not inform them of any violation of Zoning Code requirements. After the unit was in place and operating properly, the petitioner contacted the City for a routine inspection, because they wanted to be sure the unit was installed properly. It was at this point that the petitioners learned that the contractor had not applied for a permit and that they were in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The contractor subsequently obtained a permit on July 16, 1997. All mechanical permits clearly state under the "Remarks" section "Do Not Install Equipment in Side Yards." The petitioners are requesting to leave the new unit in its existing location, which is the purpose of this variance application. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the Zoning Code addresses this issue under "Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment - Air Conditioners," which states that "accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers (ground mounted) which generate noise shall be located in rear yards behind the rear building lines." The Code also states that certain equipment shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements and air conditioners in rear yards are permitted encroachments, however, air conditioners are not allowed as encroachments in side yards. Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 2, 1997 Mr. McDonald reported that the property is located on the west side of Del Drive, just north of 46th Avenue North. The property is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and is surrounded by R-1 properties. The property is 75 feet in width and has a depth of 134 feet, with a total lot area of approximately 10,000 square feet. There is a single car attached garage on the south side of the home and the air conditioner is located on the north side of the home near a side entrance. The existing home on the property meets the required setback requirements. There is a lO-foot distance between the north property line and the house, including a 5-foot utility and drainage easement. The ground mounted air conditioning unit is located 6 feet 8 inches from the property line. It is within the lO-foot setback, but it is not within the 5- foot easement. The home is located approximately 20 feet from the south property line so there is adequate space to construct a garage addition in the future. Mr. McDonald stated that property owners within 350' of the request were notified and staff received no comments regarding this request. The petitioners indicated in their correspondence that the adjacent neighbor to the north, who is most impacted by the air conditioner, had verbally indicated that they have no problems with the location of the unit and submitted a letter of support to let the air conditioner remain in place. Mr. McDonald stated that the purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the Zoning Code where undue hardship prevents reasonable use of the property. There have been several of these cases in the past and research was completed recently dating back to 1987 on past actions of the Planning Commission/City Council. In the early 1990s the City received many applications for the replacement of existing units, which required a variance. In 1992 the code was amended to state that any unit that was in place could be replaced. This application, however, is for a new ground mounted unit, therefore, the 1992 code amendment is not applicable. There are two reasons for the ordinance: noise and aesthetics or the view from the street. Mr. McDonald stated that the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on August 14 and discussed whether it was possible to move the new unit to another location on the property. The petitioners indicated that they did not feel that the unit could be moved because of an existing deck on the back of the house, water spigot, and bedroom windows. The petitioners felt they wanted to pursue the variance to keep the unit in its existing location. There is a hedge along the front of the property which helps screen the unit from the street and the yard is fenced. The majority of the Design & Review Committee was receptive to allowing the petitioners to keep the unit in place. The Committee requested that the petitioners submit a more detailed site plan and lower level floor plan of the house along with photos of the property, which were subsequently submitted to the City. They also submitted a letter outlining the chain of events in more detail. The petitioners stated in their correspondence that they understand the City's frustration between upholding the ordinances and people doing work without a permit. When they were looking at possible locations, they had no knowledge of any ordinances which would apply. They expected the contractor to inform them of areas where the unit could not or should not be located. After the unit was in place and operating properly, they contacted the City for a routine inspection; they were not trying to hide Planning Commission Meeting 2 September 2, 1997 the installation of.the unit,. Mr. McDonald stated that in most cases the granting of a variance requires a non-economic hardship, but in this situation staff does sympathize with the owner and recommends that the following points be taken into consideration: 1) the contractor is at fault not the homeowners; 2) the adjacent homeowner supports the granting of the variance; 3) there is no reasonable place to relocate the air conditioner without substantial expense; 4) the unit is screened .from the street with a hedge; 5) the adjacent home to the north is not parallel to this home, but is placed at an angle on a corner lot (a previous concern was reflective noise from houses in close proximity parallel to one another); 6) a window air conditioner was previously located on the north side of the house in this location; 7) the unit is not located in the drainage utility easement; and 8) previous variances have been granted for side yard air conditioners. Based on all of these facts, staff is recommending approval. Mr. McDonald added that the Commission may want to discuss at a later date the fact that the Inspection's Department believes that the Zoning Code prohibits the location of air conditioners within the lO-foot side yard setback, but if the unit is more than 10 feet from property line that it is permitted. He stated that he has reviewed this issue with the City Attorney and it is their opinion that the Zoning Code states that no air conditioner should be located in a side yard regardless of the number of feet to the property line. Either the Inspection's Department needs to be informed of this interpretation or the code needs to be changed to how the ordinance is being enforced. Chairman Sonsin agreed that this is a separate issue. Chairman Sonsin asked that the petitioners come forward to answer questions of the Commission. Mr. Todd Lewis and his wife, Joan, 4617 Del Drive, came forward. Commissioner Oelkers complimented the petitioners on the pictures of the property and the map of the backyard, and stated he did not have any additional questions. Commissioner Svendsen asked staff why two additional shrubs were part of the recommendations since there is already a hedge in place. Mr. McDonald stated that the shrubs were just a suggestion and that the Commission could remove that condition. Commissioner Svendsen also thanked the petitioners for the pictures they submitted, which clarified the layout of the backyard, and the floor plan of the basement. Commissioner Landy stated that he supported the variance. Landy questioned whether staff-had sent a letter to the contractor informing them of the City's ordinances. He wondered why one of the conditions stated the contractor was to pay a double fee. Mr. McDonald responded that it is normal procedure for anyone to pay a double fee that starts work before obtaining a permit. Mr. Sondrall added that this policy is stated in the code. Commissioner Landy questioned why the City is now requesting the contractor pay a double fee. Mr. McDonald answered that the contractor already paid the double fee when he obtained the permit. Commissioner Kramer expressed his concern regarding granting a Planning Commission Meeting 3 September 2, 1997 variance to a requirement in the code. After driving through the neighborhood, however, he noticed several homes with side yard air conditioners. He cautioned that ignorance of the law does not protect anyone from the law. The petitioners could have asked City staff rather than relying on the contractor. Kramer felt a strongly-worded letter should be sent to the contractor threatening his ability to do business in New Hope unless he follows the ordinance and obtains permits prior to beginning the work. Kramer questioned whether any sound level readings have ever been taken on the air conditioners. He also stated he was not in favor of letters from neighbors because future neighbors should not be enjoined to an agreement such as this. Chairman Sonsin asked who had paid the application fee and was told that the contractor would be reimbursing the petitioners. Sonsin reiterated that ignorance of the law is no excuse, however, an established contractor should know the ordinances of each city in which he does business and that he is required to obtain a permit before staring the work. Sonsin 'pointed out that the contractor should be paying the double permit fee and the application fee. He stated he felt there was adequate screening and no additional shrubs were needed. Commissioner Kramer pointed out that when driving by the .property from the north the air conditioning unit can be seen from the street when coming around the corner. It cannot be seen when right in front of the house. Mr. Lewis stated that there are rose bushes and brick where the Commission is suggesting adding more shrubs near the air conditioning unit. Chairman Sonsin stated that the Inspection's Department and the Building Official should be extra cautious of this contractor in the future. Mr. McDonald added that he spoke with the City Attorney about this and stated that he felt the City should send the contractor a letter warning him that future work in the City performed without a properly pulled permit could result in the City issuing a citation resulting in a misdemeanor. Mr. Sondrall commented that, assuming the contractor is licensed through the State of Minnesota, a letter could be written to the Commissioner of Commerce that this contractor's license be revoked/suspended and/or pay a civil penalty. This situation may not warrant revocation/ suspension of the license, but possibly the Commissioner of Commerce might see fit to fine this contractor. Mr. Sondrall cautioned the Commission on conditioning the variance on the basis of the contractor paying the fee. They may pay the fee, however, the petitioners and contractor may get in a dispute about who is to pay and then the variance would be in question. The conditions should include other items requested by the Commission and the petitioners should deal directly with the contractor regarding payment of the fees. Commissioner Kramer questioned the requirement for the contractor to pay the double fee. Mr. Sondrall stated that the City has an ordinance that indicated the fee is double when pulling the permit after the work had been started. It also indicates that ignorance is not an excuse, and it is the ultimate responsibility of the property owner since the contractor is an agent of the property owner. It would not be wise to condition the variance on the contractor paying whatever the Commission wants to see at the property. Commissioner Kramer expressed his opinion that there is no justification to granting a variance for this application. There are inconsistencies, but Planning Commission Meeting 4 September 2, 1997 there is not a non-economic hardship, The only justification he can see is that the Commission feels the ordinance is wrong, and if that is the case, then the ordinance should be changed. Chairman Sonsin reiterated that the ordinance is a separate issue and would not be connected to this application. Due to the fact that the air conditioner is in place, there would be a hardship for the petitioners to have to move the air conditioner. This does not condone what has been done, but it would be unrealistic to justify the expense to move the air conditioner at this point and he would support the variance. There have been several air conditioner variances granted in the past. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to approve Planning Case 97-17, Request for a Variance to Allow Air Conditioner in Side Yard, 4617 Del Drive, Todd and Joan Lewis, Petitioners, Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Keefe, Lancly, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen Kramer Hemken, Stulberg, Damiani Chairman Sonsin informed the petitioner that this planning case wo~ld appear on the City Council agenda on September 8, 1997. Chairman Sonsin pointed out that the neighbor's air conditioner is not screened at all. The ordinance states no air conditioners in side yards and the Commission has been liberal in granting these variances. Any units in place before 1992 were grandfathered, which means that a lot of the units in that area were probably in place before 1992. The neighbor to the north that installed a unit in their side yard approximately the same time as the applicant has to be dealt with at least concerning the screening issue. Commissioner Svendsen requested that the Building Official put a note regarding this contractor in the file so that any resident using this company is sure a permit was obtained. Commissioner Oelkers asked about the purpose of the ordinance and stated that older air conditioning units were noisier than the new units. A lot of cities allow side yard air conditioners. If the City wants to have a side yard ordinance, language should be added to include screening of the unit. Chairman Sonsin agreed that this ordinance should be studied again. Prior to 1992, all replacement units were reviewed by the Planning Commission which was why the ordinance was changed to allow for an upgraded or replacement unit. Commissioner Kramer questioned what the LIO and L50 referred to in the ordinance. Commissioner Svendsen replied that LIO refers to 1/6th of_a hour or 10 minutes and L50 is 50 ~ercent and 55 dba. Commissioner Keefe asked that the inspectors be reminded of the ordinances and that no side yard air conditioners are allowed. Commissioner Kramer wondered whether a moratorium should be imposed and was told that the Council would have to agree to that. Commissioner Svendsen stated that his interpretation of the ordinance was that there could not be any encroachment on the side yard setback, which would mean that if there was a 15-foot side yard, a unit could be placed in that additional five feet. Mr. McDonald stated that the ordinance could be Planning Commission Meeting 5 September 2, 1997 interpreted that way. Commissioner Oelkers wondered if the purpose of the ordinance was then for noise, and this was confirmed. The City Attorney agreed with the comments of the Commissioners. The ordinance deals with the specific location of air conditioners and it indicates that no air conditioners are to be placed in side yards. The ordinance indicates that any new air conditioner at a residence must be constructed in the rear yard. Chairman Sonsin agreed that the interpretation of the Codes & Standards Committee when this issue was reviewed in 1992 was that no air conditioners were allowed in the side yard without a variance. Mr. Sondrall stated that the required side yard is applicable to the replacement of an existing air conditioning unit only. Sondrall added that the word "required" should be eliminated from the ordinance dealing with air conditioners as accessory uses. The Codes & Standards Committee should determine whether air conditioners can be placed in side yards. Basically, the issue of air conditioners deals with noise and aesthetics. Chairman Sonsin suggested that Codes & Standards review this issue before next spring. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Commissioner Svendsen stated that the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioners on the air Conditioner variance. Mr. McDonald stated that the application deadline for October is at the end of next week. The Arc store CUP should be coming in this month and possibly a CUP from Alano, who wants to hold a neighborhood meeting before applying. The Ben Franklin warehouse would be changing from a single-tenant to a multi-tenant building and would be presenting a comprehensive sign plan soon. The next meeting is scheduled for September 18 and the rotation for chair will continue. Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards will meet on September 24. Mr. McDonald reported that the DNR information is now ready. The pawn shop/second hand dealer ordinance would be discussed also. Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 Commissioner Landy reported that the first meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee was held on August 14. A great deal of information was presented on the guidelines for the Committee to follow and the schedule of events for the update. The planning consultants are in the process of interviewing selected people from various committees, the Planning Commission, the City Council, the business community, and City staff. The analysis of these interviews would be presented at the next meeting, which is scheduled for September 18. Chairman Sonsin pointed out that at one time the Council wanted the garage/accessory building issue to be a part of the Comprehensive Plan, however, since the Plan is not scheduled to be completed until the end of 1998, the Codes & Standards Committee can delve into this sometime this fall. Mr. McDonald stated that he will be coordinating a staff meeting to define what sections of the code need to be revised and that a report would be prepared and presented to the Committee on both air conditioners and accessory buildings. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues There was no discussion regarding miscellaneous issues. NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 5, 1997. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting 6 September 2, 1997 ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. There were no announcements. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:39 p.m. Re,?pectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 7 September 2, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 1997 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen Stulberg, Damiani, Kramer Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Cary Teague, Planning Consultant, Stephanie Olson, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-21 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Variance to Allow a Second Driveway Access, 2865 Quebec Avenue North, Patrick and Carol Benolkin, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners were requesting a variance tO allow a second driveway access at the home they recently purchased at 2865 Quebec Avenue, which is located on the north side of the "Y" intersection of Valle Vista and Quebec Avenue North. The existing driveway access/curb-cut is located on Valle Vista and a new curb-cut is being requested on Quebec Avenue to facilitate a driveway extension and a circular drive. The Zoning Code limits single family dwellings to one driveway access per lot and the petitioners are requesting a variance from that code requirement. McDonald stated that the petitioners are requesting the second driveway entrance on Quebec Avenue to facilitate the unloading and loading of disabled relatives. Currently there is no easy access to the home from the existing driveway. The petitioners indicated in correspondence that disabled people would have to enter through the garage, which involves three narrow steps, then through a porch and another rise to the dining room, or along an outside sidewalk with a turn and a potentially difficult time during poor weather conditions. The petitioners also indicated that the curve on the current driveway makes backing down difficult and potentially dangerous because of the streets intersecting at that location. They stated that the proposed Quebec access was not near any of the neighbors driveways, adjacent to, or across the street. Mr. McDonald stated the property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District and is surrounded by R-1 properties. The property is an irregular, triangular-shaped lot that contains 9,500 square feet. The existing structure on the site meets all setback requirements. The topography of the property is flat and the lot contains several mature trees. The driveway extension/second curb-cut would provide some additional parking on the site, besides the four parking spaces currently available. McDonald stated that property owners within 350' of the site were notified. City staff received one inquiry about the request and a concern was expressed about the number of vehicles parked at the site. Planning Commission Meeting I October 7, 1997 Mr. McDonald reminded the Commissioners that the purpose of a variance is to provide relief from the strict application of the Zoning Code where undue hardship prevents reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship can exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property. The circumstances should be unique to the property and not created by the land owners. Mr. McDonald stated that this request was reviewed by Department Heads and no serious concerns were raised. The Public Works Department indicated that there would be no changes made in snow plowing efforts. The Design & Review Committee reviewed this request and discussed the uniqueness of the lot, the purpose of the request, confirmed that the materials for the new driveway extension would match the existing driveway, and the Committee was supportive of the request. Mr. McDonald reported that staff felt the request was justified because of the irregular shape of the lot which yields a difficult driveway arrangement, circumstances are unique, the situation was not a result of the actions of the owner, the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or diminish property values, and there would be no public safety concern or street congestion. The request was made to accommodate disabled relatives, and several other requests like this have been approved in the past. McDonald explained that Council had directed staff to study the accessory building issue, with one garage/one driveway limitation. The Codes & Standards Committee will undertake this study later this fall. Mr. McDonald explained that the proposed secOnd curb cut would be located approximately 120 feet north of the Quebec/Valle Vista intersection and the next closest driveway entrance on the west side of Quebec is approximately 100 feet north of the proposed curb cut. The property owner had submitted photographs of the proposed driveway location which were shown to the Commissioners. Mr. Patrick Benolkin, and his wife Carol, 2865 Quebec Avenue, came to the podium to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Oelkers thanked the petitioners for the pictures and stated that. the Commission was concerned that the new driveway materials match the existing driveway. Commissioner Svendsen asked with where the RV would be parked during the winter months. Mr. Benolkin stated that the RV was in the driveway at this time only for repair. It would be taken back to Mille Lacs soon. Chairman Sonsin inquired about the age and condition of the existing driveway and whether there would be two shades of black when the extension was added. Mr. Benolkin stated that the existing driveway would be replaced when the extension is added. Chairman Sonsin stated that the second curb cut could have an affect on the property value and was not sure whether the curb cut would increase or decrease the value of the home. Mr. Benolkin replied that they had observed some circle driveways south of Medicine Lake Road and east of Winnetka to get ideas for the shape of the new driveway and stated he felt the circle driveway would look nice. Commissioner Hemken questioned whether there was any response from Planning Commission Meeting 2 October 7, 1997 neighbors and Mr. McDonald stated that one neighbor was concerned with the number of vehicles parked in the driveway. Mr. Benolkin stated that the trailer would be moved when they were finished using it for another project. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 97-21, Request for a Variance to Allow a Second Driveway Access, 2865 Quebec Avenue North, Patrick and Carol Benolkin, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. Materials of driveway extension to match existing driveway. 2. City standards must be complied with on the boulevard portion of the new driveway, with a driveway permit. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen None Stulberg, Damiani, Kramer Chairman Sonsin informed the petitioner that this planning case would appear on the City Council agenda on October 13, 1997. PC97-19 Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Outdoor Storage Trailer, 2751 Winnetka Avenue North/Midland Shopping Center, Arc of Hennepin CountyNalue Village Thrift Store and Kraus-Anderson Realty Company, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners were requesting a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor storage trailer at the rear of the shopping center. Value Village Thrift Store is owned and operated by the non- profit organization Arc of Hennepin County and has been located at City Center Shopping Center at the corner of 42"d & Winnetka Avenues for the past five years. They have outgrown their current location and are expanding and relocating within New Hope into the Midland Shopping Center at Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. The store would occupy over 5,000 square feet and would be located in the tenant spaces adjacent to and just north of Cinema Caf6 at the northwest corner of the center. The new location would include a sales floor, an expanded support room, and a drive-up donation drop-off area. Value Village would feature a staffed donor drive-up drop-off center at the rear of the building, as well as a loading area and door for the removal of recycled textiles. A plain, signage-free trailer would collect and remove small bales of textiles. The parking lot location for this trailer would be striped, and the trailer would be removed monthly and replaced with an empty trailer. McDonald explained that the petitioner stated that this activity would not cause disruption to the neighborhood, and would not increase noise or traffic at the center. The Value Village location in Richfield had 'been utilizing a trailer in this capacity for over one year, and the surrounding neighborhood and residences in proximity to this location have not experienced disruption or offered any negative comments in regard to Value Village operations. McDonald showed some photographs of the trailer and signage at the Richfield site. Mr. McDonald stated that Midland Shopping Center is located in a B-4, Community Business, Zoning District and retail stores are allowed as a permitted use. This application should focus on the outside storage issue. The petitioner was requesting a CUP to allow one semi-trailer at Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 7, 1997 the rear of the building for the temporary storage of clothing before it would be shipped off-site once per month. Mr. McDonald explained that Value Village Thrift Stores serve many community needs. The narrative provided with the application stated that "Value Village provides value-priced clothing and housewares for shoppers of all income levels, an environmentally friendly opportunity for the community to recycle merchandise by donating at the thrift store, and employment and volunteer opportunities in the community. Proceeds, which total over half a million dollars per year, benefit people with developmental disabilities and their families living throughout the Hennepin County area. Value Village presents a well maintained, visually attractive shopping environment, inside and out. The interior of the new location would be spacious, bright, and appealing. The exterior presentation and signage would be designed for visual appeal and would be consistent with existing shopping center aesthetics." Mr. McDonald stated the property is zoned as B-4, Community Business, Zoning District. Surrounding land uses and zoning include R-2 duplexes to the north; Residential/Office, B-1 and B-3, Business/Auto and R-4 (apartments) zoning to the east across Winnetka Avenue; R-O zoning (Ambassador Nursing Home) and R-3 to the west; and Golden Valley/residential across Medicine Lake Road to the south. The shopping center use was approved as a PUD and parking was based on a variety of tenant uses. The center has 250 spaces available and staff finds that this would be adequate. The topography of the shopping center is primarily flat, except for the west and north edges which slope upwards dramatically to the existing apartments and duplexes. A new 20-foot wide green landscaped border along Winnetka was added in recent years in front of the building. Property owners within 350' of the request were notified, including the City of Golden Valley, and staff received several calls and inquiries regarding this request. However, all were supportive of the request because it was felt that the proposed trailer would not be visible. Mr. McDonald stated the purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. The Commission should focus attention on whether the proposed use would affect traffic into and from the premises, that adjacent residentially zoned land would not be adversely affected and the effect on existing businesses in that it would not cause the curtailment of customer trade. Screening, surfacing and parking issues should also be taken into consideration. Staff determined that the single semi-trailer met the criteria because the use would not significantly alter traffic patterns, there would not be any adverse impact upon adjacent residential land, existing businesses would not be adversely impacted, but rather filling the vacant space would be a pOsitive influence on the center, no screening has been proposed due to the fact that this area'was a truck loading zone previously, there is a significant buffer around the site, there would be no signage on the trailer, the area is surfaced, and there is parking at the rear of the building for the trailer. Mr. McDonald reported that the main concerns of Department Heads were adequate lighting and security, and the aesthetics of the trailer. A question was raised on whether approving one trailer would eventually lead to more trailers being parked in the area. McDonald stated that it was the opinion of the City Attorney that the granting of the CUP would limit Planning Commission Meeting 4 October 7, 1997 the number of trailers to one. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioners and discussed the expansion, need for a trailer, need for a concrete pad under the trailer posts, hours of operation, signage, lighting, trash enclosure, striping, and snow removal. Revised plans were submitted and included 1) the zoning of adjacent properties on the site plan; 2) the plan stated that semi-trailer would be a clean neutral color, rust free and no graphics; 3) pavement around trailer to be striped in 8' by 45' dimension; 4) 6' by 10' concrete slab to be installed; 5) four 6" steel ballards to be installed for barrier between parking lot and storage area; 6) plan stated that landlord would maintain parking lot and add striping; 7) trash dumpster would be enclosed with screened gates; 8) existing mechanical units would be removed on rooftop and new units would be installed; 9) plan stated the landlord would provide new security lighting and six new wall packs at rear of building; 10) existing penthouse would be removed; 11) setback distances and elevations shown on plan; 12) directional signage shown on plan, and 13) floor plans were submitted. The hours of operation would be Monday - Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Sunday noon to 6 p.m. Any proposed signage on the front of the store or the canopy would comply with existing Comprehensive Sign Plan. If any other signage would be required, a new proposal would be forthcoming. McDonald stated that staff felt the petitioner had addressed the majority of the concerns of the Design & Review Committee and City staff. The trailer at the back of the center should not be visible from the streets or residential areas. Ms. Laurel Smith, representing Arc of Hennepin County, and Mr. Mike Schrock, Schrock DeVetter Architects, came forward. Ms. Smith stated that representatives of Kraus-Anderson Realty would be at the City Council meeting. Commissioner Svendsen commented that the petitioners had done a good job incorporating all of the suggestions of Design & Review into the revised plans. His only concern at this time were the rooftop units which should match the building color and not the roof color. The architect confirmed that the color of the rooftop units would match the building. Commissioner Landy asked when Value Village had planned to move to the new location. Ms. Smith answered that they hoped to be relocated by the end of 1997 or the beginning of 1998. Landy questioned whether one trailer was sufficient or whether more trailers would eventually be brought to the site. Ms. Smith replied that one trailer would be sufficient for a long time. The Richfield location is a larger operation and one trailer is sufficient there. Commissioner Hemken questioned staff whether or not any negative comments had been received from neighbors about the trailer and McDonald stated there had been no negative comments. Ms. Smith added that Cinema Caf~ expressed its support to her directly. Commissioner Hemken wondered whether the trailer would be safe from vandals. Ms. Smith stated that the trailer is kept locked when it is not being loaded and there would be lighting in the area. 'rhe goods that are stored in the trailer are recycled textiles or those that cannot be sold in the store. The store is predominately run by volunteers and staff and these people would be the ones to put the textiles into the trailer. There is no need for customers to come in contact with the trailer. The items put into the trailer are baled. Chairman Sonsin wondered if the trailer would be moved each month whether or not it was full. Ms. Smith replied that the trailer generally is Planning Commission Meeting 5 October 7, 1997 filled up during a month's time and would be replaced with an empty trailer. The volume is fairly steady every month. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Keefe, to approve Planning Case 97-19, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Outdoor Storage Trailer, 2751 Winnetka Avenue North/Midland ShOpping Center, Arc of Hennepin County/Value Village Thrift Store and Kraus-Anderson Realty Company, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. Maximum one trailer. 2. No signage on trailer. 3. All new lighting to be "down lights." 4. Annual inspection by City staff. 5. Signage plan to be submitted at the time application. 6. Rooftop HVAC units to match building color. of building permit Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen None Stulberg, Damiani, Kramer Chairman Sonsin informed the petitioner that this planning case would appear on the City Council agenda on October 13, 1997. PC97-20 Item 4.3 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for Variances to the Side Yard Setback to Allow Construction of a Retractable Enclosed Ramp Between Two Buildings, 5600 Highway 169 North and 5621 International Parkway, Liberty Diversified Industries, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners were requesting variances to the side yard setback requirements to allow construction of a retractable enclosed ramp between two buildings. Liberty Diversified Industries is a group of companies that manufacture and market a number of diverse products. They operate the business out of their headquarters building located at 5600 Highway 169. They are also the owner of the building at 5621 International Parkway, north of and adjacent to this site. Mr. McDonald explained that Safco Products, an affiliated company of Liberty Diversified Industries, shares office space at 5600 Highway 169, and utilizes warehouse space in both buildings. Safco Products receives, ships and stores products at 5600 Highway 169. They also store material at the adjacent building; 5621 International Parkway. The petitioner states that Safco Products has experienced rapid growth in past years and needs to more efficiently move items between both buildings, to meet shipping and delivery schedules. Currently, Safco Products, using a truck, loads product at one building and drives around to the other to unload and pick up items. This requires additional time, handling, and creates problems with safety and product damage. Mr. McDonald stated that Liberty Diversified Industries was requesting to construct a connecting way for fork truck traffic between the two buildings to improve efficiency and eliminate the need to drive around on City streets. He stated the petitioner indicated that the connecting way will consist of a compacted fill ramp with a concrete slab driveway, footings and support steel for metal siding and roof. A lift bridge and sliding doors would be installed to allow railroad cars to pass through Planning Commission Meeting 6 October 7, 1997 Planning Commission the connecting way. There a~e two buildings side by side with two rail spurs that run between the buildings. The rail spur on the south would be covered and the rail spur to the north would remain open. The connecting way would be designed to have a bridge that would lift up when a train comes and then lowers after the train passes through. The connecting way would be insulated, tied into existing security and sprinkler systems, and properly lighted. The area would be landscaped and trees planted in areas that do not interfere with railroad requirements. Mr. McDonald explained that there is a property line currently exists between the two buildings; each building occupies a separate lot. In order to accomplish the bridge connection between the two buildings and meet the Zoning Code requirements, the property owner essentially had two options: eliminate the property line and combine the two lots and connect the two buildings or apply for setback variances to construct the buildings up to the side yard of each lot. Due to financial arrangements involved in the purchase of the properties, LDI did not want to combine the properties. Therefore, the petitioner is requesting a side yard setback variance to construct a building up to the property line on two adjacent lots. The side yard setback requirement for the I-1 Zoning District is 20 feet. The petitioner is requesting a 20-foot side yard setback variance for the building at 5621 International Parkway to construct a building connection up to the south property line, and a 20, foot side yard setback variance for the building at 5600 Highway 169 to construct a building connection up to the north property line. The property is located in an I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District and is surrounded by I-1 properties. The north parcel contains 4.9 acres and the south parcel contains 9.8 acres. The typography of the properties is relatively flat and landscaping is minimal. Drainage is not ideal between the two buildings in the rail spur areas. Property owners within 350' of the request were notified, including the City of Plymouth, and staff received no comments regarding this request. Mr. McDonald stated that the purpose of a variance was to permit relief from strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance was granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Undue hardship means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner was due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Mr. McDonald stated that Department Heads reviewed the plans and the main issues of discussion were the aesthetics of the connection (would color match existing buildings), whether any landscaping would be installed, security concerns about the open area under the walkway, the fact that the architectural plans are required to comply with the State Building Code, and engineering details must be submitted with the building permit application. The City Engineer also reviewed the plans and felt that the drainage between the buildings appeared to drain west Meeting 7 October 7, 1997 to east, therefore, the proposed walkway may block drainage on its west side. He recommended that storm sewer be extended west of the walkway/building extension. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and items discussed included the purpose of the connection, safety concerns, construction materials and color of connection, lift bridge operation, security, landscaping, removal if buildings are sold and the City Engineer's comments regarding drainage. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. Mr. McDonald stated that staff and the Committee were in general agreement that the variances could be justified based on the fact that this situation does involve conditions that are unique to the properties: two buildings on adjacent lots under the same ownership with a rail spur between them. Staff also support the request because the pedestrian link would result in traffic safety improvement because semis would not continue to circle the neighboring streets in order to move products between buildings. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the revised plans included the following details: 1) property line between the buildings was identified on the site plan; 2) exterior elevation showed that a red light would be lit when the bridge was in the down position and reflective tape would be provided on the sliding door. Raised grade and retaining wall were shown on the plan; 3) Project Description on plan states that the project involves the construction of a pedestrian walkway between two B-Occupancy Buildings. A bridge would be used to maintain rail traffic access 4) an exterior wall light would be provided above the service door of the link; ,5) new 20-minute coiling overhead doors would be provided between the existing buildings and the walkway and red lights would be installed inside the north building to indicate when the bridge was up; 6) the walls of the connection would be prefinished architectural wall system by Vicwest Steel with 12" panels and a Kynar paint finish and paint selection should match the building; 7) roof of the connection would be a prefinished standing seam metal roof by Vicwest Steel with 16" panel and a Kynar paint finish; 8) auto dry fire sprinkler system would be extended from the north building into the walkway, which had been approved by the Fire Marshall. A drainage plan was submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer and he recommended that a storm sewer be extended form the existing storm sewer in International Parkway to collect drainage from the westerly side of the walkway. A drainage plan was submitted providing for a culvert beneath the walkway. A culvert would convey drainage beneath the walkway; however, depending upon its elevation, it may be subject to movement due to freeze/thaw. This movement may or may not impact footings and/or fill beneath the walkway or the walkway structure itself. The culvert and drainageway to International Parkway is private. Therefore, the decision would be Liberty Diversified Industry's depending upon the risks they want to accept with drainage in this area. No landscaping was proposed and staff was not certain that landscaping would be practical or possible in the flat area~ of the two rail spurs in the shade of two buildings. McDonald stated that the petitioner had addressed the majority of issues discussed at the Design & Review meeting, however, would r. equest that the color of the connection match the colors of the existing buildings. Mr. McDonald stated that one final issue to be addressed would be the removal of the structure if one of the buildings was sold. The City does not want to be left with an abandoned pedestrian link with no Planning Commission Meeting 8 October 7, 1997 demOlition auth5ritY' 'The :~i~Attorn~y can comment on whether or not a condition to remove the link can be attached to the request. Mr. David Lenzen, Liberty Diversified, and Steve Brindle and Dave Galetka, Ryan Construction, came forward to answer questions. Commissioner Svendsen asked the petitioners to further explain the drainage and culvert system they proposed to install. Mr. Brindle stated that the structural engineer for Ryan Construction confirmed that this system Would be a heavily reinforced grade beam footing. The culvert itself has a cushion of soils around it and does not rest directly on the footing, and therefore, there should be no problem with the frost heaving. Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether some type of blockage would be installed on the rail so that any cars would go through this before running into the building, since the spur would be buried at that point. Mr. Brindle stated that was required by Canadian Pacific Railway and the Railway would show Liberty Diversified Industries what had to be done at the time the link was installed. A dirt berm could be installed unless the Railway wants something more stringent. Commissioner Svendsen confirmed that this berm would be away from the walkway. Mr. Brindle stated that there was a chance that the Railway would want to remove the second spur connection, however, that spur is used as a turn-around or a switching spur for them to move a car. Canadian Pacific would inform Liberty Diversified Industries what would need to be done for safety purposes. Commissioner Svendsen confirmed that a spur was not needed for the south building. Commissioner Keefe questioned the concept of using a variance and wondered what was unique about the property that warrants a variance. Mr. Lenzen stated that although they own both properties, there are two separate mortgages and rather than having to go through a total refinancing, they wanted the variance so they could build over the property line. Chairman Sonsin stated that a hardship would be created by forcing the petitioners to refinance and replat the properties. There would also be a safety issue resolved through building the link between the buildings. Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether two motions would be required due to the fact that there are two variances and two properties. Mr. McDonald replied that staff considers this one request and would, therefore, require only one vote. Mr. Sondrall, City Attorney, commented on the removal of the building link if one of the properties was sold. He stated that the sale of the property may not be a reasonable reason to trigger the removal of the walkway. The walkway could be useful for both buildings despite the fact that ownership of one or both buildings would change. A variance is a fairly permanent situation to a property as opposed to a conditional use permit that can have an expiration date attached to, it. Sondrall stated he did not see the need for requiring the removal of a structure based on some predetermined event that may or may not have any impact on the need or use of the building connection. Chairman Sonsin added that this might be considered self-enforcing if the properties were sold to two different people, in which case the new owners might want the connection removed. The property owners should make this decision. A title company might want easements for each connection, which could be a problem in the future, since easements are not being Planning Commission Meeting 9 October 7, 1997 MOTION Item 4.3 required at this time. Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether the variance was the right choice. Mr. Sondrall answered that a variance was correct because the City is allowing the expansion of a building into a setback. If the City would be worried about deterioration of the structure some time in the future, the building codes and maintenance codes would require the owner of the structure to maintain it whether or not they were using it. Commissioner Oelkers wondered what the building would do to the second rail spur easement. Mr. Sondrall stated that as long as the CP Rail was allowing the structure to be built over their rail easement, that had nothing to do with the City. Commissioner Oeikers asked whether the City would be setting a precedent by allowing this building link. Mr. Sondrall stated that all variance requests stand on their own. If another applicant requested the same thing tomorrow, there may be some cause for concern. However, after a length of time has lapsed, case law reflects that each case is unique and should be dealt with on the facts and circumstances of that case. Commissioner Hemken questioned, after looking at some of the pictures of the property, why a walkway would be constructed if a dirt ramp would work just as well. Mr. Brindle stated that the area by the tracks would still need to be elevated in order for a fork truck to travel from one building to another. Mr. Lenzen added that they also wanted to enclose the walkway. Commissioner Svendsen questioned how the petitioners would block the bottom of the drawbridge so someone could not get underneath. Mr. Brindle answered that when the drawbridge is down, the doors are down and are flush with the concrete drive. The bottom opening is the concern and it is actually closed by a horizontal closing door. Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that the bottom of the deck is 17' wide by 2' high and vertically goes down to grade was still open and he felt it was a safety concern because of the hydraulics for the drawbridge. Mr. Brindle stated that there was only a concrete abutment where the cylinders rest against, otherwise there was just an opening where the tracks run under the bridge. Commissioner Svendsen expressed concern regarding someone being crushed when the bridge was being lowered onto the ledge of the north building. Mr. Brindle stated that the bridge, which raises up into the walkway, would be lowered via controls in the north building. The person operating the controls for the bridge could see the opening as the bridge would be lowered toward them. Only designated/trained personnel would be able to operate the bridge controls. Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to approve Planning Case 97-20, Request for Variances to the Side Yard Setback to Allow Construction of a Retractable Enclosed Ramp Between Two Buildings, 5600 Highway 169 .North and 5621 International Parkway, Petitioners, subject to the following condition: 1. Color of walkway structure to match existing buildings. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Hemken, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen Keefe Stulberg, Damiani, Kramer Planning Commission Meeting 10 October 7, 1997 Chairman Sonsin informed the petitioner that this planning case would appear on the City Council agenda on October 13, 1997. PC96-04 Item 4.4 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-2, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Licensing Regulations for Pawnbrokers, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. $ondrall stated that the City Council had concerns with the licensing 'of consignment shops and second hand goods dealers. The ordinance was changed by exempting businesses primarily in the second hand goods dealer category from the license requirements. There were also a couple of definition changes which werb sUggested by the Codes & Standards Committee. The word "pawnbroker" was replaced with "licensee" to cover both the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer and second hand goods dealer. The exemption list was taken from the ordinances used by Minneapolis and Coon Rapids. Mr. McDonald questioned whether the previous ordinance would have required an organization such as Arc to be licensed and would the neTM ordinance exempt them. Mr. Sondrall replied that the revised ordinance would not required them to be licensed, and the previous ordinance may not have required them to be licensed either, since most of the items that Arc receives would be charitable donations that no one receives compensation for. Mr. Sondrall added that the City of Minneapolis had taken the viewpoint that pawnbrokers, second hand goods dealer, precious metal dealers are legitimate industries that want to- work with the police departments to insure that this industry was not being used as a clearing house for stolen material. It was not the intent of the ordinances of any city to flood the APS database with information on donated materials. MOTION Item 4.4 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 96-04, Ordinance No. 97-2, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Licensing Regulations for Pawnbrokers, City of New Hope, Petitioners. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen None Stulberg, Kramer Chairman Sonsin stated that the City Council would discuss this ordinance on October 27, 1997. Mr. McDonald added that it was anticipated that the Council would adopt both the zoning and licensing ordinances and the moratorium would be lifted. PC96-31 Item 4.5 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.5, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-15, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay District, City of New Hope, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald introduced Consultants and stated that .ordinance. Cary Teague of Northwest Associated he would give a brief overview of the Mr. Teague stated that in conjunction with the City's Surface Water Management Plan, the DNR required that the City adopt some type of shoreland regulatio'ns. He stated that Northwest Consultants had worked Planning Commission Meeting 11 October 7, 1997 with Codes & Standards Committee and City staff to establish guidelines for shoreland regulations. The issue was tabled last spring in order for the DNR to have time to establish Ordinary High Water (OHW) for Northwood and Meadow Lakes. The OHW elevation was critical in that the structure setback from a lake was measured from the OHW. These lakes are fully developed and there are structures adjacent to these lakes that are very close to the model ordinance 50-foot setback. According to the topography maps for the City, there are seven homes that do not meet the 50-foot setback requirement. Therefore, staff desires to establish elevations that would more closely meet the City's needs. The elevation used for Meadow Lake was 894.3 feet and the elevation established by the DNR was 893.5 feet which increased the structure setback by nearly one foot. The elevation used from the topography map for Northwood Lake was 884.3 feet and the OHW that the DNR established was 885.5 feet or a decrease in setback of over 1 foot. After reviewing these numbers, staff determined that there were eleven homes that did not meet the setback distances. The initial discussion with the DNR was that they were not receptive to any flexibility in the requirement that the City proposed at 40 feet. Mr. Teague reviewed areas of the ordinance where the City was asking for some flexibility. The first request was for flexibility on the district boundaries. The State Shoreland Ordinance requires that 1000 feet from the OHW level establishes that shoreland district. The City was requesting that the shoreland district only be the first tier of development around' lakes. An administrative section was included that requires DNR review and comment on any variances or CUPs that are requested. If the City would grant a variance or CUP that the DNR was not in agreement with, the DNR does have the ability to sue the City. Regarding the placement, design and height of structures section of the ordinance, the City is requesting a 40-foot setback from the OHW. There would be only five homes that do not meet the setback requirement if the 40-foot setback would be allowed at Northwood Lake. The City Engineer had recommended that the OHW be measured in the outlet for Northwood Lake, which would be similar to the topography elevation that was used in the beginning. Regarding height, the model ordinance requires 25 feet and the existing ordinance is 2~ stories for single family or four stories for multiple family dwellings, and the DNR allowed this flexibility request. Another area of concern was accessory structure height. The model ordinance states that 10 feet was the maximum for accessory structures and the existing New Hope ordinance states that 15 .feet was allowed. The concern the DNR had for a structure such as a boathouse or storage building that was set back only 10 feet was that they wanted to protect the views of lakeshore properties and, therefore, were not receptive to this proposed change. Another area of flexibility that the City wanted to pursue was the impervious surface. The model ordinance suggests a 25% limit for impervious surface, which would be concrete or structures. The City is suggesting 35% limit due to the small lot sizes around the lake. The DNR seemed open to this flexibility. Teague stated that the City had reviewed the ordinance and was in general agreement, however, there were still the outstanding issues of lakeshore setbacks and the height of accessory structures. Commissioner Landy stated that it was his understanding that the DNR considered Northwood a recreational lake and he felt it was not a recreational lake. He wondered whether some of the requirements could be set aside if the DNR would agree with the thought that Northwood was not a recreational lake. Mr. Teague replied that the DNR designated Planning Commission Meeting 12 October 7, 1997 MOTION Item 4.5 COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5,1 Northwood as a general dev~eloPment lake and the standards for a general development lake are less restrictive than recreational. Commissioner Svendsen questioned the height regulations in the Planner's report under Section 4.166 where it states that the building height should be a "minimum" of 25 feet. The draft of the New Hope ordinance under Section 4.166(1)(e) only states "required height" for single family to be 2Yz stories. He recommended that the wording in the ordinance be changed to read "Required maximum height for all structures to be as follows." Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that there are a lot of houses, either two story or split level homes that would exceed these maximum height requirements i,f the basement level is included. Mr. McDonald stated that there are several ways to measure the height of a story. Mr. Sondrall added that the definition of a story is taken from the Uniform Building Code and State Building Code. Sondrall thought that the Uniform Building Code and State Building Code did not include the basement level of a home in the total building height. For instance, a home with two levels and a walkout basement would not be considered a three-story home. Commissioner Svendsen questioned the impervious surface requirement and whether someone wanting to add on a patio to the back of their home had to be 35 feet away from the lake. Mr. Teague explained that 3§% of that individual lot can be covered with an impervious surface. There is not a setback requirement connected to the impervious surface requirement. _ Mr. McDonald stated that it was staff's feeling that the ordinance should contain as much flexibility in it as possible and he felt the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council and DNR the 40-foot setback from the OHW, the building height and accessory structure height requirement changes and the 35% impervious surface changes. He suggested using the memo from the Planner addressing the changes to support the flexibility requests. In that way the DNR can determine whether the ordinance is acceptable or not. Also then, the City would not make the eleven homes at Northwood Lake to be non-conforming homes. Chairman Sonsin added that Codes & Standards would be supportive of that. Mr. Sondrall stated that the current ordinance incorporates these changes. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 96-31, Ordinance No. 97-15, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay District, City of New Hope, Petitioners. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen None Stulberg, Kramer Chairman Sonsin stated that this ordinance would appear on the City Council agenda on October 13, 1997. Commissioner Svendsen stated that the Design & Review Committee met with the representatives of ArcJalue Village on the CUP, Liberty Diversified on the variances, and the Benolkins on the second driveway variance. Planning Commission Meeting 13 October 7, 1997 Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Update Item 5.3 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Mr. McDonald stated that there may be an application for November. Chairman Sonsin reported that Codes & Standards met in September to review the DNR information, the pawn shop/second hand dealer ordinance and real estate sign regulations. The next meeting would be in November. Commissioner Landy reported that the second meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee was held on September 18. He reported that the planning consultants interviewed selected people from the City Council, Planning . Commission Chair, Citizens Advisory Commission Chair, the business community leaders, and City staff to gather input on issues they felt should be dealt with in the next 25 years. Landy reported that the Planning Consultant reviewed the planning inventory which would be the foundation information of existing conditions in the community. Several areas of this inventory require more up-to-date information, such as population, number of households and housing turnover. There would be some preliminary information shared with the City Council in November. Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that all of the trees were removed by the sign at the Boger Dental office on 36th Avenue. According to the conditions with the Comprehensive Sign Plan, one tree was to be relocated on the property. Mr. McDonald stated that he would follow up- on this issue. Chairman Sonsin asked staff how the air conditioning unit that was installed at the property next to 4617 Del Drive was approved. Mr. McDonald reported that there are some inconsistencies in the code regarding side yard air conditioners. The whole side yard air conditioner issue will be reviewed during the next several months to see if all requirements are still pertinent. Motion was made by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 2, 1997. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Comprehensive Plan/Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. Chairman Sonsin questioned whether the Planning Commission meeting would be affected by the School Board election. Mr. McDonald stated he would look into this and let the Commissioners know. The Commission was supportive of keeping the meeting on Tuesday evening with a start time of 8:00 p.m., if needed. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:25 p.m. ,~B~ctfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester / Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 14 October 7, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AvENU~ NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 1997 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The NeW Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to dUe call i'and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer Hemken, Keefe, Stulberg, Damiani Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Bob Kirmis, Planning Consultant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC97-23 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 5201 Winnetka Avenue North, RAS Properties, Petitioner. Chairman Sonsin reported that the petitioners were not yet in attendance and asked for a motion to table until later in the meeting. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to table Planning Case 97-23, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 5201 Winnetka Avenue North, RAS Properties, Petitioners. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer None Hemken, Keefe, Stulberg, Damiani PC97-28 Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-30, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.032(3)(i) by Permitting Placement of Air Conditioning Units in Sideyards, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that Bob Kirmis from Northwest Consultants would present this planning case. McDonald stated that the Zoning Code requirements regarding air conditioning units in side yards was discussed earlier in the fall in conjunction with a planning application. The consensus of the Commission was that the Codes & Standards Committee should review this issue due to the fact that there are many air conditioner units already in place in side yards in New Hope. Mr. Kirmis explained that this amendment would allow the placement of air conditioning units in side yards. In November of 1992, the City amended its ordinance to allow the existence or replacement of air conditioners in side yards which existed prior to the adoption of that ordinance. He stated that consideration should be given to the equitable treatment of property owners within the City regarding to the previous amendment which allowed anyone having a sideyard air conditioner prior to 1992 to continue to replace that air conditioner. Under that ordinance, a property owner that did not have air conditioning equipment in place Planning Commission Meeting 1 December 2, 1997 prior to 1992 would not be allowed to install it in the side yard without a variance. This ordinance amendment allows the placement of side yard air conditioning units, subject to four conditions: 1. The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels contrary to §§9,423 and 9.424 of this Code. This condition is also applicable to units located in back yards. 2. The cooling structure or condenser shall be sbreened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from th._.~e property's side and front yard property lines. 3. The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie within a required drainage and/or utility easement. This condition is also applicable to units located in back yards. 4. The cooling structure or condenser shall be setback five (5) feet from a side or rear lot line. Mr. Kirmis stated that a major consideration related to the placement of air conditioning units in the side yard was noise. Since 1992 there have been advances in technology to reduce the noise of the air conditioning units and many of the adverse impacts of side yard ai~ conditioning unit placement should be reduced provided that the conditions in the Code are met. Chairman Sonsin questioned what the noise levels are that are referred to Sections 9.423 and.9.424. Mr. Sondrall replied that these noise regulation levels are set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which have been incorporated into the New Hope Code. Sonsin pointed out the information, included in the planning report, gathered by the Planner showing that most cities, other than Burnsville, allow side yard air conditioning units as long as the unit is not in the utility or drainage easement. Commissioner Svendsen stated he felt that Section 9.424 was somewhat confusing regarding the noise level determination and asked for clarification on how this is accomplished. Svendsen pointed out that the Code states "no person shall permanently install or place any air circulation device, except .a window air conditioning Unit, in any outdoor location until the noise control office determines that the device in that location will comply with the maximum noise level standards prescribed above and issues a permit for the installation." McDonald stated that a mechanical permit is required to install an air conditioning unit, but did not believe a noise permit has ever been completed. Sondrall interjected that it may be possible that the Building Official uses some industry standards to make this determination. Once the unit is installed, the noise level is the responsibility of the property owner. Svendsen commented that he felt this particular section of code was not flexible enough to allow City staff to continue making noise levels determinations in the current fashion. Sondrall stated that, according to the Code, the operative words "permanently install" would be the determining factor in the installation of the unit. The unit could be installed temporarily to determine the noise level and then complete the installation. Commissioner Kramer stated he felt that since the code uses the word "determines," it could mean that the Building Official uses some industry standard to establish the noise level. The Code does not say that a noise level survey must be completed. Chairman Sonsin suggested that staff review Section 9.424 to see if the wording can be clarified. Planning Commission Meeting 2 DeCember 2, 1997 MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to approve Planning Case 97-2~8~~ Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-30, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.032(3)(i) by Permitting Placement of Air Conditioning Units in Sideyards, City of New Hope, Petitioners. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer None Hemken, Keefe, Stulberg, Damiani Chairman Sonsin stated this planning case would appear on the City Council agenda on December 8, 1997. PC97-23 Item 4.1 Chairman Sonsin brought back for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 5201 Winnetka Avenue North, RAS Properties, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting Comprehensive Sign Plan approval for the office/warehouse facility-located at 5201 Winnetka Avenue North, which was previously the Ben Franklin warehouse. The new owners have converted the building from a single occupancy to a multi-tenant occupancy, and are requesting four separate addresses for the building. The building is being occupied by four different tenants and the building would be known as the Winnetka Business Center. The four tenants are Murphy Warehouse, Minnesota Funding, Dedicated Logistics, and General Mills. The purpose of this application is to place signs on the property identifying the current tenants/companies that are occupying the building. Mr. McDonald reported that the property is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial, and the existing building contains 291,835 square feet and sits on 12.614 acres of property. All building setbacks meet code requirements. The survey notes indicate that there are a total of 100 parking stalls, with 99 regular stalls and 1 handicapped stall. City ordinance requires 1 handicap stall per every 25 parking stalls. According to the petitioner's correspondence, it was their intention to provide the required number of handicapped stalls when the parking lot was restriped. Comprehensive Sign Plan approval does not require a public hearing, therefore, no notices have been published or mailed. Mr. McDonald stated that the Sign Code states that if a single principal building is devoted to two or more businesses, or industrial uses, a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building shall be submitted. The effect of said comprehensive sign plan would be to allow and require the owner of multiple occupancy structures to determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of his building. It was the City's intention to establish general requirements for the overall building only, thus providing a building owner with both the flexibility and responsibility to deal with his individual tenants on their specific sign needs. The total allowable wall sign area for a multiple occupancy structure in an industrial district shall not exceed 10 percent of the wall space, or no individual tenant identification sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. No multiple occupancy structure may display more than two overall building identification signs. Individual tenants are permitted to display individual identification signs, if they have separate exterior entrances. Multiple occupancy structures, other than shopping centers, may erect ground signs and may identify each separate occupancy on Planning Commission Meeting 3 December 2, 1997 the ground sign. The basic ground sign size is based on the type of street that it-is located on. This particular business is located on Winnetka Avenue, a minor arterial street, which allows a maximum of 75 square feet in area and a maximum height of 20 feet. No ground sign can be located closer than 10 feet to any property line. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was proposing to utilize the existing freestanding, illuminated ground sign located at the front of the property. It consists of two signs on an existing pole. One sign is 41 square feet and the second sign is 16 square feet, which total 57 square feet. The signs are 17'3" in height and would remain the same size. The wording on the sign will be only the building name, Winnetka Business Center, and address. The sign is located 20 feet from the property line, and therefore, meets all code requirements. Mr. McDonald reported that the petitioner was proposing to install four business identification wall signs on the front wall of the building, one for each tenant. Each sign would have a maximum of 100 square feet, which is allowed by Code. The exact sign locations ace indicated on the building elevation. The wall signs would be constructed of metal or wood and would have vinyl or plastic letters. The signs would not be painted or illuminated. McDonald stated that the petitioner indicated in a letter that they would approve all tenant signage to make sure the signs would be uniform in size and structure. Each of the tenant spaces would be assigned a separate address as follows: Tenant #1 - 5201; Tenant #2 - 5211; Tenant #3 - 5221; and Tenant #4 - 5231. The wall signs comply with the Sign Code requirements. McDonald suggested that the Commission should have the petitioner clarify the wall signage construction, such as color and materials. McDonald added that small parking lot directional signage not to exceed nine square feet would be allowed. Mr. Rollie Stinski, owner of the building, and Mr. Patrick Fischer, manager of the property, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Landy asked for clarification on the construction materials to be used for the wall signs. Mr. Stinksi responded that they would try to have a uniform color among the four signs. They would also keep the signs as business signs and not add unnecessary information to the signs. The construction materials would consist of metal and wood and would be consistent for the entire building. Chairman Sonsin asked for clarification on the name of the building and it was confirmed that the name would be Winnetka Business Center. Mr. Stinski stated that the parking lot was repaved and restriped during the summer and five handicapped stalls have been provided and meet ADA code requirements. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 97-23, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 5201 Winnetka Avenue North, RAS Properties, Petitioners. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer None Hemken, Keefe, Stulberg, Damiani Chairman Sonsin informed the petitioner that this planning case would Planning Commission Meeting 4 December 2, 1997 PC97-29 Item 4.3 appear on the City Council agenda on December 8, 1997. Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-29, An Ordinance Repealing the Lot Coverage Requirement for I-1 Zoned Property, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that in 1993, due to business retention efforts, the Planning Commission and City Council reduced the green area requirement in the I-1 Zoning District from 35 percent to 20 percent to encourage in- place expansions. The I-1 District has specific requirements that are unique only to that District. At the time that the green area requirement was reduced, the lot coverage requirement was not discussed. Recently a New Hope business came to the City with preliminary expansion plans that met the green area requirement, but exceeded the lot coverage requirement. Staff discussed the idea of reducing or eliminating the lot coverage requirement and requested that the Codes & Standards Committee look at the ordinance. This ordinance amendment repeals the lot coverage requirement. Codes & Standards asked _staff to provide a drawing showing total lot coverage, under the current ordinance and the ordinance amendment, if a developer used the maximum space allowed for the building. Mr. Kirmis explained that the graphic illustrated a one-acre lot scenario within an I-1 District, applying the required setbacks. The examples illustrated show a manufacturing facility and an office/warehouse facility, and also show green area, off-street parking, and loading area requirements. With the ordinance amendment, the manufacturing facility would be allowed a total of 32 percent building coverage and the office/warehouse facility would be allowed 50 percent building coverage per one-acre lot. Therefore, on an average one-acre lot, the lot coverage ratio would only increase a maximum of ten percent from 40 percent to 50 percent. MOTION Item 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 97-29, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-29, An Ordinance Repealing the lot Coverage Requirement for I-1 Zoned Property, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Kramer None Hemken, Keefe, Stulberg, Damiani Chairman Sonsin stated this planning case would appear on the City Council agenda on December 8, 1997. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Item 5.1 Commissioner Svendsen reported that Design & Review did not meet in October or November. The January deadline for planning a'pplications is December 12. No new applications have been submitted at this time. Codes & Standards Item 5.2 Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards met and studied the two ordinance amendments presented at this meeting, along with several other issues. The next meeting is scheduled for December 17. Comprehensive Plan Commissioner Landy reported that the third meeting of the Update Comprehensive Plan Update Committee was held on November 20. He Planning Commission Meeting 5 December 2, 1997 Item 5.3 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT reported that Nancy Reeves reviewed information from the Life Cycle Housing Study that she had completed and that the Planning Consultant explained development/redevelopment areas in each of New Hope's 30 Planning Districts. The next meeting is scheduled for January 8, at which time the preliminary tasks would be completed and the Committee would begin looking at a rough draft of the plan. The information would be presented to City Council early in 1998 for their recommendations. After meeting with the City Council, the Committee will establish goals and future direction for the City and then present the information to the Planning Commission. Chairman Sonsin explained that due to the fact that March and November are election months in 1998, the regular Planning Commission meeting night needed to be changed. The consensus of the Commission was to have the Planning Commission meetings on the first Monday night in March and November. Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded_by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 7, 1997. Ail present voted in favor. Motion carried. Comprehensive Plan Update/Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. Chairman Sonsin reported that four of the Commissioners terms of office expire at the end of December. Commissioners Stulberg and Damiani have notified the City that they would not be extended their terms. Commission openings would be advertised in the City newsletter and SunPost. Chairman Sonsin stated that there are still a few problems with the sign at the Boger Dental site, along with the landscaping around the building. He stated there is a new nail salon at City Center Shopping Center that has an large amount of signage, which would be referred to the Building Official. He commented that last week in the Star Tribune there was a large article about the home occupation ordinance in the City of Minneapolis, and asked staff to review the New Hope's ordinance concerning home occupations. Mr. McDonald stated that the DNR ordinance has been sent to the DNR for their review and approval. The City Council adopted the ordinance with the flexibility as recommended by the Planning Commission. He stated he did not know if the DNR would accept the ordinance with the flexibility requested. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester / Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 6 December 2, 1997