Loading...
2015-08-25 Planning Comm Minutes CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES August 25, 2015 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 25, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of July 28, 2015 Minutes Commissioner Viksnins asked for clarification that Commissioner Hennes moved to approve Planning Case 2015-24 and then voted to deny. Commissioner Hennes confirmed that once he had made the motion he then changed his mind and voted to deny, so the minutes are correct. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2015, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings Chair Field noted that staff advertised a public hearing for Planning Case 2015-33, a Wetlands Permit at 2190 Glen Toro Road; however, that application has been withdrawn. It is anticipated that the applicant will be resubmitting for consideration at the September 22, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting and another notice will be published and mailed to surrounding properties. PLANNING CASE #2015-26 Robert Alvarez, 1176 Ivy Hill Drive Variance Request for Deck Chair Field noted that this application was held over from last month’s meeting and is back before the Commission this evening. City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant is seeking to construct a deck that requires a variance from the R-1 district’s rear yard setback standards. The Planning Commission tabled action on this request at the July meeting with the public hearing remaining open. The applicant August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 intends to construct a deck wrapping around the west and northwest corner of the existing dwelling. As proposed, a portion of the proposed deck within the rear yard requires a variance. The original request was for a nine-foot rear yard setback variance. The applicant has since amended the application and is now proposing to construct a 3.5-foot-wide walkway/landing into the rear yard to access the compliant portion of the proposed deck in the side yard, resulting in a reduction of the previously-proposed encroachment by over five feet. Planner Wall then reviewed the three standards to be considered and applied in this variance request and how this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this amended variance request. Mr. Robert Alvarez, 1176 Ivy Hill Drive was available to answer questions and make comments; there were none. Chair Field asked if there was anyone in attendance to comment on this request since the public hearing was still open. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-26, VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.Construction of the proposed walkway/landing within the required setback to access the rear yard and compliant deck structure in the side yard through an existing patio door is a reasonable use of the property and meets the purpose and intent of the Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2.Due to the subject parcel’s frontage and existing conditions, a practical difficulty is demonstrated in order to construct a walkway/landing within the required rear yard setback to access a compliant deck structure from within the existing dwelling and provide safe access to the rear yard. 3.As proposed, the request would not allow for useable deck space in the rear yard or negatively impact the essential character of the neighborhood. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.The proposed encroachment would extend no further than 3.5 feet from the northeast corner of the existing dwelling to provide access to the compliant portion of the proposed deck in the side yard. 2.The applicant obtains a building permit. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2015 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2015-31 Joe Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road Critical Area Permit City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting a Critical Area Permit to remodel an existing single-family dwelling within the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area. The subject parcel is located 1920 Glenhill Road, zoned R-1, and guided as Low Density Residential Development in the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Wall shared an aerial image of the subject property and explained that the proposed project potentially impacting the Critical Area consists of removal and reconstruction of the existing deck and porch, including roof modifications. As proposed, the project does meet the applicable zoning regulations and conditions for improvements to existing structures that were built prior to 2003 in the Critical Area. The new porch and deck do not extend any closer than the existing condition and the overall building height is not increased. Staff recommended approval of this Critical Area Permit request with conditions. Commissioners asked for clarification on what exists and what is proposed as new and how much disturbance of the property there would be in connection with the project. Mr. Joe Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road was present to answer questions or make comment. Commissioners asked the applicant about how much disturbance to the property there would be. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-31, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and with the city’s comprehensive plan. 2.The proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the area. 3.The proposed use is allowed under city ordinance. 4.The proposed addition does not increase the height of the existing structure. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 1.All applicable permits are obtained from the City prior to construction of the proposed project. 2.Construction of the proposed improvements shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 3.Separate permits will be applied for and obtained when the existing exterior stairs are to be replaced and for any additional future projects. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2015 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2015-32 HD Supply Construction & Industrial – White Cap, 1400 Commerce Drive Conditional Use Permit and Variances City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing outdoor storage area and variances to allow outdoor storage within 1,500 feet of a residential zone and to allow screened open-air storage of materials. Planner Wall shared images of the property and described its surroundings. The subject parcel is approximately three acres and zoned and guided for industrial development. The existing office/warehouse building is currently vacant and has a legally nonconforming outdoor storage yard. The proposed use is a permitted nonmanufacturing use in the Industrial District as landscaping and building design and construction. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing outdoor storage area to approximately 19,000 square feet. Outdoor storage for the permitted use is allowed by a Conditional Use Permit, subject to thirteen conditions. The proposed project meets all but two of those required conditions, those being:  No outdoor storage can be located within 1,500 feet of a residentially-zoned property  All storage and display must be under three-sided covered structures Regarding the first variance request, Planner Wall shared a zoning map showing the residentially- zoned property in question, which is a portion of Acacia Park Cemetery. Staff feels that due to the nature of the use and the fact that the subject parcel is not visible from the cemetery, the intent of the Code’s setback provision is met. He also noted that there are three existing nonconforming residential structures that are located within 1,500 feet, but they are not zoned residential; therefore, they do not apply in this case. Regarding the second variance request, Planner Wall shared images of other sites operated by the applicant and described the materials proposed to be stored on-site. Due to the nature of the materials to be stored outside and because they will be obscured from view by the recommended fencing, staff felt that requiring three-sided covered structures was unnecessary in this case. August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 Planner Wall further explained how the proposed use meets the standards for approval of the variance requests. Planner Wall shared images of the proposed six-foot-high slatted chain-link fence. He noted that while specifications were not provided as part of the application, it would most likely not meet the Code’s 90% opacity standard. Therefore, staff is recommending a wood fence that meets the opacity standard be erected around the entire proposed outdoor storage yard, which would be consistent with other properties in the immediate area. Staff recommended approval of the requests with conditions. Commissioners asked questions regarding proposed condition #2 (All materials will be packaged or self-contained. No loose or bulk materials), if another finding should be added that the residentially-zoned property is a cemetery and not residential homes, if a minimum height requirement of six feet should be added to condition #3, and if this application would create a disconnect between what the Industrial District study is considering. Ms. Jessica Beyer from HD Supply Construction & Industrial – White Cap, 5205 Highway 169 North, Plymouth, MN was on hand to answer questions or comment. She commented that they would be agreeable to erecting a wood fence and noted that many of items shown in the images of other storage yards they operate would be stored inside at this location due to the size of the warehouse. She further commented that they would continue to operate at their existing location and that this would be a secondary location with room to grow. In response to a question on the need for the proposed expanded outdoor storage yard, she indicated that they also intend to store vehicles within the locked fenced-in area. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-32, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The proposed variance meets the purpose and intent of the conditional use permit standard for 1,500’ buffer from residential uses and that the residential use within that 1,500’ buffer is a cemetery. 2.The proposed variance meets the purpose and intent of the conditional use permit standard for three-side enclosed covered storage. 3.Granting of the variances sought is in accordance with the standards laid out in the City Code. August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 4.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the remaining conditional use permit requirements for outdoor storage in the Industrial District of the City Code. 5.The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing nonconformity. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.Materials stored on site will not exceed a height of 6’. 2.All materials will be packaged or self-contained. No loose or bulk materials. 3.A 6’ high wood fence that provides a minimum of 90% opacity during all seasons will be provided on the front and side yards. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2015 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2015-34 City of Mendota Heights Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Alternative Energy Systems City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering amendments to Title 12, Chapter 1, Articles B, D, and E of the City Code concerning alternative energy systems. Currently, there are no standards in place for alternative energy systems; however, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes a section on protection of solar access and a policy to consider modifying the Code. Draft Ordinance 485 creates a new section in the Code and provides standards, right now, only for solar energy systems. Additional sections can be added as necessary in the future to address ground-source heat pumps (geothermal) and wind energy systems, if and when the need arises. The proposed draft ordinance ensures that consistent standards are in place to encourage sustainable practices that do not adversely impact the community. Planner Wall then reviewed the proposed amendments and regulations contained in draft Ordinance 485. Commissioners asked questions regarding setback requirements, demolition permits, conditional use permit standard #2 (That the solar energy system has a net energy gain), the existence of any legislation about solar energy systems, and conditional use versus permitted as an accessory use. After further discussion regarding the conditional versus permitted use issue, the Commission agreed that this would be a policy issue for the City Council to determine. Let the record reflect that there was no one present to address a public hearing so no motion to close was necessary. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-34, PROPOSED CITY CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 PLANNING CASE #2015-14 City of Mendota Heights Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Trade Schools City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City is considering amendments to Title 12, Chapter 1, Article B, Section 2 of the City Code concerning the definition of a trade school. Staff originally brought this request forward at the May Planning Commission meeting; action was tabled with the public hearing remaining open. The intent is to clarify the City’s interpretation of the existing definition. Commissioners asked to be reminded why the revised definition includes “privately-owned” versus “public”, why the definition says “including, but not limited to”, After discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to amend the definition as follows (remove or add): TRADE SCHOOL: A privately-owned, post-secondary, skill-based educational institution which offers completion programs that issue certificates, diplomas, and degrees;, and or certified training to full and/or part time students including, but not limited to, such as those in technical, mechanical, services and computing fields. Let the record reflect that there was no one present to address a public hearing so no motion to close was necessary. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-14, PROPOSED CITY CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING TRADE SCHOOLS AS AMENDED BY THE COMMISSION AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Schedule Redevelopment Plan Workshop Planner Nolan Wall noted that earlier this year the City received a grant from the Dakota County CDA to do a redevelopment plan for the Industrial District. The Council approved a project scope and staff is working with the planning consultants (Stantec) on the initial scope and the work. One of the pieces of the scope of the project is to have a joint workshop between the Planning Commission and the City Council once feedback has been received from stakeholders to share ideas and get feedback. Planner Wall noted that the already scheduled Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings do not work for some members of the Council or the planning consultant. Other dates thstndth under consideration are October 19, 21, 22, or 29. It is anticipated that the meeting would begin at 5:00 p.m. and last approximately two hours. He then asked if any of the proposed dates would definitely not work for any members of the Commission, noting that any potential dates would need to be brought to the City Council for their availability. thstth The consensus of the Planning Commission members were for October 19, 21, and 29. August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 Verbal Review Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2015-27 Wetlands Permit at 2185 Glen Toro Road •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2015-24 Critical Area Permit and Variance for a Retaining Wall at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road •The Commission tabled this request last month, the applicant withdrew the application and submitted a building permit for a revised plan that did not need a variance. PLANNING CASE #2015-25 Variances for Accessory Structure at Mendakota Country Club •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2015-28 City-initiated Code Amendment Concerning Video/Electronic Display Scoreboards •Ultimately approved by the City Council with minor revisions concerning the setbacks PLANNING CASE #2015-29 and PLANNING CASE #2015-30 City-initiated Code Amendment and Interim Use Permit for the city-operated Off-lease Dog Area at the Pilot Knob South site •Ultimately both were approved by the City Council •At the most recent City Council meeting they approved a fencing plan for that area •City Engineer John Mazzitello provided an update on the fencing, lighting, and other plans Staff and Commission Announcements  Next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 22, 2015 Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:24 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8