010615 planning commissionCITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 6, 2015
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; Chair Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Jim Brinkman, Scott Clark, Wade English, Greg Gehring, Jeff
Houle, Roger Landy, Christopher McKenzie, Tom Schmidt,
Steve Svendsen
Absent: None
Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development, Aaron
Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, Jeff Alger,
Community Development Assistant, Stacy Woods, Assistant
City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Deb Somers,
Recording Secretary
NEW BUSINESS
Item 3.1
Item 3.2
New Planning Commission member, Scott Clark, was officially sworn in by
Recording Secretary Somers.
Election of Officers. Chair Svendsen stated that the Planning Commission
may either re-elect the current officers or make motion to elect new officers
to the various positions.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt to re-
elect the current officers. Planning Commission Chair Svendsen was re-
elected to Chair, Commissioner Schmidt was re-elected to Vice Chair, and
Commissioner McKenzie was re-elected to Third Chair. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Case 14-11
Item 4.1
Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.1, request for a conditional use permit to
allow the conversion of a warehouse into a storage facility, and a request for
a conditional use permit to allow additional outdoor storage located at 9300 –
52nd Avenue N, Mayflower Properties, petitioner.
Mr. Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, explained that the
applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to convert an
existing 46,000 square foot warehouse building into a self storage facility.
The applicant is also requesting a CUP for additional outdoor open
storage. The building, located at 9300 52nd Avenue, is the current location
of Maypak Products, a distributor of corrugated boxes, padlocks, and
moving supplies. The applicant has recently acquired the building and has
informed staff that Maypak is leaving the facility for a new location.
Mr. Chirpich explained that the property is located in the I, Industrial
Zoning District, with railroad property to the north, industrial property to
the east and south, and Highway 169 to the west. The property is also
located in Planning District 3. The 46,000 square foot building will be
divided into approximately 251 climate controlled storage units. The units
will range in size from 25 to 1,300 square feet in area. As part of the
development proposal, there will be some slight exterior modifications,
including a new front entryway sidewalk, parking area improvements, and
the construction of an additional outdoor storage area.
Mr. Chirpich discussed the site plan, indicating that the proposed setbacks,
circulation, access, traffic and emergency vehicle access and curbing
around the property all met minimum code requirements. He stated that
because of the added outdoor storage area, a parking calculation was
required to determine code compliance. Mr. Chirpich informed the
Commission that the applicant met the minimum parking requirements.
Mr. Chirpich explained the building’s floor plan and the construction of the
storage units, indicating that they will be corrugated metal with a mesh
ceiling. The Fire Marshal had reviewed the plans and confirmed that no
new additional fire suppression for the building was required.
Next, Chirpich outlined the proposed outdoor screening for the storage area,
stating that the applicants will install a wooden opaque fence along those
areas of the outdoor storage that abut or face the public right-of-way. In
relation to the existing loading docks that access the building, he explained
that the applicants would be blocking access to the three loading doors that
were inside the proposed outdoor storage area, and that those doors would
be marked as “blocked”. The remaining two doors would remain open for
access into the building.
Mr. Chirpich then went on to state that upon staff inspection of the property,
it was apparent that the parking lot surface was in need of repair. He
indicated that the hard surface areas would need to be repaired as a
condition of approval.
Pertaining to the storage building security, Chirpich stated that there will be
an on-site manager at the facility during business hours - Monday through
Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. There will be a key pad at the main entrance of the building. Each
tenant will be given a personalized access code. The key pad will only
allow access between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
Finally, Mr. Chirpich reviewed all of the findings of fact that the City Council
would need to find true in order to approve both Conditional Use Permits.
He informed the Commission that the proposed use meets the minimum
requirements of each finding of fact. He then stated each of the conditions of
approval for both conditional use permit requests. He concluded that staff
recommended approval of both conditional use permit requests.
Commissioner Brinkman asked for more information regarding access to the
building, such as where the main entrance was, if the office staff had a
Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 2015 2
separate entrance than patrons of the storage facility, and whether vehicles
would be able to access the interior of the building. He also was interested in
whom the potential users of the storage facility would be and if Mayflower
Properties had any other businesses in the metro area.
Marinda Carr, 9300 – 52nd Avenue North, with Mayflower Properties,
informed the Commission that the office employees will have a separate
entrance than patrons of the storage facility and that there would be no access
for vehicles to enter the building to load or unload their storage items. She
stated that commercial users often rent space for record retention purposes,
but they also rent out space to homeowners looking for more storage.
Mayflower Properties has a similar storage facility in St. Louis Park.
Commissioner Houle asked how many employees the business would
employ and whether the office use would be for the on-site manager or for a
corporate entity.
Ms. Carr stated that there would be a full time manager and a part time
worker for the weekends along with a maintenance worker. The office space
would be used as their corporate office, with between 5-15 users at any one
time.
Chair Svendsen stated that the Design and Review Committee discussed the
width of the gates proposed for the outdoor storage area, the need for the
utilities to be shown on the site plan and the need for the Fire Department
connections marked on the site plan. The area in front of the riser room in
the parking area would need to be striped and marked as “no parking”.
Sheldon Badzin, owner of Mayflower Properties, acknowledged these needs
and stated that they would be taken care of. He also indicated that the
widths of the gates would be examined to ensure that maneuverability would
not be an issue.
Chair Svendsen asked whether the business would be involved with the
rental of moving vans and/or trucks.
Mr. Badzin indicated that the business would utilize U-Haul trucks for rent
and they would be stored within the outdoor fenced-in area.
Chair Svendsen inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the
Commission. There was no one else in the audience that wished to speak at
the public hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt to
close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Commissioner Houle stated that he was troubled that the city would support
a use for a property that once had 20-30 employees to now have only 4-5. He
felt that it was not a good trend to support the loss of potential jobs.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 2015 3
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 14-11, request for a conditional use permit to allow
the conversion of a warehouse into a storage facility, and a request for a
conditional use permit to allow additional outdoor storage located at 9300
– 52nd Avenue N, Mayflower Properties, petitioner, subject to the following
conditions:
Conditional Use Permit for the conversion of a warehouse to a self storage
facility:
1. The three inoperable loading dock doors shall be marked on the
exterior as “blocked.”
2. No storage shall be allowed above the mesh ceilings of the
individual interior storage bays. This requirement shall be
incorporated into the lease language.
3. The fire suppression system is subject to review and approval by the
Fire Marshal.
4. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Hennepin County.
Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage:
1. The entire parking, driveway, and exterior storage area shall be
resurfaced.
2. The fence design and installation shall not obstruct site drainage.
3. The applicant shall provide tree preservation measures during the
installation of the northern fence line.
4. The parking lot shall be striped and directional arrows shall be
provided.
5. The area outside of the riser room shall be marked with wall signage
and pavement markings as a “no parking zone” to ensure emergency
vehicle access.
6. The exterior of the site shall be cleared of all existing debris.
7. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Hennepin County.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Clark, English, Gehring, Landy, McKenzie,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: Houle
Absent: None
Motion approved 8-1
For the record, Commissioner Houle stated that he voted against the
proposal because he felt that supporting a use that would decrease the
Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 2015 4
potential for more jobs is not supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning
case at its January 26 meeting and asked the petitioner to be in attendance.
Planning Case 14-12
Item 4.2
Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.2, request for a text amendment to the Sign
Code establishing regulations for wall signs throughout the city, City of New
Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, stated that at the
December Codes and Standards Committee meeting, the city’s planning
consultant proposed a number of changes to the Sign Code consistent with
what other cities in the area have adopted. The amendments would
provide greater flexibility in application of the Code. Mr. Alger explained
the following changes:
Number of Signs & Coverage Area
The Code currently limits the number of wall signs for single occupancy
buildings to two signs and multiple occupancy building tenants to one
sign. Wall signs are capped at 15% of the building façade fronting public
streets, with a maximum size of 100 square feet per side. The proposed
revisions to the Code would remove hard caps on wall signs in commercial
and industrial zoning districts. Wall signs would continue to be capped at
15% of the building façade. These proposed changes take wall size into
consideration when determining what signage will be allowed, whereas
the Code currently only considers size of sign(s). The proposed wall
signage area cap of 15% should be evaluated to determine if it is a good fit
for the city.
Mr. Alger pointed out that city staff identified a concern regarding
changeable copy wall signs that is not addressed as a part of the draft
ordinance. The removal of the signage hard cap allows for the possibility of
several smaller changeable wall signs or a large changeable wall sign
covering up to 15% of a building’s façade. He stated that the option of
amending the Code to no longer allow dynamic wall signs should be
considered.
Comprehensive Sign Plan
Mr. Alger explained that the Sign Code currently requires a comprehensive
sign plan for an entire building or shopping center when a single principal
building is devoted to two or more businesses or industrial uses. Revisions
to the comprehensive sign plan criteria and conditions would require that
mixed use, commercial and industrial multiple occupancy buildings, and
single occupancy buildings with more than two signs submit an
application and receive approval of a comprehensive sign plan.
Sign Code Districts
Mr. Alger informed the Commission that the Sign Code currently does not
address the City Center or PUD zoning districts. Changes to the Code
include the addition of the City Center district and the creation of PUD
district criteria. The amendment would provide language specifying that
Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 2015 5
PUDs are also intended to provide some deviation from the Code and its
strict provisions. Additionally, the PUD language allows for signage on
façade fronting public or PUD-approved private streets, with the total area
of all signs displayed on-site not to exceed 15% of the total building façade.
Directional Signage
Lastly, Mr. Alger stated that the Sign Code currently does not define or
address directional signage. Proposed changes would define directional
signage and allow it, when less than two square feet in size.
Mr. Alger reiterated that staff would like to get the Planning Commission’s
guidance on whether allowing up to 15% of a building’s wall to be covered
with signage was too much, and whether the city should consider not
allowing changeable message signs as wall signs. He concluded that staff
recommends approval of the remainder of the proposed text amendment
Chair Svendsen expressed some concern that 15% of a large wall might yield
too much signage and wondered if there was a way to require signs on a wall
to be grouped together.
Alan Brixius, consultant City Planner, stated that the Planning Commission
would still have discretion over the use of signage through the
comprehensive sign plan that is required for businesses wishing to have
multiple signs.
Commissioner Houle agreed with Chair Svendsen that he didn’t want to see
a mass of signage on a wall. He didn’t think that 15% of wall coverage was
obtrusive on smaller walls, but cautioned that it could get out of hand on
larger walls. He wondered if the city could cap signage for larger walls.
Pertaining to this issue, Chair Svendsen also questioned whether the city
could base the percentage of wall signage allowed on the overall size of the
building. Commissioner Schmidt wondered whether it would make sense to
declassify any decorative awning as a sign, and then go with a lower wall
percentage.
Mr. Brixius explained that any logo on an awning would constitute signage
per code, so it would be difficult to not count awning signage as wall
signage. He agreed that the best approach may be to scale the amount of wall
signage allowed with the size of the building.
Chair Svendsen suggested that a 10% restriction for wall signage coverage
would be sufficient. Mr. Brixius offered that the Planning Commission
should also require that changeable message signs should not be allowed as
wall signs. The commissioners agreed to this and made the motion reflecting
the 10% wall coverage and eliminating changeable message signs as wall
signs.
Motion
Item 4.2
Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 14-12, a request for a text amendment to the Sign
Code establishing regulations for wall signs throughout the city, City of
Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 2015 6
New Hope, petitioner, with a 10% restriction for the total amount of wall
signage for a building and eliminating changeable message signs as walls
signs.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Clark, Houle, English, Gehring, Landy,
McKenzie, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion approved 9-0
Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning
case at its January 26 meeting.
Planning Case 14-13
Item 4.3
Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.3, request for a text amendment to Chapter
4 of the New Hope City Code establishing regulations for portable outdoor
storage units in residential areas throughout the city, City of New Hope,
petitioner.
Mr. Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development, stated that the Codes
and Standards Commission met on December 10, 2014, to consider a text
amendment that would regulate the use of portable exterior storage units
throughout the city. He indicated that the City has received complaints
regarding the use of temporary exterior storage units in the community
and that the New Hope Ordinance does not currently address the use of
temporary storage units on properties. Given a rise in demand for this
storage device and its usefulness in addressing temporary storage and
relocation needs, planning staff conducted a study of the regulation of
these containers in other communities with the goal of understanding how
they may be accommodated in the City of New Hope.
Mr. Sargent stated that the proposed text amendment takes the following into
consideration:
1. No Permit Required. Staff feels that no permit should be required, as
there would be no inspections needed for placing the structure on the
property.
2. 30-Day Duration. Each portable storage unit can be placed on the
property for no more than 30 consecutive days in one calendar year.
These types of units are meant to assist in remodeling jobs or aid with
moving into/out of a building. Staff feels that 30 days is sufficient to
satisfy residents’ needs in this regard.
3. Setbacks. Portable storage units shall be located no closer than 15 feet
from the public street curb, 5 feet from a private street curb and 5 feet
from the side property lines. The setbacks from the street would
ensure that these units would not be stored in the public rights-of-
way.
4. Enforcement. Staff will enforce the ordinance on a reaction-only basis,
based on complaints that are generated by the public. Once the
Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 2015 7
complaint is investigated, staff will make sure that the unit is placed
properly on the property and will inform the owner of the property
that the unit my only be placed on the property for a maximum of 30
days.
Director Sargent indicated that staff recommends approval of the proposed
text amendment.
Chair Svendsen questioned the 30-day restriction and commented that many
remodeling jobs take longer than 30 days. He felt that the time period should
be extended for remodeling jobs.
Director Sargent responded by saying that the intent of the ordinance is so
that residents cannot use the portable storage containers as a convenient,
cheaper option rather than renting space in a commercial district for storage.
The ordinance is proposed to protect neighboring property owners from
having to see a storage unit on a property for longer than 30 days.
Commissioner Houle noticed that the staff report mentioned a 5-foot side
yard setback requirement, but there was no mention of the 5-foot side yard
setback requirement in the proposed ordinance.
Director Sargent indicated that the 5-foot side yard setback requirement was
intended to be considered at the Planning Commission meeting for addition
to the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner McKenzie wondered whether the city would be able to
implement a permit requirement for those who wanted to retain a portable
storage container for longer than 30 days. This would allow the resident to
retain the storage container for as long as they wanted, as long as they paid a
monthly permit fee to the city.
Alan Brixius responded by saying that the city’s concern should not
necessarily be for the resident who is renting the portable storage container,
rather with the neighboring property owners who have to look at it. Sargent
added that it would be difficult for the city to charge a monthly permit fee
without justification for the permit fee, as there would be little or no time
needed for an inspector to ensure that the storage unit is still on a property.
Commissioner Clark suggested that the ordinance should allow a portable
storage container for a maximum of 90 days only if it’s in association with an
active building permit. If there is no active building permit, then the storage
units should only be allowed for 30 days. Other commissioners agreed with
this proposed amendment.
Commissioner English questioned whether the ordinance should address the
maximum size of the storage container allowed a residential property.
Stacey Woods, Assistant City Attorney, indicated that regulating a maximum
size would be difficult to enforce and would most likely require a permit to
ensure compliance. Mr. Brixius added that the size of the lot would dictate
Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 2015 8
the size of the storage container because of the setback requirements that
would be in place.
Motion
Item 4.3
Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 14-13, request for a text amendment to Chapter 4 of
the New Hope City Code establishing regulations for portable outdoor
storage units in residential areas throughout the city, City of New Hope,
petitioner with the addition of the 5-foot side yard setback requirement
and the addition of the exception for the allowance of up to 90 days if there
is an active building permit, and to designate the primary driveway as the
proper location for the container.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Clark, Schmidt, English, Gehring, Houle,
Landy, McKenzie, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion approved 9-0
Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning
case at its January 26 meeting.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Chair Svendsen stated the Design and Review Committee was held on
December 18, 2014 and that the next potential meeting was scheduled for
January 15, 2015.
Codes and Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
Chair Svendsen stated that the Codes and Standards Committee was held on
December 10, 2014 and that the next potential meeting has not yet been
scheduled. He asked staff if there was a list of possible future items that may
be discussed, and staff indicated that they would be willing to work on one.
OLD BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes
Item 7.1
Commissioner Houle stated that corrections were needed to the minutes
from the August 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that he
was absent from the meeting, however the minutes indicated that he voted in
favor of the cases. He wanted the minutes to reflect his absence and that he
did not vote.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 8, 2014. All voted in
favor. Motion carried.
Abstain: Commissioner Clark
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Houle, to
approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 2, 2014. All voted
in favor. Motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 2015 9
Abstain: Commissioner Clark
ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Houle announced his resignation from the Planning
Commission due to his desire to pursue other activities. Chair Svendsen and
other members of the Commission thanked Commissioner Houle for his
years of services and wished him luck in his future endeavors.
Director Sargent announced that the City will hold an Open House for the
public to review the proposed Xylon Avenue streetscape improvements. The
Open House will be held on Thursday, January 15, 2015 from 4:30 p.m. to
7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers Room. He encouraged all who
were interested in the project to attend.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development
Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 2015 10