Loading...
090115 PlanningPLAN'N'ING COMMISSION MEETING VT� City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PL;BLIC HEARING 4.1 PC 15-17, request for an amendment to an approved Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage, 9300 - 52nd Avenue North, Sheldon Badzin of Mayflower New Hope Properties, LLC, petitioner. 4.2 PC 15-18, request to consider text amendment to Section 3-50(f) of New Hope City Code related to temporary sign permit requirements and violations of temporary sign standards, City of New Hope, petitioner. 4.3 PC 15-19, request to consider text amendment to Sections 10-13(1) and 10-18(f) of New Hope City Code related to liquor license restrictions near churches. 4.4 PC 15-12, request to consider text amendment to Sections 4-2 and 4-3 of New Hope City Code establishing a tree preservation policy, City of New Hope, petitioner. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Design and Review Committee - next tentative meeting scheduled for September 17, 2015, 7:30 a.m. 5.2 Codes and Standards Committee - next meeting? 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Approve July 7, 2015, Planning Commission Minutes 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT Petitioner must be in attendance at the meeting PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: September 1, 2015 Report Date: August 28, 2015 Planning Case: PC 15-17 Petitioner: Sheldon Badzin Address: 9300 -52nd Avenue North Project Name: New Hope Mayflower Properties, LLC Project Description: The applicant would like to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow the storage of U -Haul trucks and trailers outside of their approved outdoor storage area. The request will require a deferment of required parking in conjunction with an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit. Planning Request: Conditional Use Permit I. Type of Planning Request A. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) II. Zoning Code References Section(s) 4-33 (d) Conditional Use Permit Amendment 4-3 (e) (13) - Deferment of Required Parking Ill. Property Specifications Zoning: I, Industrial. Location: North side of 52nd Ave, East of Hwy 169 Frontage Road Adjacent Land Uses: Railroad to the north, industrial to the south and east, and Highway 169 to the west. Site Area: 3.47 acres, or 151,256 square feet Planning District: Planning District 3. The Comprehensive Plan supports the requested conditional use within the district and also promotes improving site design and aesthetics of industrial properties when possible. Planning Case Report 15-17 Page 1 8/28/15 IV. Background In January 2015, the applicant received approval of a conditional use permit for the conversion of the building at 9300 52nd Avenue North to a self storage facility. They also received approval for additional outdoor storage. During the plan review process, the applicant indicated that the self storage facility would offer U -Haul trucks and trailers as part of their business operations. Planning Commissioners expressed concern with regard to the number and location of rental vehicles and storage of such vehicles. The applicant's approved site plan for the current CUP indicates that the rental vehicles will be stored in the approved outdoor storage area. Recently, the City Building Official cited the property for storing U -Haul trucks and trailers outside of the designated outdoor storage area. Staff met with the property owners to discuss the issue and offer possible solutions. The applicant indicated that trucks and trailers are being parked outside of the storage area for the following reasons: Some of the vehicles may be dropped off during non -business hours. These vehicles will stay in the parking area until on-site staff can move them into the storage area. • The facility staff is using the parking areas as queuing areas for truck and trailer pick up. Additionally, it is inconvenient for the trucks and trailers to be moved from the outdoor storage area at the time of pick up. The applicant has requested an amendment to their conditional use permit to allow for a rental truck and trailer staging area outside of the approved outdoor storage area. This amendment can be achieved through a Conditional Use Permit for deferment of required parking, V. Zoning Analysis A. Plan Description 1. Parking The parking requirements for a self storage facility are as follows: The applicant's site plan indicates that there will be a shortage of 15 on-site parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is requesting the CUP for a deferment in required parking. The deferred parking CUP allows businesses to utilize a lesser parking supply provided that the functional parking demand of the site can be documented. Additionally, the applicant must reserve enough space on the site for future parking if necessary. The amount of reserved Planning Case Report 15-17 Page 2 8/28/15 Ratio Square Feet Required Parking Stalls Storage/Ware'. 1:1,500 40,414 27 Office j 1:300 5,812 19 TOTAL REQUIRED i 46 Spaces TOTAL PROVIDED 31 Spaces The applicant's site plan indicates that there will be a shortage of 15 on-site parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is requesting the CUP for a deferment in required parking. The deferred parking CUP allows businesses to utilize a lesser parking supply provided that the functional parking demand of the site can be documented. Additionally, the applicant must reserve enough space on the site for future parking if necessary. The amount of reserved Planning Case Report 15-17 Page 2 8/28/15 space must equal the amount of parking shortage, This reserved space is referred to as the "proof of parking" area. As a condition of CUP approval, a restrictive covenant is recorded against the property that mandates the use of the proof of parking area if the City finds that the demand for on-site parking exceeds the available supply. The covenant would also protect this designated area from any other construction activity. The applicant is requesting to use 15 of their current on-site parking spaces as the staging area for the U -Haul trucks and trailers. This area will also serve as the proof of parking area. In the event that the City determines there is a need for additional on-site parking, the applicant would have to revert back to using the spaces for on-site parking. The U -Haul trucks and trailers would then move back into the approved outdoor storage area or off the site. 2. Setbacks and Screening The applicant has proposed the installation of a wood privacy fence along 52nd Avenue to screen the U -Haul trucks and trailers from the public rights of way. The site plan reveals that the proposed screening fence will meet the required setbacks. 3. Circulation, and Access There is one driveway access point to 52nd Avenue on the south side of the property. The circulation of vehicles through the property will be controlled by a one-way traffic flow system. Staff anticipates some congestion in the parking area when U -Haul vehicles are being moved. 4. Signage The applicant proposes to install a sign on the inside of the fence that screens the U -Haul staging area that says "U -Haul Truck Parking Only". This sign would be accompanied by two signs with arrows that delineate the staging area. 5. Paving and Striping The applicant has recently resurfaced damaged areas of pavement in the parking and outdoor storage areas. The parking lot will be stripped as shown on the site plan and include painted directional flow arrows. The applicant also proposes to seal coat the entire parking area before striping. The applicant has agreed to complete the seal coating and striping within 45 days of CUP approval. If the CUP for deferred parking is not granted, the applicant will be required to stripe the parking area as proposed in their approved CUP. 6. Snow Storage The applicant has indicated on the site plan that an area east of the outdoor storage area will be designated for snow storage. The narrative provided by the applicant states that a skid steer will be used to remove snow from the parking lot, drive aisles, and storage area. Planning Case Report 15-17 Page 3 8/28/15 B. Zoning Code Criteria 1. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit, the City Council and Planning Commission shall find that the conditional use permit complies with the following criteria. The burden of proof demonstrating compliance with the following criteria shall be the responsibility of the applicant. (1) Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official comprehensive municipal plan of the city. Findings. The comprehensive plan supports the proposed conditional use and specifically directs the City to improve the appearance of outdoor storage areas within the Industrial District. The screening of the proposed staging/storage area for the trucks and trailers will meet this objective. (2) Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent present and future anticipated land uses. Finding&,The proposed use of the site is consistent with allowable uses in the industrial district where the storage of large trucks and commercial vehicles is commonplace. (3) No depreciation in value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Findings. The use of the site for the rental of U -Haul trucks and trailers will not depreciate the area's value. The applicant is proposing to upgrade the site with screening, and pavement resurfacing. The proposed use is also unobtrusive to the area and fits well in the industrial setting. (4) Zoning district criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed use meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. Findings. Staff has concluded that the proposed use complies with all other zoning district criteria. (5) In industrial districts (I): a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing and future development in adjacent areas. Findings. Staff does not think that the proposed use will generate nuisance characteristics because of the low impact that the use will have on the surrounding area. Large truck traffic is common within the Industrial District. b. Economic return. The use will provide an economic return to the community and be commensurate with other industrial uses for which the property could Planning Case Report 15-17 Page 4 8/28/15 feasibly be used. In considering the economic return to the community, the planning commission and city council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. Findings. The rental of moving trucks and trailers is a complimentary service to the primary use of the site as a self storage facility. The U -Haul rental business will provide additional revenue generating capacity to the site in an area that would otherwise be used for parking. (6) Performance standards. The proposed use conforms to all applicable performance standards outlined in the Zoning Code. Per Code Section 4-3(e) (13), the deferment of required parking is a conditional use with the following criteria: (a) Evidence of demand. Evidence is provided demonstrating that the parking requirements of the proposed use will be less than the parking required. Factors to consider when reviewing parking demand shall include, but are not limited to: • Size and type of building. Findings. 40,414 square feet of the 46,226 square foot building is used as a self storage facility. The limited office space that is available is used occasionally for corporate meetings of the owner. Moreover, the owner has plans to convert some of the existing office space into additional self storage space. The primary use of the building as self storage limits the parking demand greatly as the site visits by the storage unit customers are sporadic. + Number of employees. Findings. The site will have one full time employee present during normal business hours. The applicant owns other similar facilities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and occasionally holds corporate meetings at this site using the office portion of the building. These meetings generate the need for 12 to 15 on-site parking spaces. s Projected volume of customer traffic. Findings. Customer traffic for the self storage portion of the business is minimal as the visits by renters of storage units are infrequent. The applicant expects that the U -Haul side of the business will generate between 2 and 10 customers per day during the peak months (May -September) and 2 to 5 customers per week during the off season (October -April). Planning Case Report 15-17 Page 5 8/28/15 • Projected frequency and volume of delivery or service vehicles. Findings. The use of the building as a self storage warehouse does not generate delivery and service vehicle traffic. Loading and unloading activity takes place when storage unit renters are transferring items to and from the individual units. The nature of theses visits are too sporadic to track effectively. The applicant states that a large percentage of their storage customers are long term renters that may not visit the site for extended periods of time. Loading and unloading activities typically do not interfere with on-site parking as the renter vehicles are usually parked in the loading dock area. Number of company owned vehicles. Findings. The owner does not have any company owned vehicles for employees. The U -Haul trucks and trailers are not owned by the business owner. The applicant expects between 10 and 12 U - Haul vehicles on-site at any given time. All U -Haul vehicles that are outside of the fenced outdoor storage area will be placed in the designated staging area. a Storage of vehicles on site. Findings. Storage of vehicles on-site will be limited to the U -Haul vehicles and other vehicles that are being stored in the approved outdoor storage areas. The number of U -Haul vehicles stored on site at any given time will vary depending on demand. The designated U -Haul staging area will hold a maximum of 15 vehicles. Any U -Haul vehicles that will not fit in the staging area will be placed in the outdoor storage area. In addition to the storage of U -Haul vehicles, the owner offers rental spots for vehicles such as boats and motor homes in the outdoor storage area. The number of such vehicles will vary depending on demand and available space. Many of the vehicles in the outdoor storage area will sit for extended periods of time given the seasonal nature of such storage. (b) Required minimum parking. In no case shall the amount of parking provided be less than one-half to the amount of required parking by ordinance. Findings. Half of the required parking spaces by ordinance would be 23. The applicant proposes to provide 31 spaces thereby exceeding this standard by S spaces. Planning Case Report 15-17 Page 6 8/28/15 (c) Sufficient parking. The property owner must demonstrate that the site has sufficient property under the same ownership to accommodate the expansion of parking if necessary. Findings. The applicant is the owner of the entire property. Expansion of parking surface area will not be required as the proof of parking area is already paved. (d) On-site parking. On-site parking shall only occur in areas designed and constructed for parking in accordance with city code. The area reserved as "proof of parking" shall be sodded or seeded and maintained as green space. No permanent buildings shall be permitted in the "proof of parking" area. Findings. All proposed on-site parking will occur in designated code compliant areas. The area reserved on the site plan as "proof of parking" is covered by existing pavement. This proof of parking area will serve as the staging area for the U -Haul trucks and trailers. In the event that additional on-site parking is needed, the owner will have to remove the U -Haul trucks and trailers from the proof of parking area and that space will revert back to on-site parking. The applicant will be required to record a covenant against the property that will protect the "proof of parking" area from any building construction. (e) Restrictive covenant. The property owner shall record a restrictive covenant against the title to the property providing that additional parking shall be constructed in accordance with city code if the site parking demand exceeds the actual on-site parking supply in the sole opinion of the city. The form of the restrictive covenant shall be approved by the city attorney before the issuance of the conditional use permit. Findings. Staff will work the applicant and the city attorney to draft a suitable covenant that meets this requirement and protects the proof of parking area from any building construction. This covenant will be recorded against the property. (f) Zoning Compliance. To qualify for a parking deferment, the site plan must comply with all current zoning standards. Fin _dings. The applicant's proposed site plan configuration complies with all current zoning standards. Planning Case Report 15-17 Page 7 8128115 (g) CUP general standard. Application for and approval of a conditional use permit for deferment of required parking shall also be subject to the provisions of section 4-33 et al. of the New Hope city code. Findings. The applicant's proposal meets all standards set for in section 4- 33 of the New Hope city code. Section 4-33 addresses the general administration of conditional use permits. C. Design and Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met on August 13, 2015. The committee was generally supportive of the request for a deferment of required parking. D. Approval 1. Type of Approval a. Conditional Use Permit b. Conditional Use Permit Amendment 2. Timeline a. Date Application Deemed Complete: August 7, 2015 b. End of 60 -Day Decision Period: October 6, 2015 c. End of 120 -Day Decision Period: December 5, 2015 VI. Petitioner's Comments Petitioner's comments are attached. VII. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of parcel were notified by mail and a legal notice was published in the SunPost newspaper. Staff has received no questions or concerns regarding the proposal. VIII. Summary The applicant has requested an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 9300 52nd Avenue North. The CUP amendment is necessary because the applicant has proposed a significant change in the scope of operations for the site. The applicant has received approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the conversion of the building to a self storage facility and approval for additional outdoor storage. During the initial plan review process for the current CUP, the applicant indicated that the self storage facility would offer U -Haul trucks and trailers as part of their business operations. The applicant's approved site plan indicates that the rental vehicles will be stored in a fenced outdoor storage area. Since opening, the applicant has found that operating the U -Haul rental business from the outdoor PIanning Case Report 15-17 Page 8 8/28/15 storage area is functionally difficult. Therefore, they have requested to use some of their existing required on-site parking spaces as a staging area for the U -Haul vehicles. The best way to accommodate the applicant's request is a Conditional Use Permit for deferment of required parking. IX. Recommendation Based on review of the application for a conditional use permit amendment and conditional use permit for a deferment of required parking, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site improvement agreement with the City to ensure completion of all required improvements as illustrated in the site plan dated August 12, 2015. This agreement will be prepared by the City Attorney. 2. The designated staging/ storage area for the trucks and trailers shall be physically delineated on the site with paint and or/ signs. 3. All staged vehicles shall be screened from view of the public rights of way as indicated on the site plan dated August 12, 2015. 4. The parking lot shall be striped and directional arrows shall be provided. 5. Rental trucks and trailers that are kept outside of the fenced outdoor storage areas shall be limited to only the approved designated staging/storage area. The number of vehicles shall be limited such that no trucks and/or trailers shall exceed the boundaries of the designated staging/storage area or fenced outdoor storage area. 6. A restrictive covenant shall be recorded against the subject property to preserve the proof of parking area from any other type of construction. This covenant will also mandate that the owner revert the truck and trailer staging and storage area back to on-site parking if the City finds that the demand for on-site parking exceeds the available supply. Attachments: • Application • Applicant narrative (8/10/15) • Planning consultant memorandum (8/26/15) • Applicant's response to comments from the Design Review Committee (8/18/15) • Plans Planning Case Report 15-17 Page 9 8/28/15 PLANNING APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428 Case No. lci-1 1-:7 Planning Deadline AUG 0 7 2015 Receipt No. I-ic 01. 1til , S 1, ` ()�= 1 - J�� c Received by A:V) Basic Fee Deposit Name of Applicant:tr vr/:n 11 A, ""N Applicant Address tZ/1— j tf- iv, Street Location of Property: PID: Legal Description of Pro xily, I OWNER OF RECORD, Name: V ATIr, Address: Home Phone: Work Phone,-,-/ Fax: Applicant's nature of Legal or Equitable Interest: / ; Type of Request: (pertaining to what section of City Code) .17 r /I Please outline Description of Request: (use additional pages if necessary) Why Should Request be Granted: rA (,Ih li, 5 G:1Comm0ev4PLANN1NGNM1SC ITEWPlarnirlij application.doc(01.13) Mayflower New Hope Properties 7760 France Ave So Suite 1100 Edina, MN 55435 August 10, 2015 RE: 9300 52°d Ave North New Hope, MN 55428 Based on the nature of the business, we are requesting that the City of New Hope approve the parking space count as noted on the plan to be 12 spaces. With that change, we are also requesting that the parking of the U -Haul rental trucks and trailers be allowed in the designated area as noted on exhibit A. Upon approval, we propose to stripe the 12 parking spaces along with the directional arrows. Due to the various sizes with the U -Haul trucks and trailers, we propose that we outline the designated parking area section in yellow, clearly identifying the designated space for the U -Hauls. To address the screening of the U -Hauls, we propose that the cedar fence be relocated as noted on the site plan and replace the cedar fence with chain link. We look forward to the City of New Hopes approval of our request. Marinda Carr Corporate Administrator Mayflower New Hope Properties 612-385-7780 46 7 0 205 *'{'T NORTHWEST ASSOCIATE© CONSULTANTS, I:Vc. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Jeff Sargent FROM: Alan Brixius 1 Bob Kirmis DATE: August 26, 2015 RE: New Hope - Mayflower Properties LLC 9300 52nd Avenue North Deferred Parking Conditional Use Permit Amendment FILE NO: 131.01 - 15.04 BACKGROUND In January of 2015, Mayflower Properties LLC received approval of a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of a 46,000- square foot warehouse building located at 9300 52nd Avenue North to a self -storage facility. As part of such conditional use permit approval, the applicants were also granted the right to conduct outdoor storage activities upon the subject site in accordance with an approved plan and subject to various conditions. The applicable I, Industrial zoning designation applied to the property allows both mini - storage and outdoor storage by conditional use permit. At this time, the applicants have requested approval of a conditional use permit amendment to allow the following: A. An expansion of the site's outdoor storage area to accommodate a rental truck/trailer staging and storage area along 52nd Avenue North. B. The deferment of the required off-street parking supply. Such deferment has been prompted by the proposed conversion of off-street parking spaces to the referenced truck/trailer staging and storage area. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Original CUP Approval. In January of 2015, the City approved the allowance of outdoor storage activities upon the subject to adherence to the submitted site plan (dated 12/23/14) and the following conditions: 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. 4. The parking lot shall be striped and directional arrows shall be provided. 5. The exterior of the site shall be cleared of all existing debris. 6. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Hennepin County. As part of conditional use permit processing, the applicant advised the City that the self - storage facility would offer U -Haul trucks to assist in the moving process. Consistent the conditions of CUP approval and in response to conditions outlined by the Design and Review Committee, the applicant's approved plan specifically indicated that the storage of leased moving vehicles will occur within the approved fenced outdoor storage area. CUP Violation. Upon in inspection of the subject site this past July, City Staff found that up to eight U -Haul trucks and trailers were being stored within the pro dperty's required parking lot located outside of the fenced storage area (along 52" Avenue North). This activity is not allowed by the terms of the approved conditional use permit. According to the property owners, the trucks and trailers were parked outside the storage area for the following reasons: The site is a drop-off site for U -Haul. Some of the vehicles may be dropped at the site by renters in the off -hours when the facility is not open. These vehicles will stay in the parking area until on-site staff can move them into the storage area. 2. The facility uses the parking areas as a queuing area for truck or trailer pick up. The property owner indicated that it is inconvenient for the trucks and trailers to be moved from the fenced outdoor storage area at time of pick up. 3. The property owners indicated that most trucks and trailers in the parking lot area are there for less than 24 hours. 2 The applicants wish to continue to stage trucks and trailers outside of the approved outdoor storage area and have thus requested approval of a conditional use permit amendment to accommodate such activity, The applicants have specifically requested that staged vehicles be allowed to be located along the south edge of the parking lot, just north of 52nd Avenue North. Off -Street Parking. Of primary issue in consideration of the expanded outdoor storage area is the impact such expansion will have upon the site's off-street parking supply. The approved site plan illustrates a total of 47 spaces, one more than the minimum 46 spaces required by the Ordinance. The applicants wish to reduce the number of parking stalls from 47 to 31 spaces and devote the resulting additional site area to the staging of trucks and trailers along 52nd Avenue North. According to Section 4-3(e)(13) of the Ordinance, a reduction in the number of required parking stalls may be permitted by conditional use permit provided that: a. Evidence is provided demonstrating that the parking requirements of the proposed use will be less than the parking required under subsection 4- 3(e) of this Code during the peak demand period. Factors to be considered when reviewing the proposed parking demand shall include, but not be limited to: 9. Size, type and use of building. 2. Number of employees. 3. Projected volume and turnover of employee and/or customer traffic. 4. Projected frequency and volume of delivery or service vehicles. 5. Number of company owned vehicles. 6. Storage of vehicles on site. b. In no case shall the amount of parking provided be less than one-half to the amount of parking required by ordinance. c. The property owner can demonstrate that the site has sufficient property under the same ownership to accommodate the expansion of the parking facilities to meet the minimum requirements of subsection 4-3(e) of this Code if the parking demand exceeds on-site supply. d. On-site parking shall only occur in areas designed and constructed for parking in accordance with subsection 4-3(e) of this Code. The area reserved as "proof of parking" shall be sodded or seeded and maintained as green space or a recreational area. No permanent buildings shall be permitted in the "proof of parking" area. e. The property owner shall record a restrictive covenant against the title to the property providing that additional parking shall be constructed in accordance with subsection 4-3(e) of this Code if the site parking demand exceeds the actual onsite parking supply in the sole opinion of the city. The form of the restrictive covenant shall be approved by the city attorney before the issuance of the conditional use pennit. f. To qualify for a parking deferment, the site plan must comply with all current zoning standards. g. Application for and approval of a conditional use pen -nit for deferment of required parking shall also be subject to the provisions of Section 4-33 et al of this Code. In 2012, the City considered a conditional use permit application of Premier Storage along Winnetka Avenue to allow the conversion of a warehouse to a mini -storage facility. As part of such consideration, a parking deferment was granted as the applicants demonstrated that the parking demand for self -storage was deemed less than the City's parking supply standard for warehousing/storage uses. In this regard, the applicant supplied average parking stall counts from other cities around the Metropolitan Area for similar uses. Follow-up research was conducted by City staff and it was determined that a lesser parking supply was acceptable. The City did however, stipulate that, as condition of CUP approval, it may require additional parking stalls to be installed in the future, at the owners expense, if the provided parking stalls fail to satisfy actual site needs. Based upon this precedent, Staff recommends approval of the requested parking deferment (and proposed parking supply of 31 stalls) with a condition that the City reserve the right to require additional stalls of the need, as determined by the City, is to arise. The construction of such stall would be at the property owner's expense. It also should be recognized that such additional parking stalls could prompt the elimination of the proposed truck/trailer staging / storage area along 52nd Avenue North. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit amendment subject to the following conditions: Outdoor storage activities stall be subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested parking deferment. b. The site be developed in accordance with the site plan dated August 12, 2015 which illustrates permitted outdoor storage and truck/trailer staging 4 locations. The designated staging /storage area shall be physically delineated on the site with paint and/or signs. C. All staged vehicles (trucks and trailers) shall be screened from view of 52nd Avenue North and Hillsboro Avenue. In this regard, the existing cedar fence upon the property shall be relocated south of the staging area to screen staged trucks/trailers (as specified on the site plan dated August 12, 2015). d. The fence relocation and installation shall not obstruct site drainage. e. The parking lot shall be striped and directional arrows shall be provided. Rental trucks and/or trailers shall be limited to only the approved designated staging area. The number of vehicles shall be limited such that no trucks and/or trailers shall exceed the boundaries of the designated staging area. 2. A deferment of parking shall be allowed subject to the following conditions: a. The City shall reserve the right to require additional off-street parking if a need (as determined by the City) exists. This may require the reduction in the approved rental vehicle staging/storage area. b. If the construction of additional parking stalls is required, related costs shall be borne by the property owner. 3. The conditional use permit amendment shall be recorded with Hennepin County. cc: Aaron Chirpach, Roger Axel, Emily Becker, Jeff Alger Mayflower New Hope Properties 7760 France Ave So Suite 1100 Edina, MN 55435 August 18, 2015 RE; 9300 52nd Ave North New Hope, MN 55428 Following up from our meeting on August 13th, the following questions/concerns were brought to our attention and have outlined and addressed each of them below: • Number of U -Haul transactions: This is a brand new site so we do not have any historical numbers to provide related to number of U -Haul rentals. Based on the rental activity we have seen in the last month or so as well as rental activity at our other locations that offer truck rental, we can say that during the "peak" months (May -September) there can be anywhere from 2 to 10 rentals on any given day. During the off season (October -April) there may only be 2 to 5 rentals for the entire week. • Signage and location: We would proposed putting 2 signs on the existing cedar fence, facing the south that say "No Parking". In addition, we would also propose putting signage on the interior side of the fencing to be installed that says "U -Haul Truck Parking Only" with two additional signs that have an arrow on them, one facing west and one facing east so that it is clear that the striped boxed area is only for truck parking. • U -Haul staging area: In the designated parking area we've proposed, we would have the trucks backed in with the largest truck to the east and descending in size as they move west with the trailers being the furthest west of the lineup. Striping/seal coating: We would have the striping and seal coating completed within 45 days of approval on the proposed changes. • Snow storage: The snow storage would be done at the far cast side of the property, through the double gates and in to the wooded area as well as the north side, parallel to the railroad tracks, to be moved up and over the fence when needed with a bobcat. We do own multiple storage facilities and very confident that snow storage and removal will not be an issue. We have other locations with outdoor storage as well as the "double gate" set up for removal similar to this location. We look forward to the City of New Hopes approval of our request. Marinda Carr Corporate Administrator Mayflower New Hope Properties 612-385-7780 ,�aSUA vi W4 7x," -; .� 2 O 164 a ;14 a cu y rU4 a? � a� Q o 5. 4� b� o 4 X S1 o =0 N O io O 'dco rr tl • .w ry 0bJD x� 7��°��� .5 A o � � cd N .Vr 1 .� T R va ° CU �- -E6¢ 5 E O o°' + c�6 'G -t! p wm W O 2 IS Q 404 C3 ^ to �n •=-� '6b ° ci-e O O � ,� v a� R. •� r- .4y u � RR .2 � � O � O O ;S bO C ca cu u Q a; fl. d O C a v rA Ln z .'.i Q 's y Q qd V V �aaa-dHH�a�a� 1..{ r -q C yamy,,,,� C S coQ Q% Q 4C q D o a, r LO GJ co P� 't �- � N � 1-i � i -.i N Q c O OJ " w0 v� ob LO Q � U r, O C v � O O Q)LO Lo O ° cu 'o 00O Zia ° T-4 N w O U G Lf) ,�aSUA vi W4 7x," -; .� 2 O 164 a ;14 a cu y a? � a� o 5. 4� b� o 4 X S1 o =0 N O io O 'dco rr tl • .w ry 0bJD .5 A o � � cd N .Vr 1 .� T R va CU �- -E6¢ 5 E O o°' + c�6 'G -t! p wm W O 2 IS ? O 404 C3 ^ to �n •=-� '6b ° ci-e O O � ,� v a� R. •� r- .4y u � RR .2 � � O � O O ;S bO C ca cu u Q a; fl. d O C a v z .'.i g A V 's y V V �aaa-dHH�a�a� ,�aSUA vi W4 7x," -; g OC U: a Q f EXISTING BUILDING I 466226 Sr. LL I ti SITE DATA ZONING - I. INDUSTRIAL PARKING CALGUTAnGN OFFICE - S,B12 S.F. AT 1/9pp ISI 5TALL5 WAREHOUSE - 40,414 5F. AT (/1500 - 27 STALLS TOTAL STALLSREWIRED - 45 TOTAL STALLS PRONDED - 47 SOO LINE RAILROAD APPROX. LOCATION — OF EXISTING I OUTDOOR STORAGE 2248'X64' - 1"72 S.F. i APPROIL LOCATION DOCK DOORS NOT 1lSEU OUTDOOR STORAGE RY, BOATS, CAMPERS ` TINC OF E STG WippOR STORAGE !' RELOCATE EO[STNG SQiEEN FENCE TO gyr[ 29,OB9 S.F. EMSTING SCREEN FENCE SOUTH SIDE OUTDO �IS4 STORAGE RI BOATS, ro REMAIN PROVIDE NEW CHANLINK x FENCE N ITS PLACE f (31) TOTAL CAR PARKING STALLS —O FOR BULDING FUNCIONAUTY NORTH s SITECAPLAN AO Le � - W CID No �— ` RELGCAIEO SCREEN FENCE SNOW PLOWED AND STORED N THIS AREA 3 OF APPROX. WENT - ROO PWE —EKISTNC WOOD SCREEN FENCE ENTAL TRUCK/TRALER PARKING 52ND AVENUE NO. ra L A MP E R T A R C H I T E C T S 420 S—N Ar.... MK $1. Pouf, NN 55102 101 rA...rmT.aw.trt F�a.Aa4aan bYgMMrngrl-.Wsen ARCHITECT CERTiFRDATION! I bOIEBY _ MAT W6 P1.14 >PECNIGIMN a RiTAFr R49 NrDA9m 9Y YE a 1.AF11 Yv P4G+ iPLNNRB. AI,O qr I W A 1µv u AIm.+EIfiT 1x[ uM +RJ/W �axES�TAU �6 WIESpfA LEONARD LAMPERT IM -9 —9 19889 N2/15 W V Q z AC I 0CL LLI Ln_ CL 00z ❑ Z H � W 4 z 0 M i 4 Ln 00 o0 M ❑ °' nw•bM aY14� [www L. ". rn.Y — Prej.F! D. hr+t &MES B Dr— BjS 3x8 C1+.oWd By. LL RcW-o 8/12/15 ISSUE FOR PERMIT SITE PLAN Sheet Number AO Project No. 140228-2 Planning Case: Petitioner: Planning Request: !. Request PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: September 1, 2015 Report Date: August 28, 2015 15-18 City of New Hope Temporary Signs The Codes and Standards Committee (Committee) discussed possible changes to the city's temporary sign policies at its August 12, 2015 meeting after multiple businesses located along 42nd Avenue North expressed concern regarding the restrictiveness of the city's Sign Code. Concerns centered on temporary sign suspensions and temporary sign permit requirements. The owners of Mountain Mudd addressed the issue during the open forum at the August 10, 2015 City Council meeting as well. As stated in Section 3-50 0) (8) (g) of the City Code, a violation of the city's temporary sign regulations "will result in a forfeiture of additional sign permits for the property under this section for a period of 12 -months from the date of violation. The permit forfeiture shall be in addition to any other penalties for code violations allowed by this Code." The city's Building Official generally issues multiple warnings prior to enacting the 12 -month suspension. Violations are also subject to fines through the code enforcement process, which consists of a written warning followed by administrative citations. The Committee determined that a 12 -month suspension was excessive and that a 3 -month suspension would be more appropriate. Additionally, it was determined that businesses should receive one written warning, per calendar year, prior to the issuance of a suspension. The suspension would be issued in written form to the impacted business. Violation of a suspension would be subject to citation(s) through the code enforcement process. The Committee also discussed changes to the Sign Code in an effort to allow business more flexibility. Staff researched temporary sign policies for similar cities (details attached), shared the policies with the Committee, and proposes the following changes: The Committee was also in favor of a temporary sign waiver for new businesses that would allow a temporary sign for up to 30 days after opening without a permit fee. Such a policy would be helpful for new businesses wishing to display "now open" signage. Staff also recommends amending the Sign Code to allow for signage promoting employment opportunities (example: "now hiring") and signage Planning Case Report 15-18 Page 1 9/1/15 Current Propos d Number of Permits Per Year 5 10 Permit Length 10 days j 7 days Cost $50 $40 Cost Per Da $5 $5 71 The Committee was also in favor of a temporary sign waiver for new businesses that would allow a temporary sign for up to 30 days after opening without a permit fee. Such a policy would be helpful for new businesses wishing to display "now open" signage. Staff also recommends amending the Sign Code to allow for signage promoting employment opportunities (example: "now hiring") and signage Planning Case Report 15-18 Page 1 9/1/15 stating that a business is open during construction while undergoing renovations. In each instance, one sign would be allowed per business without a permit for the duration of the hiring process or construction. The city has similar existing provisions for signage advertising buildings that are for sale or lease. II. Recommendation The Committee was in favor of adopting a text amendment to the City Code regarding temporary signage suspensions and regulations. Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Attachments • Ordinance 15-20 • Temporary Signage Policies for Other Cities Planning Case Report 15-18 Page 2 9/1/15 ORDINANCE NO. 15-20 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-50 (SIGN CODE) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATED TO TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND VIOLATIONS OF TEMPORARY SIGN STANDARDS � Y:I x� � 11•LKf1iJ�I��i7 �ti �l :-IT���11�I�. _ il�[i :_ i :��� Section 1. Section 3-50(f), is hereby amended to add the underlined text as follows: (f) Permit not required. The following signs shall not require a permit and are allowed in addition to those signs allowed by subsection (k) of this section. These exemptions however shall not be construed as relieving the owner of the sign from the responsibility of its erection and maintenance and its compliance with the provisions of this Code or any other law or code regulating the same. (1) The changing of the display surface on an existing painted or poster display sign only. This exemption however shall apply only to poster replacement and/or on site changes involving sign painting elsewhere than directly on a building. (2) Temporary signs six square feet or less in size, not to exceed three feet in height, only in residential zoning districts. Said temporary sign shall not be erected for more than ten calendar days. (3) All noncommercial speech signs of any size posted in any number from 46 days before the state primary in a state general election year until ten days following the general election, and 13 weeks prior to any special election until ten days following the special election. (4) Official signs. (5) Flags or emblems of a national, federal or state government or memorial signs thereof, displayed on private property. (6) One on -premises temporary sign shall be allowed per street frontage when a building is offered for sale or lease, provided that: a. Within the R (residential) districts, no sign shall exceed 12 square feet in area and six feet in height for single-family, two-family, townhouse, and quadraminium units; or 32 square feet in area or eight feet in height for multi -family or institutional uses. b. Within all other zoning districts and in those cases where a parcel of land exceeds ten acres, regardless of its zoning, no sign shall exceed 64 square feet in area or ten feet in height. (7) On -premises directional signs which are no larger than two square feet. The number of signs shall not exceed four unless approved by the city council. (8) A business may receive a one -u it: pefthlL dit r10 co& Lc pave a "grand opening" or "now oven" banner for 30 consecutive days from the opening date. The banner must follow size and setbacks requirements as outlined by the City Code. This permit will not count towards the number of allotted annual permits. (9) One on -premises temporary sign shall be allowed per street frontage in non-residential districts, stating "oven during construction," when a business has an active building permit_ The sign shall not exceed 64 square feet in area or ten feet in height. (10) One on -premises temporary sign shall be allowed per street frontage in non-residential districts when a business is actively offering eravloyment o ortunitics not to exceed 64 square feet in area or ten feet in height. Section 2. Section 3-500)(8), is hereby amended to repeal the strikeouts and add the underlined text as follows: (8) Temporary signs as permitted within the specific zoning district. a. The use of banners, pennants, temporary signs and similar devices shall require a permit valid for no more than seven ten—consecutive days and shall expire automatically after said period. Upon the permit expiration, the applicant shall cease to display any and all signs permitted by the permit unless the applicant has obtained a new permit for said signage. b. No more than ten permits per business shall be granted during any 12 -month period. If two permits are obtained in succession by any applicant per subsection 0)(8)a of this section, both permits shall be counted for the purpose of determining the yearly limitations of this subsection. c. The area of Manner, penman, iempoiary sign or similar device shall not exceed the area allowances for the specific zoning district in which the sign is located. d. Permits for any temporary sign pursuant to this section shall be issued only to owners, tenants or their respective agents of commercial or industrial property. Applications must be submitted to the city building official on a form approved by the city a minimum of one business day prior to the special or promotional event when the signs will be used. e. Temporary sign standards. 1. All temporary signs must be located on the premises where the event is occurring. 2. Not more than one banner, pennant, temporary sign or similar device shall be displayed for an individual business at any one time. 3. Signage shall not exceed 50 square feet. 4. In the event sign permits are simultaneously held by multiple tenants in a multiple occupancy building, the signs must be located at least 200 feet apart. 5. No temporary signs allowed by this section shall be erected or temporarily placed within a public street right-of-way or upon public lands, easements or rights-of-way. Temporary signs must be located on private property. Freestanding signs shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the street curb. The setback shall be measured from the back of curb to that portion of the sign nearest to the curb. 2 f Temporary signs permitted by subsection (f) of this section shall be exempt from the requirements of this section. g. Violation of any conditions of this section will result in a single written warning, :per calendar year, proceeded by forfeiture of additional sign permits for the property under this section for a period of months from the date of violation. Notification of the The permit forfeiture shall -ake place in written farm and be in addition to any other penalties for code violations allowed by this Code. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication. APPROVED by the New Hope City Council this day of Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk 2015 Temporary Signage Policies City Policy on sandwich board signs Ek temporary signs Brooklyn Center Temporary signs, including sandwich board signs, allowed for outdoor sales or promotional events, when approved as part of outdoor activities for 10 days at $50 Brooklyn Park Sandwich board signs not allowed Banners and feather flags allowed for 30 days at $75 (3 permits per year max) Allow one-time "grand opening" banner for 60 days free Crystal Temporary signs, including sandwich board signs, allowed for 7 days at $50 (6 permits per year max for sin le tenant, 4 permits per year max for multi -tenant) Edina Sandwich board and temporary signs not allowed Plymouth Temporary signs, including sandwich board signs, allowed for 14 days at $50 (4 permits per year max) New Brighton Temporary signs, including sandwich board signs, allowed for 14 days at $52 (4 permits per year max) Allow one-time "grand opening" or "going out of business" sign for 30 days free Richfield Sandwich board signs not allowed Other temporary signs allowed for 28 days at $35 (4 permits per year max) PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: September 1, 2015 Report Date: August 28, 2015 Planning Case: 15-19 Petitioner: City of New Hope Planning Request: Liquor License Restrictions Near Churches I. Request The Codes and Standards Committee (Committee) discussed possible changes to the city's Liquor Code in regards to restrictions of licenses near churches at its August 12, 2015 meeting. The Committee was in favor of revoking the current restriction, which is outlined in Section 10-18 (f) of the City Code and prohibits liquor licenses from being granted for premises located within 500 feet of any church. The city passed an ordinance on May 11, 2015 providing for the establishment of taprooms, brewpubs, and microdistillery cocktail rooms. Shortly thereafter, the city received a Conditional Use Permit application for a brewery with a taproom. Upon reviewing the application, it was determined that a church was located in the same building as the proposed brewery and taproom. In an effort to clarify the reasoning for such restrictions, city staff consulted with the City Attorney, who stated that two uses may not have been considered compatible at the time of publication (e-mail response attached). The City Attorney also clarified that there is no state statute prohibition restricting liquor establishments within 500 feet of churches. The Committee determined that the 500 -foot restriction for churches was outdated and unnecessary and that the restriction was still appropriate for schools. The Committee considered the possibility of a church locating within one of the city's commercial districts, much like the previously referenced church currently operating within the industrial district. Such instances eliminate the possibility of future businesses with liquor licenses opening within 500 feet of the church. It would not however impact existing establishments with existing liquor licenses. The Committee was concerned with this type of limitation within both the commercial and industrial zoning districts and felt that it could be an unnecessary encumbrance for potential future establishments. II. Recommendation The Committee was in favor of adopting a text amendment to the city's Liquor Code, eliminating restrictions on the allowance of liquor licenses within 500 feet of a church. Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Attachments • Ordinance 15-21 6 E-mail regarding liquor licenses from City Attorney (June 23, 2015) Planning Case Report 15-19 Page 1 9/1/15 ORDINANCE NO. 15-21 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 10-13 AND 10-18 (POSSESSION, SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF INTOXICATING AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATED TO LIQUOR LICENSE RESTRICTIONS NEAR CHURCHES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 10-13(1), is hereby amended to repeal the strikeouts as follows: (1) Legal description. The exact legal description of the premises to be licensed together with a plot plan of the area showing dimensions, location of buildings, street access, parking facilities and the locations and distances of the nearest school grounds. The description may not include any parking lot or sidewalk. Section 2. Section 10-18(f), is hereby amended to repeal the strikeouts as follows: M School property. No license shall be granted for premises located within 500 feet of a public school of The distance shall be measured in a straight line from the closest point of the school's ' parcel or lot line to the closest side of the structure on the premises within which liquor is to be sold. The erection of a public school4 within the prohibited area, after an original application has been granted, shall not render such premises ineligible for renewal of the license. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication. APPROVED by the New Hope City Council this day of 2015. Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk PAAttorncylSAS11 Client Filesl2 City of New Hope199-81521 Liquor License Restrictions Near Churches\Liquor License Restrictions Near Churches Draft Ordinance.docx Alger Jeff From: Steven Sondrall [SAS@jspwlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 5:05 PM To: Alger Jeff Cc: Sargent Jeff; Chirpich Aaron; McDonald Kirk; Stacy A. Woods Subject: RE: Liquor Licenses-Churches/Schools Jeff— until recently, the city has had a restrictive policy on the sale of alcohol. i believe the proximity restrictions to churches and schools used to be a lot further; like a quarter mile so 500 feet is a significant easing from former restrictions. Most churches are also located in residential zoning districts. It is believed the sale of alcohol in close proximity to churches and schools in residential zoning districts is not a good idea. Basically, they are land uses which are not compatible with each other. Churches now located in industrial areas changes the issue somewhat, but I still believe most council people would not want to allow alcohol sales in the close proximity to a church or school regardless of the zoning district. I would venture to say you will find these proximity restrictions in every municipal code you care to review. Regarding question 2, 1 think the phrase "place of worship" is too broad. However, this might be a definitional question we should pose to Al Brixius. I think the word "church" encompasses more than just Christian churches but would include all public places of worship like temples, mosques, synagogues etc., especially the way we have administratively applied the word "church" in past practice. Regarding question 3, ask the city manager to place it on a work session agenda for discussion. I am not a mind reader, but if I had to bet, i would bet that the council would not eliminate this proximity restriction. Steve Please note our new Firm Name is Jensen Sondrall Persellin & Woods, P.A. and my email address has changed to sas(a, ,isuwlaw.com. Steven A. Sondrali JENSEN SONDRALL, PERSELL[N & WOODS, 11..A 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Ste. 201 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443-1968 Phone (763) 424-8811 Fax (763)493-5193 Direct (763) 201-021 Cell (612) 616-7187 sas@jWwlaw.com WARNING: Actual receipt of E -Mail communications should not be assumed. E -Mail communications may be intercepted or inadvertently misdirected. The American Bar Association deems E -Mails a valid authorized form of communication between lawyer and client, however security of this E -Mail message and attachments (if any)cannot be assured. Unless the text indicates otherwise, this E -Mail message and attachments (if any) shall not be deemed legal advice, nor does it create an attorney/client relationship. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or authorized to deliver it to the intended recipient, dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender via E -Mail reply. From: Alger Jeff [mailto:jalger@ci.new-hope.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 11:47 AM To: Steven Sondrall Cc: Sargent Jeff, Chirpich Aaron Subject: RE: Liquor Licenses-Churches/Schools Steve, Please see questions below. * What is the rationale behind not allowing the=e types of businesses within 500 feet of a church? Should the City Code read "places of worship" instead of churches? s The building owner referenced below would like to gauge the possibility of changing the City Code to allow these types of businesses within 500 feet of a church. Can you give us some background and your thoughts on the feasibility of making such a change? Thanks, Jeff From: Steven Sondrall fmailto:SAS@jspwlaw.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 4:24 PM To: Alger Jeff Subject: RE: Liquor Licenses-Churches/Schools Jeff— I looked into this after our discussion. Please see the attached statutes MS 340A.509 and 340A.412, subd 4. There is no state statute prohibition restricting liquor establishments 500 feet from churches. The only area prohibitions in state law are found in 340A.412, subd 4. However, the city can be more restrictive than state law per MS 340A.509. The 500 foot restriction in code section 10-18(f) is based on the city's ability to be more restrictive. Also, it was part of the restrictions found in the League of Minnesota Cities sample ordinance and it was part of our existing code (see 10-50(b)) which was maintained in new section 10-18(f). Steve Please note our new Firm Name is Jensen Sondrall Persellin & Woods, P.A. and my email address has changed to sas(a7ispwlaw.com. Steven A. Sondrall JENSEN SONDRALL PERSELLIN & WOODS, P.A. 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Ste. 201 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443-1968 Phone (763) 424-8811 Fax (763) 493-5193 Direct (763) 201-0211 Cell (612) 616-7187 sas(cr� jmwlaw.com WARNING: Actual receipt of E -Mail communications should not be assumed. E -Mail communications may be intercepted or inadvertently misdirected. The American Bar Association deems E -Mails a valid authorized torm of communication between lawyer and client, however security of this E -Mail message and attachments (if any)cannot be assured. Unless the text indicates otherwise, this E -Mail message and attachments (if any) shall not be deemed legal advice, nor does it create an attorney/client relationship. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or authorized to deliver it to the intended recipient, dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender via E -Mail reply. From: Alger Jeff [ Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 12:00 PM To: Steven Sondrall Subject: Liquor Licenses-Churches/Schools Steve, Will you send me the applicable excerpt from State Law that prohibits liquor licenses from being issued to properties within 500 feet of a church? Or however it is addressed? City Code 10-18 (f) School or church property. No license shall be granted for premises located within 500 feet of a public school or of any church. The distance shall be measured in a straight line from the closet point of the school's or church's parcel or lot line to the closest side of the structure on the premises within which liquor is to be sold. The erection of a public school or church within the prohibited area, after an original application has been granted, shall not render such premises ineligible for renewal of the license, Thanks, Jeff Alger City of New Hope ! Community Development Assistant 4401 Xylon Ave N New 11ope, MN 55428 Office: 763-531-5119 1 Fax: 763 -5K -,i L10 jalgeMd.new-hope.mnm dmew-hopemnms PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: September 1, 2015 Report Date: August 28, 2015 Planning Case: 15-12 Petitioner: City of New Hope Planning Request: Tree Preservation Ordinance I. Request The Planning Commission discussed a draft Tree Replacement Policy (Policy) at its July 7, 2015 meeting. The item was tabled following discussion about the proposed replacement ratio and implementation of a list of unapproved trees rather than a list of approved trees. Staff had proposed a 1:1 replacement ratio and use of an approved tree list. The Planning Commission suggested a 1:0.5 replacement ratio and that an unapproved tree list would be more appropriate, as the approved list excluded a significant number of desired species, including coniferous trees. Staff met with the City Forester to discuss the proposed changes and to establish an unapproved tree list The City Forester was in favor of both changes and assisted in developing the attached Prohibited Tree List. The draft ordinance defines significant trees as healthy trees "measuring a minimum of six inches in diameter for deciduous trees, or a minimum of twelve feet in height for coniferous trees," and preferred trees as "any tree not appearing on the city's Prohibited Tree list, as may be amended." It requires replacement for the loss of any significant, preferred trees due to building construction, site grading, construction of parking lots, loading areas, outdoor storage areas, or stormwater management features. The replacement standard of 1:0.5 requires that the diameter of the tree in inches (rounding up) equal the total number of diameter inches required for replacement. The draft ordinance also calls for any replacement tree which is not alive or healthy, as determined by the City Forester, or which subsequently dies due to construction activity within two years after the date of project closure, to be removed by the applicant and replaced with a new healthy tree meeting the same minimum size requirements. As outlined in the draft ordinance, a landscape plan detailing on-site tree preservation measures would be required prior to the approval of a building permit. At the time of submission, the City Forester would conduct an inspection and identify significant, preferred trees that may be impacted or lost due to site improvements, grading, and/or utility work associated with the project. The applicant would be required to implement the Tree Preservation Plan prior to and during any construction and protection measures would need to remain in place until all grading and construction activity has been completed. Planning Case Report 15-12 Page 1 9/1/15 The following table outlines when the draft ordinance calls for the replacement of existing trees: Replacement ; Replacement Not ; The Policy does not apply to city street construction projects, as the city implemented a new practice for such projects in 2015. When trees are removed due to street construction projects, the City Forester contacts impacted homeowners, offering a replacement tree at no cost. The homeowner is allowed to select from a list of ten trees species. The replacement tree is approximately 2.5 inches wide and depending on the type of species, ranges from 6 to 12 feet in height. The purpose of the Policy is to protect and preserve trees when new commercial, industrial, multiple family, and institutional development takes place. Trees are often lost from privately owned land when development occurs and the city is unable to regulate replacement standards. Trees provide value from an environmental and property value standpoint. They aid in reducing storm water runoff, soil erosion, and water pollution. Other environmental benefits include the improvement of air quality and conservation of energy. Trees have also been shown to increase property values and can help beautify neighborhoods. II. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue and close the public hearing from the July 7, 2015 Planning Commission meeting and approve the proposed ordinance. Attachments • Ordinance 15-16 • July 7, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes (draft) • Prohibited Tree List (draft) Planning Case Report 15-12 Page 2 9/1/15 Required Required Land Uses Commercial, Industrial, Multiple Family, Institutional ✓ Single famil ✓ Type of Vegetation & Location Significant, preferred tree ✓ + Non -preferred tree ✓ Non-significant, preferred tree ✓ Invasive vegetation ✓ Nuisance plant ✓ Diseased or dead tree ✓ Significant, preferred trees within 15' of building I VII footprint of proposed building or addition The Policy does not apply to city street construction projects, as the city implemented a new practice for such projects in 2015. When trees are removed due to street construction projects, the City Forester contacts impacted homeowners, offering a replacement tree at no cost. The homeowner is allowed to select from a list of ten trees species. The replacement tree is approximately 2.5 inches wide and depending on the type of species, ranges from 6 to 12 feet in height. The purpose of the Policy is to protect and preserve trees when new commercial, industrial, multiple family, and institutional development takes place. Trees are often lost from privately owned land when development occurs and the city is unable to regulate replacement standards. Trees provide value from an environmental and property value standpoint. They aid in reducing storm water runoff, soil erosion, and water pollution. Other environmental benefits include the improvement of air quality and conservation of energy. Trees have also been shown to increase property values and can help beautify neighborhoods. II. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue and close the public hearing from the July 7, 2015 Planning Commission meeting and approve the proposed ordinance. Attachments • Ordinance 15-16 • July 7, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes (draft) • Prohibited Tree List (draft) Planning Case Report 15-12 Page 2 9/1/15 ORDINANCE NO. 15-16 ANN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 (ZONING) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATED TO CHANGES TO SECTION 4-2(b), DEFINITIONS; SECTION 4-3(d)(4) GENERAL PROVISIONS LANDSCAPING – TREE PRESERVATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4-2(b), Definitions, of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to add the following definitions: Tree. Preferred means any tees; not appearingoty's Prohibited Tree list, as may be amended.. Tree Significant means a healthy tree measuring a minimum of six 6 inches in diameter measured five 5 feet above the existing, natural ade surrounding the tree for deciduous trees or a minimum of twelve (12) feet in height for coniferous trees. Tree, Nuisance means any tree that is diseased, dead, dying invasive, or susceptible to disease. Tree, Ratio 1: means the diameter of the tree in inches (roundiU Lip) pequals the total number of diameter inches required for replacement. Section 2. Sec. 4-3(d)(4)b, Performance standards, Landscaping, is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: b. Required landscaping—Semi-public and all income producing property uses. Prior to approval of a building permit, all of the above uses shall be subject to a mandatory landscape plan requirement. Said landscape plan should be developed with an emphasis upon the following areas: The boundary or perimeter of the proposed site at points adjoining another existing or proposed site or sites: the immediate perimeter of the structure or building at points of its placement on the site; and the public boulevard areas at points of interface with streets or sidewalk areas of the city. Landscape plans must identify and protect significant preferred trees as defined in Section 4.2(b) whenever possible. The landscape plan shall include tree preservation measures to be used on the site. Section 3. Sec. 4-3(d)(4)c, Performance standards, Landscaping, is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: c. Tree Preservation and Rgplacement. Landscape plans associated with commercial industrial, multiple family, or institutional uses shall include measures to preserve or replace significant, preferred trees within any site development or redevelopment projects whenever possible, in accordance with this section of the New Hope City Code. 1. Inspection. With submission of a development application, the City Forester shall conduct a site inspection and identify significant, preferred trees that may be impacted or lost due to site improvements, grading, and/or utility work associated with the project. 2. Preservation Measures. The applicant shall include tree preservation measures on the landscape measures that will be put in place during site construction torp otect significant, preferred trees including_ i. Snow fencing or polyethylene laminar safety netting placed at the drip line or critical root zones. ii. Installation of signage at all tree protection areas that instructs workers to stay out. iii. Erosion control methods. iv. Tree removal procedures including directional felling away from existing trees to be saved and trenching to separate root systems prior to bulldozing trees or stumps. v. Coordination of utility,planning with tree preservation plan to strategically extend utility connections from the street to the building in a manner that protects trees intended to be saved. vi. Measures for preventing changes in soil chemistry due to concrete wash out and leakage or spillagc of toxic materials such as fuels or paints. vii. No soil disturbance shall occur within the lot until the tree preservation plan is a roved and tree protection measures are in place. viii. Builders contractors, or others working on site shall not fill, stockpile materials, or store equipment or vehicles against the trunk of the tree, in the critical root zone, or under the drip line of a tree to be saved. 3. Replacement. i. No tree replacement is required for the following_ 1 Removal of non-sigjificant, preferred trees. 2) Removal of non -preferred trees/invasive vegetation, nuisance plants or trees that are diseased or dead. 3 Removal of significant, referred trees within fifteen 15 feet of the building footprint of a proposed building or building addition. ii. Tree replacement will be re uired for the loss of My simlificant, preferred trees from the site due to site grading, construction of parking lots, loading areas, outdoor storage areas, or stormwater management features. iii. The City will require the replacement of all trees at a 1„inch to 4-0.5 inch ratio. iv. Replacement trees shall consist of trees from the preferred tree list as defined in Section 4-2(b) of the City Code and shall meet the minimum size requirements as set forth in Sec. 4-3(d)(4).b.I of this section. v. The site landsca a plan shall identify tree locations species, and sizes for replacement trees being planted on site. If the site plan does not offer space for the required number of replacement trees, the City may permit off-site replacement trees planted on public property. vi. ALly r lacement tree which is not alive or healthy, as determined by the Cit Forester, or which subsequently dies due to construction activity within two Q years after the date of project closure, shall be removed by the applicant and replaced with a new healthy tree meeting the same minimum size requirements. 4. Compliance with Plan The applicant shall implement the tree preservation plan prior to and during any construction. The tree protection measures of the plan shall remain in place until all grading and construction activity is terminated, or until a request is made to and approved by the MY. The City shall have the right to inspect the development and/or building site in order to determine compliance with the approved tree preservation plan. The City shall determine whether compliance with the tree preservation plan has been met. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication. APPROVED by the New Hope City Council this day of . 2015 Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk 1. The applicant shall enter into site improvement agreement with City to ensure the completion of all required improvements (to be prepared by the City Attorney). 2. The applicant shall enter into a storm water maintenance agreement with City (to be prepared by the City Attorney). 3. The applicant shall redesign the grading plan to reduce the slope of the southwest driveway and curb cut. The finished driveway slope shall be approved by the City Engineer. 4. The lighting plan shall be revised so that the Iight levels at building entrances maintain an average of 5.0 foot candles. 5. The applicant shall provide cut sheets and details for all exterior light fixtures to ensure compliance with City Code. 6. The site utility plan shall be subject to review and final approval by the City Engineer and Public Works. 7. The grading, drainage, and storm water management plans shall be subject to review and final approval by the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall not store snow in the fire access turnaround at the southeast corner of the site. 9. The applicant shall remove landscaping at the fire department connection and maintain a five foot clear zone. Two parking stalls at the fire department connection shall be striped "no parking." 10. All rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the building and screened from adjoining public rights of way with building parapets. 11. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan for the site detailing all sign locations and size. 12. The applicant shall provide financial guarantee and performance bond for landscaping and site improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and building official). Voting in favor: McKenzie, Gehring, English, Landy, Smith, Brinkman*, Schmidt * Commissioner Brinkman excused himself from the meeting after this motion was approved Voting against: None Absent: Svendsen, Clark Motion approved 7* -0 Vice Chair Schmidt stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its July 27th meeting. Planning Case 15-12 Vice Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.2, request to consider text amendment Item 4.2 to Sections 4-2 and 4-3 of New Hope City Code establishing tree Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 7, 2015 preservation policy, City of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, stated that the Codes and Standards Committee discussed a Tree Replacement Policy at its March 25, 2015 meeting. Many other cities have such policies, and trees are often lost from privately owned land when development occurs, and the city is unable to regulate replacement standards. The Committee was in favor of establishing a Policy for commercial, industrial, multiple family, and institutional land uses. Mr. Alger explained the value trees provide as well as the proposed standards of the Policy. The draft ordinance, Alger elaborated, will define Significant Trees as healthy trees "measuring a minimum of six inches in diameter for deciduous trees, or a minimum of twelve feet in height for coniferous trees", includes a list of Preferred Trees by species, and calls for the replacement (with a standard of 1:1 diameter ratio) for the loss of aforementioned significant, preferred trees due to construction, site grading, construction of parking lots, loading areas, outdoor storage areas, or storm water management features. The replacement trees must survive at least twe years after the date of project closure or must be replaced again following standards. Alger clarified a landscape plan detailing on-site tree preservation measures, as well as an inspection by the City Forester identifying significant, preferred trees on site, would be required prior to approval of a building permit. He also outlined land uses and types of vegetation that would apply to the draft ordinance. Alger added that notice of public hearing to consider this ordinance was published in the SunPost June 25, 2015. Staff received no questions or complaints on the amendment. To conclude, he stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance, contingent upon review and approval of the Preferred Tree list by the City Forester. Commissioner McKenzie questioned if it would be better to have a list of unapproved trees rather than a list of approved trees. His reasoning was that the approved list excludes a significant number of desired species, including coniferous trees. Mr. Alan Brixius contested it is easier to provide a list of preferred trees rather than itemize exempt trees, as it evades debate, and the list may be amended. Mr. Jeff Sargent suggested the possibility to add "or as accepted by the City Forester" to the list of preferred trees. After further discussion, Mr. Brixius conceded he would discuss with the City Forester the possibility of creating an exempt species list as well as amending the 1:1 ratio replacement requirement. Commissioner McKenzie inquired if the ordinance applies to City projects. Mr. Brixius replied that the current drafted ordinance does not. There was no motion to close the public hearing as the request would be tabled. Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 7, 2015 Vice Chair Schmidt opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was no further discussion, he opened for a motion. Motion Motion by Commissioner McKenzie, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.2 table Planning Case 15-12, request to consider text amendment to Sections 4-2 and 4-3 of New Hope City Code establishing tree preservation policy, City of New Hope, petitioner, to a later meeting to allow time for further review. The areas of consideration included reexamining amending the preferred tree list to a non -preferred tree list, changing the 1:1 ratio requirement, and requiring city projects to adhere to the policy. Voting in favor: McKenzie, Gehring, English, Landy, Smith, Schmidt Voting against: None Absent: Svendsen, Clark, Brinkman Motion approved 6-0 Planning Case 15-13 Vice Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.3, request to consider text Item 4.3 amendment establishing governmental, park and open space zoning district and text amendment to Section 3-50 of New Hope City Code adding governmental, park and open space district to Sign Code, City of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Sargent, Community Development Director, stated that the Codes and Standards Committee evaluated the possibility of creating a new zoning district for governmental, park, and open space properties (GPO) at its June 10, 2015 meeting. Open space and public land throughout the city is not currently associated with a specific zoning district and falls under the "OSP — Open Space/Public" overlay district. The draft ordinance, Sargent explicated, is to create a unified district for governmental operations and civic uses that does not have a minimum lot area or width and has zero foot setback requirements. He then presented a map of the proposed rezoning areas. Mr. Sargent added it is necessary that the Sign Code be amended to address such a zoning district. The draft Sign Code ordinance would allow one free standing sign per lot with a maximum height of 30 feet to not exceed 100 square feet per side and zero foot setbacks. Sargent concluded that a public notice regarding the text amendment was published in the SunPost and staff received no inquiries or objections. The Codes and Standards Committee was in favor of adopting and staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. No one was in the audience to speak during the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Landy seconded by Commissioner McKenzie to close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Vice Chair Schmidt opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was no further discussion, he opened for a motion. Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 7, 2015 i City of New Hope Forestry Department 5500 International Pkwy -New Hope MN 55428 •Phone: 763-592-6777 •Fax: 763-592-6776 • ci.new-hope.mn.us Prohibited Tree List Trees provide value from an environmental and property value standpoint. They aid in reducing storm water runoff, soil erosion, and water pollution. Other environmental benefits include the improvement of air quality and conservation of energy. Trees have also been shown to increase property values and can help beautify neighborhoods. Tree Preservation Policy The city of New Hope has a Tree Preservation Policy in place, intended to protect. and preserve trees when development takes place. The policy applies to commercial, industrial, multiple family, and institutional land use development projects. The city's Tree Preservation Policy requires that significant, preferred trees be replaced at 1 inch to 0.5 inch ratio. The ratio refers to the diameter of the tree in inches (rounding up) and the total number of diameter inches required for replacement. A Significant Tree is considered a healthy tree measuring a minimum of six inches in diameter measured five (5) feet above the existing, natural grade surrounding the tree for deciduous trees for deciduous trees, or a minimum of twelve feet in height for coniferous trees. A Preferred Tree is considered any tree that does not appear on the city's Prohibited Tree list, as shown below. Prohibited Trees The city's Prohibited Tree list includes the following species: • Amur Maple • Black Locust. • Boxelder • Gmko (female only) ■ Green, White, or Black Ash (fraxinus species) • Muiberry • Non -disease resistant elm species • Nonhybrid cottonwood -species • Russian Olive Buckthorn • Siberian or Chinese Elm Boulevard Tree Replacement Policy The city of New Hope has also adopted a policy to help homeowners to replace boulevard trees that have been lost to storms, disease, or other causes. The city has a preferred tree list to address tree selection considerations including hardiness, mature size, salt tolerance, pest and disease resistance, rooting habits, maintenance requirements, and soil compatibility, For more information, call 763-592-6763. GACommDevNinformationaI Forms for CD and Public\Originals\Prohibited Tree List.dom (07-15) CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 7, 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, Vice Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Christopher McKenzie, Greg Gehring, Wade English, Roger Landy, Bill Smith, Jim Brinkman, Torn Schmidt Absent: Steve Svendsen, Scott Clark Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist; Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney; Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant; Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant; Emily Becker, Recording Secretary PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 15-14 Vice Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.1, request for site plan review to Item 4.1 allow construction of a 48,000 square foot industrial building, 9449 Science Center Drive, John Allen, petitioner. Mr. Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, stated that Industrial Equities proposes to remove the existing site structure, which is deemed to be blighted and deteriorating, to facilitate construction of the new building. Mr. Chirpich explained the site requirements of the property. The proposed building meets all setback requirements. Circulation, access, traffic and emergency vehicle access of the site plan have received staff approval. Curbing and parking lot design are within regulation; soil borings will help assess the proposed paving design. Proposed parking of the site exceeds the required amount, as do the number of loading berths and bays. Planned landscaping meets City Code requirements, though staff has required the applicant provide information that tree growth near the filtration media and pipe locations will not compromise the function of the storm water pond. The lighting plan must be adjusted to meet city pole height and candle requirements. Proposed signage meets City Code requirements; staff has required each tenant have a suite number at their entrance, The revised utility plan addresses issues previously raised by staff. This plan, along with the grading plan and storm water design, is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works. Per the request of West Metro Fire, the applicant must maintain a five foot area clear of snow and landscaping around all fire hydrants and fire department connections, and full architectural and building plans are subject to code review. The building architecture and design complies with the New Hope Design Guidelines. Mr. Chirpich went on that the preliminary site plan meets all zoning code criteria. The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant on June 18, 2015 and was in favor of the proposed redevelopment. Property owners within 350 feet of the parcel were notified by mail and a legal notice was published in the SunPost. Staff has not received any questions or concerns regarding the proposal. Mr. Chirpich concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the site plan. He added that staff is excited about the opportunity to replace a vacant and deteriorated building with a new, flexibly laid -out facility that will meet needs of several prospective tenants and hopefully attract new businesses to New Hope. 12 staff -recommended conditions of approval were presented. Commissioner Brinkman was concerned about the proposed entrance at the southwest corner of the lot. He believes that creating this entrance on the frontage road to Highway 169 is potentially dangerous because of the high speed cars often drive on this road. Chirpich replied that staff acknowledges that grading is too steep to create this entrance and has considered limiting access to emergency vehicles only, pushing the entrance further north, or eliminating the entrance altogether, Commissioner Smith questioned if a stop sign could be added to slow down traffic. Mr. Alan Brixius, City Planner, retorted that the steep grade would prohibit this option and that the preference would be one of the solutions Chirpich presented. Vice Chair Schmidt motioned for the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. Mr. John Allen, of 321 First Avenue North of Minneapolis, MN stepped to the podium. Mr. Allen is the sole, principle owner and CEO of Industrial Equities. He began by commenting on the previous discussion about the entrance at the southwest corner of the site, stating that the preference of Industrial Equities would be to move or eliminate this access entirely; he will work with staff to come to the best solution. The goal of Industrial Equities, he stated, is to provide higher quality structures and sites to attract higher quality tenants, not to build or remodel and subsequently sell, Commissioner Brinkman questioned if the building was in fact a single story tall at a height of 33 feet and if the roof would be sloped. Mr, Allen responded the roof will be flat and the parapets reach a height of 33 feet, but the highest clear height of the actual building is 24 feet. Vice Chair Schmidt inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Being that no one spoke, he asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Gehring, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 15-14, request for site plan review to allow construction of a 48,000 square foot industrial building, 9449 Science Center Drive, John Allen, petitioner, with the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 7, 2015 1. The applicant shall enter into site improvement agreement with City to ensure the completion of all required improvements (to be prepared by the City Attorney). 2. The applicant shall enter into a storm water maintenance agreement with City (to be prepared by the City Attorney). 3. The applicant shall redesign the grading plan to reduce the slope of the southwest driveway and curb cut. The finished driveway slope shall be approved by the City Engineer. 4. The lighting plan shall be revised so that the Iight levels at building entrances maintain an average of 5.0 foot candles. 5. The applicant shall provide cut sheets and details for all exterior light fixtures to ensure compliance with City Code. 6. The site utility plan shall be subject to review and final approval by the City Engineer and Public Works. 7. The grading, drainage, and storm water management plans shall be subject to review and final approval by the City Engineer. S. The applicant shall not store snow in the fire access turnaround at the southeast comer of the site. 9. The applicant shall remove landscaping at the fire department connection and maintain a five foot clear zone. Two parking stalls at the fire department connection shall be striped "no parking." 10. All rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the building and screened from adjoining public rights of way with building parapets. 11. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan for the site detailing all sign locations and size. 12. The applicant shall provide financial guarantee and performance bond for landscaping and site improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and building official). Voting in favor. McKenzie, Gehring, English, Landy, Smith, Brinkman*, Schmidt * Commissioner Brinkman excused himself from the meeting after this motion was approved Voting against: None Absent: Svendsen, Clark Motion approved 7* -0 Vice Chair Schmidt stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its July 27th meeting. Planning Case 15-12 Vice Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.2, request to consider text amendment Item 4.2 to Sections 4-2 and 4-3 of New Hope City Code establishing tree Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 7, 2015 preservation policy, City of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, stated that the Codes and Standards Committee discussed a Tree Replacement Policy at its March 25, 2015 meeting. Many other cities have such policies, and trees are often lost from privately owned land when development occurs, and the city is unable to regulate replacement standards. The Committee was in favor of establishing a Policy for commercial, industrial, multiple family, and institutional land uses. Mr. Alger explained the value trees provide as well as the proposed standards of the Policy. The draft ordinance, Alger elaborated, will define Significant Trees as healthy trees "measuring a minimum of six inches in diameter for deciduous trees, or a minimum of twelve feet in height for coniferous trees", includes a list of Preferred Trees by species, and calls for the replacement (with a standard of 1:1 diameter ratio) for the loss of aforementioned significant, preferred trees due to construction, site grading, construction of parking lots, loading areas, outdoor storage areas, or storm water management features. The replacement trees must survive at least two years after the date of project closure or must be replaced again following standards. Alger clarified a landscape plan detailing on-site tree preservation measures, as well as an inspection by the City Forester identifying significant, preferred trees on site, would be required prior to approval of a building permit. He also outlined land uses and types of vegetation that would apply to the draft ordinance. Alger added that notice of public hearing to consider this ordinance was published in the SunPost June 25, 2015. Staff received no questions or complaints on the amendment. To conclude, he stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance, contingent upon review and approval of the Preferred Tree list by the City Forester. Commissioner McKenzie questioned if it would be better to have a list of unapproved trees rather than a list of approved trees. His reasoning was that the approved list excludes a significant number of desired species, including coniferous trees. Mr. Alan Brixius contested it is easier to provide a list of preferred trees rather than itemize exempt trees, as it evades debate, and the list may be amended. Mr. Jeff Sargent suggested the possibility to add "or as accepted by the City Forester" to the Iist of preferred trees. After further discussion, Mr. Brixius conceded he would discuss with the City Forester the possibility of creating an exempt species list as well as amending the 1:1 ratio replacement requirement. Commissioner McKenzie inquired if the ordinance applies to City projects. Mr. Brixius replied that the current drafted ordinance does not. There was no motion to close the public hearing as the request would be tabled. Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 7, 2015 Vice Chair Schmidt opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was no further discussion, he opened for a motion. Motion Motion by Commissioner McKenzie, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.2 table Planning Case 15-12, request to consider text amendment to Sections 4-2 and 4-3 of New Hope City Code establishing tree preservation policy, City of New Hope, petitioner, to a later meeting to allow time for further review. The areas of consideration included reexamining amending the preferred tree list to a non -preferred tree list, changing the 1:1 ratio requirement, and requiring city projects to adhere to the policy. Voting in favor. McKenzie, Gehring, English, Landy, Smith, Schmidt Voting against: None Absent: Svendsen, Clark, Brinkman Motion approved 6-0 Planning Case 15-13 Vice Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.3, request to consider text Item 4.3 amendment establishing governmental, park and open space zoning district and text amendment to Section 3-50 of New Hope City Code adding governmental, park and open space district to Sign Code, City of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Sargent, Community Development Director, stated that the Codes and Standards Committee evaluated the possibility of creating a new zoning district for governmental, park, and open space properties (GPO) at its June 10, 2015 meeting. Open space and public land throughout the city is not currently associated with a specific zoning district and falls under the "OSP — Open Space/Public" overlay district. The draft ordinance, Sargent explicated, is to create a unified district for governmental operations and civic uses that does not have a minimum lot area or width and has zero foot setback requirements. He then presented a map of the proposed rezoning areas. Mr. Sargent added it is necessary that the Sign Code be amended to address such a zoning district. The draft Sign Code ordinance would allow one free standing sign per lot with a maximum height of 30 feet to not exceed 100 square feet per side and zero foot setbacks. Sargent concluded that a public notice regarding the text amendment was published in the SunPost and staff received no inquiries or objections. The Codes and Standards Committee was in favor of adopting and staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. No one was in the audience to speak during the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Landy seconded by Commissioner McKenzie to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Vice Chair Schmidt opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was no further discussion, he opened for a motion. Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 7, 2015 Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Gehring, to Item 4.3 approve PIanning Case 15-13, request to consider text amendment establishing governmental, park and open space zoning district and text amendment to Section 3-50 of New Hope City Code adding governmental, park and open space district to Sign Code, City of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: McKenzie, Gehring, English, Landy, Smith, Schmidt Voting against: None Absent: Svendsen, Clark, Brinkman Motion approved 6-0 Vice Chair Schmidt stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its July 27th meeting. Planning Case 15-16 Vice Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.4, request to consider text Item 4.4 amendment to Sections 4-2, 4-16, 4-17 and 4-20 of New Hope City Code related to trade school and specialty school definitions and permitted and conditional uses within Community Business, City Center and Industrial districts, City of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Alger stated that the Codes and Standards Committee discussed amending the city's zoning code to better define and regulate trade schools and specialty schools and where they can locate within the city at its June 10, 2015 meeting, City staff receives frequent inquiries about the possibility of locating schools with young children within the city's Community Business (CB), Industrial (1), and City Center (CC) districts and would like the City Code to more clearly define trade schools and specialty schools. Mr. Alger listed concerns that locating schools with young children in a commercial or industrial zoning district would raise, including high traffic volumes, lack of school amenities, and potential loss of tax base. He went on to provide definitions the proposed ordinance would put in place of Health Club, Sports Training Center, and Trade School. The proposed ordinance would also remove Training and Specialty Schools from the City Code, specify what size Trade School, Health Club, and Sports Training Center is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUT') within the CB and CC districts, and require proof of adequate parking and a traffic study. To conclude, Alger declared the Codes and Standards Committee was in favor of and staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. No one was in the audience to speak during the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Landy seconded by Commissioner English to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Vice Chair Schmidt opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was no further discussion, he opened for a motion. Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie, Item 4.4 to approve PC 15-16, request to consider text amendment to Sections 4-2, 4-16, 4-17 and 4-20 of New Hope City Code related to trade school and Planning Commission Meeting 6 July 7, 2015 specialty school definitions and permitted and conditional uses within Community Business, City Center and Industrial districts, City of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: McKenzie, Gehring, English, Landy, Smith, Schmidt Voting against: None Absent: Svendsen, Clark, Brinkman Motion approved 6-0 Vice Chair Schmidt stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its July 27th meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Vice Chair Schmidt stated the Design and Review Committee was held on Committee June 18, 2015 and that the next potential meeting was scheduled for July 16, Item 5.1 2015, though there were no potential cases at the time. Codes and Standards Vice Chair Schmidt stated that the Codes and Standards Committee was held Committee June 10, 2015. The next meeting date is to be determined. Item 5.2 NEW BUSINESS No new business. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie, to Item 7.1 approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 2, 2015. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Jeff Sargent updated the Commission on the Hy -Vee project, stating that the goal is for construction to be completed by late July and for the store opening to occur on September 22n1. North Memorial hopes to time construction so as to not interfere with Hy-Vee's store opening. He stated that the City Council will have a special work session July 81h to discuss potential development opportunities for the golf course. Mr. Aaron Chirpich informed the plan to bring a sandwich shop to the Gas N' Splash site at 7820 42nd Ave is moving forward, though environmental concerns are delaying the process. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Emily Becker, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 7 July 7, 2015