Loading...
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