120517 Planning CommissionCITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 5, 2017
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Vice Chair Clark called the meeting to order
at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Scott Clark, Jim Brinkman, Matt Mannix, Chris Hanson,
Roger Landy, Bill Smith, Cedrick Frazier, Michael Redden
Absent: Tom Schmidt
Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Jeff
Alger, Community Development Assistant; Stacy Woods,
Assistant City Attorney; Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant;
Jessi Weber, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS None
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Case 17-15
Item 4.1
Vice Chair Clark introduced Item 4.1, text amendment to Section 13-7 of
the New Hope City Code related to park dedication fees.
Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, gave background
on the planning case. Alger stated the city requires the dedication of
parkland or fees to fund them as a result of higher demand associated
with new development. This dedication is required for platting, re -
platting, subdivision or lot division allowing the development of land
for residential, commercial, industrial, and other uses or combination
thereof. According to the League of Minnesota Cities, case law and state
statute require an “essential nexus” between the fees or dedication
imposed and the municipal purpose sought to be achieved by the fee or
dedication. The requirements apply to the following scenarios: 1. The
creation of at least one additional lot or the addition of at least one
dwelling unit. 2. The combination of lots for the purpose of development
involving changes or mixed land uses or the intensification of uses. 3.
Planned Unit Developments (PUD), as defined and regulated by the
zoning code.
Next, Alger reviewed the fees charged by other cities. Some cities used
a flat fee and some charged a percentage of the value of the fair market
land to be subdivided. An argument against park dedication fees is the
potential deterring of development projects from taking place. The city
compared the current fees to surrounding cities and determined the fees
are lower than other cities. It was deemed appropriate to double the fees
to match the fees of surrounding cities. Alger showed charts
demonstrating the current fees and proposed fees.
The Codes and Standards Committee was in favor of increasing park
dedication fees to reflect increases in taxable land value in the city and
2
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2017
align with need created by new subdivisions or developments. Alger
concluded that staff was available for questions.
When Vice Chair Clark questioned whether any of the Commissioners
had any questions for staff, Commissioner Redden asked if there was a
rational why the cap would be removed for the 3+ family dwellings, as
the dedication fee would be quite large without the cap. Alger
responded the proposed fee would be comparable to other cities. The
rational is the fees are based on the number of people using the land.
Commissioner Smith asked if this fee would be applicable to new
dwellings. Alger confirmed it was for new dwellings. Commissioner
Smith asked without a cap if the fees would be too expensive for
development opportunities to occur. Alger stated that was one of the
arguments opposing park dedication fees. The fee increases are in line
with what other cities are charging. Sargent clarified that park
dedication fees are only applied when a new lot is created. The proposed
fee increases are in line with what most contractors are used to paying.
Commissioner Smith asked how much development property the city
had. Sargent said there is only one area that currently is being looked at
for development. This does not mean there will not be other
opportunities in the future. Al Brixius said if a subdivision occurs, and
is replaced unit for unit, there is no park dedication fee collected.
Commissioner Hanson agreed that the fee increases wouldn’t deter a
large project from happening.
Vice Chair Clark inquired if anyone in the audience would like to
address the Planning Commission.
Being that no one else wanted to speak, Vice Chair Clark asked for a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Redden, to
close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Commissioner Redden asked for further discussion regarding the
recommendation for a cap on the 3+ family dwellings. Vice Chair Clark
said the park dedication fees are small in comparison to the value of the
project and are just part of the development cost. Commissioner Mannix
said most of the surrounding cities did not have a cap with their fees.
Commissioner Redden said he had wanted further discussion due to the
fact that our fee was different from other cities because of that cap.
Motion
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Hanson,
to approve Planning Case 17-15, text amendment to Section 13-7 of the
New Hope City Code related to park dedication fees.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Mannix, Hanson, Clark, Landy, Smith,
Frazier, Redden
Voting against: None
Absent: Schmidt
3
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2017
Motion approved 8-0
Vice Chair Clark stated the case will move forward to the December 11,
2017 City Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Case 17-16
Item 4.2
Vice Chair Clark introduced Item 4.2, text amendment to Section 3-50 of
the New Hope City Code related to on–premises directional signs.
Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, gave background
on the planning case. Alger stated the City Code restricts on-premises
directional signs to no more than two square feet in size. Businesses are
allowed up to four signs and can exceed four with the special approval
of city council. Several businesses have approached the city stating these
signs are too restrictive and need to be larger to ensure visibility.
At the August 3, 2017 Codes and Standards meeting, staff recommended
increasing the size to three square feet in size, which is about the size of
a yard sign used to promote special events and fundraisers. Staff is also
recommending signs be limited to eight feet in height.
Vice Chair Clark asked the first question if there currently was a height
restriction. Mr. Alger stated currently the code does not address
directional sign heights and staff wanted to make sure that was
addressed in this text amendment. The limit of eight feet in height
matches the rest of the sign code in regards to height restrictions. Vice
Chair Clark asked if the suggested increase in size would make enough
of a difference to ensure visibility. Alger responded that the
recommended size is consistent with other temporary signs, which are
easy enough to read, and is a common size for printing.
Vice Chair Clark inquired if anyone in the audience would like to
address the Planning Commission.
Being that no one else wanted to speak, Vice Chair Clark asked for a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to
close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion
Item 4.2
Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 17-16, text amendment to Section 3-50 of the New
Hope City Code related to on–premises directional signs.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Mannix, Hanson, Clark, Landy, Smith,
Frazier, Redden
Voting against: None
Absent: Schmidt
Motion approved 8-0
Vice Chair Clark stated the case will move forward to the December 11,
2017 City Council meeting.
4
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2017
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Case 17-17
Item 4.3
Vice Chair Clark introduced Item 4.3, text amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4)
of the New Hope City Code related to the irrigation moisture sensors for
landscaped areas.
Mr. Jeff Sargent, Community Development Director, gave background
on the planning case. Sargent stated the city’s landscape ordinance
requires all landscaped areas be irrigated or have access to an exterior
building water spigot in a location adequate for providing landscape
maintenance. The city has received complaints about properties
irrigating landscaped areas while it is raining. As a result of those
complaints, the Planning Commission requested that the city consider
an ordinance requiring moisture sensor irrigation controllers for new
developments. The sensors detect moisture levels in the soil and
prevent an irrigation system from operating when it is not necessary.
Such devices prevent the waste of water by limiting irrigation as
landscaped areas reach adequate moisture levels. This would apply to
all properties except 1 and 2 family residential.
The Codes and Standards Committee was in favor of requiring moisture
sensor irrigation controllers for new developments installing automatic
irrigation systems. Staff recommends approval of the proposed text
amendment.
When Vice Chair Clark questioned whether any of the Commissioners
had any questions for staff, Commissioner Smith asked what the cost
would be to install this moisture sensor. Mr. Sargent stated the cost has
not been researched, but does not anticipate it to be prohibitive. This
would be required for new installations or when systems are being
replaced. Commissioner Smith was concerned with requiring people to
do things they do not want to do. Mr. Sargent stated this change would
be beneficial in regards to energy conservation. Again, this would not
require current systems to upgrade to utilize this gauge; it would just
require new installations to have this gauge. Al Brixius reiterated this
would apply to multi-family, commercial, and industrial properties only
and not one and two-family residential.
Commissioner Redden asked when systems are being replaced if they
are required to have this sensor on the new units. Mr. Brixius stated they
would be required to comply with code. Commissioner Frazier said
companies would likely want to upgrade to this gauge, as it would
result in a cost savings to the companies through less water usage.
Vice Chair Clark inquired if anyone in the audience would like to
address the Planning Commission.
Being that no one else wanted to speak, Vice Chair Clark asked for a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Frazier, to
close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
5
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2017
Motion
Item 4.3
Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 17-17, text amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the
New Hope City Code related to the irrigation moisture sensors for
landscaped areas.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Mannix, Hanson, Clark, Landy, Smith,
Frazier, Redden
Voting against: None
Absent: Schmidt
Motion approved 8-0
Vice Chair Clark stated the case will move forward to the December 11,
2017 City Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Case 17-18
Item 4.4
Vice Chair Clark introduced Item 4.4, text amendment to Sections 1-4, 3-
50, 4-30, 4-34, 6-9, and 13-3 of the New Hope City Code related to the
requirement of posting land use petition sign during zoning requests.
Mr. Jeff Sargent, Community Development Director, gave background
on the planning case. Sargent said this would be a text amendment that
would aid the notification process during the land use request process.
The City must follow strict state statute requirements for notifying
residents of public hearings, including those located within 500 feet of
the location through a mailer. Situations have arisen lately where
individuals are claiming to have not received notification and were not
made aware of the request until the last minute. This request will
provide another opportunity for people to understand that a land use
petition has been requested on a given property. The city would require
the applicant put a yard-size sign on the property during the notification
process. Sargent showed what the sign would look like for
commissioners to see.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment.
Vice Chair Clark asked if the sign would be specific to the type of
application or just a generic sign. Mr. Sargent responded it would be the
generic sign required to be in the yard. Vice Chair Clark then asked if it
would be the applicant or staff’s responsibility to place the sign. Sargent
stated it would be the applicant’s responsibility. When the application
is received, staff would give the applicant the sign and take a $15
refundable deposit, which is refunded when the sign is returned.
Commissioner Frazier asked if $15 was the true cost of the sign. Sargent
replied he thought it was double the true cost of the sign.
Commissioner Redden asked for discussion about the paper the legal
notices are published in. The Sun Post used to be delivered for free and
since it no longer is, residents may not be receiving the notification.
Sargent replied the procedure has been to use the official press of the
city for notification, which is the Sun Post. There are always copies
available at City Hall for residents to take for free or at least look at.
6
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2017
Residents who are not within the 500-foot mailing radius can still drive
by the signs and be informed of what is happening within the city. Other
avenues are being explored for getting notifications out to residents. The
city is working on a new website that will provide the opportunity for
residents to receive notices through.
Vice Chair Clark inquired if anyone in the audience would like to
address the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hemken stated the Sun Post is utilized for notices due to cost.
Star Tribune is very expensive to publish public hearing notices. Many
residents are also notified through the mailings that are sent within 500
feet of the location. Al Brixius stated that New Hope’s notice radius of
500 feet is larger than other cities and the signs are a good idea.
Stacy Woods made note there is a typo on the first page of the proposed
ordinance. The word ‘city’ needs to be inserted in the second to last
sentence, “The sign shall be removed and returned to the ‘city’ by
applicant…” Stacy wanted to propose that as an amendment.
Being that no one else wanted to speak, Vice Chair Clark asked for a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Frazier, to
close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion
Item 4.4
Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 17-18, text amendment to Sections 1-4, 3-50, 4-30,
4-34, 6-9, and 13-3 of the New Hope City Code related to the requirement
of posting land use petition sign during zoning requests, to amend
section 1-4 b sub-paragraph 5 to read, “The sign shall be removed and
returned to the city by applicant…”
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Mannix, Hanson, Clark, Landy, Smith,
Frazier, Redden
Voting against: None
Absent: Schmidt
Motion approved 8-0
Vice Chair Clark stated the case will move forward to the December 11,
2017 City Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Case 17-20
Item 4.5
Vice Chair Clark introduced Item 4.5, text amendment to Section 6-14 of
the New Hope City Code related to the Small Cell Bill and right-of-way
management.
Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, gave background
on the planning case. Alger stated in 2017 amendments were made to
Minnesota’s Telecommunications Right-of-Way User Law. The
amendments essentially eliminated any confusion about whether
wireless providers are treated the same as other telecommunications
7
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2017
Right-of-Way users under state law, but created a separate, streamlined
permitting system that allows small cell wireless equipment to be placed
on city-owned infrastructure in the ROW. This was a result of increasing
demand for wireless and streaming data services. The law restricts
antennas to no more than six cubic feet in volume and equipment
associated with the antennas to 28 cubic feet in volume. The law limits
new structures to 50 feet in height. The city ordinance requires poles to
be placed 800 feet from each other. With the assistance of the city
planner, the assistant city attorney drafted an ordinance consistent with
what other cities in Minnesota are passing. The draft ordinance would
be presented before the city council on December 11, 2017 to be passed
in time to meet the deadline of January 1, 2018.
Next, Alger showed examples of what these small cell wireless units
would look like installed. New poles are also allowed in residential
areas, with requirements to locate a new pole on the corner of residential
properties. The city cannot be more restrictive that what the state statute
allows.
The Codes and Standard Committee was in favor of amending the City
Code related to right-of-way management. Staff recommends approval
of the proposed text amendment.
When Vice Chair Clark questioned whether any of the Commissioners
had any questions for staff or the applicant, no Commissioner had any
questions. Vice Chair Clark then opened the Public Hearing, and no one
from the audience wished to address the Commission. Being that no one
wanted to speak, Vice Chair Clark asked for a motion to close the Public
Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Frazier, to
close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion
Item 4.5
Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 17-20, text amendment to Section 6-14 of the New
Hope City Code related to the Small Cell Bill and right-of-way
management.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Mannix, Hanson, Clark, Landy, Smith,
Frazier, Redden
Voting against: None
Absent: Schmidt
Motion approved 8-0
Vice Chair Clark stated the case will move forward to the December 11,
2017 City Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Case 17-22
Item 4.6
Vice Chair Clark introduced Item 4.6, text amendment to Section 4-3(b)(6)
of the New Hope City Code related to the screening of air conditioning
cooling structures.
8
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2017
Mr. Jeff Sargent, Community Development Director, gave background
on the planning case. City code requires air conditioning units to be
located in the rear yard or in the side yard so long as they are screened
from neighbors and right-of-way. In some instances, the materials used
to screen air conditioning units are substandard and do not hold up over
time. In such cases, viewing air conditioning units from the right-of-way
or adjacent properties may be more aesthetically pleasing than the
materials that are used for screening.
The Codes and Standards Committee was in favor of eliminating
screening requirements for air conditioning units located in the side
yard. Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment.
When Vice Chair Clark questioned whether any of the Commissioners
had any questions for staff or the applicant, Commissioner Hanson
asked if this would apply to residential and commercial properties.
Sargent said it would apply to both residential and commercial
properties. If a rooftop unit was being installed, the screening
requirements would still apply. Commissioner Hanson asked if
someone wanted to install a cooling tower if that would require
screening. Mr. Brixius responded a cooling tower goes beyond an air -
conditioning unit and screening of these towers would be addressed
through the site plan review. Mr. Alger reminded commissioners the
units are not allowed in the front yard of properties.
Vice Chair Clark inquired if anyone in the audience would like to
address the Planning Commission.
Being that no one else wanted to speak, Vice Chair Clark asked for a
motion to close the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Frazier, to
close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion
Item 4.6
Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 17-22, text amendment to Section 4-3(b)(6) of the
New Hope City Code related to the screening of air conditioning cooling
structures.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Mannix, Hanson, Clark, Landy, Smith,
Frazier, Redden
Voting against: None
Absent: Schmidt
Motion approved 8-0
Vice Chair Clark stated the case will move forward to the December 11,
2017 City Council meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design and Review
Committee
There is a meeting on December 14, 2017 where a comprehensive sign
plan will be discussed.
9
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2017
Item 5.1
Codes and Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
None scheduled and staff will let the committee know when one is
scheduled.
NEW BUSINESS none
OLD BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes
Item 7.1
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman,
to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 7, 2017,
Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Brinkman announced that he is cancer free. Everyone on
the Planning Commission was happy to hear.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:45
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jessi Weber, Recording Secretary