Loading...
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