2001 Planning CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 6, 2001
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.
OATH OF OFFICE Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development administered the oath of
office to Steven Bot, and Bot was welcomed to the Commission. Bot gave a
brief synopsis of his background.
ROLL CALL Present: Bot, Green, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen
Absent: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC00-'I8 Vice Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 5.1, An Ordinance
Item $.'1 Amending the New Hope City Code Regarding Subdivision and Platting in
Conformity with Changes to Minn. Stat. §462.358, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that this was a request from the City to amend the
ordinance regarding subdivision and platting to bring it into conformity with
Minnesota Statutes. Last October, Hennepin County informed the City that it
was making three changes to the plat review process, including: 1) submittal
process, schedule, and response time; 2) additional required plat review
information; and 3) demonstration of the City's response to County comments
on the plat and the dispute resolution process. The City Attorney and Planning
Consultant reviewed the information and they recommended changes to the
City's subdivision and platting ordinance to bring it into conformity with
Hennepin County requirements and state statutes. Due to the minor nature of
this ordinance change, the Codes & Standards Committee did not meet prior to
the Planning Commission meeting. The amendments to this ordinance would
be effective on a city-wide basis, so notification to residents within a specific
area was not required. Ordinance amendments do not require a public hearing
or published legal notice prior to adoption. The amendments would be effective
after they are approved by the City Council and the ordinance is published.
McDonald explained the changes to the plat review process and how they
affect the City's process. The County made three changes to the review
schedule. The City would be required to submit the preliminary plat to the
County within five business days of receiving the plats. The City currently
submits plats to the County on the same day they are received. Secondly, the
County will no longer accept plat applications from third parties and the plat and
plans must come directly from the City. Thirdly, the County's 30-day review
period begins only after the County receives a complete application. The City
should amend its preliminary plat data requirements to coincide with County
requirements. The information required by the County includes: a transmittal
letter, a location map, a site plan, a written description of the current and
proposed use of the property including the land use type, and if the plat is for
non-residential uses, an estimated amount of daily traffic the development is
expected to generate. Currently, there are four items for the site plan data that
the City's ordinance does not require including: parking lot layout and aisle
configuration; location of ingress and egress to the property; location of nearby
driveways, streets, intersections and access points on the County roadway in
the vicinity of the proposed plat; and if the plat is for non-residential uses, to
include an estimated amount of daily traffic.
State statutes now require that preliminary plats include information regarding
the location of the right-of-way in the relation to the existing roadway and the
platted property lines. The City would need to submit to the County a notice of
its approval of a plat within ten business days. This notice must include a
statement outlining how the County's comments and/or recommendations were
addressed. The new condition would require the City to issue a letter to the
County regarding the approval of each new plat. Currently, after the City
receives a preliminary plat, it sends the plat to the County for review and the
County sends a letter back to the City with recommendations. That letter with
the County's recommendations is included in the Planning Report to the
Planning Commission and City Council, and the City usually tries to comply
with the recommendations from the County.
McDonald stated that the City Attorney prepared the ordinance amendments
and explained the changes. Section 13.017(1) was amended to read: "The
following land divisions are exempted from the other procedural requirements
of this see~ chapter, unless the land abuts any existing or proposed trunk
highway, county road or highway, in which case all other procedural
requirements of this chapter must be followed." Section 13.041(4) was
amended to read: "Where appropriate or as required by law, the City Manager
shall file copies of the preliminary plat with other city commissions and/or
county and state agencies for their review and comment." Section 13.041(5) is
new in its entirety and relates to the requirements of the preliminary site plan.
McDonald stated that staff recommended approval of the ordinance
amendment.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Landy called for a motion.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
Item 5.1 approve Planning Case 00-18, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope
City Code Regarding Subdivision and Platting in Conformity with
Changes to Minn. Stat. §462.358, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Bot, Green, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken
Motion carried.
ELECTION OF Vice Chairman Landy opened the floor for nominations for officers for the year
OFFICERS 2001. A motion was introduced by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by
Commissioner Oelkers, to nominate Vice Chairman Landy for Chairman. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
A motion was introduced by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by
Commissioner Green, to nominate Commissioner Svendsen for Vice
Chairman. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
A motion was introduced by Commissioner Green, seconded by Commissioner
Kramer, to nominate Commissioner Bot for Third Officer. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee had not met in
Planning Commission Meeting 2 February 6, 2001
Committee January. McDonald noted that the application deadline for March was February
Item 6.1 9 and one application for a communication tower had been submitted.
McDonald stated that the Design & Review meeting would need to be
rescheduled to Friday, February 16, due to the fact that the TwinWest State of
the City presentation was scheduled for the regular meeting date, and
Committee members were willing to change the date.
The Design & Review Committee members include: Commissioners
Svendsen, Oelkers, Brauch and Anderson. Svendsen would continue serving
as Chair of the Committee.
Codes & Standards Landy reported that the Codes & Standards Committee had not met. McDonald
Committee reported that the City Council was continuing its final review of the Zoning Code
Item 6.2 on February 20 and gave a short update on the progress. He stated it was
anticipated that the public hearing would be held at the April Planning
Commission meeting.
The Codes & Standards Committee members include: Commissioners
Kramer, Green, Hemken and Bot. A new Committee chairman would be
selected at the first meeting of the year.
OLD BUSINESS Svendsen initiated discussion on the fact that Simon Delivers delivery trucks
Miscellaneous Issues were utilizing 36th Avenue as a truck route. He thought the truck route was to
be either 42nd Avenue or Medicine Lake Road. McDonald stated that he would
check into the matter.
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Green, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 3, 2000.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
Oelkers questioned whether the Planning Commission would be a part of the
"Hope Village" feasibility study task force. McDonald stated that the City had
recently been notified that it would be the recipient of a Livable Communities
grant in the amount of $60,000 from Met Council, which the City would match.
The Planning Consultant was putting together a proposal implementing the
grant. The feasibility study would need to be completed within 18 months. A
committee would be formed and would include some Planning Commissioners,
residents, business owners, staff and consultants. Commissioners Oelkers,
Svendsen, and Green stated an interest in serving on the task force.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Oelkers commended the City and School District on the Cooper High School
gym project and dedication ceremony. He stated that the school was
continually being put to good use and felt the project was a great investment for
the community.
McDonald invited the Commissioners to Bill Sonsin's recognition that would be
held at the beginning of the February 26 City Council meeting.
Landy stated that the New Hope State of the City presentation would be held
on February 15 and all Commissioners were invited to attend.
McDonald reported that the City Council amended the ordinance on terms of
office for Chairman of the Planning Commission. A Chairman would be able to
serve for three years and then another Commissioner would need to be elected
as Chairman. The City Council's reasoning was to see more people serve in
leadership roles.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 February 6, 2001
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 4 February 6, 2001
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 6, 2001
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 Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Bot, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Landy, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Absent: Kramer
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC01-01 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Conditional
Item 4.1 Use Permit to Construct a 100' Monopole and 10' x 20' Stone Aggregate
Equipment Building, 3401 Nevada Avenue North, Nextel West Corporation a
Delaware Corporation and Null & Void, Inc., Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit
to construct a 100-foot monopole and a 10' by 20', eight-foot high, stone
aggregate equipment building. Communication towers are allowed in industrial
districts by conditional use permit. The monopole would be constructed on a
portion of the property at 3401 Nevada Avenue. The property is zoned I-1
Industrial and is located on the west side of Nevada Avenue approximately 800
feet south of 36th Avenue. There are I-1 properties to the north, I-2 properties to
the west, and Crystal residential properties to the south. The existing site area
consists of 6.4 acres and the current building area contains 60,000 square feet.
The lot area ratios are 66 percent green, 21 percent building, and 13 percent
paved. The property is about one-half developed with the existing Archives
building occupying the north half of the site and the south half of the property is
vacant with a green slope that rises 26 feet to the Crystal boundary line on the
south. Current parking meets code requirements.
McDonald reported that Nextel West Corporation submitted a request to
construct a wireless communications tower and ground equipment building on
this property. Archive Corporation is owned by Null and Void, Inc. The specific
proposal is to construct a 104-fo°t monopole tower and a 10' x 20' ground
equipment building on the northwest corner of the site. The proposal is to
locate the tower and equipment building within a 60' x 40' lease area, adjacent
to the northwest part of the existing building. A separate 20-foot ingress/egress
easement is proposed to provide access from Nevada Avenue to the lease
area. A 30' x 40' portion of the lease area would be enclosed with a proposed
8-foot tall, cedar, non-climbable fence. The lot was first developed in 1968 with
minor remodeling since that time. The building is set back 190 feet from the
front lot line with the front lawn as landscaping. In 1998 a major expansion to
the south was approved by the City Council for a CUP and variance, which was
never constructed and the CUP expired in November 1999.
McDonald stated that the petitioner would construct a galvanized steel, four
carrier, 100-foot tall monopole tower to accommodate Nextel Communications
and three additional future wireless communications provider's antennas and
equipment. The overall height of the tower would be 104 feet. The tower would
be screened by an 8-foot tall cedar fence that would surround the tower on the
north, east, and west sides, and abut the equipment building on the south.
Nextel obtained the lease area through a ground lease with the landowner and
will provide enough ground space for a total of four communications users. The
tower would be galvanized steel and the antenna would be of a color and
configuration to minimize adverse visual effects. No advertising message
would be affixed to the tower. Nextel would attach nine antennas at the top of
the 100-foot tower. Additional carriers would be located at 70 feet, 80 feet, and
90 feet. The tower would not be illuminated, per correspondence from the FAA.
Nextel would comply with all federal, state and local agency licenses. The cell
site would require a single phase, 200 amp, 208-volt electrical service and
telephone utilities for the site. Null and Void Inc. provided correspondence
giving permission for the tower on the site.
McDonald continued by saying that Nextel reported there were no existing
structures in the search area that Nextel could attach antennas to. There is a
MediaOne tower approximately 1698 feet southwest of the proposed location
but did not have space available. The Qwest Wireless tower approximately
3434 feet from the proposed site also did not have space available. Due to the
fact that Nextel's tower would be located more than 1000 feet from the other
towers, requirements in Section 4.039D of the Code have been met.
The setback for the tower to the nearest property line is 75 percent of the
height of the tower or 75 feet. The setback for the tower to the building is 50
percent of the height of the tower or 50 feet. Nextel provided a collapsibility
letter from a registered engineer, which stated that any collapse of the tower
would occur in a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. Nextel's
proposed tower would be located 53 feet from the north property line, 45 feet
from the west property line, and 12 feet from the existing building. The
equipment building would be located 35 feet from the north property line and 24
feet from the west property line. Nextel's building would be located 10 feet
north of the existing building on the site.
Once Nextel would receive zoning approval from the City, they would provide
the City with construction drawings signed by a registered engineer.
McDonald stated that property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified
along with the City of Crystal and that staff received several inquiries about the
proposal, but no strong objections.
McDonald explained that the purpose of a conditional use permit was to
provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion
in determining suitability of certain uses upon the general welfare, public health,
and safety. The City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings,
whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on lands close
by, the effect upon traffic, and other factors deemed important. Other general
criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a
conditional use permit include: 1) whether the proposed use would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 2) compatibility with adjacent land
uses, 3) performance standards, and 4) depreciation in value. Additional zoning
criteria specific to the industrial district would include 1) nuisance
characteristics generated by the use not to have an adverse effect upon
adjacent areas, and 2) economic return for the community. McDonald stated
that per the Planning Consultant's report, all of these items have been
complied with.
McDonald explained that the purpose of Section 4.039D of the Zoning Code
was to establish predicable, balanced regulations of the siting and screening of
wireless communication equipment in order to accommodate the growth of
wireless communication systems within the City while protecting the public
Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 6, 2001
against any adverse impacts on the aesthetic resources and the public welfare
in the City. Personal wireless service antennas erected on an antenna tower
may be allowed as a conditionally permitted use within Industrial Zoning
Districts if they comply with 16 standards. 1) The property owner provided
written authorization for the antenna and antenna tower erection. 2) The
property owner and applicant provided letters indicating the tower would be
removed within 12 months of cessation of operation and that the cost of
removal would be the responsibility of Ne×tel West Corporation. 3) The tower
and equipment shelter plans would be reviewed for compliance with the
Minnesota State Building Code prior to issuance of a building permit. 4) The
applicant would be required to submit structural plans, prepared by a registered
professional engineer, as part of the building permit application. 5) The
applicant submitted a copy of the FCC license with the CUP application. 6) The
proposed tower location is on private property, not city property, therefore, this
requirement is not applicable. 7) The applicant provided a collapsibility letter
from the tower manufacturer indicating that the top 30 feet of the pole would
permanently deform until such time that the antennas are not perpendicular to
the wind force, and the pole would stop deforming and maintain that position.
The setbacks would be adequate based upon the manufacturer's
specifications. 8) The closest antenna tower is more than 1000 feet from the
site. 9) The proposed tower height would be 104 feet, which would be within
the 165-foot maximum height. 10) The tower would not require lighting
pursuant to the certification letter from the FAA. 11) No advertising would be
affixed to the tower according to Ne×tel. A small sign would be erected on the
site giving 24-hour contact information. 12) Antennas and supporting
equipment would be painted silver and have a galvanized finish. The exterior of
the equipment building would be aggregate face, concrete panels. 13) The
antenna tower would be of a color and configuration to minimize adverse visual
effects. 14) The proposal was to enclose the lease area with an 8,foot tall,
decorative, non-climbable, cedar fence. 15) Antenna tower would be screened
from view from residential uses and public right-of-way. 16) There would be
enough room within the lease area and on the tower to accommodate three
additional wireless users.
McDonald reported that staff and consultants considered this request and
supported it. No landscaping was proposed, as the installation would be in a
paved area near the rear of the property. The Design & Review Committee met
with the petitioner and pointed out two concerns: timely maintenance of the
tower, equipment building and surrounding area; and reliable 24-hour phone
contact to respond to and comply with legal orders from the City within 21 days.
Snow plowing/storage was discussed and it was determined that the landowner
would need to change the snow handling practices. Additional concerns were
parking lot circulation, fire lanes, cedar fencing, exterior storage, FCC license
and illumination. Revised plans were submitted as a result of that meeting
responding to all recommendations. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and
reported in correspondence that the proposed tower would not impact existing
drainage patterns nor would it increase storm water runoff. Site circulation and
parking would be impacted minimally.
McDonald stated that staff recommended approval of the CUP for a 100-foot
monopole tower and equipment building, subject to the recommendations in
the planning report. Condition #5 in the report should be changed to read that
fencing would be around a 30' x 40' portion of the lease area rather than the
entire 40' x 60' lease area.
Mr. Dave Fischer, representing Nextel West Corporation, came to the podium
to answer questions. Fisher stated that Ne×tel was in agreement with the
recommendations as presented in the report.
Commissioner Svendsen commented that the petitioner responded to all of the
Planning Commission Meeting 3 March 6, 2001
recommendations of the Design & Review Committee and thanked the
petitioner for the timely way in which Nextel responded to the requests.
Chairman Landy questioned the nature of the inquiries from surrounding
property owners. McDonald responded that there were two inquiries - one
wondering what a monopole was and the other had more specific questions
about the tower. Neither person was opposed to the proposed use. Landy
questioned the petitioner about where other Nextel towers were located.
Fischer replied that there was another site at 50th and Hillsboro Avenues in
New Hope, as well as over 200 other sites in the metro area. The Nevada
location would fill a gap in coverage for that area. The question was raised as
to the durability of the towers and maintenance of the towers, and reassurance
was given that Nextel's tower would be routinely maintained.
Commissioner Bot raised the issue of the range of service for the antenna
sites. Fischer stated that the typical range was a half-mile radius, depending on
zoneability, leaseability, and a willing landlord.
Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion on capacity issues on the antenna
array, especially with company mergers, and whether or not the antennas
would be consolidated on one tower and another tower abandoned. Fischer
explained that all wireless providers operate on different frequencies. Different
carriers can be located on the same pole. If two companies merged and
utilized the same technology and same frequency, they could probably share
the same antenna array. If the merged companies utilized two different
technologies and frequencies, they could possibly locate on the same tower but
not use the same antenna array. Typically, most users can co-locate within 10
feet of each other on an existing pole.
There was no one in the audience for public comment.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 01-01, Request for Conditional Use Permit to
Construct a 100' Monopole and 10' x 20' Stone Aggregate Equipment
Building, 3401 Nevada Avenue North, Nextel West Corporation a
Delaware Corporation and Null & Void, Inc., Petitioners, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The property owner and Nextel West Corp. (and/or its assigns) shall
provide the City with the name, phone number, address, and 24-hour
responsible party contact information for the antenna site. Said
responsible party contact information shall be clearly posted at the site.
City inspectors shall have access to the site for the purpose of conducting
inspections.
2. The fence, lease area, equipment building, and tower shall be maintained
at all times and kept in good repair. In the event that the lease area is not
maintained, the City shall notify the contact individuals in writing of
maintenance/grounds issues. In the event that the violations are not
remedied within twenty-one (21) days, the City may, at its discretion,
cause the violation to be corrected and assess all costs to the property
owner.
3. A copy of the approved CUP application and conditions of approval shall
be filed with Hennepin County as required by Minnesota Statute. The
applicant shall be responsible to file said documents and provide proof of
filing upon completion of tower construction and final inspection.
4. There shall be no outside storage within the antenna/tower lease area
Planning Commission Meeting 4 March 6, 2001
site. All equipment, materials, etc., shall be stored within the equipment
building.
5. An eight-foot tall, cedar, non-climbable security fence shall be provided
around a 30' x 40' portion of the lease area. In the event of a co-location
on the tower, that carrier's equipment and building shall also be
surrounded with an eight-foot, cedar, non-climbable security fence.
6. Upon cessation of the use of the cellular antenna site for a period of 12
months, the property owner and/or the applicant (or its assigns) shall be
responsible to remove all equipment, the tower, fencing, and buildings
associated with the CUP application.
7. Violation of the terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit shall
be grounds for formal review of the CUP by the Planning Commission
and City Council and may result in revocation of the CUP, at which point
said permit shall become null and void.
8.Compliance with the MN State Building Code.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Bot, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Landy, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Kramer
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy informed the petitioners that this planning case would be
considered by the City Council on March 12 and a representative should be in
attendance at that meeting.
PC99-06 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Informal Review of Final
Item 4.2 Recommendations of New Hope Zoning Code Update.
McDonald stated that staff, consultants, and the Zoning Code Update
Committee had been working on the update for the past one and one-half
years. The Council reviewed the entire Zoning Code at three work sessions
and identified issues where more research was needed. The final work session
was held on February 20, where the Council directed staff to proceed with the
public hearing on the updated Zoning Code. The Planning Consultant will
review a number of changes that the Council requested. The intent of this
meeting would be to give the Commission an informal update of the changes
the Council recommended. The schedule would be to mail public hearing
notices by March 20 to all properties in the City where the zoning would be
changing as well as within 350 feet of those properties, hold the public hearing
of the Zoning Code changes at the April 3 Planning Commission meeting, and
proceed to City Council meeting on April 23.
Mr. Brixius stated that the Council had suggested several changes in the
Zoning Code update. Under "Definitions," the language on a number of
definitions changed to clarify the definition. Under the "General Provisions"
§4.031 (7) Partial Destruction, there was discussion regarding whether or not
the 12-month reconstruction period was enough time to accommodate
unforeseen emergencies or natural disasters and it was determined that 12
months was appropriate. One major change considered was parking
requirements in §4.032(6)(e) Garage and On-Site Parking Space. One concern
was the need for sufficient parking for residential developments. Provisions
were included that would locate a new home on the property that would
accommodate a two-car garage, rather than mandate that all homes were
required to have a two-car garage. The requirements were expanded for
townhomes and twinhomes to accommodate 2.5 stalls per unit and the current
parking standards for multiple family dwellings was retained. For the
landscaping requirements, it was determined that the Planning Commission
should review plans and the City Council would make the final approval.
Planning Commission Meeting 5 March 6, 2001
A question was raised on §4.033(6)(e)(ii) regarding stoops and decks and the
height of the finished floor level. The height did not include railings. Attention
was called to §4.034(3)(d)(i and ii) regarding green belts and whether the
phrase "evergreen trees" could be replaced with coniferous trees and the
consensus was to make the change.
Brixius continued by saying that language was added to §4.034(4)(a) Required
Landscaping-General Residential stating "trees under overhead wires within an
easement are restricted to tree types having mature height that will not interfere
with the overhead wires" rather than give a maximum height or specific type.
Staff, consultants, and the Council felt that §4.034(9)(b) regarding recreational
vehicle storage met the City's needs as drafted. A five-foot setback would be
required at rear property lines, which was consistent with accessory building
requirements. Brixius stated that in §4.035(10((c) there was concern with the
number of parking stalls for senior/disabled multiple parking and it was
preferred to have one stall per unit and proof of parking rather than one stall
per three units, due to the fact that at the minimum age of 55 the residents
were still very mobile.
A question was raised on §4.034(9)(b)(iii) Recreational Equipment and
Vehicles-Exterior Storage with the change from the current three-foot setback
to a five-foot setback. Brixius replied that the storage of recreational vehicles
should be treated the same as for an accessory structure and set back five feet
from the property line. It was determined that adequate screening could not be
provided with a three-foot setback. It was noted that an article would probably
be published in the City Report regarding RV storage and the CSO from the
Police Department and the city inspectors would need to cooperate and mail
information to the property owners storing the RVs stating that the code had
been changed. The City Attorney interjected that the only notices mailed to
residents would be where there was a district boundary change. There would
be no mailing to residential property owners prior to the public hearing relative
to the recreational vehicle ordinance. McDonald pointed out that he was only
aware of 15-20 RVs in the City that would exceed the front yard setback
requirement. The City's approach with those properties would be to send a
letter explaining the regulations and give them appropriate time to remove the
vehicle. The front yard setback currently is 30 feet and would be reduced to 25
feet from the front of the home to the property line. There would be a standard
15-foot right-of-way for each residential property.
Brixius continued his review by saying that the current parking ratio at the high
school was one space per seven students and this would be changed to 1:4 in
§4.035(10)(g). This ratio is based on the estimated capacity enrollment for
Cooper High School and New Hope Elementary. Additional parking would be
required with any further expansion of the buildings.
There had been some discussion among the Council regarding §4.038(3)(a)
Christmas tree sales and the consensus was to leave the sales period at 90
days. Verbiage in §4.039E(4)(f) Wetland/ProceduresJariances was changed
to read "the City Council may issue variances..." rather than the Planning
Commission.
Brixius reported that there were several changes in the districts. §4.065(5)(c)
was changed to read that "outdoor play areas are landscaped, fenced and
screened..." The hours of operation was retained for drive through lanes and
various businesses, per §4.114(5). A provision was also included for a
photometric plan per §4.154(3)(0 and 4.034(5). Building height originally was
recommended for the LB District to be four stories, however, the Council
determined that this should be reduced to three stories due to the fact that the
LB Districts would abut residential areas. Brixius explained that the Prudential
site at Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg was currently zoned Residential-Office
Planning Commission Meeting 6 March 6, 2001
and the Comprehensive Plan suggests rezoning the property to commercial.
Staff/consultants and Council were not comfortable rezoning to Residential-
Business, which would allow a variety of uses, therefore, the R-O zoning was
retained allowing for multiple family or limited office. It was noted that the
Prudential site had recently been sold and the City Council preferred not to
change the zoning until the City was sure of what type of business would locate
there.
Brixius added that the changes in the Administrative section were primarily
grammatical changes. {}4.037 Enforcement was modified to read "Zoning
Administrator as designated by the City Manager."
Brixius summarized that the changes recommended by the Council were, for
the most pad, not significant. Overall, the ordinance was made easier as far as
administration. The process was streamlined to eliminate a number of items
that previously required a variance or CUP and offered them for administrative
approval. Items were changed to make it easier for property owners to reinvest
in their property. The Zoning Districts were changed to try and increase the
buildable land by reducing setback requirements. The densities were increased
in the districts to provide greater development opportunities. Some of the
commercial districts were combined to eliminate some obsolete districts, which
broadened the range and increased the opportunities within the districts.
Performance standards were increased to insure quality of development. The
two industrial districts were combined to establish a single district, which was
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The green space requirement would
remain at 20 percent, due to the fact that this was adjusted recently. McDonald
interjected that the I-2 District never had a green requirement, therefore, there
may be a few I-2 properties that would become non-conforming with combining
the I-1 and I-2 districts. Brixius confirmed that the objectives in the
Comprehensive Plan had been accomplished.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in February with
Committee the petitioner. McDonald added that the application deadline for April was
Item 6.1 March 9 and stated that staff had communication with four possible applicants:
an auto pads store for 36th & Winnetka Avenues, comprehensive sign plan for
a new business at 5000 Winnetka, CUP for outside storage at 9201
International Parkway, and a communications tower at the Paddock Lab site on
Quebec Avenue.
Codes & Standards Landy reported that the Codes & Standards Committee had not met.
Committee
Item 6.2
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Hemken, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 6,
2001. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS McDonald reminded the Commissioners that there were funds in the Planning
Budget for them to attend Government Training Service workshops and that
staff would coordinate registrations for them.
Planning Commission Meeting 7 March 6, 2001
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
~.~pecffully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 8 March 6, 2001
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 3, 2001
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 Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Bot, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers
Absent: Svendsen
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Ken
Doresky, Community Development Specialist, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC01-03 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Conditional
Item 4.1 Use Permits to Allow Open Outdoor Storage in Excess of 20 Percent of the
Gross Floor Area of the Principal Structure and for Outdoor Storage of a 1,000-
Gallon Propane Tank, 9201 International Parkway, Tioga, Inc., Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting two conditional use
permits to allow open outdoor storage in excess of 20 percent of the gross floor
area of the principal structure and for outdoor storage of a 1,000-gallon
propane tank. The property is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial, and is surrounded
on all sides by industrial properties. The site area contains approximately 2.2
acres, which includes: building at 19,700 square feet or 20% of the total area,
existing green area is 52% and the proposed green area would be reduced to
39%, outdoor storage 16%, and parking/driveways 25%. The site is located in
the City's prime industrial park. The Comprehensive Plan's goal for District #3
is the preservation and enhancement of the industrial land uses. The lot is
narrow and has an undeveloped rear yard isolated by a rail spur and contains a
wetland. The proposed outdoor storage would be for storing heaters
assembled by Tioga.
McDonald stated that Tioga Air Heaters was requesting approval of two
conditional use permits to allow an open outdoor storage area in excess of
20 percent of the principal building and outdoor storage of a propane tank.
Both of these CUPs would be necessary to allow the applicant to relocate
their business to the industrial building at 9201 International Parkway. Tioga
is currently located in Golden Valley. The company manufactures heating
and ventilation equipment for mining, military, coasting and commercial
construction applications. This property would be used for an
office/warehouse site for their company. The existing 19,700 square foot
warehouse was built in 1975 and no major improvements have been made in
the last 25 years. The south pond and rail spur have complicated any
expansion of building or pavement. Available parking exceeds the required
number of spaces and adequate semi-truck maneuvering room would be
provided to the three rear docks. The building was built 18 inches too close
to the east lot line in 1975 and the driveway was built right up to the west lot
line. No change was proposed to those existing conditions, which would be
considered a grandfathered, non-conforming use.
McDonald informed the Commission that Tioga submitted a narrative that
stated it had entered into a purchase agreement to buy the building and land.
Their business had grown and the New Hope building would fit their needs if
the outdoor area could be utilized for storage. Tioga is a Minnesota corporation
consisting of a manufacturing division for the sale of heating equipment and a
temporary heat division for the rental/lease of portable heating equipment.
Heaters sold to customers are fabricated off site with final assembly and testing
done at the Golden Valley facility. Traffic activity consists primarily of daily UPS
delivery and pickup, parts delivery from area vendors and an occasional flatbed
truck when the heater(s) are being shipped to a customer. The temporary
heating division uses pickup trucks and trailers for local deliveries and contract
haulers when heaters are shipped to jobsites outside the metro area. During
the spring and summer, the heaters are serviced and tested to prepare them
for the next heating season. Tioga does not have any retail sales at the facility
and has a total of 14 to 15 office and shop employees working one shift per day
during normal business hours.
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff had
received no comments.
McDonald pointed out that the purpose of a conditional use permit was to
provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion
in determining suitability of certain designated uses for a property. In making
this determination, items to consider would be the nature of adjoining land or
buildings, whether or not a similar use was already in existence and located on
the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and
from the premises, and other factors the City shall deem a requisite in
determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and
safety.
Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve
or deny a conditional use permit include: whether the use would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; whether the use was compatible
with its adjacent land uses; whether the proposed use conforms with all
applicable performance standards contained in the Code; and whether or not
the use would depreciate values in the area in which it was proposed. Specific
industrial district criteria would include: whether the use would have an adverse
effect upon existing development in adjacent areas and whether the use would
provide an economic return to the community.
McDonald informed the Commission that if the outdoor storage exceeded 20
percent of the principal building area, it would only be allowed with a CUP.
The site contains a 19,700 square foot building and the proposed outdoor
storage area would be 15,700 square feet or 79.7 percent of the building
area. The criteria to consider include: 1) The open outdoor storage area is
screened and landscaped from adjacent residential uses and public rights-of-
way - the proposed outdoor storage would not be adjacent to any residential
uses or public rights-of-way therefore, this condition is not applicable; 2) A
wire weave/chain link security fence shall be required around the open
outdoor storage - the plans call for the area to be surrounded by a six-foot
high treated lumber wood fence that would extend from the building east to the
gate on the front drive and a six-foot chain link fence surrounding the
remainder of the area; $) Open outdoor storage area is surfaced to control
dust - and the entire area would be surfaced with either concrete or
bituminous pavement; 4) Open outdoor storage must be an accessory use -
the principal use of the property would be office/warehouse and the use would
be accessory to the primary warehouse use; 5) The open outdoor storage area
shall not be located within any front yard or side yard abutting a public right-of-
way and be set back five feet from all side and rear lot lines and shall not be
located within a utility or drainage easement - the area would be located
behind the principal building in the rear yard area and would not be adjacent to
any public right-of-way. In addition, the applicant's site plan shows that the
Planning Commission Meeting 2 April 3, 2001
outdoor storage area would be surrounded by a perimeter curb located five feet
from the property's boundaries; 6) The open outdoor storage area shall not
utilize any required off-street parking, loading areas, or access space - the site
needs 23 off-street parking stalls and the plan shows 27 off-street stalls, none
of which would be located in the proposed outdoor storage area; 7) The open
outdoor storage area shall not be used for storage of hazardous liquids, solids,
gases, or wastes - the site plan indicated that the applicant intends to install a
new 1,000-gallon propane tank in the southeastern corner of the site, which
would be acceptable if a separate conditional use permit was applied for and all
criteria met; and 8) Property owner shall keep open outdoor storage area free
of refuse, trash, debris, weeds, and waste fill - staff recommends this as a
condition of approval.
McDonald stated that outdoor storage of propane was allowed through
approval of a second conditional use permit. The propane tank may only be
used by the occupant of the site, must be incidental to the existing principal
use, and cannot be stored for wholesale or retail sale. The following criteria
must be met: 1) All propane or LP gas outdoor storage tanks shall be located in
the rear yard not less than 25 feet from any property boundary lines. - the tank
was proposed to be located in the southeastern corner of the site,
approximately 44 feet north of the southern property line and 25 feet from the
eastern property line; 2) Storage tanks shall be surrounded by 25 feet of open
area and storage of any kind was prohibited in said storage area, except
equipment incidental to the storage tank - the plans show the proposed
propane tank set back 25 feet from the eastern property line, which would be a
condition of approval; 3) Storage tanks shall be set back from existing
structures - the plan illustrates that the proposed 1,000-gallon propane tank
would be set back 258 feet from the existing principal structure and be in
compliance the Uniform Building Code; 4) Storage tanks shall not interfere with
site circulation - the storage tank would not interfere with vehicle circulation on
the site; 5) A wire weave/chain link security fence shall be required around all
storage tanks - the storage area would be fenced; 6) Storage sites shall be
accessible by service and emergency vehicles - to insure that emergency and
service vehicles have adequate access to the tank, the property owner shall
provide both the Police and Fire Chiefs with the necessary keys to access the
site; 7) All filling valves of the storage tanks shall be enclosed and have locking
devices - this is recommended as a condition of approval; and 8) A warning
sign shall be required for every tank and shall be placed in a conspicuous
location directly on the tank indicating a supplier's name, address, phone
number, that highly dangerous and flammable material was stored therein and
that no smoking requirements must be observed or a sufficient warning to that
affect. Said signage may not exceed four square feet nor may it be used for
advertising purposes - placing a warning sign was recommended as a
condition of approval.
The Development Review Team considered the proposal and issues
discussed included submitting a detailed plan that identified the location and
size of the proposed storage yard, submitting evidence of the rail spur
easement and that it could be used for paving and storage, clarify how the
snow could be plowed across the tracks and how the water would drain across
the tracks to the south pond, revise NURP pond to meet Shingle Creek and
City Engineer requirements, and comply with Fire Department regulations. The
Design & Review Committee met with the applicant and identified that a
second CUP was necessary for the propane tank, a van accessible parking
space should be provided near the front entry, meet with the Fire Department
and Building Official on several issues, clarify storage was at least five feet
from the property line, site lighting, and that a fire lane be provided on the west
side of the driveway.
McDonald stated that revised plans were submitted and included the
Planning Commission Meeting 3 April 3, 2001
recommendations of the Design & Review Committee. The plans show that the
green space requirement had been met at 39 percent. Code requirements for
off street parking had been met including one van accessible disability stall.
The site plan illustrated a new trash enclosure next to the southeastern corner
of the principal building and that it would be made of six-foot high chain link
fence with metal slats inserted in the fence. The storage area would be
surfaced and have a bituminous perimeter curb. There was some concern by
staff that snow removal would damage this curbing and have a negative effect
on site drainage. Consideration should be given to relocating the snow storage
area to the far southern portion of the storage area and/or replace the
bituminous curb with concrete curbing. The applicant submitted an application
to the Watershed District for approval and any CUP approval should be subject
to approval by the Watershed. The revised plans illustrated the exact portion of
the rear lot that would be utilized for storage and that it would not interfere with
truck maneuvering. The landscaping plan shows new and existing landscaping
for the site. The plantings would be irrigated by the existing irrigation system.
There would be a six-foot high treated lumber wood fence that would extend
from the building east to the gate on the front drive. The gate would be six-foot
high chain link with metal slats for screening. The storm water pond had been
expanded and relocated on the south side of the property. The east curb line of
the entrance would be painted yellow and a "no parking fire lane" sign would be
placed at that location. The Fire Department connection was shown on the
plans at the northwest portion of the building. The existing monument sign in
front of the building would be utilized and meets code requirements. Snow
storage areas are shown on the plans in front of the building on the east side of
the parking lot and on the north and east side of the Iow area in the rear of the
building. The asphalt paving would be slightly higher than the spur tracks
without preventing rail use or snow plowing.
McDonald stated that the City Engineer suggested that consideration be given
to relocating the propane tank to allow snow to be plowed from the lot straight
into the NURP pond, which would be a condition of approval.
McDonald summarized that staff was pleased to see a new business in New
Hope and felt the applicant had done an excellent job responding to the issues
and submitting revised plans. The only major unresolved issue was the LP tank
location which staff was recommending be moved per the Building Official and
City Engineer. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the
report, which had been discussed with the applicant.
Mr. Bruce Wallace, President of Tioga, Inc., 850 Florida Avenue, Golden
Valley, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Wallace
extended appreciation for the help and support of city staff throughout the
process. The ponding and snow storage issues had been reviewed and Tioga
determined that concrete curbing would be placed along the perimeter of the
storage area near the pond. Wallace stated that he had met with the Building
Official and West Metro Fire regarding the propane tank placement. Discussion
ensued on the location of the tank and the snow storage area. Brixius indicated
that the setback and clear area was acceptable as proposed, however, the
concern was with drainage and snow storage. The size of the tank would be
14' x 16' and it could be rotated 90 degrees and still maintain setback
requirements. The clear zone would be increased slightly. Snow could not be
stored in the 25-foot clear area. Commissioner Kramer initiated discussion on
what protection would be utilized for over filling the propane tank. Wallace
responded that the tank would be equipped with a pressure relief for an over
pressure situation. There would be a gauge on the tank for filling. Tioga would
utilize the tank for occasional testing of the units, and would only use 500-600
gallons of propane in one year. Commissioner Brauch questioned the
protective barrier around the tank with snow plowing in close proximity. Wallace
stated that bollards could be placed around the tank.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 April 3, 2001
Discussion ensued on the rail spur and the easement. The applicant's attorney
had reviewed the easement and it was noted that there was nothing in the
document that would prevent Tioga from paving up to and around the rail spur
as long as anyone having legal right to use the rail line was not denied access
to the tracks. There would be no permanent structures constructed on the track
or within the easement. Moveable products may be stored within the
easement. Wallace indicated that the easement would remain open in the
event the adjacent property owner would desire to utilize the rail line.
Oelkers asked for clarification on staff's recommendations on the snow plowing
and concrete curbing. Brixius replied that drainage would take place into the
NURP pond at the southeastern corner of the property. Snow would be stored
along the wetland edge. To ensure that the curbing would stay in place to direct
drainage and during snow plowing, it was staffs opinion that bituminous
curbing would not hold up during the snow plowing and concrete curbing was
being recommended.
Wallace pointed out that the improvements they would make to the property
were reflective of the fact they were asking for increased storage. Tioga felt
that the additional retention pond would improve the quality of water runoff, but
it also eliminated a significant portion of the property and the cost was
significant. Wallace maintained that they intended to be a good neighbor.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 01-03, Request for Conditional Use Permits to
Allow Open Outdoor Storage in Excess of 20 Percent of the Gross Floor
Area of the Principal Structure and for Outdoor Storage of a 1,000-Gallon
Propane Tank, 9201 International Parkway, Tioga, Inc., Petitioner, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Submit revised site plan with a different LP tank location, subject to
approval by Building Official and City Engineer, including:
A. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of plans
detailing the tank, its valves, and their locking devices.
B. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of a warning
sign plan.
C. There shall be no outdoor storage within 25 feet of the propane
tank. The property owner shall paint a 25-foot radius around the
tank.
D. The property owner shall provide the Police and Fire
Departments with copies of all keys necessary to access the
propane tank.
2. Comply with City Engineer's memo of February 26, 2001.
3. Submit detailed plans prior to occupancy to demonstrate
compliance with the MN Disability Code, MN Building Code and
Uniform Fire Code.
4. Resize the parking stall directly south of the disability stall to be at
least 20 feet x 9 feet or designate it as the access aisle for the
disability stall.
5. Revise site plan to shift 80 percent of snow storage next to the
NURP pond or replace the bituminous curbing along the designated
snow storage area with concrete curbing.
6. The property owner shall keep the open outdoor storage area free
of refuse, trash, debris, weeds, and waste fill.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Bot, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers
Planning Commission Meeting 5 April 3, 2001
Voting against: None
Absent: Svendsen
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy informed the petitioners that this planning case would be
considered by the City Council on April 9 and a representative should be in
attendance at that meeting.
PC99-06 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Public Hearing to Consider
Item 4.2 Ordinance Recodifying New Hope Zoning Code, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Chairman Landy stated for the audience that the City had been working to
update all the zoning code regulations over the past year and one-half to make
the Zoning Code consistent with the Comprehensive Plan update, which was
adopted in September 1998. The Zoning Code Update Committee met several
times and reviewed the code section by section and made recommendations to
the consultants. Throughout the process, the full Planning Commission
reviewed each section as it was completed. The Committee finished its review
in May 2000 and the full Planning Commission reviewed the final
recommendations in June 2000. From August through October the update was
reviewed by the City Council. On February 20, 2001, the Council approved the
draft form and instructed the Planning Commission to proceed with the public
hearing. On March 6, the Planning Commission reviewed the final draft. This is
the formal public hearing where public comment will be accepted.
Mr. Brixius reiterated that a lot of time had gone into the final draft, however, it
was not the end product. The Planning Commission was holding the public
hearing to receive comment from the public as to whether the regulations
addressed the needs of the City. Brixius pointed out that pending comment
from the public, the Planning Commission could table the matter to allow time
for additional research on selected items.
Brixius explained that over 1350 legal notices were mailed to property owners
to advertise the public hearing, as well as publication in the local newspaper. A
several inquiries were received as a result of the mailed notices, which
pertained to recreational vehicle storage and reduction of setback in the
industrial zoning district.
The process began with the completion of the City's Comprehensive Plan in
1998. The Comprehensive Plan was intended to recognize development in the
City for the next 20 years. The Plan also recognized New Hope to be a fully
developed community and the City would need to deal with in-place land uses.
The land use goals of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize maintaining and
enhancing the City's positive identities, the strengths of its neighborhoods,
commercial and industrial areas, protecting property values, maintaining a
strong tax base, promoting reinvestment in the community, and allowing
property owners to build and expand businesses through improvements,
renovation and expansion. The City would make an effort to improve
substandard and/or blighted areas, maintain and improve the commercial
areas as vital retail and service locations, and retain and expand the industrial
land uses to insure a diverse tax base and local employment opportunities.
There are opportunities to promote these objectives through reduced setbacks,
creating land, site improvements, and streamlining the review process.
Brixius continued by saying that one of the main goals of the ordinance was to
make it more user friendly by helping prospective developers and residents in
the community. The review process had been simplified for a number of
development applications. There were many applications, which required a
conditional use permit or variance, such as expansion of legal non-conforming
structures. An administrative permit was introduced to handle some simple
Planning Commission Meeting 6 April 3, 2001
items, rather than having the request reviewed by the Planning Commission
and City Council. Brixius stated that much of the original ordinance language
was retained in the reformatting process.
Brixius reviewed the major changes with the Commission and audience.
Title and Application. The only change to this section was the addition of a
Comprehensive Revision paragraph stating that a thorough update of the
ordinance was being done and would replace the original ordinance.
Rules and Definitions. In this section, seldom used or obsolete definitions were
eliminated, state statutes were updated, and definitions grouped into single
topic areas.
General Provisions, Non-Conforming Buildin.qs. An administrative permit would
now be utilized to enlarge non-conforming single family and two-family
structures to help streamline development requests for improving the housing
stock. The conditional use process would still need be required for expansion
of multiple family, commercial, and industrial non-conforming structures.
General Building Performance Standards. Previously, this section contained
the rules for pertaining to minimum building requirements, which has been
moved to the individual zoning districts. New language was included on rooftop
equipment, which addressed screening and noise mitigation. Aviation
obstruction provisions have been included to address Metropolitan Council
requirements for air space protection.
Lot and Yard Requirements. Many of the setback requirements were previously
found in this section and have now been moved into the various districts. A
number of exceptions to the setbacks were eliminated. Some of the concerns
forwarded to staff were the setbacks for industrial districts that abut a
residential district. One provision that was originally eliminated was the 75-foot
setback for a light industrial district from abutting R-1 or R-2 districts. The
setback for a general industrial district was 100 feet. These were removed with
the intent of establishing a 20-foot side yard building setback. Many times the
yards are used as parking lots, driveway areas, and it was determined that by
moving the building closer to the property line, the building could be utilized for
buffering noisy operations. The appearance of the building could be improved
through landscaping and screening. Currently, the larger setbacks are not
being used in a manner that is compatible with an R-1 or R-2 district. The front
yard average setbacks have also been redrafted for residential properties. The
unit lot area for twinhomes was reduced from 7,000 square feet to 6,000
square feet in the R-2 district.
Performance Standards. This section addresses fencing, landscaping, and
exterior storage. The City has been very proactive in requiring screening and
landscaping for industrial properties and these items were reemphasized.
There had previously been problems with rear yard drainage and placement of
fences and landscaping. Specific verbiage had been added stating that if
fencing, etc. would be placed in the easement, and if the City would need to do
work in the easement, it would be the responsibility of the property owner to
move or replace the fence at their own cost. Commercial fences must allow for
the passage of air, light, and storm water. Removal of landscaping from a
public easement would not require compensation to the landscape owner.
Type and size of trees may be restricted under overhead wires. Performance
standards were established for the storage of recreational vehicles stating:
recreational vehicles may be stored in the front, side and rear yard. In the front
yard, the vehicle must be stored on a durable surface, must be stored 15 feet
from the street curb and not across the sidewalk, and the vehicles stored in the
side yard must be five feet from the property line and screened from the
Planning Commission Meeting 7 April 3, 2001
adjacent property.
Off-Street Parkinq. Parking requirements were studied to adjust required
parking for commercial and industrial properties. Increased parking was
established for medium density residential areas, specifically twinhomes and
townhomes. Senior housing parking requirements were changed to one per
unit with proof of parking if additional parking was needed. A standard was
established to calculate parking demand for other uses not identified in the
Code.
Off-Street Loading. The setback for loading berths from residential uses was
eliminated. This issue had been reinvestigated and the 100-foot setback would
be required for commercial and industrial uses. The building size eligibility for a
loading area waiver would be increased from 5,000 to 7,000 square feet. This
application generally would be in a commercial district and would be by
administrative approval.
Home Occupation. The only change to this section was to add Internet sales.
Temporary Uses. These uses are allowed by administrative permit. Outdoor
sales would include such uses as seasonal farm produce.
There have been no changes in the following sections: Drainaqe Plan; Gradin.q,
Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations; Regulation of Sexually Oriented
Businesses and Adult Uses; Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers.
Each of these sections have been updated in the last several years.
Wetland Conservation Requlations. This entire section was updated to reflect
the State Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991.
Zoning District Changes.
R-l, Single Family Residential District. This district was not changed with
regard to land uses or lot size. Some adjustment to required setbacks have
been made to offer property owners some opportunities for home expansion.
The front yard setback was reduced from 30 feet to 25 feet. The rear yard
setback was reduced from 30 feet to 25 feet. This would allow for residents in
single family homes to expand or modernize their homes into the front or rear
yards.
R-2, Single Family and Two Family District. Lot area and lot width requirements
have been reduced. The lot size for single family was reduced from 9,500 to
8,400 square feet. Two family properties was reduced from 14,000 to 12,000
square feet. These reductions in lot sizes would bring a number of non-
conforming twinhomes into compliance and improve the opportunity for
expansion.
R-3, Medium Density Residential. The range of uses includes twinhomes,
quadraminiums, townhomes, and some multiple family. The lot area for two
family and quads are 5,000 square feet per unit. For multiple family, the area
would be 3,000 square feet per unit. The building height would be limited to
three stories.
R-4, Hi.qh Density Residential. In this district, the medium density uses the area
would be 5,000 per square feet per unit, apartments and condominiums would
be 2,200 square feet per unit, for senior housing apartments, such as St.
Therese and Chardon Court, the area requirement would be 1,000 square feet
per unit. The building height would be increased from four stories to six stories.
R-5, Senior and Physically Disabled Residential. This district only allows for
senior, disability and nursing homes. The area requirements would be one unit
Planning Commission Meeting 8 April 3, 2001
per 1,000 square feet and a building height of six stories.
R-O, Residential Office and RB, Residential Business. Within the R-O district,
office uses and office clinic uses and multiple family consistent with the R-4
zoning would be allowed. Within the RB district, a larger expansion of
commercial uses with limited retail of 4,000 square feet in size would be
allowed. Anything larger than 4,000 square feet would require a CUP. Building
height would be limited to six stories.
Bdxius stated that previously the City had four commercial zoning districts,
which have been reduced to two. The current B-1 limited neighborhood
business district was not being utilized and the B-3 auto oriented district was
underutilized due to the limited uses.
LB, Limited Business. This district was established to provide a broad range of
neighborhood commercial land uses. Anything that was previously zoned B-1
and B-2 would be changed to LB.
CB, Community Business. The current B-3 and B-4 districts became the CB
district, which encompasses a full range of business uses intended to serve the
entire community.
I, Industrial District. There were two industrial districts, Limited and General
zoning. The new I District would include reduced setbacks that offer in-place
expansion. The existing I-1 performance standards would be retained for the
combined district. The only difference would be the 20 percent green area
requirement, which was not a requirement in the I-2 district.
Shoreland Permit Overlay District and Floodplain District. There were no
changes to these districts.
Wetland District. This section was obsolete with the adoption of the 1991
Wetland Conservation Act. Therefore, this section was repealed and replaced
with the new Wetland Conservation Regulations.
Administrative Permits. The Administrative Permit establishes a procedure
which minor improvements may be reviewed and approved by staff without City
Council action. A property owner may appeal an administrative decision to the
City Council if there is a dispute.
Zoning Map Changes
Brixius reviewed all of the properties where staff recommended the zoning
changes:
7801 62® Avenue. Use: shopping center/retail service- from B-1 to LB
· 6113 West Broadway. Use: gas station/convenience store - from B-3 to
CB
· 6144 West Broadway. Use: gas station/convenience store - from B-3 to
CB
· 7105 62nd Avenue. Use: single family dwelling - from R-1 to R-2
· 6024-6034 West Broadway. Use: shopping center- from B-2 to LB
· 9220 Bass Lake Road. Use: residential-office/warehouse - remain the
same, R-O
· 5645 & 5641 Wisconsin Avenue. Use: townhouse - from R-4 to R-2
· 8119 Bass Lake Road. Use: veterinary clinic- remain the same, R-O
· 7910, 7900, 8001, 7901, 7800, 7809, 7801 Bass Lake Road, and 5539,
5620, 5600, 5540, 5550 Winnetka Avenue, and 5559 Sumter Avenue.
Use: mix of commercial properties - from B-2 and B-3 to CB
· 5539 and 5540 Winnetka Avenue. Use: single family houses- from R~I to
CB - for future redevelopment purposes, consistent with the
Planning Commission Meeting 9 April 3, 2001
Comprehensive Plan
· 7610 Bass Lake Road. Use: 11-unit apartment- remain the same, R-O
· 7600, 7550, 7500 Bass Lake Road. Use: office building and two retail uses
-from R-O, B-2, and B-1 to LB
· 5617 Pennsylvania Avenue. Use: 7-unit apartment- remain the same, R-
O
· 7001, 7100, 7112, 7117 and 7204 Bass Lake Road. Use: commercial uses
- from B-2, B-3, and B-4 to CB
· 5001 Winnetka Avenue. Use: dental clinic- remain the same, R-O
· 9400 49th Avenue. Use: gas station - from B-3 to CB
· 4200 Zealand Avenue, 8500 and 8420 42nd Avenue. Use: dental office and
two 11-unit apartment buildings - from R-O to RB
· 4229 Louisiana Avenue. Use: dental lab- from R-O to RB
· Rockford Road between Xylon and Louisiana Avenues. Use: commercial-
from R-O, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1 and I-2 to CB, except for 8320 42nd which
would be LB
· 3900 Winnetka Avenue. Use: church- remain the same, R-O
· 3709 and 3701 Winnetka Avenue. Use: veterinary clinic and office building
- from R-O to RB
· 9416 and 9400-9448 36th Avenue. Use: Post Haste Shopping Center,
commercial - from B-3 and B-4 to CB
· 9401-9413 36th Avenue. Use: office building - from R-O to RB
· 36th/Winnetka Avenues. Use: commercial, Winnetka Commons Shopping
Center and gas station - from B-3 and B-4 to CB
· 9398 and 9390 27th Avenue. Use: home and office - from R-O to LB
(excludes auto sales)
· 8100 27th Avenue. Use: nursing home - from R-O to R-5
· 7901 28th Avenue. Use: dental office/home- remain the same, R-O
· 2738 and 2730 Winnetka. Use: office building and l 1-unit apartment
building - from R-O and R-4 to RB
· 9456 27th Avenue. Use: gas station - from B-3 to CB
· 8016 and 7900 27th Avenue and 2703-2767 Winnetka Avenue. Use:
Midland Shopping Center and dry cleaner- from B-4 to CB
· 7850 27th Avenue and 2720 Winnetka Avenue. Use: gas station/
convenience store - from B-3 and B-1 to CB
Brixius concluded by saying that these were the addresses proposed for zoning
district changes.
Landy asked for comments from the audience.
Mr. Bud Hemken, 3657 Maryland Avenue, voiced opposition for increasing the
building height in industrial districts to six stories.
Ms. Eileen Johanson, 8516 50th Avenue, spoke against the reduced setback
for industrial districts abutting residential districts. She mentioned there was a
lot of noise from Intermet located at 5100 Boone Avenue, the industrial use,
abutting the rear yard of her home and even though there have been some
attempts to muffle the sound, the noise still exists every night.
Mr. Mike Johanson, 8516 50th Avenue, also spoke against the reduced setback
for industrial districts. Mr. Johanson read a letter from Jean Small, friend and
frequent visitor of the Johanson family, supporting their position on the noise
and vibration issues which come from Intermet. Chairman Landy questioned
whether Intermet was in violation of any city ordinance and was informed that a
sound test would be completed sometime in April to determine whether there
were violations of the noise ordinance. Brixius reiterated that Intermet meets
the current 75-foot setback requirement and the noise levels would be
Planning Commission Meeting 10 April 3, 2001
reviewed this spring. The City's noise ordinance is identical to the MPCA.
Brixius stressed that loading type activities, which are common with industrial
uses, become a problem when adjacent to residential areas. The basis for
reducing the setback was to encourage, or mandate through the review
process, moving the building closer to the property line and use the building for
screening purposes.
Oelkers initiated discussion on building heights for industrial districts and
whether or not they should be six or four stories. Discussion ensued on
industrial sites that abut residential areas without a street between the
properties and the noise that may result from the close proximity. Landy
emphasized that the noise issue should be addressed.
Mr. Ted Kroening, 8400 50~ Avenue, stated that he too hears noise from the
Intermet site. He also spoke of the lack of green space, such as Caribou, and
other sites in New Hope, rooftop equipment and the procedure to follow for
nuisance/odor complaints. Brixius responded that the performance standards
for commercial areas do not mandate a percentage of green space. There are
setback and landscaping requirements for commercial areas, which were
adhered to when the Caribou request came before the Planning Commission
and City Council. McDonald stated that residents can call the city comment line
and these calls are directed to the appropriate city staff for a response.
Ms. Jeanette Koehler Harris, 8115 Bass Lake Road, stated her home is
between the veterinary clinic and apartments and requested designation for the
small apartments to the east of her to be a lesser use than the larger apartment
building to the south of her property. Brixius replied that the R-3 uses would be
for two-family or multiple family with 12 units or less. It was determined that the
property containing a larger apartment building to the south of Harris's should
probably be zoned R-4.
Mr. Bruce Kaufman, 5017 Wisconsin Avenue, stated he lives close to an
industrial district and spoke regarding noise issues.
Oelkers reminded the audience that the Planning Commission deals with
zoning issues and the noise complaints should be directed to the City Council.
Ms. Betsy McMillan, 5041 Wisconsin Avenue, spoke against any change that
would increase the noise problem between the industrial district and the
residential areas. Oelkers interjected that the Planning Commission could
make recommendations to the City Council for changes regarding the setbacks
and building heights.
Mr. Ron Latz, attorney retained by Ms. Johanson, stated his business office
was at 520 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis. One of the points he addressed
was the impact on residents by changing the setback for the industrial district
abutting a residential district, which could potentially be any industrial business
next to a residential area. As far as the noise issue was concerned, the
problem was not just the trucks idling in the 75-foot setback, but also rooftop
equipment and ground fans, etc. next to the building. Several photos of the
Johanson property were shown to show the proximity of the industrial use to
her rear yard. Photos of the Johanson's house were shown with cracks in the
wall, pursuant to Intermet moving into the building. Many times there are odors
coming from the building that the exhaust fans do not eliminate. Latz entered
for the record letters from Ryan Basballe, 8524 50t~ Avenue, and Laurie
Lehnertz, 8250 50th Avenue, concerned about loud truck and exhaust fan noise
occurring both day and night at this site.
Latz offered several suggestions for the zoning code: 1) do not reduce the
setback requirements for industrial properties that abut residential R-1 and R-2
Planning Commission Meeting 11 April 3, 2001
properties; 2) retain the existing setback for loading areas; 3) outdoor storage
areas tend to promote rooftop equipment noise and should be kept a fair
distance from residential areas; 4) reduce truck loading hours when adjacent to
residential properties; 5) establish stricter standards than the MPCA for noise
control; 6) soundproof homes; 7) construct a soundwall; 8) better screening;
and 9) establish vibration standards. Latz suggested strengthening and
enforcing the performance standards.
Hemken stated that the Commission appreciated the comments and
suggestions offered.
Bot questioned the feasibility of retaining the existing setbacks and building
heights for industrial properties abutting residential properties. Brixius stated
that could be accomplished. He pointed out that the noise disturbances are
associated with outdoor operations in industrial areas. The noise could be
addressed through building construction and buffering the rooftop equipment
rather than regulating access points and prohibiting the use the 75-foot
setback. Brixius noted that the changes to consider would be returning to the
existing setbacks where industrial districts abut residential districts, retain the
loading berth setbacks, and reducing the building height setbacks. Sondrall
commented that those items could be incorporated into the conditional use
permit performance standards.
Discussion ensued that the 50t~ Avenue neighborhood and the City would need
to follow through with the noise studies with regard to the Intermet site.
Ms. Jeanne Kaufman, 5017 Wisconsin Avenue, spoke regarding odor issues if
industrial buildings would be allowed to locate closer to the residential
properties.
Landy entered a letter for the record from Ms. April Lethert, 5033 Wisconsin
Avenue, who shared her concerns with regard to the noise issue and taller
multiple family buildings.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to
close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Landy questioned whether or not the Commission desired to table or approve
the ordinance. Brixius stated that there were three major issues that prevailed
at the meeting: 1) industrial setbacks from the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts; 2)
loading berth setback; and 3) building height in the industrial districts. Upon
consensus of the Planning Commission, these items could be changed back to
the original requirements and the code could move forward, or the Planning
Commission could table the matter and review it at the May meeting. Hemken
questioned whether all of the industrial district would be changed. Brixius
responded by saying that verbiage could be added to state that where the
industrial districts abut an R-1 of R-2 district, the setback would be 75 feet. The
loading berth setback would be the same as before where it abuts an R-1 or R-
2 district. The building height would remain at four stories where it abuts those
districts. Oelkers questioned whether the noise from the rooftop equipment and
fan would be eliminated if the building moved back. Bri×ius explained that the
ordinance included code requirements to screen the rooftop mechanical
equipment and it also included a provision that all rooftop and ground mounted
mechanical equipment should be buffered to mitigate noise in compliance with
'Chapter 9 of the city code. It may be possible that the City would need to
require more than a wood fence for screening. Sondrall pointed out that the
noise regulations, both at the state level and by reference in the city code, deal
with noises that are continuous in nature. Therefore, the one loud isolated
event during an evening that would only last for a 10 or 30-minute period,
depending on the decibel level or time of day or night that it occurs, may not be
Planning Commission Meeting 12 April 3, 2001
a violation of either the city code or state law and would be very difficult to
enforce. The noise levels for fans, etc. that occur on a continuous nature, can
be monitored. Brixius added that an applicant should be questioned about
noise when they go through the planning process.
Brauch stressed that the City should be sensitive to the areas where New Hope
industry abuts Crystal residential areas.
Kramer reminded the Commission that regulations can be established, but
enforcement also needed to occur. The City should not be so restrictive that it
would keep businesses out of New Hope.
Oelkers wondered whether there was an appeal process for the administrative
permit process and this was confirmed.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Bot, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to
Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 99-06, Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance
Recodifying New Hope Zoning Code, City of New Hope, Petitioner,
subject to the following changes as discussed:
1. Retain existing industrial setbacks from the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
2. Retain loading berth setback
3. Building height not more than four stories where an industrial district
directly abuts an R-1 or R-2 residential district.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Bot, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers
Voting against: None
Absent: Svendsen
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy stated this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on April 23.
Landy suggested that Ms. Johanson contact the Mayor and City Council on the
noise issues with Intermet.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review Oelkers reported that the Design & Review Committee met in March with
Item 6.1 Tioga. McDonald added that the application deadline for May was April 6 and
stated that staff had communication with two possible applicants: an auto parts
store for 36th & Winnetka Avenues and a communications tower at the
Paddock Lab site on Quebec Avenue.
Codes & Standards Landy reported that the Codes & Standards Committee had not met.
Committee
Item 6.2
OLD BUSINESS Green asked city staff to contact Intermet about cleaning up the debris in the
Miscellaneous Issues outside storage area as seen in the photos from Ms. Johanson.
Appreciation was extended by Brixius to the Planning Commission and from
the Planning Commission to Brixius for the work on the Zoning Code Update.
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner
Green, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 6, 2001. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting 13 April 3, 2001
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
Discussion ensued on the house construction project on the city-owned
property at 4864 Flag Avenue.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Anderson mentioned that he would not be at the May meeting.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
...~pectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 14 April 3, 2001
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 1,2001
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 Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Bot, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen
Absent: Anderson, Kramer
Aisc Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC01-04 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Conditional
Item 4.1 Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 70-Foot Galvanized Steel Monopole,
Equipment Platform, and Equipment Within a 25-Foot by 30-Foot Lease Area,
3940 Quebec Avenue North, Sprint PCS and Paddock Laboratories,
Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit
to allow the construction of a 70' galvanized monopole, equipment platform,
and equipment within a 25' by 30' lease area. The property is the Paddock
Laboratories site at 3940 Quebec Avenue, located on the south side of Quebec
Avenue and east of Winnetka. There are I-1 properties across Quebec Avenue
to the north, a church to the west, railroad tracks to the east along with single
family residential beyond the tracks, and Crystal property (cemetery) to the
south. The total site area is 7.5 acres. The last approval for the site was in
1998 for Paddock which included 265 parking spaces, two more than the 263
that code required. This tower proposal would remove two parking spaces,
therefore, the site would still comply with city code parking requirements.
During the review of the current plat, staff noticed that there was an oversight
on an easement that wasn't followed through by the property owner in 1998, so
staff was requesting that the easement be recorded on the plat with this
approval. The Paddock site was built in 1993 and two additions were
constructed in 1998. A future addition was approved for the northwest corner in
1998, however, it has not yet been constructed.
McDonald reported that the applicant, Steve Scriver on behalf of Sprint PCS,
was requesting approval of the CUP. Sprint intended to construct a 70'
monopole on a 25' by 30' parcel of land in the southeast corner of the Paddock
Laboratories site. The proposed facility would consist of a 70' monopole
designed for a second carrier, equipment platform and equipment all within the
25' by 30' lease area. An 8' tall chain link fence, covered with decorative cedar
fencing mounted to the chain link fence posts, would surround the lease area.
Sprint would attach up to 12 antennae to the monopole. The Federal Aviation
Administration would require no artificial illumination. Utilities would be
delivered underground from the street. The owner of the property, Bruce
Paddock, provided written permission for Sprint PCS to occupy the property
and apply for the CUP. Sprint indicated that no other structures are located in
the area that offers the height needed by Sprint for its antennae.
McDonald explained that a registered professional engineer, who indicated the
fall zone for the monopole would be 35 feet, had signed the site plan. The
tower would be located 70 feet west of the east property line and 36 feet north
of the south property line. The proposed tower would be located more than 275
feet east of the Paddock Laboratories building. McDonald noted that property
owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and one call was received
asking for the location of the tower on the property.
McDonald explained that the purpose of a conditional use permit was to
provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion
in determining suitability of certain uses upon the general welfare, public health,
and safety. The City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings,
whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on lands close
by, the effect upon traffic, and other factors deemed important. Other general
criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a
conditional use permit include: 1) whether the proposed use would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 2) compatibility with adjacent land
uses, 3) performance standards, and 4) depreciation in value. Additional zoning
criteria specific to the industrial district would include: 1) nuisance
characteristics generated by the use not to have an adverse effect upon
adjacent areas, and 2) economic return for the community. McDonald stated
that per the Planning Consultant's report, all of these items have been
complied with.
McDonald explained that the purpose of Section 4.039D of the Zoning Code
was to establish predicable, balanced regulations of the siting and screening of
wireless communication equipment in order to accommodate the growth of
wireless communication systems within the City while protecting the public
against any adverse impacts on the aesthetic resources and the public welfare
in the City. Personal wireless service antennas erected on an antenna tower
may be allowed as a conditionally permitted use within Industrial Zoning
Districts if they comply with code requirements: 1 ) The property owner provided
written authorization for the antenna and antenna tower erection. 2) The
applicant provided a letter indicating the tower would be removed within 12
months of cessation of operation and that the cost of removal would be the
responsibility of Sprint PCS. 3) The tower and equipment plans would be
reviewed for compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code prior to
issuance of a building permit. 4) The applicant would be required to submit
structural plans, prepared by a registered professional engineer, as part of the
building permit application. 5) The applicant submitted a copy of the FCC
license with the CUP application. 6) The proposed tower location is on private
property, not city property, therefore, this requirement is not applicable. 7) The
applicant provided a collapsibility letter from the tower manufacturer indicating
that the fall zone would be 35 feet. The setbacks would be adequate based
upon the manufacturer's specifications. 8) The closest antenna tower is more
than 1000 feet from the site. 9) The proposed tower height would be 70 feet,
which would be within the 145-foot maximum height for a two-antenna array
tower. 10) The tower would not require lighting pursuant to the certification
letter from the FAA. 11) No advertising would be affixed to the tower according
to Sprint. A small sign would be attached to the fence on the site giving 24-hour
contact information. 12) Antennas and supporting equipment would be painted
gray and have a galvanized finish. 13) The antenna tower would be of a color
and configuration to minimize adverse visual effects. 14) The proposal was to
enclose the lease area with an 8-foot tall cedar fence. New concrete curbing
along the north and west sides of the tower site to accommodate drainage. The
interior of the site will be surfaced with 3" deep aggregate surfacing over a
weed barrier. Staff would recommend that no storage or equipment would
exceed the height of the fence. 15) To screen the equipment area, the
applicant proposed to relocate three existing trees and install the perimeter
chain link fence. The Police Department recommended that the cedar boards
be spaced one inch apart to insure adequate visibility within the fence
enclosure for security reasons. McDonald pointed out that staff was
recommending that the applicant provide three new trees rather than relocating
Planning Commission Meeting 2 May 1, 2001
the existing trees. 16) The tower would have space available for one additional
carrier. Sprint would be located at the 70-foot height and another carrier could
locate at a 50-foot height. McDonald explained that there was a 20-foot
easement along the driveway that Sprint would utilize as an access easement
to the site. Utilities to the site would be in a 10-foot easement along the south
edge of the pond.
McDonald stated that staff and consultants met to review the proposal and
requested that the applicant clarify the ground cover inside the fence enclosure,
remove the three small trees and provide three new coniferous trees, space
the cedar boards one inch apart for security, and identify the sign verbiage for
the 24-hour phone number. The Design & Review Committee met with the
petitioner and supported staff comments. Revised plans were submitted
showing the ground cover inside the fenced area, the cedar fence boards were
spaced one inch apart, the maintenance sign language was provided. The only
item not address was the replacement of the trees.
McDonald stated that the City Engineer reviewed the plans and offered the
following comments: plans were signed by a registered engineer, the
improvements would not increase storm water runoff and the storm water
quality improvements for the site were met with the site improvements
completed in 1998. The existing curb and gutter would be removed and
replaced and the replacement curb and gutter must match the existing curb
type and maintain the existing drainage. The site would be accessed via the
parking lot and underground cable would be installed along the existing NURP
pond to the tower site. The City Engineer recommended that a performance
bond be established to assure restoration along the pond would be completed
and erosion controlled. McDonald commented that the petitioner had done a
good job submitting detailed plans and staff recommended approval subject to
the conditions in the planning report.
Mr. Steve Scriver, 9936 Windsor Terrace, Eden Prairie, real estate broker and
consultant for Sprint PCS, came forward to answer questions of the
Commission. Scriver clarified that the antennas would be painted to match the
galvanization of the tower, but the tower itself would not be painted because the
galvanized tower would age to a gray finish.
Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion on the contact information for the
sign. Scriver indicated that Sprint operates a nationwide network center that is
open 24 hours per day. The phone number posted on the sign would take the
caller to a person who can answer questions or take a message so someone
can get back to the City within 24 hours on technical or maintenance issues.
Sprint operates and maintains its own sites, with several switch operators
located in Minneapolis. Each of Sprint's sites had a special identification
number, which would be posted on the sign.
Commissioner Svendsen wondered where snow storage would be and
McDonald replied that with only two parking spaces being utilized for the tower,
snow storage was not an issue.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 01-04, Request for Conditional Use Permit to
Allow Construction of a 70-Foot Galvanized Steel Monopole, Equipment
Platform, and Equipment Within a 25-Foot by 30-Foot Lease Area, 3940
Quebec Avenue North, Sprint PCS and Paddock Laboratories,
Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit detailed, signed plans and soils data with building permit
application. All plans must be in compliance with the Minnesota
Planning Commission Meeting 3 May 1,2001
State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state
regulations and permits.
2. Submit revised easement documents (south side) before final
building inspection, and use of tower.
3. Provide three new six-foot coniferous trees north of the
construction area to replace existing.
4. Maintenance of the fence, tower, adjacent landscaping, equipment
and sign will be the responsibility of tower owner. Compliance with
written repair or maintenance orders from the City for a problem
with the tower site must be completed within 21 days, or the work
can be authorized and assessed to the landowner.
5. No storage or equipment may exceed the height of the fence.
6. Comply with City Engineer recommendations.
7. Submit performance bond (amount to be determined by Building
Official and City Engineer) to cover new landscaping, restoration
and other site improvements, except tower and equipment.
Voting in favor: Bot, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Anderson, Kramer
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy informed the petitioner that this planning case would be
considered by the City Council on May 14 and a representative should be in
attendance at that meeting.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design & Review Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in April with
Item 5.1 Sprint PCS. McDonald added that the application deadline for June was May
11, and stated that staff had communication with two possible applicants: Auto
Zone and a single-family residential expansion.
Codes & Standards Landy reported that the Codes & Standards Committee had not met, but would
Committee resume meeting in the near future, due to the Council approval of the Zoning
Item 5.2 Code update.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues There was some discussion on the fact that Checker Auto had moved its
location to the Midland Shopping Center.
Discussion ensued on the passage of the Zoning Code and that it would take
effect as soon as the summary ordinance was published. McDonald mentioned
that the Council approved the Code as it was recommended by the Planning
Commission, and also extended its appreciation to the Planning Commission.
The noise issue with Intermet was also discussed and it was noted that the
company would be cooperative with noise testing and had submitted a new
nighttime trucking plan for all trucks to utilize the north side of the building.
McDonald stated that the Council was concerned with buffers, screening and
noise problems between industrial and single family residential districts and
asked that the Codes & Standards Committee research that issue later this
year. The antenna tower section of the code may also be reviewed later this
year with regard to sign notification phone numbers and a few other details.
There was some discussion on the city-owned Flag Avenue house construction
and the sale of the home.
It was noted that two of the L&A townhomes have been sold.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 May 1,2001
NEW BUSINESS Bot made one correction to condition ~3 for Planning Case 99-06, which should
state, "Building height not more than four stories where an industrial district
directly abuts an R-1 or R-2 residential district."
Motion was made by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner
Green, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 3, 2001, as
corrected. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Landy extended good wishes to Commissioner Bot on his new job
and stated the Commission would miss him.
McDonald reminded the Commission that the City Council would be holding a
joint work session with all Commissions on May 21.
ELECTION OF THIRD Nominations were held to elect a Third Officer to replace Commissioner Bot.
OFFICER Motion was made by Svendsen, seconded by Hemken, to nominate Adam
Kramer for Third Officer. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 5 May 1, 2001
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 5, 2001
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 Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Absent: Green
Aisc Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC01-08 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Three-Foot
Item 4.1 Variance From the 10-Foot Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow
Construction of a House Expansion Seven Feet From the Property Line, 5841
Cavell Avenue North, Tim Preimesberger, Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that the petitioner
was requesting a three-foot variance from the 10-foot side yard setback
requirement to allow construction of a 620 square foot house expansion seven
feet from the property line. The property is located at 5841 Cavell Avenue on
the west side of Cavell Avenue north of Bass Lake Road at 5841 Cavell. All of
the surrounding properties are R-1 single family. The site contains
approximately 12,000 square feet. The lot is pie-shaped with 113 feet on
Cavell and narrowing to 73 feet at the rear. The existing house contains 864
square feet and the existing garage contains 528 square feet. The
Comprehensive Plan indicates this neighborhood is in good to excellent
condition and strongly promotes reinvestment in the homes.
The petitioner submitted a narrative with the application detailing the reasons
for the addition on the house and for remaining in New Hope. The addition
would bring the home to approximately 1,500 square feet. The variance
request is to add onto the home and the expansion would extend three feet
into the side yard setback requirement, due to the fact that the house is not
set parallel to the lot line. The applicant submitted an additional narrative
detailing hardships applicable to the request.
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and one neighbor
to the south came to City Hall to view the plans and stated the proposal was
fine due to the fact that the expansion would be on the north side of the home.
The petitioner stated in earlier correspondence that the property owner to the
north was all right with the plans.
McDonald stated that the purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the
strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code that would prevent
reasonable use of the property, where circumstances are unique to the
property, and the granting of the variance is demonstrated to be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the Code. The new Zoning Code contains seven
criteria to be considered in the granting of a variance. 1) A hardship may exist
by reason of a physical condition unique to the property that could include
size, shape, narrowness, etc. Staff felt that this was an irregularly shaped lot.
, Because of the layout of the street, the property does not have right angles,
therefore, the irregular shape plus the existing building conditions limits the
amount of property available for expansion of the existing home. Staff felt this
could be considered a hardship for the variance. 2) The hardship would have
to be unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought. This lot
does have an irregular shape. 3) The hardship cannot be created by the
landowner. The hardship was created by the original developer of this
subdivision. 4) The character of the locality would not be altered. The
expansion would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It may
encourage similar reinvestment in the surrounding properties and would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 5) It would not impair and adequate
supply of light and air to adjacent property or increase congestion on public
streets or increase the danger of fire. Granting the variance would not impair
the supply of light and air or increase congestion or danger of fire. 6) It would
be the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. While there may be
other design options, this design would be best suited to the applicant. 7) It
does not involve a use that is not allowed in the zoning district. Granting this
variance would allow the expansion of the existing single-family use, which is
a permitted use in the R-1 District. McDonald reiterated that staff was in
agreement that the shape of the property and placement of the house could
be considered as hardships. Similar variances have been approved in the
past.
The staff review team met to review this project and asked for clarification on
several items. Clarify whether or not the entire home would have new roof
trusses. Consideration be given to shifting the wall or location of the addition to
eliminate the need for a variance. Relocating basement bedroom "escape
windows" or provide a guardrail by each window. The Design & Review
Committee concurred with the staff comments and asked the applicant to
submit a narrative that clearly detailed his justification for the non-economic
hardship. A new narrative was submitted and the petitioner confirmed that the
entire house would have new roof trusses and be reshingled, along with new
vinyl siding for the entire home. The original plans showed that the expansion
would be seven feet from the property line, there would be a six-foot building
separation between the house addition and garage, and the utility easement
was located at the rear property line only. McDonald explained that the City
Engineer reviewed the plans and didn't feel that the addition would have any
adverse drainage impacts.
McDonald reiterated that city staff supported the variance and felt that it was
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it does meet the criteria for a
variance, and it would be a substantial improvement to the property. He stated
that staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the planning
report. McDonald mentioned that one condition was for a certificate of survey
to be supplied due to the fact that the house was close to the property line and
the Commission may wish to discuss this item.
Mr. Tim Preimesberger, 5841 Cavell Avenue North, approached the podium.
Commissioner Svendsen asked for clarification that the entire roof would be
removed and new roof trusses would be installed. Preimesberger concurred. It
was pointed out that the basement egress windows had already been installed
approximately three to four years ago and the petitioner had agreed to install
guardrails around those windows. It would not be feasible to move those
windows. Svendsen mentioned that the Design & Review Committee had
discussed with the petitioner about moving windows/doors, the location of the
addition, the need for a fire wall if moved closer to the garage, etc. Discussion
ensued on the as-built survey and Preimesberger stated he did not
understand the need for a survey, due to the fact that it is known that the
northwest corner of the house is currently 10 feet from the property line and
Planning Commission Meeting 2 June 5, 2001
any size addition would encroach into the setback. Svendsen commended the
petitioner for the improvement proposed for his home.
Commissioner Oelkers concurred that a survey was not necessary. He stated
that the Commission and Council should be consistent when a survey would
be required or not required.
Commissioner Brauch interjected that the Commission should hear
comments from the neighbor to the north or have a letter from that neighbor
showing support for the addition.
Commissioner Hemken questioned the drainage from the roof of the addition
onto the neighbor's driveway. Preimesberger reminded the Commission that
there would be seven feet from the closest point of the addition to the property
line and the neighbor's driveway would be even further away. Gutters would
be installed on the addition with runoff draining to the front of the property.
Mr. Craig Purkat, 5849 Cavell Avenue North, came to the podium and offered
his support for the project.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
Svendsen commented that he agreed with Oelkers that if the Council was not
adamant about requiring an as-built survey that the Planning Commission
would not require that the petitioner have a survey completed on his property
at a substantial cost.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 01-04, Request for a Three-Foot Variance From
the 10-Foot Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a
House Expansion Seven Feet From the Property Line, 5841 Cavell
Avenue North, Tim Preimesberger, Petitioner, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Submit detailed construction plans at time of building permit
application, before commencing any work, based on the variance
findings in the Planning Report.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Green
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy informed the petitioner that this planning case would be
considered by the City Council on June 11 and he should be in attendance at
that meeting.
PC01-05 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Site Plan
Item 4.5 Review of a New 5,400 Square Foot Retail Building, 3601 Winnetka Avenue
North, AutoZone, Inc., Petitioner.
Mr. Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the petitioner was requesting site
plan review for AutoZone at 3601 Winnetka Avenue. This site is zoned CB,
Community Business, and the use within the district is a permitted use,
therefore, only a site plan review is required. The site area contains .85 acres.
A 5,400 square foot retail building for the sale of auto parts was proposed.
The building would occupy 14 percent of the total lot area, green space would
Planning Commission Meeting 3 June 5, 2001
comprise 35 percent, and the paved area would consist of the remaining 51
percent.
Brixius noted that the Design & Review Committee identified a number of
recommendations. The proposed use and zoning was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, which identified this area for commercial operations.
The proposed site complies with all required setbacks. The parking would
provide 30 parking spaces, with 25 spaces required. Two ADA parking stalls
would be provided on the northeast front corner of the building. Two curb cuts
would be eliminated from the existing site layout. Hennepin County agreed to
the reduced number of curb cuts. Access points would be provided on
Winnetka Avenue and one on 36th Avenue. The Winnetka Avenue curb cut
was modified from the original plans to better accommodate truck traffic and
turning radius. The 36th Avenue curb cut is shown as 30 feet wide and the
standard curb cut is 26 feet for commercial properties. All truck access would
enter/exit from Winnetka Avenue, so there would be only automobile access
on 36th Avenue. The Commission should discuss the necessity of a 30-foot
versus a 26-foot curb cut with the applicant. This standard was checked with
the City Engineer and he concurred with staff's recommendation. The loading
area was proposed on the north side of the building and would be screened
from both streets. There would be landscaping to the north and the building
would serve as screening to the south. The loading area would serve short-
bed trucks and van deliveries. Larger trucks may have a difficult time
maneuvering into the designated loading area.
Brixius continued by saying that the Design & Review Committee raised issue
with the landscaping plan. Additional plantings were requested along the west
property line with additional over-story trees. The tree type was changed to red
maple autumn blaze per the City Forester. Changes were made to shrubs that
would be more conducive to Minnesota climates. Landscape maintenance still
needs to be addressed, either an irrigation system or outside spigots for
watering. The lighting contours have been changed to comply with city
requirements. Three additional lighting fixtures have been proposed on the
north side of the building and three on the south side of the building. The trash
enclosure would be located on the north side of the building and would have
masonry walls and a front cedar gate, all painted to match the principle
building. The snow storage areas are shown along the north property line. All
rooftop equipment will be screened from view with a mansard. Building
materials were changed on the revised plans per Design & Review's
recommendations. Signage being proposed is compliant with the CB District.
There would be two wall signs on the east and south elevations, a pylon sign
at the southeast corner of the property, and traffic directional signs.
Brixius noted that the City engineer reviewed the plans and the applicant had
addressed most of the of the recommendations. On May 14 the Engineer
noted that the applicant still needed to get permits from Hennepin County for
access and utility connections, pond calculations were still needed, and the
subgrade for the concrete parking lot needed to be addressed, and B612 curb
and gutter should be considered. As of May 30, the pond maintenance
agreement and storm water calculations were still needed.
Hennepin County had reviewed the plans and provided comments that they
encouraged the provision of a seven-foot right-of-way dedication along both
36th and Winnetka Avenues. The County also reminded the applicant to obtain
appropriate access and utility permits prior to construction.
Brixius noted that the Fire Department concerns were the storage of tires and
potentially hazardous or combustible materials. A Fire Lane should be
designated along the south side of the building. A fire sprinkling system in the
building was also requested, but was not mandatory.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 June 5, 2001
Brixius complemented the applicant on the plans. He stated that staff
recommended approval of the site plan, subject to the conditions outlined in
the staff report.
Mr. Jeremy Yee, CEI Engineering, 3317 Southwest I Street, Bentonville,
Arkansas. Mr. Yee stated that AutoZone was a nationwide auto parts
company that has approximately 2,000 stores across the nation. The hours
are 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on
Sunday. Yee explained that the reason for the 30-foot wide entrance on 36th
Avenue was because AutoZone wanted to allow more room for customers
entering/exiting the site with no negative impact on traffic. The drainage
calculations were submitted with the revised plans and all of the City
Engineer's comments were addressed at that time.
Commissioner Brauch asked for clarification on three remaining issues that
were identified by the Design & Review Committee: 1) details on tire
location/storage; 2) yellow stripe curb on south side of building and fire lane
signs; 3) spigots on exterior walls for lawn maintenance. Mr. Yee responded
by saying that AutoZone does not sell tires, a "no parking fire lane" sign would
be installed along the south side of the building, and the construction plans
show two outside spigots at the northwest and southeast corners of the
building. It would be the responsibility of the store manager to maintain the
landscaping on the site. Brauch confirmed that AutoZone was in agreement
with all of the Design & Review Committee recommendations.
Brauch questioned whether the 36th Avenue access should remain at the
requested 30 feet. Brixius responded that the ordinance stated 26 feet unless
approval by the City Engineer is granted. The City Engineer did not nave an
explanation why the petitioner was requesting 30 feet. Mr. Yee stated that
AutoZone felt there would be no negative impact on parking or existing traffic
conditions. Brixius stated that the 26-foot access helped eliminate stacking
problems. It was confirmed that the truck access on Winnetka was 36 feet
wide. Brauch reiterated that the 30-foot access provided a little more room to
maneuver larger SUV type vehicles.
Discussion ensued on the pond maintenance agreement, and Mr. Yee
indicated that AutoZone would execute the agreement when it was received.
There was also some discussion on the drainage calculations, which would
need to be reviewed by staff. The size of the pond had been reduced in size
with the revised plans.
Svendsen questioned whether or not Hennepin County had commented on
the closeness of the driveways for AutoZone and the print shop to the west.
Brixius stated that Hennepin County had approved the plans.
Discussion ensued on the subgrade of the parking lot. Mr. Yee confirmed that
there would be nine inches of subgrade material.
The question was raised about possible pollution control measures and a
lengthy discussion ensued. It was determined that in the event that any
remediation was necessary, the Pollution Control Agency would work with the
property owner or the company causing the pollution for the cleanup of the
site.
Svendsen commended the petitioner on the project and welcomed AutoZone
to New Hope.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Brauch, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 01-05, Request for Site Plan Review of a New
Planning Commission Meeting 5 June 5, 2001
5,400 Square Foot Retail Building, 3601 Winnetka Avenue North,
AutoZone, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit revised plans and a narrative to confirm, in writing, all 14
stipulations from the Design & Review Committee.
2. Enter into Site Improvement Agreement with City and submit bond
to secure the development agreement covering site improvements
(other than building) prior to building permit application (amount to
be determined by City Engineer and Building Official).
3. Submit three sets of detailed construction plans with a building
permit application before any demolition or work begins on the
site.
4. Comply with City Engineer recommendations.
5. Submit information to Fire Department regarding interior storage
(confirm by letter no tire sales) and Fire Lane.
6. Demonstrate (submit narrative) how the landscaping will be
maintained. The construction plans must show either an irrigation
system or outside spigots for watering and maintenance.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Green
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy informed the petitioner that this planning case would be
considered by the City Council on June 11 and a representative should be in
attendance at that meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee had met with both
Item 5.1 petitioners to review the plans.
McDonald stated that one application was expected to file for the July
meeting. The application would be for a charter school in an industrial building
at 5121 Winnetka Avenue. McDonald informed the Commission that the City
Code currently does not allow schools in an industrial district, only specialty
schools or gymnastics. There would be two requests: one for a code text
amendment to allow charter schools in an industrial district by a conditional
use permit and they would submit site plans at the same time. McDonald
asked whether the Codes & Standards Committee would like to meet to
discuss the code issue prior to the Design & Review Committee meeting. He
reiterated that there were two issues to decide: whether the school use should
be allowed in an industrial district and the plan. There was a discussion on this
issue and the consensus was that the members of the Codes & Standards
Committee and the balance of the Commission were not in favor of changing
the code to allow a school use in an industrial district, so it was determined
that no Codes & Standards meeting was necessary. The direction of the
Commission was to notify the potential applicant that the Commission was not
in favor of changing the code to allow a school use in an industrial district.
Codes & Standards Landy reported that the Codes & Standards Committee had not met.
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues McDonald reported that a proposal on the Livable Communities Grant had
Planning Commission Meeting 6 June 5, 2001
been received from the Planning Consultant, staff met and made some
changes, it would go to Council for approval and then the task force would be
formed.
Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that two school district buildings, Sunny
Hollow and Sonnesyn, were not up to code with regard to screening rooftop
equipment. He mentioned that screening should be checked at Meadow Lake
Elementary when improvements are made to that school this summer.
Svendsen stated that the landscaping at the Mobil station at 36th and
Winnetka Avenues was all dead and asked that staff notify the property owner
to replace this landscaping.
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 1, 2001.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council minutes were reviewed.
Chairman Landy initiated discussion on the timely distribution of City Council
minutes. McDonald stated that staff would routinely mail the Miscellaneous
Issues and Council minutes monthly in the event the Planning Commission
was not meeting due to no applications for a particular meeting. It was pointed
out that when the City Council did not agree with a recommendation from the
Planning Commission that they explain their reasons so the Commission
understood and could apply that reasoning to another application.
Discussion ensued regarding the difficulty in hearing the Council meetings on
Cable TV.
It was noted that July 10 would be the next meeting date if there would be an
application for the July Planning Commission meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS McDonald reported that the Community Development/Parks and Recreation
park tour would be held on June 18, beginning at the Golf Course clubhouse
grand opening at 5 p.m. Planning Commissioners were invited to attend.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
f R~.~espectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 7 June 5, 2001
CITY Of NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 10, 2001
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 Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Absent: None
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Shelly Johnson, Bonestroo & Associates, Ken Doresky,
Community Development Specialist, Erin Seeman,
Community Development Intern, Pamela Sylvester,
Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC01-09 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Conditional
Item 4.1 Use Permit for Multi-Tenant Building and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval,
9220 Bass Lake Road, Tharp Family Partnership, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that the
petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit to convert the existing
single tenant (former Prudential) building to a multiple tenant office building
and comprehensive sign plan approval. The property is located at 9220 Bass
Lake Road and is zoned R-O, Residential Office. The property is located at
the northwest corner of Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg Avenue, with access
to the property from Gettysburg. There are single family residential uses north
and east of the site, industrial uses south of the site and the city of Plymouth is
located to the west across Highway 169. The site contains approximately
seven acres. The existing building contains approximately 83,000 square feet,
or 27 percent of the site. The green area occupies approximately 42 percent
of the site and the current paved area occupies approximately 31 percent of
the site area. McDonald reminded the Commission that this site generated
some discussion during the update of the Zoning Code and the Council
determined to leave the site zoned R-O until renovation, reuse or
redevelopment of the site.
McDonald stated that the applicant, Tharp Family Partnership, recently
purchased the former Prudential building and was requesting conversion of
the single tenant building to a multi tenant building. The conversion would not
change the footprint of the building. The only exterior changes would be the
addition of new parking lots, installation of windows on the north and west
sides of the building, and a new entrance on the southeast side of the building.
Upon completion of the renovation, the building would house five to six
tenants. The applicant stated in a narrative that the existing building offered
challenges for use as a conventional office building: not enough parking, too
deep for office use, and no windows on north and west sides. They would
address these challenges by adding parking and reducing the office area
within the building by adding interior atriums. The work would be done in
phases as the building area was leased. The storm drainage system would be
upgraded and a pond added due to the fact that they would be increasing the
impervious surfaces to the site. The office area would be reduced by
constructing two skylit atrium courtyards which would be centered within the
upper level of the building and providing parking in the lower level. The
proposal includes the addition of new windows on the north and west
elevations of the upper level. The existing landscaping was well kept and
would remain, except for the addition of new decorative plantings by the new
office entry, and new plantings on the west to replace those removed for
ponding. The building would be a sound buffer between the busy roads and
the adjacent residential properties. The proposed use would be Iow impact
with most activity during the week when residents are generally at work. The
improvements would make this property an asset to the community.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff received
several calls and several neighbors came in to view the plans. The City of
Plymouth was also notified.
McDonald reported that the proposed office use was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The site was zoned R-O and
professional offices are a conditionally permitted use within that district. The
purpose of the R-O District is to provide for high density residential uses and
the transition in land use from medium density residential to Iow intensity
business allowing for the intermixing of these uses. The reasons that a multi-
tenant building would be appropriate for this site include: the use would
operate during typical business hours with little or no evening or weekend
activity, the site contains significant landscaping along the northern border to
screen it from the adjacent residential uses, and most activity would take
place on the south side of the site away from the adjacent residential uses.
Staff recommends additional landscaping and an eight-foot cedar fence along
the north property line as a condition of approval.
McDonald stated that the purpose of a conditional use permit was 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 criteria to consider include the nature of
adjoining land or buildings, whether similar uses are already in existence, the
effect upon traffic into and from the premises, and any other appropriate
factors. In determining whether to approve or deny a CUP, the City Council
and Planning Commission shall make a finding that the CUP complies with
specific criteria, including whether the request would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, whether the proposed use was compatible with
adjacent land uses, whether it conformed with all applicable performance
standards in the Code, and that the proposed use would not depreciate the
area in which it was proposed. There are also district specific criteria to be
considered for a CUP to allow a multi-tenant professional office building in an
R-O District, including street access/parking, traffic flow, and buffers. The site
and related parking and service areas shall create a minimum of conflict with
through traffic movements. The applicant proposes to phase in three
additional off-street parking areas around the building: one area on the west,
one on the east, and one on the south. These lots appeared to be consistent
with the original design of the site and would not create traffic conflicts through
the site. The site has 69 existing parking stalls. To meet the parking
requirements for a professional office use, the applicant would install 153
additional spaces in three phases, for a total of 222 parking stalls. This would
be 11 more than the code required. Vehicle entrances to parking or service
areas shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. All
traffic would enter and exit the site from the existing Gettysburg access, which
would not change. The Traffic Engineer conducted a traffic study to determine
whether the access should be moved closer to Bass Lake Road. According to
the Traffic Engineer, any traffic generated by the multi tenant building would
not cause any need for improvements to the signalized intersection at Bass
Lake Road and Gettysburg Avenue. The traffic would be a minor change and
Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 10, 2001
no cause for concern. Access to and from the site should remain at its current
location to maintain sufficient stacking distance from the stoplight at Bass
Lake Road to Gettysburg. City staff recommended that the site access
driveway be reconstructed and signed to allow outbound right turns only onto
Gettysburg Avenue to help mitigate the impact to Gettysburg and the
residential neighborhood to the north. When abutting any residential district, a
buffer with screening and landscaping should be provided. The applicant must
provide either green belt screening or a fence along the north side of the
property. The existing landscape plan shows a mixture of coniferous and
deciduous trees planted along its border with the residential uses. It also
shows an existing wooden fence that extends from Gettysburg to the
northeastern corner of the building. The applicant plans to remove six existing
juniper trees and one pine tree to facilitate the construction of the storm water
pond. These trees would be replaced with eight Colorado spruce along the
site's west end. The applicant also plans to construct an eight-foot cedar fence
from the end of the existing fence to the western end of the site.
McDonald explained that the applicant was also requesting approval of a
comprehensive sign plan, which was required when a single principal building
housed two or more businesses. Per the Sign Code, it is the intent of the City
to establish general requirements for the overall building so the signs would
match, however, provided some flexibility for the owner to work with the
individual tenants. The site would have one freestanding monument sign
proposed to be 119 square feet, which exceeds the 100 square foot code
requirement. There would be two wall signs on the west side of the building
and four wall signs on the south side of the building. Each wall sign would be
internally lit, 100 square feet in size and complied with code requirements.
The Development Review Team and Design & Review Committee discussed
the proposed request, including grading and drainage, ponding, Watershed
standards, location of driveway, signage, landscaping/buffers, trash storage,
parking, and the need for a pond maintenance agreement and site
improvement agreement. Revised plans were submitted.
McDonald explained that the expansion would take place in three phases.
Phase 1 would be the west expansion that would include an accessible entry
on the west side of the building, three handicapped parking spaces in the
expanded west parking lot, snow storage areas on the northeast and
southwest sides of the parking area, an eight-foot cedar fence along the north
property line. The Phase 1 east expansion would include parking lot on the
east side of building expanded by 41 spaces, snow storage on the east side of
the parking area, new traffic island entrance which would be signed for right
turns only, divider island with B612 curb between the existing and new parking
areas. The Phase 2 expansion would be on the south side of the building with
61 new parking stalls constructed on the north and south sides of the existing
drive, B612 curb around the parking areas with surmountable curb along the
drive, new walkway and stairs as needed from south parking area to building,
new retaining walls around the parking area, and the condensing unit and
cooling tower would be enclosed. The applicant submitted a photometric plan
that was consistent with code requirements. There would be no changes to
the lighting in the east parking lot. The south lot would have a new double light
post at the southeast corner of the building. There was an existing wall
mounted light on the building. The main level floor plan included a new
elevator, new fixed windows on the north and west sides, five office spaces in
the upper level of the building, mechanical room, loading docks, new
restrooms, and new interior courtyards with skylights. The lower level would
contain office space for Prudential, parking for 30 cars including two ADA
spaces, an overhead door to the parking area, and an exhaust system for
lower level parking, which would be vented to the south side of the building.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 10, 2001
The applicant's plans showed one trash storage location inside the east end of
the building. Staff was concerned that this location would not be large or
centralized enough to serve the entire building. The applicant must
demonstrate that the site can accommodate trash storage inside the building
or within an exterior trash enclosure that would be constructed of materials
that would be complementary to the building. McDonald added that there
would be a new entry at the southwest interior corner of the building and the
existing rooftop units would be painted. McDonald explained that the Building
Official recommended that entry driveway should be widened for panel truck
delivery and the east parking lot should have 90-degree parking with 24-foot
two-way driveways. The site plan boundaries should be corrected to match
the lot survey. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and a traffic analysis was
completed. The Shingle Creek Watershed Commission must review the storm
water pond on the site; and the application has been submitted. The City
Engineer felt the pond was adequate, although storm water pond calculations
need to be submitted. McDonald noted that the site plan showed a mixture of
B612 and surmountable curbing. This issue should be discussed by the
Planning Commission. Staff would recommend B612 unless the area needed
to be accessible for snow storage. The Fire Department requested that
hydrants and connections be identified and that the applicant coordinate on
the fire lanes. Fire alarm system information must also be provided, as well as
documentation on the current sprinkler system.
McDonald stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and
felt it was a good reuse and renovation of the site, subject to the conditions in
the report. The applicant, architect, and Traffic Engineer were all in the
audience to answer questions.
Mr. Paul Strother, architect from Cluts, O'Brien and Strother Architects in
Eden Prairie, came to the podium.
Commissioner Svendsen asked for clarification on the location of the cedar
fence on the north property line. Strother responded that the fence would be
from the northwest building corner west to the property line to provide
additional screening due to the fact that some trees would be taken out for the
pond and parking. It was confirmed that B612 curbing would be utilized on the
site except for the snow storage areas where surmountable would be used.
Strother agreed that the eastern parking lot would be restriped to 90-degree in
parking.
Mr. Shelly Johnson, Traffic Engineer from Bonestroo & Associates, came
forward to answer questions. Svendsen asked for clarification on the service
levels. Mr. Johnson stated that the service levels on Bass Lake Road and
Gettysburg were studied during morning and afternoon peak hours. Levels of
service range from A to F, with service level F being the heaviest. Level D or
better would be acceptable in a metropolitan area. Johnson stated that there
were no problems with this intersection or projected traffic levels. The
intersection would still be C or better; however, one approach may get to D in
the p.m. peak hour.
Svendsen questioned whether the entrance configuration as proposed by the
City Engineer was acceptable and whether the site plan would be corrected.
Signage was discussed and the applicant agreed that the monument sign
could be made smaller to comply with code requirements. Commissioner
Oelkers questioned whether the wall signs would be illuminated and why there
would be signs on the west side of the building when these would not be easily
seen. The applicant responded that two signs were placed on the west to
spread out the signs and so one side of the building didn't have all of the
signage. This would also provide some identity for the tenants located at that
end of the building. The applicant would be agreeable to moving the signs to
Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 10, 2001
the south side of the building. There was some discussion regarding a
monument sign along Highway 169. Mr. Strothers commented that the
monument sign would be placed at the entrance to the property so any visitors
would know they had arrived at the right building.
Discussion was initiated on the trash enclosure. The applicant stated that
there was space available at the west dock and trash storage could be
provided at both the east and west ends of the building. Svendsen
commented that the existing landscaping at this site was mature. It was
suggested that additional Colorado spruce be added at the north end of the
eastern parking lot to screen the site from Gettysburg Avenue.
Chairman Landy asked whether anyone in the audience wished to address
the Commission.
Ms. Jan Rieder, 9301 59th Avenue, came forward. She stated they had two
concerns about the property: the sprinkler system did not appear to be
operating and the grass and some of the trees were dead, and there was
concern whether there would be adequate parking so no on-street parking
would occur as had happened in the past. There was some discussion
whether the illuminated signs on the west would shine in the homeowner's
windows at night. Rieder added that there had been a good relationship
among the residents and Prudential and she hoped that would continue.
Mr. Steve Tharp, general partner of the Tharp Family Trust came forward and
stated that the same lawn care company would be under contract with them to
maintain the lawn. Tharp stated he was not aware that the sprinkler system
was not working and suggested that the higher temperatures may be the
reason for the brown grass. He stated they would discuss the matter with the
lawn care company.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the illuminated signs on the
west elevation. Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, added that the signs on
the west elevation would be above the treeline and fence. It was the
consensus of the Planning Commission to have the applicant move the signs
from the west elevation and place them on the south elevation of the building.
Commissioner Hemken questioned whether the garage door on the lower
level was quiet so there would not be a noise concern for the residents to the
north. The response was that the garage door would be the same as a
residential garage door. Another concern was the exhaust fan needed for the
lower level parking, which would be directed toward the freeway side of the
building away from the residential neighborhood. The existing air conditioning
units are located on the south side of the building. Hemken wondered how the
trash would be picked up. Tharp responded that trash would be contained in
the loading dock area and the garbage trucks would pull up to the docks.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Green, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 01-09, Request for Conditional Use Permit for
Multi-Tenant Building and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 9220
Bass Lake Road, Tharp Family Partnership, Petitioner, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Comply with Sign Code requirements for freestanding sign and all
walls signs be placed on the south side of the building.
2. Comply with City Engineer and Traffic Engineer recommendations,
Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 10, 2001
including design of new access onto Gettysburg Avenue.
3. Approval by Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and
submission of pond calculations.
4. Comply with Building Official recommendations.
5. Comply with request from West Metro Fire and coordinate on
location of fire lane.
6. Comply with Planning Consultant recommendations, including:
A. Demonstrate that they have sufficient parking for each tenant
as the renovation proceeds.
B. Make the following landscape and screening changes:
1) Install eight Colorado spruce along the site's west end.
2) Construct an eight-foot cedar fence along the north
property line from the west end of the site toward the west
end of the building and then south to the building.
3) Install evergreen planting at the north end of the new
eastern parking lot to screen it from Gettysburg Avenue.
C. Demonstrate that the site can accommodate its waste disposal
needs.
7. Execute Development Agreement with City and provide
performance bond for exterior site improvements (amount to be
determined by Building Official and City Engineer).
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy informed the petitioner that this planning case would be
considered by the City Council on July 23 and he should be in attendance at
that meeting.
PC01-07 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Zoning Code
Item 4.2 Text Amendment to Allow Charter Schools in an Industrial District by
Conditional Use Permit, 5121 Winnetka Avenue North, Grubb & Ellis
Company, Winnetka Properties LLC, and Excell Academy for Higher
Learning, Petitioners.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the petitioners were
requesting a zoning text change. Initially, the application was submitted for a
change to the zoning text as well as a conditional use permit to allow for an
educational institution within an industrial district. Subsequent to meeting with
staff and the Design & Review Committee, the petitioner split the application
and was only pursuing the zoning text amendment at this meeting. The
property is located at 5121 Winnetka Avenue and is zoned I, Industrial. The
request was to expand the range of uses within the I District to include
educational facilities, specifically to allow for a charter school. Staff indicated
to the applicant that this was not a permitted or conditional use within that
district and the only way it might be allowed would be through a zoning text
amendment. The applicant provided several reasons why the City should
consider changing the zoning ordinance including the need for additional
charter schools throughout Minnesota and most charter schools are moving
into industrial buildings due to a lack of existing school facilities. Brixius stated
the petitioner indicated in correspondence that New Hope had a high vacancy
rate and the industrial parks were older and not offering the same amenities to
industries that the newer industrial parks offered. Therefore, there would be a
need for more adaptive reuse of New Hope's buildings to provide continual
occupancy and greater vitality within these areas.
Planning Commission Meeting 6 July 10, 2001
Brixius stated that the applicant provided examples of three charter schools in
the Twin Cities area, two in St. Paul and one in Brooklyn Center. The St. Paul
ordinance allowed for schools within the commercial/industrial districts as a
permitted use and does not require Planning Commission or City Council
action. Brooklyn Center required a zoning text amendment to allow schools as
a conditional use within an industrial district when adjacent to a public park. An
important distinction between these two applications was that the Brooklyn
Park school occupies the entire building, while this proposal would share the
site with two other industrial uses.
Brixius explained that in examining the proposal, the City would need to look
at conditions for changing the zoning code. The purpose of the zoning code is
to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community through the
establishment of minimum performance standards, including separate zoning
districts that separate incompatible land uses and would promote orderly
development. Performance standards were established to mitigate the
residual effects of adjacent land uses. This would raise a concern as far as
changing the uses for industrial properties. The purpose of the I District is
intended for heavy industrial and manufacturing uses, which because of their
nature and character, require a degree of isolation from lower intensity
residential uses. The I District is also intended for large scale activities not
suited for other districts. For an industrial park to be successful, industries
need to operate in an unencumbered fashion. The current range of permitted
uses in an industrial district include radio and television antenna, research
laboratories, trade schools, warehouses, essential services, government and
public utility buildings, building materials/appliance and furniture sales,
engraving and publishing uses, wholesale businesses, manufacturing uses
and office uses. Conditional uses range from open outdoor storage to
motels/hotels, to solid and hazardous waste transfer stations to adult uses.
Inherent to these uses are noise, odor, vibration, hazardous materials, outdoor
storage, and traffic. Because of these characteristics, separation from less
intensive land uses would be desired not only for the protection of less intense
uses, but also for the protection of the ongoing operation of the industrial
uses. Brixius stated that schools have been allowed in the past as a
conditional use in all of the residential districts, which provides a safer
environment for the students and was more accessible by pedestrians.
Brixius explained the zoning code stated that "any person who owns real
estate may initiate a text amendment," but when a text amendment is
evaluated, there are three criteria to be considered. First, determine whether
the zoning amendment was necessary to correct a past zoning mistake. At the
time the Comprehensive Plan was reviewed, the decision was made to retain
all of the industrial sites, therefore, the current industrial land use patterns in
the City are not a mistake. The Comprehensive Plan also stated that the City
would promote industrial renovation and in-place expansion. The introduction
of an incompatible land use would be contrary to the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan by not being compatible with the surrounding properties
or the existing industrial use within the building, the use would encumber the
operation and expansion of existing industrial uses, and the Zoning Code
update combined the City's two industrial districts into one district to allow for
very intensive industrial uses, which would not be compatible with school
uses. Second, determine whether the character of the area hanged to warrant
consideration of an amendment. Brixius stated that the applicant provided
information regarding the Iow occupancy rates and the City agrees that
everything should be done to embrace policy to promote renovation and
continued use of the industrial areas. The City disagrees that the introduction
of an incompatible land use would facilitate this. A zoning text amendment
was not for just this single site; the change would be applicable for the entire
Industrial District throughout the community. Nuisance characteristics should
be considered when introducing an incompatible land use. Third, the City
Planning Commission Meeting 7 July 10, 2001
would need to determine whether the proposed action was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the
industrial districts was to enhance the local tax base by encouraging high
quality commercial and industrial building expansion, cohesive land use
patterns to ensure compatibility and strong functional relationships among
activities, transition between distinctly differing types of land uses in an orderly
fashion so as not to create a negative impact on adjoining developments,
retain and expand the industrial land uses to ensure a diverse tax base and
local employment opportunities, and continue to facilitate in-place expansion
of industries. A determination should be made whether these issues would be
accomplished with a zoning text change.
Brixius explained that the Development Review Team reviewed the original
application, and considered the proposed text change and site plan. The
Team was not favorable to the proposed text amendment. The Design &
Review and Codes & Standards Committees considered the application and
were not in favor of the text amendment. Brixius stated that staff agreed that
this was not a good policy, however, the City Council was the final decision
maker. In the event that the Planning Commission and City Council should
choose to approve the text amendment to allow schools as a conditional use
within the I District, staff offered several criteria to consider:
1. The site must be located along a community collector or minor arterial
street as designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The school use shall be the only tenant in the facility.
3. To ensure the safety of all students, bus loading and unloading areas
shall be segregated from all parking areas as determined by the City
Planner and City Engineer.
4. The school shall meet all parking requirements as outlined in the City
Code.
5. There are adequate recreation and open space areas for the ages and
activities of the students enrolled in the school.
6. All outdoor activity areas are fenced and landscaped to screen them from
adjacent properties.
7. The site shall meet all applicable performance standards as outlined in
the City Code.
8. The site shall meet all applicable State Building Code requirements for
school occupancy.
9. All other conditions as outlined by other staff, the Planning Commission or
the City Council will ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the
students.
Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion regarding safe pedestrian crossing
areas if located on a collector or minor arterial street.
Commissioner Oelkers commented on noise issues related to an industrial
park, and the fact that a school use would be quieter. Discussion ensued on
the merits of rezoning a site that would be a single tenant use rather than
changing the zoning code to allow the school use in an industrial district, which
would then apply to any property, including multi-tenant buildings, in that
district. Oelkers concurred that he did not feel a multi-tenant building was a
good use for a school.
Brauch questioned whether staff had discussed other uses that would also fall
into a category that would not be an appropriate use in the industrial district.
Brixius replied that with the Zoning Code update, two industrial districts were
combined to provide a greater variety of industrial uses within the industrial
parks, and to be proactive in the reuse of the properties. Other uses that may
be more compatible could include some commercial uses. However, there
have been problems in the past with regard to parking and traffic. Staff would
Planning Commission Meeting 8 July 10, 2001
continue to consider these requests on a case-by-case basis. There are also
tax implications to be considered with when allowing a tax exempt use in the
industrial district.
Discussion ensued regarding building code occupancy standards and space
for recreational activities, which would need to be considered with every
application. Brixius stated that this applicant was willing to make that
investment in the property.
The question was raised that if the Zoning Code was amended, would the use
have to be at the edge of the industrial district. Brixius responded that he had
visited the issue of writing a standard that would limit the uses to the periphery
of the district. By only allowing schools to have frontage on an arterial or
collector street, the sites would then be located on the periphery of the district.
Commissioner Kramer stressed the fact that there was only one inlet for all
three of the industrial buildings. He stated that this was good industrial site and
would not support rezoning this site.
Mr. Tony Weinstien, Grubb and Ellis Real Estate listing agent representing the
property owner, 5858 Opus Parkway, came to the podium. Weinstine reported
that charter schools are tax paying entities. Typically, traffic at warehouses
was lighter due to the fact that most of the traffic would be trucks as there are
typically fewer employees in warehouses than an office building. Kramer
reiterated that the City was looking into the future and the school use would
limit other industrial uses in that particular building and the buildings
surrounding the site. Weinstine interjected that the applicant was willing to
invest a large amount of money to locate the school use at this site.
Discussion ensued on the fact that a critical issue was whether to allow a
school use in a multi-tenant building rather than a single tenant building. The
main objection for a school use in an industrial district was that, if approved,
the zoning amendment would apply to the entire industrial district. It was noted
that in New Hope there are several sites that would be more appropriate for a
school use that would not be in an industrial district. Brixius questioned
Weinstine by asking whether the school use would limit the leaseability of the
third bay in the building and Weinstine concurred.
Kramer reminded the applicant that the decision on whether or not to approve
this text amendment not only would allow it at this site but throughout the
entire industrial district in the future. This use is not appropriate in a multi-
tenant building.
Hemken wondered what would happen to the existing business at this site if
the property was rezoned, and the response was that the use would be non-
conforming.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, commented on the issue of spot rezoning
and the fact that those sites would also need to be compatible with
surrounding properties and land uses. Brixius stated that zoning was a land
use issue and whether the school was a charter school and paid taxes or a
public school and was tax exempt was not an issue from the planning
perspective.
Kramer stressed that after the recent review of the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Code, he felt no mistake in zoning designations had been made and
the zoning code should not be changed. Commissioner Green concurred with
this viewpoint and the current industrial zoning should stay as is.
The City Attorney explained that specific criteria were established for
properties to comply with when applying for a conditional use permit
Planning Commission Meeting 9 July 10, 2001
associated with a specific property. The criteria are important to the question
of whether the land use would be appropriate for one site or another site.
Brixius stressed that the issue now was whether schools were appropriate for
industrial districts. If the Planning Commission does not feel that schools
should be allowed in the industrial district, the recommendation to Council
should be for denial of the request. If the Commission felt that the school use
was appropriate, the specific language should be agreed upon. Brixius added
that schools currently are allowed under a different zoning classification.
Sondrall added that the Planning Commission discussed and agreed that a
school use would be more appropriate in a single tenant building in the
industrial zoning district, which would eliminate the proposed site.
Weinstine mentioned that many charter schools look for industrial buildings
because they are less expensive and they receive limited funding from the
state.
Oelkers wondered what the reason was that a single tenant building was most
desirable. Brixius stated that a single tenant building provided some
separation due to lot size and setbacks from adjoining properties. The site
would be self-contained and the traffic would be exclusive to the school. The
school use could be isolated from other industrial uses by allowing it at the
periphery of the industrial district, and no intermixing of employees, traffic, etc.
Chairman Landy asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the
Commission.
Mr. Gene Rerat, representative of Winnetka Properties LLC, 600 2nd Street
South, Minneapolis, came forward. He stated that originally another real estate
agent came to them to find a location for a charter school in this area to fill an
unmet need. The charter school was led by a woman who had background in
education and specifically with students who needed extra assistance. He
stated that Winnetka Properties desired to serve a need in the community.
After meeting with the Design & Review Committee, he felt they could address
all of the issues presented, except for having a school in a single tenant
facility. The hours of traffic generated from the school versus existing traffic
would be compatible because there would be specific hours when employees
and students arrive and leave the premises. A large percentage of the
students arrive in busses. Rerat stated that charter schools are tax paying
entities. The school use would also provide for more employment
opportunities.
Commissioner Hemken questioned whether the vacant schools were checked
out. Mr. Tim Dunphy of Grubb & Ellis Real Estate stated that they talked to the
School District and there were no empty school buildings. Dunphy stated that
the Hosterman school was their first choice.
Kramer pointed out that the Planning Commission did not look at the
economic advantage or disadvantage for a property owner.
Green stated that parents and teachers were concerned about segregating
children from workers even during short-term construction projects in the
school buildings. She stated that as a parent she would be opposed to having
children in close proximity to an industrial type environment. Rerat commented
that the construction project for this school would be completed prior to the
school utilizing that facility. There would be ways to separate the school use
from the other uses in a multi-tenant situation.
Sondrall stated he understood that the funding agency for charter schools
came from the Minnesota Department of Families and Learning and they
Planning Commission Meeting 10 July 10, 2001
would have to approve the lease to receive funding. Sondrall questioned
whether that agency had a position on schools in an industrial building or
single tenant versus multi tenant buildings and was told no. Weinstine stated
that the Executive Director of Minnesota Association of Charter Schools
looked at the building and correspondence from the Executive Director stated
that "the initial success of a charter school is maximized when the school
locates in a setting appropriate to the proposed school." This statement does
not make if clear whether the Minnesota Association of Charter Schools would
approve of a single tenant or multi-tenant building. Kramer added that charter
schools are covered under the state fire marshal and wondered whether
anyone had contacted that office.
Weinstine .reiterated that education was a local decision and was important for
the community. He stated that the demographics in New Hope have changed
and the reason the Federal government was supporting this was to give
people options. Some of the minority students in the school district are not
finding a satisfactory situation compared to some of the urban schools.
Hopefully this school could benefit the community.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
Commissioner Svendsen commented that under the definition and uses such
as hazardous waste and materials, noise, odor, vibrations, outdoor storage,
etc. for the I District, he strongly opposed introducing a "soft" use into a district
that was set up to be used harshly as an industrial district. The City needed to
offer a district that could be used for heavy industrial type operations.
Kramer stated that he was not opposed to schools and agreed there was a
need for them, however, he was strongly opposed to allowing schools in
industrial sites and would not support this request. He pointed out safety
issues and the appropriate use of the site.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Green, to
Item 4.2 deny Planning Case 01-07, Request for Zoning Code Text Amendment to
Allow Charter Schools in an Industrial District by Conditional Use
Permit, 5121 Winnetka Avenue North, Grubb & Ellis Company, Winnetka
Properties LLC, and Excell Academy for Higher Learning, Petitioners.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy informed the petitioner that this planning case would be
considered by the City Council on July 23 and a representative should be in
attendance at that meeting.
Brixius mentioned that the petitioner had another possible building in mind and
requested that the Codes & Standards Committee review the appropriateness
of that site for the school use.
Discussion ensued on buildings available for charter schools and the
appropriate district for these schools.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee had met with both
Planning Commission Meeting 11 July 10, 2001
Item ,5.1 petitioners to review the plans. McDonald reported that the deadline for the
August meeting was July 13 and staff would notify the Committee if a meeting
would be necessary.
Codes &Standards Landy reported that the Codes & Standards Committee had not met.
Committee McDonald reported that staff had been working on some minor code changes
Item 5.2 and a Committee meeting may be scheduled later this summer. Issues may
include signage for antenna towers, I District buffers between industrial and
residential properties, and minor changes to the sign code.
Kramer added that possibly the Committee could study compatible uses for
the vacant industrial buildings. He requested that staff obtain information from
other cities as far as location, any problems with development around the
schools, and the track record of the schools. Brixius pointed out that Brooklyn
Park had a provision in its code to allow the schools in an industrial district if it
abutted a park. Brixius stated that in his experience of businesses looking to
relocate, other than needing additional space, that sometimes these
businesses created nuisance problems with adjoining properties because the
operation changed or their equipment had aged. Rather than invest in the
current location, they look for a new location. This would be a critical element
in any consideration as far as filling the vacancies. Kramer added that he
would be opposed to making standards so strict that the code would limit
businesses looking to relocate in New Hope.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues There was some discussion on AutoZone proposal and on L & A townhomes.
McDonald reported that the City Council approved the proposal for the Livable
Communities Grant and that staff was putting together a list of interested
persons for a task force, which would begin meeting in August.
Commissioner Anderson commended staff and the planner for the work put
into the text amendment issue presented earlier at this meeting.
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner
Kramer, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 5, 2001.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed.
A question was raised about a visioning committee and when that would get
under way. McDonald responded that the Livable Communities Committee
would begin meeting and then the visioning process would begin.
ANNOUNCEMENTS McDonald reminded the Commissioners about the city picnic on July 24.
It was noted that the August meeting was changed to Wednesday, August 8,
due to National Night Out being held on the regular Tuesday meeting night.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 12 July 10, 2001
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 6, 2001
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 Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Kirk McDonald administered the oath of office to the new planning
commissioner Cynthia Barrick. Chairman Landy welcomed her to the Planning
Commission.
ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Green (arrived at 7:18), Kramer,
Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen
Absent: Hemken
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Erin Seeman, Community Development Intern, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC0'I-11 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Ordinance
Item 4.1 No. 01-10, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code Regulating
Accessory Signage in the R-B, L-B, C-B, and I Zoning Districts, City of New
Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that this was an
amendment to the Sign Code to bring it into conformity with the updated
Zoning Code. The Zoning Code was adopted by the City Council in April 2001
and several of the zoning district classifications were changed, such as the
B-1 and B-2 districts were consolidated into the new L-B Limited Business
District, the B-3 and B-4 districts were consolidated into the new C-B
Community Business District, the I-1 and I-2 districts were consolidated into
the new I Industrial District, and some of the R-O districts were changed to the
new R-B Residential Business designation. This ordinance amendment
makes the necessary changes to the Sign Code.
McDonald reported that staff discussed these concerns with the Planning
Consultant and the City Attorney. The City Attorney drafted this ordinance
based on the Planning Consultant's and staffs recommendations. The Codes
& Standards Committee reviewed the changes and recommended approval of
the amendment to the full Planning Commission.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
Item 4.1 approve Ordinance No. 01-10, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope
Sign Code Regulating Accessory Signage in the R-B, L-B, C-B, and I
Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Green, Hemken
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on November 13.
PG01-12 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Ordinance
Item 4.2 No. 01-11, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.039D of the New Hope City
Code Regulating Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers, City of
New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that this
ordinance would amend the New Hope Zoning Code to require signage on
personal wireless service antennas and towers to identify the owner of the
tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. Over the past
several years, staff has become concerned about the maintenance at some of
the personal wireless antenna and tower sites in the City and the ability to
contact the appropriate responsible party. Due to the increasing number of
requests to construct towers, staff recommended that the City formally amend
the code to require appropriate signage be posted at each site. This
emergency information has been one of the conditions of approval for both
tower proposals considered during the past year. This amendment would
officially incorporate in the Zoning Code the requirement for signage at tower
sites.
McDonald reported that staff discussed the concerns with the Planning
Consultant and the City Attorney. The City Attorney drafted this ordinance
based on the Planning Consultant's and staff's recommendations. The
ordinance would be amended in three places with basically the same
language, which says, "The owner/operator of the antenna shall place a sign
not to exceed two square feet on the associated ground equipment. This sign
shall identify the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact
information."
McDonald stated that the Codes & Standards Committee reviewed the
ordinance at its meeting in September and was recommending approval to
the full Planning Commission.
City Attorney Sondrall stated that all the ordinance amendments related to the
Zoning Code were public hearings and notice was published in the official
newspaper of the City.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned how this ordinance amendment would
affect existing towers. The Planning Consultant responded that it might be
possible to contact the existing tower owners and suggest that they provide
maintenance information. After the adoption of the ordinance, any existing
towers would be classified as legal non-conforming. The Commission
recommended that staff contact existing tower owners to provide emergency
information to the City.
Chairman Landy noted that there was no one in the audience for comment on
the ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
Item 4.2 approve Ordinance No. 01-11, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.039D
of the New Hope City Code Regulating Personal Wireless Service
Antennas and Towers, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Planning Commission Meeting 2 November 6, 2001
· Svendsen
· Voting against: None
Absent: Green, Hemken
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on November 13.
PC0'1-16 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for Ordinance
Item 4.3 No. 01-08, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing
Administrative Permit Fees, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Ms. Erin Seeman, Community Development Intern, stated that this ordinance
amendment would amend the New Hope City Code by establishing
administrative permit fees. When the Zoning Code was updated, an
administrative permit process was established to allow certain plan review
approvals at city staff level to eliminate red tape and the need for applicants to
go through the Planning Commission and City Council process. When the
administrative permit process was adopted, no fee was established for the
application, plan review/approval, and inspection process. The Zoning Code
update addressed only the issue of the initial permit and did not make
references to any future amendment to said permit. Seeman stated that staff
was recommending that this clarification be added to the Code.
A public hearing notice was published in the official newspaper of the City.
Seeman reported that staff, the Planning Consultant and City Attorney
reviewed this issue. The first two sections of the code amendment simply add
"or amendment" to the existing verbiage. The second section clarifies that the
fee would be established by ordinance, not by resolUtion. The third section
establishes the fees. Fees as recommended are: permitted home occupation
$25; residential other than home occupation $50; and commercial/industrial
$100. The types of administrative permits that would be issued include:
residential - expansion of a nonconforming single-family dwelling or the
reduction of a side yard setback for an accessory building;
commercial/industrial could include applications for outdoor sales of seasonal
products, drive-through service lanes, outdoor dining, limited retail sales, and
outdoor storage of propane or LP gas. Each of these items would require staff
time to explain the process and plans necessary, review and approval of the
plans, discussions with the applicant, possible review of revised plans, and
field inspections. Seeman explained that staff felt the fees were minimal and
reasonable.
The Codes & Standards Committee and staff reviewed this proposed
ordinance and recommends approval to the full Planning Commission.
Commission Kramer pointed out that the City could not charge a fee that was
more than the cost of the service. There was no basis for determining the fees
at this time because these costs are not tracked. Kramer recommended that
staff begin tracking these costs and that fees be changed in the future to
reflect actual costs.
Commissioner Brauch questioned whether the administrative permit fee would
be applied toward the regular planning application fee if the request was more
complicated and needed to go through the regular Planning Commission and
City Council process. McDonald replied that the original fee could be refunded
or applied toward the planning application fee. The scenario might be that the
applicant would meet with staff first to determine whether or not the
administrative permit application was the correct process to follow. McDonald
stated that staff estimated the costs for the inspector's time, review of plans,
Planning Commission Meeting 3 November 6, 2001
· inspections, etc. to be $85. This figure did not include facility rental, computer
equipment, clerical time, etc. Planning Consultant Alan Bdxius stated that
previously items which now would be approved administratively required a
variance or conditional use permit, which were more costly. The administrative
permit process would also reduce the time required to obtain approval for the
request from approximately five weeks to one week.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the fees and whether or not
inflation had been factored into the amendment. Sondrall stated that due to
the fact that the fees would be established by ordinance, the fees could also
be amended by ordinance whenever a determination was made that the fees
were not right based on actual costs. The Planning Consultant commented
that it might be prudent to include a provision to review the fees in a certain
amount of time. The City Attorney interjected that the purpose of this
ordinance was not to analyze whether the fees were too high or Iow, but
basically to set a fee for a review on an administrative basis that the City has
never had in the past.
Oelkers asked for clarification on a permitted home occupation, which would
be a business that would not generate traffic to and from the home and where
there would be no employees other than the homeowner. The fee for this type
of application would be minimal due to the fact that very little staff time would
be needed for the review.
Chairman Landy stated he felt the proposed fees were too Iow, even though
fees should be revenue neutral. The consensus of the Commission was to
initiate a review of the fees in one year. McDonald noted that a comparison of
fees of other communities was completed every few years and staff could
complete another review of fees in the next several months.
Kramer added that it was not unusual for a city to not charge the full cost for
review to the applicant.
Chairman Landy noted that there was no one in the audience for comment on
the ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Green, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
Item 4.3 approve Ordinance No. 0'1-08, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope
City Code by Establishing Administrative Permit Fees, City of New Hope,
Petitioner, subject to the following direction to staff:
'1. Staff track costs of service and present actual costing method and a
recommended fee within one year.
2. Subsequent annual review of permit fees.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Green, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on November 13.
PC0'1-17 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Request for Ordinance
Item 4.4 No. 01-09, An Ordinance Amending the Voting Requirements for Zoning Code
Planning Commission Meeting 4 November 6, 2001
Text or District Changes, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that historically communities
required a super majority vote when changing zoning district boundaries within
the community. A super majority was an added protection for land use
change. Last spring the Minnesota Legislature enacted a new statute
changing the municipal voting on zoning ordinance amendments in both text
and maps. Municipalities now need to approve zoning changes with a simple
majority with one exception, which would be when residential property is being
changed to a commercial or industrial land use. Consistent with mandated
state legislation, staff is proposing a number of ordinance changes. Under
"required votes," Provision A outlines a super majority vote when a zoning
map is being changed from residential to commercial or industrial. Provision B
encompasses other zoning text amendments and standard zoning map
changes, as well as conditional uses and variances, and requires simply a
majority vote. The ordinance amendment brings the New Hope Code into
conformity with state statutes. The Codes & Standards Committee and staff
recommend approval to the full Planning Commission.
Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion on what would happen on a super
majority vote if one Councilmember abstained or was absent. Sondrall replied
that an abstention, absent member, or vacancy on the council would be
counted as a "no" vote. With a simple majority vote, two out of three members
on a five-member council would be a quorum, and could enact policies. This
legislation deals only with city councils.
Chairman Landy noted that there was no one in the audience for comment on
the ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
Item 4.4 approve Ordinance No. 01-09, An Ordinance Amending the Voting
Requirements for Zoning Code Text or District Changes, City of New
Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Green, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on November 13.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee had not met since
Committee June. McDonald reported that the deadline for the December meeting was
Item 5.1 November 9, and that there may be an application for a mini-storage facility in
an existing warehouse for the December Planning Commission meeting. Staff
is aware of three potential applications for January, including a Navarre
expansion, the charter school at the former Prudential site, and Olson
Construction.
Codes & Standards Kramer reported that the Codes & Standards Committee met in September
Committee and October and discussed the issues approved at this meeting. McDonald
Item 5.2 stated that in December the Planning Commission would review allowing bulk
packaging of liquor for Simon Delivers' request and charter schools.
Planning Commission Meeting 5 November 6, 2001
· Chairman Landy explained to Commissioner Barrick the purpose of each
subcommittee and that she would have a couple of months to decide which
subcommittee she would like to be assigned to. It was noted that four
Planning Commissioners were allowed on each subcommittee.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues McDonald stated that the next Livable Communities Task Force meeting
would be on November 15. Four Planning Commissioners are serving on the
Task Force.
The 2002 Planning Commission schedule was discussed and the final
schedule will be distributed with the December packet and the schedule would
be posted on the City's website.
Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that Simon Delivers large delivery trucks
are utilizing a route along Flag Avenue to 36th Avenue to Winnetka Avenue.
He stated he witnessed from three to six trucks daily from 7:15 to 8:15 a.m.
and more throughout the day. He stressed that the City Council may want to
consider widening 36th Avenue to a four-lane design when it is upgraded, due
to the fact that there is a large amount of truck traffic on 36th Avenue.
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 10,
2001. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council minutes were reviewed.
Good wishes were extended to Commissioner Green on the School Board
election. Sondrall stated that if she was elected to the School Board, there
should be no problem with her continuing to serve on the Planning
Commission.
ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 6 November 6, 2001
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 4, 2001
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 Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Absent: None
Aisc Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC01-22 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Consideration of a Text
Item 4.1 Amendment to Section 4.205 Conditional Uses in the Industrial Zoning District
Dealing with Mini-Storage Facilities Within an Existing Warehouse Building in
an I District and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Mini-Storage Facility in an
I District, 4401 Quebec Avenue North, Hudson Properties, Inc., Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that the
petitioner was requesting two things. The current Zoning Code allows mini-
storage facilities in the industrial district by conditional use permit; however,
the code refers to freestanding outdoor facilities. The applicant owns a
warehouse at 4401 Quebec and approached the City with a proposal to
convert the interior of the building into an interior mini-storage facility. Staff felt
the proposal was a good idea, but the existing code did not address that
specific use. Therefore, staff recommended an amendment to address interior
storage facilities and to allow that use by conditional use permit. This
application was first for a text amendment to allow the mini-storage use by
conditional use permit and second for a conditional use permit to allow the use
in an I District.
The property is located in an industrial district approximately 900 feet noah of
42® on Quebec Avenue. The surrounding land uses are high-density
apartments to the west and northwest of the site, city park to the noah, and
industrial uses to the east and the south. The building contains approximately
46,000 square feet. The property is located in Planning District No. 9, and the
Comprehensive Plan indicates the City would promote business retention and
in-place expansion in this district. The property is generally fiat, except the
northwest corner, which rises about 6 feet. There was no storm sewer or
ponding on the site. The noah and west walls of the building are blank, with no
doors or openings on those sides of the building, so no land use conflicts
exist.
McDonald stated that the owner of the property is Hudson Properties and they
were requesting to redevelop the existing office/warehouse into a self-storage
facility with 176 storage units. The self-storage facility would occupy only the
warehouse portion of the building. The office area would remain open for an
additional tenant. The building was constructed in 1968 with an addition
erected on' the north in 1974. Displaymasters occupied the building the entire
time.
The petitioner stated in correspondence that the building was being marketed
for sale or lease for the past two years and there had been no interest. The
mini-storage facility would be a climate-controlled facility and fully enclosed
within the existing building. The facility would provide local, climate controlled
storage access to New Hope residents. McDonald displayed the floor plan and
pointed out the location of the manager's office, access to the site at the south
driveway, the drive lane through the building, and exiting the site at the north
driveway. The front (east) portion of the building was office space. There
would be five sizes of storage units, with a chain-link fence type screening
over the top of the units to allow inspection access.
McDonald reported that the applicant met with the Design & Review
Committee, city staff and consultants and all were supportive of the request.
Items discussed included providing a fire lane and deleting the parallel parking
at the front of the building, identifying hours of operation, consider changing
the manager's office to a more visible location, submitting sign plan, providing
interior security cameras, submitting lease language, identifying landscaping
and plant species, curbing along the south property line, trash dumpster
location, and illumination contours and exterior lighting. The Design & Review
Committee suggested that Codes & Standards review the text amendment.
McDonald explained that the existing building met all zoning and setback
requirements. The proposed use was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The city code does not specify parking standards for this type of use,
therefore, other professional sources were consulted. The American Planning
Association recommended three off-street parking stalls plus one stall for
every 100 units, or 5 stalls. New Hope code states that parking standards for
an office/warehouse building would require 52 stalls. The current site plan
identifies 41 off-street parking stalls, which was acceptable with staff. The nine
parallel parking stalls at the front of the building were removed, per the
request of West Metro Fire, who recommended that this front driveway be
identified as a fire lane, signed and painted. Two handicapped accessible
stalls wou~d be located in the south parking area. All loading would occur
within the building. The lighting plan shows existing lights on the east and
south sides of the building. Two new wall lights would be installed on the south
side of the building and one new light would be installed on the east side of the
building. Three snow storage areas are shown on the site plan. A new
bituminous curb is shown on the site plan along the south property line. The
City Engineer was recommending that this curb be concrete. All refuse
containers would be stored inside the building. The site plan indicated a two-
sided 40 square foot ground sign on the east side of the building and a one-
sided 250 square foot wall sign on the south wall. Due to the fact that this
could be a multi-tenant building, staff requested that the applicant submit a
comprehensive sign plan showing where signage for an additional tenant
would be located, which was required for a multi-tenant building. A
landscaping plan was submitted showing existing green space made up of
grass, coniferous and deciduous trees. The applicant has added a green strip
at the south end of the property and would be planting five sugar maples. The
hours of operation would be 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 6
a.m. to 6 p.m. on the weekend. A draft rental agreement was submitted. Prior
to issuance of a building permit, more detailed plans would need to be
submitted.
McDonald stated that there were no site drainage or storm water issues
identified. The Police Department and West Metro Fire reviewed the plans
and their recommendations would need to be complied with.
The Codes & Standards Committee reviewed verbiage changes in the current
ordinance, as well as new text for the warehouse conversion to mini-storage.
The conditions include: on-site manager required, fire sprinkler system
Planning Commission Meeting 2 December 4, 2001
required, prohibited storage, routine inspection access by Building Official or
Fire Department, prohibited uses, and interior access only. The City Attorney
prepared the final code amendment.
McDonald explained that the purpose of a CUP was 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. Consideration must be made for the nature of adjoining land or
buildings, similar use already in existence, and effect upon traffic. There are
several additional criteria in the current code to consider as well as the criteria
in the new text amendment. The applicant has met all of the conditions.
Mr. Jim Kellison, Kellison Company, representing the petitioners, came
forward and stated that he was providing real estate development services
and general contracting services for the petitioner.
Commissioner Svendsen stated that the applicant had complied with all
recommendations of the Design & Review Committee. It was noted that the
only exterior work proposed would be shortening the south parking lot and
adding green space in that area, i.e. grass and trees.
Commissioner Kramer stressed an on-site manager was necessary. He
expressed concern over a multiple use building with possible storage of
hazardous chemicals near an office area. The manager should be vigilant in
enforcing the condition that no chemicals are allowed in the storage units. He
also maintained the importance of a firewall separating the office area from
the warehouse. Mr. Kellison interjected that the building was equipped with a
fully automated fire sprinkler system and the applicant would be sure that it
met all the requirements of the Fire Department. The building plans would
meet the requirements for separation between the office and warehouse
areas. Kellison stated that with most fire systems, the sprinkler heads go off at
the first sign of smoke and many times there is more water damage than fire
damage. There will be surveillance cameras and a manager on-site during the
hours of operation.
Commissioner Hemken initiated discussion on trash storage. Kellison noted
that this storage use would generate very little trash. The office use would
produce some paperwork. Any trash that would be collected would be kept in
a receptacle inside the building, and at the time of pickup, the manager would
open the door, roll out the container, and bring it back in immediately.
Hemken questioned how the floor would be kept clean so rainwater or snow
does not run from the drive aisle into the storage units. Kellison stated that
there would be a flammable waste trap at the entry area with a trench drain. A
section of concrete would be changed to slope toward the drain. It would be
the managers responsibility to be sure cars remain over the drain until snow
melts off. The manager may need to mop up some areas if vehicles drive
through without drying off first. He reminded the Commission that the building
would be heated with good air circulation, so the floor would dry. There may
only be 20 cars per day that would drive through the facility. The areas
adjacent to the drive aisles would have a sealant under the bottom plate to be
sure the water does not encroach into the renter's storage unit.
Commissioner Barrick questioned the safety for storage of vehicles with fuel
left in the gas tank. Kellison confirmed that there would be no storage of
vehicles allowed. The rental agreement would limit the types of materials that
could be stored, such as normal household materials. Barrick questioned
whether there would be a lot of noise early in the morning on Saturday and
Sunday. It was noted that the facility would be secure, the renter would be
given a key code or a card to enter the facility and the door would
Planning Commission Meeting 3 December 4, 2001
automatically dose once the vehicle was inside the door.
Chairman Landy noted that there was no one in the audience for comment on
the ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 01-22, Consideration of a Text Amendment to
Section 4.205 Conditional Uses in the Industrial Zoning District Dealing
with Mini-Storage Facilities Within an Existing Warehouse Building in an
I District.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer,
Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Green, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 01-22, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
Allow a Mini-Storage Facility in an I District, 4401 Quebec Avenue North,
Hudson Properties, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to any site work, submit detailed, signed plans that
demonstrate full compliance with the State Building Code.
2. Compliance with all recommendations from West Metro Fire. The
applicant shall provide written evidence prior to issuance of a
building permit that a qualified fire protection consultant has
evaluated the existing system and that they have made all
necessary additions or improvements. This written evidence is
subject to the review and approval of West Metro Fire.
3. Submit Comprehensive Sign Plan details. The site shall meet the
sign standards for multiple occupancy businesses outlined in
Section 3.493. Because the building is a multiple occupancy
building, future tenant occupancy of the office space shall require
review by city staff to insure proper compliance with all zoning and
building regulations prior to occupancy.
4. Comply with recommendations for bituminous curb along south
property line.
5. Establish fire lane along east driveway with appropriate
painting/signage.
6. The applicant shall submit a cut sheet illustrating the design of the
proposed lights to insure that all light will be directed down toward
the ground.
7. The applicant must submit a copy of their rental contract prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy that specifies the following:
(1) no hazardous materials, chemicals, gasoline, or flammable
liquids can be stored in any storage space, except for normal
household quantities, (2) a maximum of four vehicle tires may be
stored in any rental space, and (3) absolutely no propane or
flammable gases are permitted in the building. No living, sleeping,
cooking, commercial or industrial uses, except for storage, shall
occur within the mini-storage facility. There shall be a full-time
manager supervising the facility during all hours of operation.
8. Petitioner to submit statement agreeing to all six (6) conditions in
new code amendment.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 December 4, 2001
9. Have surveyor describe a drainage and utility easement over the
west 20 feet of property, submit to the City for approval and then
record the easement on title at Hennepin County.
10. Execute Development Agreement with City and submit
performance bond for minor site improvements (amount to be
determined by Building Official and City Engineer).
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer,
Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on December 10 and advised the petitioner to be in attendance.
PC01-19 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Ordinance
Item 4.2 No. 01-14, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code Section 4.204(3) by
Permitting by Administrative Permit the Retail Sale of Bulk Product in the
Industrial Zoning District Delivered or Repackaged for Resale at Principal
Building, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that this
amendment would add minimal language to the existing code. Simon Delivers
had been coordinating with the City on potentially obtaining an off-sale liquor
license to allow the delivery of liquor with its food delivery business. A
presentation to the City Council was made in September, and staff had been
working with the Council to encourage them to lighten up some of the
restrictions on the liquor ordinance in order to encourage redevelopment and
retain businesses. The current ordinance limits to four on-sale and three off-
sale licenses. The City Council has agreed to expand the number of licenses
to 6 on-sale and 6 off-sale licenses and decreased the investment
requirement from $1 million (excluding land) to $750,000 (including land) for
on-sale liquor establishments.
McDonald stated that the City Attorney had contacted the Liquor Control
Board. In order for Simon to obtain an on-sale license, they need to establish
some type of retail liquor outlet, even though they have no desire to sell liquor
to walk-in customers, it is a requirement of the state. McDonald stated that the
ordinance currently allows a limited amount of retail sales for products
produced on the site in an I District. It was the feeling of staff that the
ordinance could be amended to allow products that are delivered in bulk and
repackaged for sale to be sold on the site. The Codes & Standards
Committee was agreeable to the ordinance amendment and Simon Delivers
is proceeding with its liquor application to the City Council in December. Staff
desires to take this ordinance amendment to the City Council at the same
meeting.
Chairman Landy noted that there was no one in the audience for comment on
the ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
Item 4.2 approve Ordinance No. 01-14, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code
Section 4.204(3) by Permitting by Administrative Permit the Retail Sale
of Bulk Product in the Industrial Zoning District Delivered or
Repackaged for Resale at Principal Building, City of New Hope,
Planning Commission Meeting 5 December 4, 2001
Petitioner.
Discussion was initiated regarding the 30 percent floor area for retail sales
in an I District and what would happen if another business requested retail
sales at its location. The 30 percent area requirement had been in the code
for a long time. Any business that desired to add retail sales would still need
to meet performance standards.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer,
Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on December 10.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met to review the
Committee plans for the mini-storage facility. McDonald reported that the deadline for the
Item 5.1 January meeting was December 7, and staff was not aware of any new
applications for the January meeting.
McDonald stated that the charter school applicants are in the process of
contacting adjacent property owners and to obtain feedback on the proposed
school use.
Codes & Standards Kramer reported that the Codes & Standards Committee met in November to
Committee discuss mini-storage, body piercing, and a moratorium on thrift stores.
Item 5.2
McDonald stated that in the mid-1990s the City established an ordinance on
tattoo parlors. Due to the fact that the City has had a request for a body-
piercing establishment, staff felt it necessary to amend the ordinance to
include body piercing as a personal service in the Commercial District the
same as tattooing. Kramer added that several years ago Hennepin County
took over the health inspections for the City, however, they do not inspect
these types of establishments. McDonald stated the City sent correspondence
to the County requesting inspections for tattoo and body piercing.
McDonald reported that staff met with a group called The Lord's Table who
was interested in the vacant Cinema Caf6 site. The proposal would be for a
dinner/theater, similar to Chanhassen, along with a coffee shop and
bookstore. There was discussion on whether or not this was a church use,
which would not be allowed in a Commercial District, or an entertainment use.
After looking at the facts, staff determined that this would be an entertainment
use.
McDonald stated that the City Attorney had informed the City that a
moratorium could not be put on thrift stores. There was some interest shown
for a thrift store at the vacant Walgreens site.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Hemken, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 6,
2001. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting 6 December 4, 2001
City Council minutes were reviewed.
Landy noted that Commissioner Green's letter of resignation was included in
the packet. He congratulated Green on her election to the School Board, and
offered his thanks on behalf of the Planning Commission for her service and
input.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Landy stated that he would not be able to attend the January Planning
Commission meeting.
McDonald stated that elections of officers would be conducted at the first
meeting in 2002.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 7 December 4, 2001