080316 Planning1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
7:00 p.m.
4.1 PC 16-11, request to consider text amendment to Section 4-3 of New Hope City
Code opting -out from state statute allowing landowners to place mobile residential
dwelling on property to serve as Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling, City of
New Hope, petitioner.
4.2 PC 16-12, request to consider text amendment to Section 3-50 of New Hope City
Code related to monument signs and lighting regulations for multiple -family sites
having not less than five lots or dwelling units.
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Design and Review Committee -- next meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 18,
2016.
5.2 Codes and Standards Committee - next meeting?
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. OLD BUSINESS
7.1 Approve June 7, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
Petitioner must be in attendance at the meeting
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: August 3, 2016
Report Date: July 29, 2016
Planning Case: 16-11
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Planning Request: Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling Opt -Out Ordinance
I. Request
The Codes and Standards Committee discussed a new state law that allows landowners to place a
mobile residential dwelling on their property to serve as a Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling at
its June 29, 2016, meeting. Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings are intended to provide
transitional housing for seniors, but can apply to anyone who needs assistance with two or more
"instrumental activities of daily life" for mental or physical reasons eligible to be housed in this
manner, The law allows for modular and manufactured housing and recreational vehicles, as long as
the unit meets all of the listed criteria. It creates a mandatory permit process for property owners who
request a Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling. Cities must create a new type of permit that has a
has a six-month duration, with an option to extend the permit for an additional six months. One
Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling is allowed per property. The law sets forth specific structural
requirements related to insulation, septic, utilities, exterior appearance, and other areas. It also requires
that the applicant notify adjacent property owners of the application, but no public hearing is required.
The city must make a decision on the request within 15 days of receipt of the application. A permit can
be denied for appropriate cause, but a process has not been established for appealing the decision or
revoking an application.
The law will become effective on September 1, 2016, but cities have the option of passing an opt -out
ordinance. Cities may opt -out of the program if they determine that this type of expedited land use
permitting for temporary dwellings is not well-suited to their community. The Minnesota City/County
Management Association conducted an informal survey to get a sense of which cities have opted -out or
plan to recommend opting -out of the program. Of the 33 cities surveyed, 32 have opted -out, intend to
opt -out, or will recommend opting -out from the program. The city of Osseo decided not to opt -out,
citing small lot sizes and the unlikelihood of a property being able to place a unit that would meet the
city's setback requirements.
II. Recommendation
The Codes and Standards Committee was in favor of opting -out from the program allowing
landowners to place a mobile residential dwelling on their property to serve as a Temporary Family
Health Care Dwelling. The draft ordinance amends Section 4-3(b)(1) "Dwelling unit restriction" of the
City Code, exempting the city from the requirements of the state statute that defines and regulates
Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings.
Planning Case Report 16-11 Page 1 8/3/16
Staff recommends that the city opt -out from the program.
Attachments
• Ordinance 16-09
• Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings of 2016 (League of MN Cities)
• Minnesota City/County Management Association survey results
Planning Case Report 16-11 Page 2 8/3/16
ORDINANCE NO. 16-09
AN ORDINANCE OPTING -OUT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF
MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed into law the creation and regulation of
temporary family health care dwellings, codified at Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, which permit and
regulate temporary family health care dwellings;
WHEREAS, subdivision 9 of Minn. Stat. §462.3593 allows cities to "opt out" of those
regulations;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS as follows:
Section 1. City Code, Section 4-3(b)(1) "Dwelling unit restriction" is hereby amended by
adding subsection 4-3(b)(1)d. "Temporaryfamily health care dwelling" to read as follows:
d. Temporary family health care dwelling. Pursuant to authority granted by Minn.
Stat. §462.3593, subdivision 9, the City hereby opts -out of the requirements of
Minn. Stat. §462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health
Care Dwellings. These temporary dwellings are not permitted within the city.
Section 2.
Adopted this _
of New Hope.
Attest:
This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
day of
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Un
2016, by the City Council of the City
Kathi Hemken, Mayor
(Published in the New Hope -Golden Valley Sun -Post the day of , 2016.)
0
LI:A.GUE of CONNECTING & INNOVATING
MINNESOTA SINCE 1913
CITIES
Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings of 2016
Allowing Temporary Structures — What it means for Cities
Introduction:
On May 12, 2016, (iov. Dayton signed, into law, a bill creating a new process for landowners to
place mobile residential dwellings on their property to serve as a temporary family health care
dwelling. I Community desire to provide transitional housing for those with mental or physical
impairments and the increased need for short term care for aging family members served as the
catalysts behind the legislature taking on this initiative. The resulting legislation sets forth a short
term care alternative for a "mentally or physically impaired person", by allowing them to stay in a
"temporary dwelling" on a relative's or caregiver's property.2
Where can I read the new law?
Until the state statutes are revised to include bills passed this session, cities can find this new bill at
2016 Laws, Chapter 111.
Does the law require cities to follow and implement the new temporary family
health care dwelling law?
Yes, unless a city opts out of the new law or currently allows temporary family health care
dwellings as a permitted use.
Considerations for cities regarding the opt -out?
These new temporary dwellings address an emerging community need to provide more convenient
temporary care. When analyzing whether or not to opt out, cities may want to consider that:
a The new law alters a city's level of zoning authority for these types of structures.
• While the city's zoning ordinances for accessories or recreational vehicles do not apply,
these structures still must comply with setback requirements.
A city's zoning and other ordinances, other than its accessory use or recreational vehicle
ordinances, still apply to these structures. Because conflicts may arise between the statute
and a city's local ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their
current ordinances in light of the new law.
' 2016 Laws, Chanter 111.
Some cities asked if other states have adopted this type of law. The only states that have a somewhat similar statute
at the time of publication of this FAQ are North Carolina and Virginia. It is worth noting that some states have adopted
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) statutes to allow granny flats, however, these ADU statutes differ from Minnesota's
Temporary Health Care Dwelling law.
145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHowi (651) 281-1200 FA7c: (651) 281-1299
5T. PAUL, MN 55103-2044 7oLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 wm www.L mc.om
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
Tune 27, 2016
Page 2
® Although not necessarily a legal issue for the city, it seems worth mentioning that the
permit process does not have the individual with the physical or mental impairment or that
individual's power of attorney sign the permit application or a consent to release his or her
data.
The application's data requirements may result in the city possessing and maintaining
nonpublic data governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
4 The new law sets forth a permitting system for both cities and counties3. Cities should
consider whether there is an interplay between these two statutes.
Do cities need to do anything to have the new law apply in their city?
No, the law goes into effect Sept. 1, 2016 and automatically applies to all cities that do not opt out
or don't already allow temporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use under their local
ordinances.
Do cities lose the option to opt out after the Sept. 1, 2016 effective date?
No, the law does not set a deadline for opting out, so cities can opt out after Sept. 1, 2016.
However, if the city has not opted out by Sept. 1, 2016, then the city must not only have
determined a permit fee amount4 before that date (if the city wants to have an amount different
than the law's default amount), but also must be ready on that date to accept applications and
process the permits in accordance with the short timeline required by the law. Cities should consult
their city attorney to analyze how to handle applications submitted after Sept. 1, 2016, but still
pending at the time of a later opt out.
What if a city already allows a temporary family health care dwelling as a
permitted use?
If the city already has designated temporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use, then
the law does not apply and the city follows its own ordinance. The city should consult its city
attorney for any uncertainty about whether structures currently permitted under existing ordinances
qualify as temporary family health care dwellings.
What process should the city follow if it chooses to opt out of this statute?
Cities that wish to opt out of this law must pass an ordinance to do so. The statute does not provide
clear guidance on how to treat this opt -out ordinance. However, since the new law adds section
462.3593 to the land use planning act (Minn. Stat. ch. 462), arguably, it may represent the adoption
or an amendment of a zoning ordinance, triggering the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 462.357,
subd. 2-4, including a public hearing with 10 -day published notice. Therefore, cities may want to
err on the side of caution and treat the opt -out ordinance as a zoning provision.'
s See Minn. Stat. §394.347
a Cities do have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets, as a default, a fee of $100 for the initial
permit with a $50 renewal fee, but authorizes a city to provide otherwise by ordinance.
S For smaller communities without zoning at all, those cities still need to adopt an opt -out ordinance. In those
instances, it seems less likely that the opt -out ordinance would equate to zoning. Because of the ambiguity of the
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 3
Does the League have a model ordinance for opting out of this program?
Yes. Link to opt out ordinance here: Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings Uic iut
Can cities partially opt out of the temporary family health care dwelling law?
Not likely. The opt -out language of the statute allows a city, by ordinance, to opt out of the
requirements of the law but makes no reference to opting out of parts of the law. If a city wanted a
program different from the one specified in statute, the most conservative approach would be to
opt out of the statute, then adopt an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city.
Since the law does not explicitly provide for a partial opt out, cites wanting to just partially opt out
from the statute should consult their city attorney.
Can a city adopt pieces of this program or change the requirements listed in the
statute?
Similar to the answer about partially opting out, the law does not specifically authorize a city to
alter the statutory requirements or adopt only just pieces of the statute. Several cities have asked if
they could add additional criteria, like regulating placement on driveway's, specific lot size limits,
or anchoring requirements. As mentioned above, if a city wants a program different from the one
specified in the statute, the most conservative approach would involve opting out of the statute in
its entirety and then adopting an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city. Again, a
city should consult its city attorney when considering adopting an altered version of the state law.
What is required in an application for a temporary family health care dwelling
permit?
The mandatory application requests very specific information including, but not limited to: 6
• Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property
(if different than the owner), and the primary care giver;
• Name of the mentally or physically impaired person;
Proof of care from a provider network, including respite care, primary care or remote
monitoring;
Written certification signed by a Minnesota licensed physician, physician assistant or
advanced practice registered nurse that the individual with the mental or physical
impairment needs assistance performing two or more "instrumental activities of daily
life;" 7
statute, cities should consult their city attorneys on how best to approach adoption of the opt -out ordinance for their
communities.
6 New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 3 sets forth all the application criteria.
This is a term defined in law at Minn. Stat. § 256$.0659, subd. 1(i) as "activities to include meal planning and
preparation; basic assistance with paying bills; shopping for food, clothing, and other essential items; performing
household tasks integral to the personal care assistance services; communication by telephone and other media; and
traveling, including to medical appointments and to participate in the community."
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 4
• An executed contract for septic sewer management or other proof of adequate septic sewer
management;
• An affidavit that the applicant provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents;
• A general site map showing the location of the temporary dwelling and the other structures
on the lot; and
• Compliance with setbacks and maximum floor area requirements of primary structure.
The law requires all of the following to sign the application: the primary caregiver, the owner of
the property (on which the temporary dwelling will be located) and the resident of the property (if
not the same as the property owner). However, neither the physically disabled or mentally
impaired individual nor his or her power of attorney signs the application.
Who can host a temporary family health care dwelling?
Placement of a temporary family health care dwelling can only be on the property where a
"caregiver" or "relative" resides. The statute defines caregiver as "an individual, 18 years of age or
older, who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative,
legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom the
individual is caring." The definition of "relative" includes "a spouse, parent, grandparent, child,
grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person.
Relative also includes half, step and in-law relationships."
Is this program just for the elderly?
No. The legislature did not include an age requirement for the mentally or physically impaired
dweller. a
Who can live in a temporary family health care dwelling and for how long?
The permit for a temporary health care dwelling must name the person eligible to reside in the unit.
The law requires the person residing in the dwelling to qualify as "mentally or physically
impaired," defined as "a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two
or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified by a physician, a physician assistant, or
an advanced practice registered nurse, licenses to practice in this state." The law specifically limits
the time frame for these temporary dwellings permits to 6 months, with a one-time 6 month
renewal option. Further, there can be only one dwelling per lot and only one dweller who resides
within the temporary dwelling
s The law expressly exempts a temporary family health care dwelling from being considered "housing with services
establishment", which, in turn, results in the 55 or older age restriction set forth for "housing with services
establishment" not applying.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 5
What structures qualify as temporary family health care dwellings under the new
law?
The specific structural requirements set forth in the law preclude using pop up campers on the
driveway or the "granny flat" with its own foundation as a temporary structure. Qualifying
temporary structures must:
• Primarily be pre -assembled;
• Cannot exceed 300 gross square feet;
• Cannot attach to a permanent foundation;
• Must be universally designed and meet state accessibility standards;
• Must provide access to water and electrical utilities (by connecting to principal dwelling or
by other comparable means');
• Must have compatible standard residential construction exterior materials;
• Must have minimum insulation of R-15;
• Must be portable (as defined by statute);
• Must comply with Minnesota Rules chapter 1360 (prefabricated buildings) or 1361
(industrialized/modular buildings), "and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission
seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2" 10; and
• Must contain a backflow check valve."
Does the State Building Code apply to the construction of a temporary family
health care dwelling?
Mostly, no. These structures must meet accessibility standards (which are in the State Building
Code). The primary types of dwellings proposed fall within the classification of recreational
vehicles, to which the State Building Code does not apply. Two other options exist, however, for
these types of dwellings. If these structures represent a pre -fabricated home, the federal building
code requirements for manufactured homes apply (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1360). If
these structures are modular homes, on the other hand, they must be constructed consistent with
the State Building Code (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1361).
What health, safety and welfare requirements does this new law include?
Aside from the construction requirements of the unit, the temporary family health care dwelling
must be located in an area on the property where "septic services and emergency vehicles can gain
access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner."
What local ordinances and zoning apply to a temporary health care dwelling?
The new law states that ordinances related to accessory uses and recreational vehicle storage and
parking do not apply to these temporary family health care dwellings.
9 The Legislature did not provide guidance on what represents "other comparable means".
10 ANSI Code 119.2 has been superseded by NFPA 1192. For more information, the American National Standards
Institute website is located at hors./Iwww.ansi.ore.
I New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 2 sets forth all the structure criteria.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 6
However, unless otherwise provided, setbacks and other local ordinances, charter provisions, and
applicable state laws still apply. Because conflicts may arise between the statute and one or more
of the city's other local ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their
current ordinances in light of the new law.
What permit process should cities follow for these permits?
The law creates a new type of expedited permit process. The permit approval process found in
Minn, Stat. § 15.99 generally applies; however, the new law shortens the time frame within which
the local governmental unit can make a decision on the pen -nit. Due to the time sensitive nature of
issuing a temporary dwelling permit, the city does not have to hold a public hearing on the
application and has only 15 days (rather than 60 days) to either issue or deny a permit. For those
councils that regularly meet only once a month, the law provides for a 30 -day decision. The law
specifically prohibits cities from extending the time for making a decision on the permit
application. The new law allows the clock to restart if a city deems an application incomplete, but
the city must provide the applicant written notice within five business days of receipt of the
application identifying the missing information.
Can cities collect fees for these permits?
Cities have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets the fee at $100 for the initial
permit with a $50 renewal fee, unless a city provides otherwise by ordinance
Can cities inspect, enforce and ultimately revoke these permits?
Yes, but only if the permit holder violates the requirements of the law. The statute allows for the
city to require the permit holder to provide evidence of compliance and also authorizes the city to
inspect the temporary dwelling at times convenient to the caregiver to determine compliance. The
permit holder then has sixty (60) days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family
health care dwelling. The law does not address appeals of a revocation.
How should cities handle data it acquires from these permits?
The application data may result in the city possessing and maintaining nonpublic data governed by
the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. To minimize collection of protected heath data or
other nonpublic data, the city could, for example, request that the required certification of need
simply state "that the person who will reside in the temporary family health care dwelling needs
assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living", without including in that
certification data or information about the specific reasons for the assistance, the types of
assistance, the medical conditions or the treatment plans of the person with the mental illness or
physical disability. Because of the complexities surrounding nonpublic data, cities should consult
their city attorneys when drafting a permit application.
Should the city consult its city attorney?
Yes. As with any new law, to determine the potential impact on cities, the League recommends
consulting with your city attorney.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 7
Where can cities get additional information or ask other questions.
For more information, contact Staff Attorney Pamela Whitmore at pwhitrnore(d)lmc.org or LMC
General Counsel Tom Grundhoefer at tg undhoAlmc.org. If you prefer calling, you can reach
Pamela at 651.281.1224 or Tom at 651.281.1266.
Temporary Health care Dwellings - : Temporary health care Dwellings - What Are Your Cities Leaning?
MCMA- responses recived from post 7-7-16 by eric Johnson from Oak Park heights
Name of City
Likely to Opt Out Or Have done So?
Comments
Austin
Yes
We opted out in Austin - Craig clark
Burnsville
Yes
Burnsville opted out. Heather J.
Chatfield
Yes
Chatfield is opting out, too, by the way. Joel
Your
We will be opting out for the following reasons:
Lack of water/sewer facilities, no meanful ability
to enforce removal at the end of the
Clearwater
Yes
"temporary' period, difficulty in controlling
where they can go, concerns about them
becoming just a spare "room" for people that
don't actually have a health condition.
We're recommending opt out and are
Corcoan
Leaning Opt Out - Staff Report
considering it next week. Our draft report is
attached. Brad Martens
Eric — We had a work session discussion with
our Council last month and they'd like us to opt
Crystal
Yes
out and then come up with our own criteria.
We'll opt out in July and come up with criteria in
early fall. Good luck, Anne
We are working towards opting out before
Detroit Lakes
Yes
September 1st., Kelcey Klemm
Yes, we are opting out of it and will be
incorporating verbiage into our zoning
ordinance in August. Look at it like this. If you
Dilworth
Yes
don't opt out now, you are locked in for good.
You can always "opt in" at a later time. With the
short time frame to act, I would
encouragecomm unities to opt out. L. Peyton
Mastera
Excelsior
Yes
We will be opting out, we have small lots and it
appears to be a zoning nightmare. Kristi Luger
Glencoe
Yes
Glencoe will be opting out also. Mark Larson
We are opting out at least at first to give us
Hopkins
yes
proper time to research and determine what we
want to do. - Ari Lenz
Likely opting out - Upcoming public
We'll be holding a public hearing in the next
Lake Elmo
Hearing
month or so but will likely be opting out. Kristina
Handt
Lakeville
Yes I
Lakeville is opting out. Justin Miller
My thoughts are too numerous to put to paper
but mainly stem from enforcement if someone
Lauderdale
Yes
decides they would like to keep their new
abode or maybe house a college student.
Heather B.
Maple Grove will be opting out, going forward to
Maple Grove
Planning Commission in July
Planning Commission later in July. Heidi
Nelson
Eric, Mendota Heights will likely be opting out,
Mendota heights
Likely opting Out
assuming the Planning Commission
recommends taking that action. Mark mcneill
The City of Montevideo has introduced an
ordinance to opt out of the temporary dwelling
requirements. This will likely be adopted at our
next council meeting. We wanted to ensure we
Montevido
Yes
met the September 15f deadline. I saw in the
news that many metro suburbs are doing this
as well. There seems to be a plethora of issues
along with the zoning and regulation of these
types of structures. Angie Steinbach
The City of New Prague will be opting out as
New Prague
yes
outlined below for generally the same reasons
below. Mike
New Ulm
Yes
New Ulm is opting out - Brian Gramentz
Newport
Planning Comm - Discussing Soon
WIII be recommending to Council to opt out.
Deb Hill
North Oaks
YES
North Oaks opted out - Mike Robertson
North St. Paul
Yes
We will be opting out too. Jason Ziemer
Oak Park Heights
Leaning Opt Out - Staff is investigating
Will be taken up in late July or Early August.
Eric Johnson
So we tackled this issue at our last Council
meeting. Ultimately, the Council decided NOT
to opt out. Because Osseo is so small, with
small lots and whatnot, there would actually be
very few properties that could place a temp unit
Osseo
NOT TO OPT OUT
and still be within the City's setbacks, etc. So
instead of outright banning them, the Council
decided to not opt out in order to reduce the
numbers of unnecessary ordinances. I don't
expect we'll see any of these anyways. The
motion passed by a 3-2 vote. - Riley Grams
We are opting out. In a community with
primarily 11,000 sq. ft. lots it doesn't make
sense. We are also concerned about having
Savage
Yes
to monitor when the occupant has passed on
and the conversion of the unit into something
more than a place to put mom and dad. Barry
Stock.
Shakopee
Seeking to Opt Out
Will be seeking to opt out as well. Bill Reynolds
Springfield
Yes
Springfield will be opting out., Matt
St Cloud
Yes
St. Cloud is proposing to opt-out. It will go to
our Council this month. Mike Williams
The Stillwater City Council has directed staff to
Stillwater
Yes
prepare an ordinance to opt out of this capacity.
Tom M.
Swift County
YES
Swift County is planning to opt out, Mike Pogge
Tonka Bay will be opting out of this. We are
going to use the LMC template language and
Tonka Bay
Yes
will adopt it before Sept. 'I't. Our main reason is
that over half of our lots already don't conform
with out setbacks and lot area, this will only
make it worse. Lindy Crawford
The City of Two Harbors is opting out. There
Two Harbors
Yes
was a decent article about this in the Star
Tribune earlier this week, Dan Walker
Vadnais Heights
Staff Reccomd. To Opt Out
We will recommend opting out as well. Kevin
Watson,
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: August 3, 2016
Report Date: July 29, 2016
16-12
City of New Hope
Planning Request: Illumination of Signs at Multifamily Complexes
I. Request
A sign contractor spoke during the open forum potion of the May 23, 2016, City Council meeting,
requesting that the city consider allowing the illumination of signs in residential districts. The City
Council gave staff direction to review the request with the Codes and Standards Committee. The Codes
and Standards Committee discussed the matter at its June 29, 2016, meeting. Section 3-50(k)(1)(b)(4) of
the City Code states that no signs within the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 districts shall be illuminated,
except for those established under the provisions of Section 3-50(k)(1)(d). The exception allows for one
changeable copy sign for quasi -public or private recreation buildings, public and private educational
institutions limited to accredited elementary, middle or senior high schools, and religious institutions
such as churches, chapels, temples, and synagogues. The New Hope Design Guidelines state that the
"external illumination of signs is permitted by incandescent, metal halide, or fluorescent light that
emits a continuous white light. Light shall not shine directly onto the ground or adjacent buildings.
Neon signs are permitted. Internally lit awnings are not permitted. Internally lit box signs and variable
electronic message signs are discouraged."
Some multifamily complexes in New Hope have existing, non -conforming signs that are illuminated
with floodlights. Such signs do not meet current City Code requirements, but are essentially
"grandfathered" as legal non -conforming. Recent multifamily residential projects such as Gates of New
Hope (Residential Office zoning district) and Compass Pointe (Planned Unit Development) were
allowed to have illuminated freestanding signs.
The draft ordinance allows multifamily sites with not less than five lots or dwelling units to have
illuminated signs, provided that various standards are met. Light cast upon adjacent rights-of-way (as
measured from the curb line) or residential zoning districts (as measured from the property line)
cannot not exceed 0.4 of a foot-candle (meter reading) above ambient light levels. Light from the signs
must be totally shielded with no exposed light source and exterior light must be installed to direct the
light exclusively to the sign to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance
that it impairs the vision of the driver. Light from illuminated signs cannot interfere with or obscure
traffic signs or signals, Aside from the exception for quasi -public or private recreation buildings, public
and private educational institutions limited to accredited elementary, middle or senior high schools,
and religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples, and synagogues, changeable copy signs
are not allowed. The draft ordinance also corrects height requirements for monument signs throughout
the City Code, limiting such signs to eight feet in height.
Planning Case Report 16-12 Page 1 8/3/16
II. Recommendation
The Codes and Standards Committee was in favor of allowing multifamily sites with not less than five
lots or dwelling units to have illuminated signs, provided that various standards related to light levels,
shielding, and obstruction are met.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment.
Attachments
+ Ordinance 16-13
+ City Council minutes (May 23, 2016)
Design Guidelines on signs (pp. 21-22)
Signage lighting submittal from Imaginality Designs
Planning Case Report 16-12 Page 2 8/3/16
ORDINANCE NO. 16-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-50 (SIGN CODE) OF THE NEW HOPE
CITY CODE RELATED TO MONUMENT SIGNS AND LIGHTING REGULATIONS
FOR MULTIPLE -FAMILY SITES HAVING NOT LESS THAN FIVE LOTS OR
DWELLING UNITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 3-50(d)(2), Sign Code - Definitions, is hereby amended to repeal
the strikeouts and add the following underlined text:
(2) Monument sign means any freestanding sign with its sign face mounted on the ground
or mounted on a base at least as wide as the sign and which has a height not to exceed
4;x^CCdi .g eight feet In ii�jgtlt.
Section 2. Section 3-50(k)(1)(b), District regulations, is hereby amended to repeal
the strikeouts and add the following underlined text:
(b) In addition to the sign allowed by subsection (k)(1)a of this section, monument signs
shall be allowed for a subdivision or multiple -family site having not less than five lots or
dwelling units at its entrance from a street
provided that:
(1) Not more than one sign shall be allowed per lot street frontage.
(2) The area of each sign shall not exceed 48 square feet.
(3) Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight feet.
(4) Except for those signs established under the provisions of subsection (k)(1)d
of this section, illuminated signs shall be allovrt:-1 for multiple -family _sites, having
not less_ than five lots or dwelling units,provided the foll!M8 j= standards are met:
the sign s1mg not be i4hminated._
(i) Light cast upon adjacent riis-of way (as measured from the curb line)
or residential zoning_ districts (as measured from the property line) shall not
exceed 0.4 of a foot-candle (meter reading) above ambient light levels.
ii) Illuminated signs shall be totally shielded with no exposed light source
and exterior hgbt must be installed to direct the light exclusively to the sign to
prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it
impairs the vision of the driver. Illuminated lights shall not interfere with or
obscure traffic signs or signals.
(iii) Except for the uses specified in subsection (k)(1)d of this sectiom
changeable -My signs shall not be permitted.
Page 1
(5) For sign(s) requiring regular long-term maintenance, the sign(s) shall be
Iocated on separate or common space of sufficient size and area to accommodate
said structure:
(i) An association, deed restriction, or ownership involving all the
properties within the subdivision shall be required for the sign(s). The
association shall own and be responsible for the upkeep, perpetual
maintenance, taxes, insurance, utilities and other costs associated with the
sign(s) and the site upon which it is located.
(ii) The association rules or bylaws, or similar legal document, shall
specify how the aforementioned sign responsibilities will be delegated and
paid for. Such legal document shall be subject to the review and approval
of the city attorney.
(iii) Separate or common space outlots for signs shall be considered and
planned for at the time of preliminary plat application and be included in
the final plat. The subdivision development contract between the city and
the developer shall specify the designated use of the outlot(s), its
ownership and the respective responsibilities regarding the outlot.
(6) The area around the sign shall be landscaped in such a manner to accent and
enhance the sign while remaining sensitive to the natural features of the site.
Detailed site and landscape plans shall be included with each sign permit
application and shall be subject to approval by the city building official.
(7) The design and construction of area identification signs shall be done with the
highest quality materials and workmanship to keep maintenance and upkeep costs
to a minimum and to minimize the potential for vandalism. Signs are to be
aesthetically pleasing when designed and constructed. The sign shall be
compatible with nearby structures in the area. Detailed construction plans and a
materials list shall be included with each sign permit application and shall be
subject to approval by the city building official.
Section 3. Section 3-50(k)(1)(d)(2), District regulations, is hereby amended to repeal
the strikeouts and add the following underlined text:
(2) For each principal building on a lot, there shall not be more than one freestanding
monument sign except on a corner lot where two signs, one facing each street, shall be
permitted. No such signs shall exceed 100 square feet in area. Monument signs may not
exceed ci&ht 4 -2 -feet in height.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and
publication.
APPROVED by the New Hope City Council this day of 2016.
Page 2
Kathi Hemken, Mayor
ATTEST:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Page 3
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
City Council Minutes May 23, 2016
Regular Meeting City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call
and notice thereof; Mayor Hemken called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the
ALLEGIANCE Flag.
ROLL CALL Council present: Kathi Hemken, Mayor
John Elder, Council Member
Andy Hoffe, Council Member
Eric Lammle, Council Member
Jonathan London, Council Member
Staff present: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist
Tim Fournier, Director of Police
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Chris Long, City Engineer
Bob Paschke, Director of Public Works
Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVAL OF Motion was made by Council Member Hoffe, seconded by Council
MINUTES Member Elder, to approve the regular meeting minutes of May 9, 2016.
Voted in favor: Hemken, Elder, Hoffe, London; voted against: None;
Absent: None; Abstained: Lammle. Motion carried.
OPEN FORUM Ms. Myrna Orensten, Imaginality Designs, requested consideration of a
change to city code 3-50(k)(1)b4 regarding lit signs. Ms. Orensten was
informed the matter will be referred to the Planning Commissioes Codes
and Standards Committee.
PRESENTATION: Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion Item 5.1, Motion to accept the
2013 Financial Report 2015 comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR).
Item 5.1
Mr. Kirk McDonald, city manager, introduced Bill Lauer of Malloy,
Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co. (MMKR). Mr. McDonald
New Hope City Council May 23, 2016
Page 1
c
m
�
c
e
E
�
c
0
9
C
CR
�
0
�
e
IL
�
A
#
I
2 C13
�
7 �
D�
o%
�
2 �
� co)
%
� @
\
M � -
22
G
m 2 >
CL m
t
LD■
o E
�kkCl)
&\a
-0f
E�ca
— — E
2
• � o
J-
%2�§/
2
too
r-o
22k /
k
L
c20 ■/��_���
u
a
& t 2
L S§� 2
§
§ - r3
M cn
2 � .. c
§_/
J 7 2 %
k
E m
@
�2
�_/� -5k
v@
k 2 5 f@
X22
�
!a=cum 0E�
CU
§ E f
U)
\ §
0 E V
CO . £
c
m
�
c
e
E
�
c
0
9
C
CR
�
0
�
e
IL
�
A
#
I
�G�� 0h :@ -6
C13
m
0
C� w� m t5 2 0Ei v, s
ca r_O O O — m C
0 d O ` Q ti
LD a) ca ca Z 2
CD
yO 0 'p ��'
co o m E C a' w c (D
w g�
CD n z rn s c o c7� �' c cm
= y zs t= w e ca 0 o C
c E Z �
c [U m-0 00 0 m a'
is o w o o cmm w c
c
"—� N - a m
'C s E n
O) y
MO -0 C.7 -0 A .0 m
COpp 7
.y N ' N 8 N ACU O j N
OD =fO f0 E U 0 L
C - ca t
O) cmO
r.+ Nt O N 0
03 E y C C 7 -0
a% o c o 3 Co o pis
�.. U N a N O C C U •a-
r�9 O -Z -6 c 7•) w w
o �' c c cu �, 3 -0 0 os m o.
E 32 -0 Heti � � ca
c m E o c
E O O X c
a 8 v -0 w E a, 0 o
m� D < a a)m CD t5 n y
CL `
Cd ca CD
y w C 5 2 Q c N E O
-ap O O -fA m m vD G N G
Q
a fn N O [a
=p 06 a 0 .0
c o is �--0 .0 %-- ca c C N o 0)
a E c ani o s 0-0 o
C- a 9mo 3 c c vj 7 .c m
CD 5 ca w —� E o. o rn
O1 01� U US
O y L L m
C Sti N c6 •0 O J C YJ m
= E -0 c- c- •y 0 Z E L � C c
U) c) 0 o M m 'i y Lm c
0> w M ccL as
CD Es
ECL
'C c— v-0 C o
p�
CA
p i o O p ,E c C c d E E
ii r°A V S n m 5 u. cca w
E Q
U ca
91
I am before you tonight because we have new signs proposed for
an apartment complex- Burgundy/Hillsboro Apartments on
Medicine Lake Road and Hillsboro Avenue.
The existing signs are ground illuminated - and one has light
fixtures on the pillar caps.
Our proposed signs have internal lighting where as only the
letters which represent the name of the property and the BH logo
would be lit - with a soft halo of light around the perimeter of the
name panels. We stili intended to have some low voltage
landscape - ground lighting for the landscaping and soft
illumination of the overall structure.
When we submitted our permits for the signs we were told that
NO ILLUMINATION was allowed on these sign. Possibly, we
could be allowed to keep the existing fixtures, however, they are
very old and inefficient and the sign placement is slightly different.
Within the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 district
b. In addition to the sign allowed by subsection (k)(1)a of this section,
monument signs shall be allowed for a subdivision or multiple -family site having
not less than five lots or dwelling units at its entrance from a street defined by the New
Hope Transportation Plan provided that:
1. Not more than one sign shall be allowed per lot street frontage.
2. The area of each sign shall not exceed 48 square feet.
3. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of eight feet.
4. Except for those signs established under the provisions of
subsection (k)(1)d of this section, Aluminated.
-K1d = religious, recreation#centers - schools - etc
In addition, according to the 2008 Design Guidelines -
Illumination- (all districts)
External illumination of signs is permitted by incandescent, metal halide, or
fluorescent light that units a continuous white light° Light shall not shine directly
onto the ground or adjacent buildings. Noon signs are permitted
Internally lit awnings are not permitted Jcatema& &bQXBjanq and variable
electronic message signs are daaQ! o !
DOES NOT SEEM TO ALLOW LED LIGHTING!
Petition City Council to advise staff to bring the Issue of sign
lighting to the next CODES and Standards meeting.
C1•
BURGUNDY
HILLSBC?R4
SAMPLE
REFERENCES
FOR LIGHTING
OF LETTERS
MONUMENT
r t'
X41 _ fit. k'� '.rte i f j11
Ij �-
i"% oiQ?h
res. �y �}.1'�r*�� ���.- •. .Y�.i
IKw
� 1
�t x
1ii�it • ie{ I
Detailing ft O#Dft
of the United State.
Sign Council.
"Zolwa
UN ED STA'l'ES
SIS COUNCIL
By Andrew Bertucei,
Executive Director
ated signs
fined 70%
that their
'(but
omplementirrg its three landmark
resmch studies ori the subject of on-
prtrruae siP ligb designed murex
tiie restrictive dWfenges posed by Dark
Sky and ether darkrwss advocates, the
USSC bas; just released the fiml shady i the
mnek hWnwt tar Etyermd Qts re s .3'i n
ARAM MAvAuiamiSw lv w 1hrRwd .'ora
The smdy addre*,*ses the si l t-4iffer
e
ence betwm irlly illuminated and icxwr�
pally illuminated sips, in which the USSC
march resat observed and documented driver
reaction in normal nighttime iraffic condition
to oxo: mise signs :,Imilar in all respects
(ex pt for ftr source of light).
Througbout State College, Pennsylvania,
USSC volunteers installed speeislly constracted
internally illuminated signs in place of exactly
sitnilar exter Wly illurnirrated sighs, so *m the
only Viable diffamces in the higns to ddv-
ers %ould be the means of illutnrraation feitber
internal or external). In this mantes,
were axsured that this study would be com-
ptetely frf of soy extraneous bias and t
singe the signs were similar in size, design,
lor, and location- -the only differences in
driver ream would be the result of the light
log involved. The diffemnces proved to be
'simply put. on avvt age, the inwmmiiy dita-
rtaia w 1VU petfornw 70 PNIXIVIV bett" t#rara
their s odlar (but externally illuminated) clones'.
That translates into a tremendous ttaffic safety
ad~4atrrtage fon the inba nal mettod of i luniina-
tion, with the march team docutnenting as
Much as four seconds additiorrai driver. reac-
i tirue provided by tine internally illuminated
Sim. On a dark and rainy night, that reaction
firm difference can be a literal tifeuver!
All four stuff in the si�p Rhuninaticxr series
am now being made available to tits prole and
professional groups in this country who an
64 sip BuMer Mustrxwd June 2m
liVly to -seek som regulation of the 11larnina-
tion pattdrras and levels of signs in the night-
tim eravisrmrmeft Principal arrroiag tires, of
course, is. the American Planniog Association
( APA), whose mecntiers have an inordinate
amount of influence on sip legislation in the
United States,
7be. VSSC continues to maim a rspected
and hfglx level reiationsiaip with the APA„ aW
as pan of its cm -going educational dialogue
with fire planning cora aunty. a new CD fc:a-
turiug the fonr lighting studks iss being
available to that group, as well as to USSC
n rs and any other interested ptartie&'lbhe
CD was inuoduced and distributed by C'SSC
persotarsei at the recent APA Educational
Conference to all APA attendees and, along
with the USSC CD on sign legibility Introduced
two years ago, is expected to c4atinue to pro-
vule an indictable scientific basis -for both
adequate sign legibility and illumination to the
very people who are writing the sip codes
wlticlsi the bwustry must ole.
Rw sign compm im faced with the growmg
nee to prove the safety and marketing advan-
tages of properly illuminated on prise signs
to comer unities committed to the advocacy of
darkness im iadves dwough code reorictim s,
the USSC studies are indispeniable, There is
sivoy no substitute for their rolmst scientific
ianalysiisinto how on -premise *tt -Wwld best
be Murniusted under conternpm ary roadside
conditions, as wetl as wiry inteinally illunl-
nmd'signs are simply far more conducive to
traffic safety in moderate to high-speed driv-
ing environments.
Copies of the CIS and all the USSC lighting
and legibility stir lies can be obtained by calling
2151785-1922 or visaing tits "publications"
PW at www.usw.org, Cost of the CD, "s well
as any bxbvWW printed study is $25 per copy
($10 per copy for USSC members), 0
ISA disagrees that nighttime illumination is necessarily harmful and should
always be restricted without regard for the nature of the illumination. Lighting
restrictions may seriously impact a community's economic health when applied to
signage. Forcing cities and businesses to change all lighting — including the
illumination required for some types of signage-- may increase costs for
taxpayers and customers. Redesign, retro -fitting of sign structures or elimination
of lighting fixtures, and capital expense of new products will negatively impact not
only the business that must bear this burden, but it can negatively impact on the
sign's ability to communicate clearly. Signs have unique illumination properties
that can not be regulated as "light sources."
The reduction of illumination in signs often results in a lack of conspicuity and
readability, which significantly limits a sign's message and visibility to potential
customers, resulting in effective censorship. Illuminated signs fall under the
protections of the First Amendment and consequently can not be restricted like
general outdoor nighttime lighting.
Illuminated signs also help enhance public safety at night, as people feel more
secure in well -lit public areas. Illuminated signs also help increase public safety
by providing effective direction to nighttime motorists in finding their destinations.
ISA supports smarter fighting strategies such as dimming capabilities in on -
premise electronic message centers and technology that allows illuminated signs
to use light more efficiently.
Shutoff or Lighting Curfew Requirements
In recent years, proposals to restrict night-time illumination have emerged as a
growing issue of concern.
Some municipalities and national model ordinances are including language that
attempts to restrict the hours when a sign may be illuminated. These restrictions
can limit a sign's function only to the hours of operation or may require shutoff at
a specific time of day. The imposition of these shutoff or lighting curfew
requirements for signs adversely affects delivery of the sign's message and,
consequently, its inherent value to the user.
Unlike the lighting of building facades and landscape features (which are
designed for an aesthetic function), signage is designed primarily for a
commercial function and serves a significant audience that may not be accessing
the facility. Requiring facilities to shut off signage at the conclusion of operations
will deprive businesses and other facilities of necessary advertising to the
pedestrian and motoring public.
ISA believes that illuminated signage should not be subject to imposed shutoff or
lighting curfew requirements. Illuminated signs serve a different purpose than
general lighting; they communicate and broadcast messages. This purpose
extends beyond the operating hours of a business location or organizational
facility. In restricting the use of illuminated signage, government regulations
interfere with the distribution of a message and the constitutionally protected
expression of free speech.
Current Environment — Cities often regulate on -premise signs as though they are
merely an auxiliary use of the land on which they are located. As such, many sign
codes do not take into consideration the commercial free speech rights embodied
in signs. This can adversely affect the ability of small businesses to succeed, and
can also result in a city's sign code being found unconstitutional.
ISA Position: ISA believes that the right to free commercial speech, as
established by the U.S. Supreme Court under the First Amendment, applies to
on -premise signs.* Therefore, small businesses have the constitutional right to
have their commercial messages seen and understood without undue
government regulation.
Such constitutional protection requires that on -premise sign regulation place
reasonable time, place and manner limitations on signs without reference to the
content or message of the speech, or the identity of the speaker, unless a
substantial state interest is at stake and cannot otherwise be furthered without a
burden on this protected speech.
ISA believes that when challenging the constitutionality of an on -premise sign
code, the government carries the burden of proving that the regulation at issue
advances a substantial state interest and that this interest cannot be advanced or
conferred by a less restrictive burden on the speech embodied in on -premise
- signs.
Possible Consequences: If cities continue to regulate signs without fully and
properly considering their constitutional free speech implications, then small
businesses will have a more difficult time reaching potential customers. In
addition, more cities will have their sign codes found to be unconstitutional and
be held liable for damages.
Desired Outcome: Government officials and courts recognize that the messages
embodied on on -premise signs are protected by the Freedom of Speech clause
of the First Amendment, and that cities cannot differentiate between non-
commercial and commercial messages.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 7, 2016
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m,
ROLL CALL Present: Steve Svendsen, Bill Smith, Christopher Hanson, Jim
Brinkman, Tom Schmidt, Greg Gehring, Scott Clark
Absent: Christopher McKenzie, Roger Landy
Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Aaron
Chirpich, Community Development Specialist; Jeff Alger,
Community Development Assistant; Stacy Woods,
Assistant City Attorney; Bob Kirmis, Planning Consultant;
Kaeley Cazin, Recording Secretary
NEW BUSINESS None
PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.1, request for an amendment to an
Planning Case 16-09 existing Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development at 4203
Item 4.1 — Winnetka Avenue North, Life Time Fitness Architecture, LLC,
petitioner.
Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, gave background on
the planning case. Life Time Fitness is an existing business and owner of
a multi -tenant retail facility that is undergoing an expansion and wishes
to enhance the wall treatments on the west side of the building, which
faces the Hy -Vee redevelopment site. The wall treatment and signage will
give the building attractive, four-sided architecture. The applicant is
proposing one sign for each of the 13 existing tenants, reserved space for
two potential future tenants, and three "marketing signs," to promote Life
Time Fitness. The proposed signage requires an amendment to a CUP for
PUD that was approved in 1985, to allow for flexibility in the number and
location of wall signs.
Alger went on to explain that the only illuminated sign would be the Life
Time Fitness tenant identification sign, and no individual tenant
identification sign exceeded the 100 square foot area limit.
Alger also noted the proposed signage meets the city's Design Guidelines,
and the City Center zoning district goals.
Alger concluded that staff recommended approval of the amendment of
a CUP for PUD.
When Chair Schmidt questioned whether any of the Commissioners had
any questions for staff or the applicant, Commissioner Brinkman
questioned the height of the signs and if it was visibly adequate. Alger
responded that this is the petitioner's request. Commissioner Clark noted
the City should request trash screening as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Smith questioned if the tenants agreed upon the cost of the
signage, and Alger commented that the City doesn't get involved with
those discussions. Commissioner Gehring clarified with Alger that the
petitioner was seeking improvements on their own, and not being
mandated by the City.
Andrew Griffin, Life Time Architecture, 2902 — Corporate Place,
Chanhassen MN 55317, answered questions on behalf of the petitioner.
Brinkman asked if the signage would be in color or anodized aluminum.
Griffin confirmed the signage would be in anodized aluminum, with the
exception of Subway and Taco John's. The signage for these tenants
would be in color, matching the front of the building. Schmidt commented
that all signage on the front was anodized aluminum, and then
questioned when and why it changed. Alger verified in the past the
tenants requested to update their signage to match the corporate brand
and for easier visibility. Brinkman inquired why Applebee's wasn't
included in the new signage. Griffin and Alger confirmed Applebee's
already had signage, and Director Sargent reminded the Commissioners
that it's their corporate decision as to what tenant signage to include in
the request.
CIark questioned Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney, if the CUP could
include screening for rooftop units and/or trash. Woods responded she
would have to research and clarify what the original CUP stated.
Being that there was no one in the audience, Chair Schmidt asked for a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Smith,
to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Item 4.1 Gehring, to approve Planning Case 16-09, request for an amendment to
an existing Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development at
4203 — Winnetka Avenue North, Life Time Fitness Architecture, LLC,
petitioner, with the following conditions:
1. The number and location of wall signs to be installed shall not
differ from that depicted on the Exterior Signage Schedule.
The size of the wall signs to be installed shall not exceed the
sizes depicted on the Exterior Signage Schedule.
2. The applicant shall obtain individual sign permits for each of
the signs to be installed.
3. Dependent on the Assistant City Attorney's findings, the
applicant shall provide screening for the trash and rooftop
units, and improve lighting on the west side of the building.
2
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2016
Voting in favor: Clark, Brinkman, Svendsen, Schmidt, Gehring, Smith,
Hanson
Voting against: None
Absent: McKenzie, Landy
'.Motion approved 7-0
Chair Schmidt stated the City Council would consider this planning case
at its June 27, 2016 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.2, request for a site plan review to allow
Planning Case 16-10 construction of a building addition of AVTEC Finishing Systems Inc. at
Item 4.2 9101— Science Center Drive, Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects, petitioner.
Mr, Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, gave
background on the case. AVTEC Finishing Systems specializes in metal
plate finishing, and desires to expand their operations, The proposed
20,763 square foot addition will improve workflow through added space
and remodeling. The proposed expansion will enlarge the shipping and
receiving operations and will also include a new two-story office. Along
with the building addition, the parking lot will also be enlarged to
accommodate the minimum code requirements.
Chirpich added the property currently has only one access point off of
Science Center Drive, and the proposal would add a second access point,
greatly improving the site circulation for traffic. The Fire Department
also reviewed the plans and has no problem with future emergency
vehicle access.
Next, Chirpich addressed the landscaping and screening. He reported
the property contains a number of mature trees that will be removed to
accommodate site improvements. Chirpich noted there are staff
concerns related to the size and placement of some new tree plantings.
He added the proposed trees along the north property line are in too
narrow of a space, and that section of the property contains
underground utilities. Chirpich also confirmed that New Hope Code
requires parking Iots to be screened from adjacent rights-of-way.
Chirpich then reviewed the lighting plan, utility plan, storm water,
snow storage, fire code, and the zoning analysis, finding all comply with
City Code. However, Chirpich commented that the lighting plan must
be updated, as a few of the areas didn't meet the required light levels.
He also indicated the applicant is currently working with the City
Engineer to finalize the storm water management requirements of the
city, and noted the Fire Marshal had a few comments.
Chirpich concluded that staff recommended approval of the 20,763
square foot addition to their existing building, in order to facilitate
improved operations and workflow, Staff determined that the proposal
would result in an upgraded site, improved exterior appearance, and
the expansion would allow AVTEC to continue their growth in New
Hope.
3
PIanning Commission Meeting June 7, 2016
When Chair Schmidt questioned whether any of the Commissioners had
any questions for staff or the applicant, Commissioner Svendsen asked
about parking Iot setbacks, as the five-foot minimum setback wasn't
reflected in the plans on the northwest side of the parking lot. Quinn
Hutson, CNH Architects, 7300 — West 147th Street, Suite 504, Apple
Valley, MN 55124, agreed with Svendsen that it was missed while
updating the plans. Hutson noted they would make the adjustments,
Svendsen also asked what the width of the fire lane was and if there was
screening for the rooftop unit. Hutson replied the fire lane is at a
minimum of twenty-four feet, and the rooftop unit was positioned with
no designated screening, so that it would not be seen from the property
I
ine. All Commissioners agreed it's a good looking plan.
Being that there was no one in the audience, Chair Schmidt asked for a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Brinkman, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Clark,
Item 4.2 to approve Planning Case 16-10, request for a site plan review to allow
construction of a building addition of AVTEC Finishing Systems Inc, at
9101— Science Center Drive, Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects, petitioner,
with the following conditions:
1. The west trash enclosure screen wall shall be extended an
additional five feet to fully screen the trash handling
equipment.
2. The applicant shall resubmit a photometric plan that verifies
light levels at all building entrances meet code.
3. The pole height for freestanding light fixtures shall not exceed
25 feet in height.
4, The applicant shall revise the site plan by adding no parking
signs along both sides of the southeast drive aisle.
5. The site plan shall be revised to provide a fire lane directly in
front of the fire department connection as described in the Fire
Marshal's report dated June 3, 2016,
6. The landscape plan shall be revised to show that the three trees
proposed along the north property line that are located in-
between the curb cuts, have been moved to another area on the
site.
7. The applicant shall enter into a site improvement agreement
with the city to ensure the completion of all required
improvements. (To be prepared by the City Attorney.)
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2016
8. The applicant shall provide financial guarantee in the form of
an irrevocable letter of credit for landscaping and site
improvements located in the public domain (amount to be
determined by city engineer and building official).
9. The applicant shall enter into a storm water maintenance
agreement with the City (to be prepared by the City Attorney).
10. The storm water management and drainage plans shall be
reviewed and be subject to final approval by the City Engineer
and Public Works.
11. The site utility plan shall be subject to review and final
approval by the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Public Works.
12. The applicant will provide record plans or as -built drawings to
the City following project completion.
13. The applicant shall revise the site plan to reflect the northwest
parking lot is a minimum of five feet from the property line.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Svendsen, Schmidt, Gehring, Smith,
Hanson, Clark
Voting against: None
Absent: McKenzie, Landy
Motion approved 7-0
Chair Schmidt stated the City Council would consider this planning case
at its June 27, 2016 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.3, request to consider text amendment
Planning Case 16-07 to Section 4-3 of New Hope City Code related to home occupations
Item 4.3 within residential structures, City of new Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, stated that the
Codes and Standards Committee discussed the city's home occupation
ordinance in residential zoning districts at its November 18, 2015, and
February 3, 2016, meetings. After the initial meeting, staff researched
policies for surrounding cities and developed a draft ordinance for the
Committee to review.
Alger stated the draft ordinance for New Hope takes somewhat of a
hybrid approach, compared to surrounding cities, by regulating home
occupations through general standards and by specifying prohibited
uses. It protects and helps maintain the integrity of residential districts
in the city through stricter guidelines and regulations. It does not allow
for "special exceptions" that do not meet the standards and does not
allow for deviation from the list of prohibited home occupations.
General standards addressed by the draft ordinance include structural
changes, traffic, parking, deliveries, number of employees and clients,
permitted location and size, sales on premises, outside storage, adverse
effects, and signage. The draft ordinance also states that day care
businesses are subject to the applicable county and state licensing
requirements.
5
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2016
Alger went on to discuss the prohibited uses in the draft ordinance.
Manufacturing businesses are not allowed. The repair, service, building,
rebuilding, or painting of autos, trucks, boats, engines, and other
vehicles is prohibited. Businesses, educational programs, or similar
gatherings which meet on a regular basis and have more than five non-
residents at a time are also prohibited. As outlined by the Assistant City
Attorney, any existing home occupation would essentially be
"grandfathered" as a legal non -conforming use despite the fact that it
may not comply with the revised Section 4-3(g). The use as a home
business could not be expanded. If the use was discontinued for more
than a year, compliance with the revised Section 4-3(g) would be
required to recommence that use.
Alger added the Codes and Standards Committee discussed requiring
home occupations to register with the city and whether or not a fee
should be charged. The Committee felt a one-time registration at no cost
would be appropriate and would be helpful in addressing complaints.
Applicants would receive information at the time of registration
detailing regulations for home occupations.
Alger concluded the Committee was in favor of adopting a text
amendment to the home occupation ordinance, pursuant to three
recommendations, including not allowing home occupations in
accessory buildings, listing engine repair as a prohibited use, and
requiring all home occupations to register with the city at no charge.
Staff also recommends approval of the proposed text amendment.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned how the home occupation of
cabinet making would be classified. Director Sargent pointed out it
would force the City to review each situation and determine if
ordinances are being followed. Svendsen then asked what would
happen if the home occupation didn t register, and Commissioner Smith
asked what home occupations would be under this ordinance, Sargent
reiterated that the ordinance notifies staff where the businesses are
located, and assists with complaints and code enforcement.
Being that there was no one in the audience, Chair Schmidt asked for a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Brinkman, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Motion :Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Item 4.3 Gehring, to approve Planning Case 16-07, request to consider text
amendment to Section 4-3 of New Hope City Code related to home
occupations within residential structures, City of new Hope, petitioner.
6
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2016
Voting in favor: Svendsen, Schmidt, Gehring, Smith, Hanson, Clark,
Brinkman
Voting against: None
Absent: McKenzie, Landy
Motion approved 7-0
Chair Schmidt stated the City Council would consider this planning case
at its June 27, 2016 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.4, request to consider text amendment
Planning Case 16-08 to Section 4-20 of New Hope City Code related to street access
Item 4.4 requirements for health and social services and trucking operation
conditional uses in the Industrial district, City of New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Jeff AIger, Community Development Assistant, stated that the
Codes and Standards Committee discussed possible changes to
conditional uses that require sites to have direct access to arterial or
collector streets at its February 3, 2016, meeting. The city's streets and
highways are classified by using functional classification criteria
contained in the Metropolitan Council Transportation Development
Guide and the existing classification system within the city. Alger then
explained the difference between the various types of streets.
Alger stated the Committee discussed the addition of collector street
access for the health and social services conditional use in the Industrial
district, The Committee felt that both types of streets (arterial or
collector) would be appropriate for this type of use. The Committee also
determined that it was unnecessary to impose street access requirements
for trucking operations in the Industrial district and recommended
eliminating the existing arterial street requirement.
Alger concluded the Codes and Standards Committee was in favor of
adopting a text amendment to the City Code related to street access
requirements for health and social services and trucking operation
conditional uses in the Industrial district. Staff also recommends
approval of the proposed text amendment.
Commissioner Svendsen inquired if the City had a minimum width
requirement for collector streets, as he is concerned with the semi -truck
traffic in and out of the Industrial district. Director Sargent noted that's
a question for the City Engineer and Public Works, and then pointed out
the City has a Complete Streets Policy — any time a road is up for
improvement, the City reviews any necessary changes that may need to
be made.
Being that there was no one in the audience, Chair Schmidt asked for a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman,
to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor, Motion carried,
7
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2016
Motion Motion by Commissioner CIark, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
Item 4.4 to approve Planning Case 16-08, request to consider text amendment to
Section 4-20 of New Hope City Code related to street access requirements
for health and social services and trucking operation conditional uses in
the Industrial district, City of New Hope, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Schmidt, Gehring, Smith, Hanson, Clark, Brinkman,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: McKenzie, Tandy
Motion approved 7-0
Chair Schmidt stated the City Council would consider this planning case
at its June 27, 2016 meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Svendsen stated the last Design and Review Committee
Design and Review meeting was held on May 19, 2016, and it is not yet determined if there
Committee will be a meeting on June 16, 2016,
Item 5.1
Codes and Standards Director Sargent stated there will be a Codes & Standards Committee
Committee meeting on June 29, 2016. Items to be discussed include: solar panels,
Item 5.2 illuminated signs, and food truck requirements.
NEW BUSINESS None. However, Commissioner Svendsen noted he will be attending a
Item 6.1 meeting on June 22, 2016, regarding plans for the new City Hall. He
commented that some of the original plans needed to be revised because
of the recent boring samples found on the build site.
OLD BUSINESS Motion by Commissioner Svendsen seconded by Commissioner Clark, to
Approval of Minutes approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 3, 2016. All present
Item 7.1 voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Schmidt asked if there were any updates on the proposed Dunkin
Donuts lot at 7820 - 42nd Avenue. Director Sargent explained that Dunkin
Donuts is in the process of further refining their plans before they submit
for a building permit.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at
8:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kaeley Cazin, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2016