The URL can be used to link to this page

2015-10-27 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA October27, 2015 – 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Adopt Agenda 4.Approve September22, 2015Planning Commission Minutes 5.Public Hearings: a.Case No. 2015-38: Spectrum SignSystems, Inc. Variances at 1440 Northland Drive. 6.Discussion of Joint Workshop with City Council 7.Verbal Review 8.Staff and Commission Announcements 9.Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1 4 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5September 22, 2015 6 7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, 8September 22, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 9 10The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Michael 11Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins.Those absent: 12Howard Roston.Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall andPublic Works Director/City 13Engineer John Mazzitello. 14 Approval of Agenda 15 16 17The agenda was approved as submitted. 18 Approval of August 25, 2015Minutes 19 20 21Chair Field noted a minor proposedamendment concerning an incorrect case number reference on 22page 5, line 227 of the DRAFT minutes. 23 24COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,TO 25APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2015 AS AMENDED. 26 27AYES: 6 28NAYS: 0 29ABSENT: 1 30 Hearings 31 32 33PLANNING CASE #2015-36 34AMEK Custom Builders, LLC, 2190 Glen Toro Road 35Wetlands Permit 36 37City Planner Nolan Wall explained that AMEK Customer Builders, LLC was seeking a Wetlands 38Permit to construct a new single family dwelling on the parcel located at 2190 Glen Toro Road. nd 39He shared an image of the Glen Toro 2Addition Plat and noted that the City approved the 40Planned Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary and Final Plat, andDevelopment Agreement for 41the development in 1998. The development consists of nine lots, five of which have been 42developed and another lot currently under construction. 43 44Recently, the Planning Commission processeda wetlands permit for construction ona separate lot 45within the development due to the 100-foot buffer from the same wetland in-question. The original 46PUD approval and subsequent amendments did not addressthe incorporation of a city-issued September 22, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 1 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2 47wetlands permits due to the fact that the wetland onthe subject parcel wasnot identified on the 48city’s official wetlands map. That map was updated in 2006, at which time the wetlandwas 49identified. 50 51Council did approve a Planned Unit Development amendment to allow reduced setbacks on several 52lots in the development in 2002. Specific to the subject parcel, a 10-foot side yard setback was 53approved to allow for preservation of existing trees near the wetland and that building pad would 54be able to be located as far as possible away from those overhead power lines. 55 56As part of the PUD process development on the subject parcel was described in great detail by the 57project architect. No record ofconditions related to the wetland in question appears to have been 58included. Vegetation removal and construction of a proposed patio, porch, and retaining wall and 59portions of the dwelling will be locatedwithin 25 feet of the wetland. City policy generally 60restricts clearing and grading within such a distance and that is in order to provide for a vegetative 61buffer. It has been incorporated as conditions since 2009, which is when the policy was adopted. 62Since the previously approved PUD does precede this policy, staff is not proposing that as a 63condition in this case. 64 65Drainage in this area is collected into a man-made pond northwest of the development. The outlot 66pond is then connected to the wetland on the subject parcel by a culvert under the road, which then 67also has an emergency outflow to Huber Drive. The engineering department has reviewed the 68proposed plans and determined that construction on the subject parcel will not negatively impact 69the developments to the existing drainage system. 70 71As part of this process, the City did require an updated wetland delineation that was provided to 72determine the location of the eastern boundary closest to the proposed dwelling. The delineation 73confirmation is consistent with the original delineation shown on the plat. Therefore, it has been 74determined that the existing drainage and utility easement is adequate. 75 76According to the applicant, underbrush and five significant mature trees would be removed within 77the building pad area and several significant trees will be preserved within the entire wetland buffer area. 78 79 80Due to the 100-foot wetland buffer encompassing the entire proposed building pad, staff has 81included a condition of approval requiring a landscape plan be submitted for review and approval 82by staff. It is understood that this plan would be completed by next week; however, to ensure its 83approval prior to next spring, staff further proposed an amendment to that specific condition that 84the plan be approved by April 1, 2016. 85 86Planner Wall noted an email submitted as a part of the public comments that was included in the 87Planning Commission packet and that the concern had been addressed within the staff report. 88 89Staff recommended approval of this wetlands permit request with conditions. 90 September 22, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 2 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3 91Commissioners asked questions regarding where the proposed home would be located on the lot, 92any setback issues, confirmation that the lot is not buildable without encroaching into the 100-foot 93buffer,and the overflow issues raised by the neighbor across the street. 94 95Mr. Andrew Schmidt of AMEK Custom Builders, LLC was in attendance to answer questions or 96make comments. 97 98Commissioners asked additional questions regarding how AMEK Custom Builders would protect 99the wetland during construction, how any disturbed areas would be restored after construction, and 100steps being taken to protect the house from any potential flooding. 101 102Chair Field opened the public hearing. 103 104Seeing no one coming forward Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 105 106COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 107CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 108 109AYES: 6 110NAYS: 0 111ABSENT: 1 112 113COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO 114RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-36, WETLANDS PERMIT AT 2190 115GLEN TORO ROADBASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1161.The proposed project complies with the previously approved Conditional Use Permit for a 117Planned Unit Development, including subsequent amendments. 1182.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the 119City Code and will not negatively impact the development’s existing drainage system. 1203.Construction-related activities within the 25-foot non-disturb buffer area will be limited to 121what is essential for construction of the proposed project. 1224.Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction. 1235.A landscape plan, completed by a registered professional, is required to be reviewed and 124approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments to ensure appropriate buffer 125vegetation is established in accordance with city policies. 126AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1271.A landscape plan, prepared and signed by a qualified professional, is submitted for review 128and approval by the Planning and Engineering Departments by April 1, 2016. 1292.The delineated wetland boundary is clearly marked and vegetation removal and 130construction activities are prohibited within this area. 1313.Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction. 1324.All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, 133and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance 134Guidance Document. 135 136 September 22, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 3 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4 137AYES: 6 138NAYS: 0 139ABSENT: 1 140 141Chair Fieldadvised the City Council would consider this application at its October 6, 2015 142meeting. 143 City of Eagan Proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment: MVZ Ventures, LLC 144 145 146Planner Nolan Wall explained that staff received an agency response request from the City of 147Eagan to change the land use designation of approximately 194 acres located in the far northeast 148corner of the City of Eagan – south of I-494, east of Lone Oak Parkway, and west of Ames 149Crossing. The current land use designation is as Special Area –Major Office; the proposed 150comprehensive guide plan would be tochange that use to Special Area –Mixed Use. This property 151has been purchased by the Minnesota Vikings with the intent to be used primarily as their new 152headquarters and training facility, with some additional development associated with that in 153multiple phases. 154 155Due to the subject parcel’s proximity to the City of Mendota Heights and based on past discussions 156on potential impacts of future development in this area, staff has brought forward this request for 157review and potential comments from the Planning Commission. This is an initial step in the review 158process. Planner Wall also provided the commissioners a copy of the City of Eagan’s staff report 159on this matter. This topic was on the City of Eagan’s Planning Commission agenda on September 16021 \[last night\] and was just received. Staff has not had an opportunity to do a full analysis to 161respond to their requestfor feedback; however, the timeline is such that staff felt it should be 162brought forward to the Commission for comments. 163 164As indicated, this is the initial step in the comprehensive plan guidance amendment and would 165need to be subject to Metropolitan Council approval. There is also a number of steps that this 166potential process has to go through at the City of Eagan, which includes rezoning, subdivision, and 167planned unit development approvals and environmental review – which would include a traffic 168analysis to determine if anyEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required. 169 170Planner Wall noted that the City of Eagan’s Planning Commission did recommend approval and 171would be forwarded on to their City Council for their review at their October 6, 2015 meeting. 172 173Staff recommended that the Planning Commission review the information and provide comments 174that they would like staff to consider for providing a response to the City of Eagan. 175 176Maps provided in the information packet included a location map, current land use map, proposed 177land use map, and a site concept sketch. 178 179Commissioners asked questions and made comments regarding increased density and the impacts 180that would impose on traffic and environment, inclusion of a residential component that was not 181in the original land use map, addition of I-494 exits, other localities being requested to provide 182response, needing additional information to make informed responses regarding traffic,the short September 22, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 4 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5 183amount of time to respond,andif the Metropolitan Council would do a neighboring municipality 184circulation asking for formal comments. 185 186Planner Wall summarized the potential response on this matterbased on the Commission’s 187discussion as being concerned about the traffic impacts as a result of the proposed increased 188density of the fully-developed site on north-south connections into Mendota Heights. 189 Verbal Review 190 191 192Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 193 194PLANNING CASE #2015-14 195City of Mendota Heights 196Code Amendment regarding Trade School Definition 197•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 198 199PLANNING CASE #2015-26 200Robert Alvarez, 1176 Ivy Hill Road 201Variance Request for a Deck 202•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 203 204PLANNING CASE #2015-31 205Joe Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road 206Critical Area Permit 207•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 208 209PLANNING CASE #2015-32 210HD Supply Construction & Industrial, 1400 Commerce Drive 211Conditional Use Permit and Variances Request for expanded outdoor storage 212•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 213 Announcements 214 215 216Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and the City Council has been scheduled for 217October 29 at 5:00 pm –workshop format to discuss the Redevelopment Plan for the 218Industrial District – approximately two hours. 219Dakota County is proposing a grade-separated pedestrian crossing of Highway 110 in 220conjunction with development of the Mendota/Lebanon Hills Greenway Project and 221Master Plan. An open house is scheduledfor October 21 at 6:30 pm at Teresa’s. Public 222can come and look at the concept plans and offer comments before Dakota County makes 223formal recommendation to the County Board. 224Another MnDOT project is Dodd Road/State Trunk Highway 149 rehabilitation scheduled 225for 2018(full pavement replacement, curb replacements, drainage improvements, and trail 226improvements. Open house is scheduled for October 1 at 5:00 pm at Teresa’s. 227Victoria Road Reconstruction is slightly behind schedule due to rain. The assessment 228hearing has been moved back to October 20. September 22, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 5 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6 229The 2016 Reconstruction Project (Mendota Road /Warrior Drive) neighborhood meeting 230is scheduled for September 28 from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm at City Hall. 231Marie Avenue has been restriped with turn lanes, arrows, and crosswalks. 232Highway 13 Project –the necessary replacement of a force main by the Metropolitan 233Council pushed this project back three to five weeks. Anticipated completion date is 234October 7, 2015. 235 Adjournment 236 237 238COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 239ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:45 P.M. 240 241AYES: 6 242NAYS: 0 243ABSENT: 1 September 22, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 6 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7 5a DATE: October 27, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-38 Freestanding Sign Setback Variance APPLICANT: Spectrum Sign Systems, on behalf of Robert Lindahl/Crosswind, LLC and Prime Therapeutics, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1440 Northland Drive ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial/I-Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: December 4, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, on behalf of the property ownerand tenant,is seekingapproval to permit the location of a freestanding monument sign within the required property boundary line setback at 1440 Northland Drive. BACKGROUND The property containsthree separate office buildings connected by skywaysonthree parcels totaling approximately 16 acres. The buildings were historically occupied by a single user and identified by a single address, but are now occupied by multiple tenants at 1440 and 1444 Northland Drive. Prime Therapeutics recently leased approximately 77,500 square feet of previously-vacant space within the existing buildings and is requesting the proposed freestanding monument sign. A setback variance was granted in 2013 for a freestanding sign identifying tenants located at 1444 Northland Drive, which is the western-most isbuildingon the property. At that time, the applicable setback was 40 feet and the approval granted a 20-foot setback from the property boundary linealong Northland Drive. The City subsequently passed Ordinance 453 which, among other provisions, amended the Code to reduce the setbacks for freestanding signs. ANALYSIS The following standards apply to freestanding signs in the Industrial District: StandardProposedCompliant Number: One sign for any single lot1YES Height: Not be higher than 25’ above the average grade 8’-3” YES level at the base of the sign Property Line Setback: 10’2’-0”NO Driveway Setback: 5’5’-0”YES Parking Area Setback: 5’5’-0” min.YES Size: Gross areaof any surface shall not exceed 100 SF46.67 SFYES Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-38 Page 1 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8 As proposed, the freestanding monument sign would be the only sign on the parcel and meets the required size, height,and driveway/parking areasetback standards.However, a variance isrequired from the property boundary line setback standard. When considering the variance request in this case, the City is required to find that: 1.The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant’s request to construct a freestanding monument sign is a reasonable use of the property. The purpose and intent of such a sign is to providea commercial property withidentifying information for customers/visitors in a reasonable location without impeding visibility. The Northland Drive right-of-way is 80 feet wide and includes a paved off-street trail along the south side of the road. As a result, the expansive right-of-way and trail provide additional buffer space between the proposed sign and the road. While the proposed setback is two feet from the property boundary line, the sign would be located approximately 22 feet from Northland Drive. As a result, exiting vehicles should bestopped past the proposed sign while waiting to turn. Staff further analyzed the proposed sign’s location and determined that appropriate visibility for vehicle turning movements onto Northland Drive from the subjectparcelwill be maintained based on the applicable intersection sight distance guidelines. 2.The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to circumstancesthat are unique to the propertywhich are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations. The only ingress/egress to the parking lot serving the buildings at 1440 Northland Drive is located along the subject parcel’s eastern property boundary line. In order to provide the appropriate identification signage, the proposed sign would have to be located in this area. The parking lot is elevated from the road and is supported by a retaining wall that is set-back approximately 10 feet from the property boundary line, which hinders the ability to locate a sign in this area complaint withthe setback requirements. The majority of incoming traffic will most likely originate from the Northland Drive/Pilot Knob Road intersection to the east. As a result, moving the proposed sign farther west along Northland Drive past the driveway and retaining wallto potentially comply with the required setbackswould not provide adequate identification for the tenant. In addition, there are several coniferous trees in this area that may limit the sign’s visibility. A sign located on top of the retaining wall would be out of scale for its intent and, according to the applicant, a sign cannot be affixed to the retaining wall since it’snot engineered to support a structure. In addition to not meeting the tenant’s needs, both alternatives would require a variance from the 5-foot parking lot setback requirement. Based on the existing site conditions, the applicant has established practical difficulties in reasonably locating a freestanding monument signon the subject parcelin compliance with the required property boundary line setback standard.Furthermore, the applicant has explored alternative locations that appear to be unreasonable due to the unique circumstances the existing conditions present. 3.The request will not alter the essentialcharacter of the locality. The immediate surrounding area is zoned Industrial and contains a mix of office and industrial uses; most of which have freestanding monument signs. The proposed sign’s location will not negatively impact the character of thearea. Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-38 Page 2 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9 ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend approval of the variance request, based on thefindings of fact, with the condition that a sign permit is obtained on behalf of the property owner and tenant. OR 2.Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings offact that the proposed sign is not consistent with the City Code and will have a negative impact on the surrounding area. OR 3.Table the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance requestbased on the attached findings of fact, with conditions (Alternative #1). MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Site map 2.Site photos 3.Applications, including supporting materials Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-38 Page 3 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Variance Requestfor Freestanding Monument Sign 1440 Northland Drive The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The proposed sign is a reasonable use of the property and meets the purpose and intent of the Code. 2.The proposed sign is located at the only ingress/egress to the subject parcel’s surface parking lot and building entrance; strict interpretation of the setback standards would not allow the proposed sign in this location based on the existing conditions. 3.Based on the existing site conditions and analysis of other alternatives, the applicant has established practical difficultiesdue to unique circumstances in order to reasonably locatea freestanding monument sign in compliance with the required setbacks. 4.The proposed sign’s location is over 20 feet from the road and does notinterfere with theoff- street trail,intersection site distances, or drainage and utility easementsin the immediate area. 5.The proposed sign will not negatively impact the character of the surrounding area. Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-38 Page 4 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11 Planning Case 2015-38 City of 1440 Northland Drive Mendota 0225 Heights 10/7/2015 SCALE IN FEET 1495 1455 1415 1415 8 16 818 0 2 8 2 2 8 1450 2515 2515 1408 1440 2515 2506 253525352535 2535 1450 1444 1440 14081408 14401408 I-494 GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12 Planning Case 2015-38 Site Photos: 1440 Northland Drive Driveway Entrance Proposed Sign Location Source: Staff (10.15.15) 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13 Planning Case 2015-38 Site Photos: 1440 Northland Drive Proposed Sign Location Eastbound Driveway Access Viewpoint Source: Staff (10.15.15) 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...105201 C//5 10/27/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24 6 DATE: October 27, 2015 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Redevelopment Plan Workshop BACKGROUND Thursday, October 29 The Planning Commission and City Council will be participating in a workshop on at 5:00 PM as part of the redevelopment planning process for the Industrial District. The purpose of the workshop is to present ideas to receive feedback, gauge support and develop a preferred plan for Stantec/staff to refine. Materials will be provided in advance of the workshop for your review. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION N/A –informationonly