Loading...
2016-06-28 Planning Comm Minutes CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES June 28, 2016 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 28, 2016 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 Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Commissioners Howard Roston and Doug Hennes. 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 May 24, 2016 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2016, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2016-19 st Blue Horizon Energy, LLC, 675 – 1 Avenue Conditional Use Permit City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to construct a roof-mounted solar energy system. He then shared an image of the property location and noted that it was completely surrounded by R-1 zoned properties. The subject parcel is approximately 19,000 square feet, contains a single-family dwelling that is currently under construction, and is guided low-density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council recently passed Ordinance 485, which created standards for alternative energy systems as part of Planning Case 2015-34, which permitted solar energy systems as a conditional use in all zoning districts, subject to conditions. Planner Wall then reviewed how the proposed solar energy system is compliant with those applicable city code standards, is compliant with the applicable safety and electrical code standards, and is also compliant with the general standards in the code for conditional use permits. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 Commissioner Noonan asked for an explanation of Condition #2, which reads “The applicant shall provide the appropriate authorization to the city concerning the interconnection agreement with Xcel Energy.” Planner Wall replied that this is a requirement contained in the code for these types of systems. Basically it is an interconnection agreement between Xcel Energy and the property owner so that they would sell back a portion of that energy into the grid. Commissioner Noonan then asked if the system were sized so that it would not generate surplus power, would the City require that clause. Planner Wall replied in the negative. If there is no need for the interconnection agreement, then it would not need to be included as a condition. Mr. Brian Keenan, from Blue Horizon Energy, came forward and addressed Commissioner Noonan’s question by stating that it is a standard procedure with Xcel Energy when anyone has a solar electric system that on some days it may produce more than is being used. Commissioner Magnuson asked how much energy is a system like this designed to produce. Mr. Keenan replied that this one is going to produce somewhere around 8,000 kilowatt-hours in an average year. An average home uses 10,000-kilowatt hours in a year. Commissioner Petschel asked what happens to the inverter when there is a power outage. Mr. Keenan replied that it shuts down. If there ever a grid failure the inverter shuts down so that the homeowner is not powering the grid. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE APPLICABLE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant obtains a building permit prior to installation of the proposed solar energy system. 2. The applicant shall provide the appropriate authorization to the city concerning the interconnection agreement with Xcel Energy. 3. If the proposed solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperable for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, it shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a public nuisance. 4. If abandoned, the property owners shall remove the abandoned system, including the entire structure and transmission equipment, at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2016 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2016-20 Maris Kurmis, 1787 Lexington Avenue Lot Line Adjustment City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant is seeking to adjust a shared interior lot line and vacate existing drainage and utility easement. He then shared images of the subject parcels affected. The property located at 1787 Lexington Avenue obviously fronts on Lexington Avenue and the other is an undeveloped lot at the end of the Orchard Circle cul-de-sac, completely surrounded by R-1 zoned properties. The proposed adjustment does require City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota County. The property owners of Lot 5 (1787 Lexington Avenue) are interested in selling 5,187 square feet of the existing rear yard to the owners of Lot 6, an undeveloped parcel on the Orchard Circle cul-de-sac. The owners actually live at 1122 Orchard Circle. According to both parties, the natural topography of the area in-question is better suited to be located on Lot 6 and would also ensure that the existing vegetative buffer remains between the two properties. The code does allow for subdivision of parcels provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. In this case, the proposed adjustment does not create any non-conformity with the applicable R-1 lot district standards. The only setback that is impacted is the rear yard setback for the existing dwelling on Lot 5, which still meets the 73-foot requirement by over 20 feet. There are some existing accessory structures noted on the survey, which are proposed to be removed and a corresponding condition of approval is included that ensures no additional non- conformity are created. The requested vacation of the existing drainage and utility easement that runs along the interior property boundary line would then be transferred to the new line, which is included in the legal description. In addition, the existing drainage and utility easement that runs along the north property boundary line of Lot 6 would be extended through the property in-question. Chair Field asked for clarification that the old lot line will disappear and the additional space would be incorporated into that Lot 6; Planner Wall confirmed. Mr. Maris Kurmis, representing both the buyer and the seller, came forward and explained that most of the property that the sellers own from Lexington Avenue goes back approximately 365 feet, at which point the property drops eight to ten feet. That hill is covered with bushes and trees and then there is another 32 feet on the bottom of that hill that seemed more suited to the buyers June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 than somebody owning all of this on top and then having to go down and take care of another 32 feet below. He noted that the accessory structures have already been removed, including cement floors, foundations, and other debris. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION REQUEST, INCLUDING THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed adjustment will not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards. 3. The existing accessory structures on Lot 5 will be removed, so as not to create any non- conformities on Lot 6 as a result of the proposed adjustment. 4. The area in-question is better-suited to be included as part of Lot 6 due to the existing conditions. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Upon closing on the sale of the property, the property owners shall file the appropriate documents to record the proposed adjustment with Dakota County. 2. The property owners shall dedicate the required drainage and utility easement along the new interior side lot line and extend the existing drainage and utility easement along the new north property boundary line on Lot 6, as shown on the Certificate of Survey, with Dakota County. 3. All existing accessory structures shown on the Certificate of Survey will be removed prior to recording the proposed adjustment with Dakota County. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2016 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2016-23 Sean Carey, 2500 Lexington Avenue South Proposed Code Amendments – B-1 District Conditional Uses June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting amendments to Title 12-1F- 1-B of the City Code concerning conditional uses in the B-1 Limited Business District. The applicant owns the property at 2500 Lexington Avenue South. Planner Wall then shared images of the property and the surrounding areas. The applicant formally occupied the existing 13,940 square foot office/warehouse building, which is currently vacant. The proposed amendment includes two additional conditional uses for consideration by the Planning Commission. The building on the subject property was constructed in 1991 for Turners Gymnastics Society and was issued a conditional use permit for a private athletic facility. Prior to purchasing the building, the applicant did appear before the City Council in 2006 to request an interpretation of B-1 zoning requirements with respect to the subject property and the proposed office/warehouse use. The applicant no longer operates that business and is now marketing the building for sale or lease. As a result, the existing permitted and conditional uses have proved somewhat problematic in attracting new users based on how the building is constructed and the potential code amendment process. The proposed amendment; therefore, provides clarity on what uses may or may not occupy the space and would allow future interested parties to potentially pursue a conditional use permit process without having to first go through a code amendment process. The applicant’s request is to add “gymnastics business” and “office warehouse” as conditional uses to the B-1 district. Staff took the applicant’s requests and has included their recommendations in the form of draft Ordinance 498, which included the following proposed conditional uses: 1. Commercial recreation, when conducted within a completely enclosed building 2. Offices of general nature where the operations include warehousing from the site Commissioner Noonan asked when the initial zoning establishing the B-1 district put in place; Planner Wall replied that he did not know. Commissioner Noonan then asked, in the district provisions, Planner Wall eluded that there was an outright prohibition in the B-1 area for warehouse; what year did that take place and what is the understanding of why that was done. Planner Wall noted that he had provided minutes from those meetings in the information packet and the applicant was party to that discussion. What is at issue here is that the current zoning does not allow the two uses that previously occupied the building. Another option could be to potentially rezone the property, but then there is the issue of having a different zoned commercial property than the surrounding properties. Commissioner Magnuson assumed that since this would be reviewed as a conditional use, the city then could create some restrictions and limitations with respect to large semi-trucks in the area, traffic impacts, and other impact issues that may arise as a result of some warehousing; Planner Wall confirmed her assumptions. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 Mr. Sean Carey, 665 Arcadia Drive, explained that he purchased the building 2006 and with Council’s permission made a showroom, warehouse, and office space. The building was originally designed as a gymnastics studio in 1991 and was operated as such for 15 years. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 498, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2016 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2016-22 City of Mendota Heights Proposed Code Amendments – Massage Therapy Business Use City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering an amendment to Title 12-1F-1- A of the City Code concerning permitted uses in the B-1 Limited Business District. Massage Elements, LLC currently operates at 750 Highway 110, in the Mendota Plaza development. Staff recently received a massage establishment renewal license from the current business owner to relocate into a new space at 1200 Center Point Curve. The existing location is zoned MU-PUD and the new location is zoned B-1 Limited Business. A business offering massage therapy services did formally operate in the space at 1200 Center Point Curve and was appropriately-licensed by the city from 2013 until 2015. Massage Elements will be occupying space within that same building. Upon further review, staff did conclude massage therapy business are not explicitly permitted to operate within the B-1 District despite massage licenses being issued in the past for businesses within the district. In order to address this issue and to ensure that the new business is operating in compliance with the appropriate zoning regulations and past practice, staff is proposing to amend the City Code to allow the use in the B- 1 District. The proposed amendment, which reads, “Massage therapy business, subject to licensing requirements of this code,” is a permitted use in the B-2, B-3, B-4, and MU-PUD Districts. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 Currently, the only other massage therapy use is located at The Village, which is currently zoned MU-PUD. However, staff does not anticipate a proliferation of massage therapy uses as a result of this proposed code amendment. Title 3-6 of the City Code does require massage therapy uses to have an establishment license and individual therapists must also be licensed; both of which must be renewed annually. Commissioner Magnuson noted that she was trying to reconcile the prohibition of retail sales in the B-1 District with the ability to operate essentially a walk-in business that sells a service, albeit a service that occurs on the premises; so a massage therapy/hair salon/nail place isn’t really considered a retail sale because the services are performed on the premises. Planner Wall noted that the fact that this specific use would be permitted by the proposed amendment. If it weren’t specifically included, a case could be made that this would be a retail use and would not be allowed. Commissioner Noonan noted that it had been indicated that a massage therapy establishment did operate prior to now and asked how it was able to operate if it wasn’t exclusively permitted in the zone. Planner Wall replied that he would be making some assumptions because it was done previous to his time here. However, his understanding of that particular business is that it offered a number of different services, including massage therapy; and that may have been added after the business already occupied the space. Commissioner Magnuson recommended that maybe before this goes to the Council that it be run by the City Attorney to ensure that the simple inclusion of massage therapy services doesn’t conflict with the notion of retail sales. It may be that the language could be tweaked just a little bit to deal with that potential inconsistency to make it clearer – that is does not constitute a retail sale because services are performed on the premises, or whatever. Planner Wall replied that he could certainly ask for some clarification from the City Attorney with potentially some additional clarifiers to answer that question. Commissioner Noonan asked if the B-1 zone permits the full-range of medical or quasi-medical type services (i.e. physical therapist, chiropractor, dentist). Planner Wall responded by listing the currently permitted uses in the B-1 District. He then further responded that, in his opinion, there is not another use in the B-1 zone that could be implied or somehow interpreted to be “massage therapy”, especially when it is specifically included in other districts. Mr. Jon Faraci, the general manager of Sampson Development, came forward and explained that they built the building in 2008 and noted that the B-1 District is a very limited zoning district. However, when the previous owner and he came to City Hall and spoke with former city staff, it was not an issue; the reason being because the zoning said “offices, offices of the human care”, and because of the location of a chiropractor within the B-1 District. He also theorized that there is really no different between and bank and a retail establishment, yet banks are a permitted use. He brought up other uses that tried to locate within his building but was not permitted because of the limitations in the B-1 District (i.e. barber shop, salon). He urged the Commission to approve this request because it had been approved before. Chair Field opened the public hearing. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 497, AS PRESENTED Commissioner Noonan noted that is inclined to support the amendment mainly because of the history that was shared. It is compelling and certainly it gives an indication as to what was permitted before and the interpretation. He believes this ordinance does provide the clarification. Councilmember Petschel stated that he is inclined to support it as well. However, it would be nice to not have to have piece-meal approvals; possibly having an explicit definition of what retail is. Maybe a limitation on what percent of a business could be sold goods as opposed to a service rendered. Commissioner Noonan agreed that he would rather see these changes comprehensively. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2016 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2016-16 Mendota Mall Associates / Paster Properties, 720 Highway 110 – Mendota Plaza Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Amendment, Preliminary Plat/Final Plat, and Wetlands Permit City Planner Nolan Wall explained that applicant was seeking approval to amend a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Plan Development including Preliminary and Final Plat, and Wetlands Permit requests. The proposed development site is approximately 4.96 acres of undeveloped land in the northeast corner of the existing Mendota Plaza mixed-use development. It borders Highway 110 to the north, the Dodge Nature Center property to the east, and the Mendota Plaza development to the south and to the west. The Village of Mendota Heights is located directly across the highway to the north and would be linked to the proposed development by a future trail underpass as part of a county funded project. Planner Wall then shared additional background information that had been provided to the Commissioners in their information packet:  Project includes integrated commercial and high-density residential developments June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8  Development team includes Mendota Mall Associates and Paster Properties, and At Home Apartments  Project to be constructed in two phases o Phase One: includes construction of the private access drive, high-density residential development, public amenities, landscaping, and preliminary grading; commencing as soon as possible and completed in approximately 18 months o Phase Two: includes construction of the commercial development and final grading; commencing as soon as future tenants are committed to leases and each commercial building will take 8-12 months to construct, which may not occur concurrently Planner Wall noted that as part of the PUD process, the applicant received approvals for the master plan of the entire mixed-use site. The proposed amendment is in response to changes in the real estate market and additional site opportunities since the original PUD was approved. Planner Wall then gave an analysis of the Comprehensive Plan, the Preliminary and Final Plat, Proposed PUD Final Development Plan Amendment, commercial development, high-density residential development, off-street parking, signage, lighting, wetlands permit, Dakota County trail, Dodge Nature Center, and Development Agreement; all of which had been included in the information packet in greater detail. Commissioner Noonan noted that it had been mentioned several times in the staff report about an access permit pending from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). He then asked if MnDOT had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that they had previously issued an access permit, to say no. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello stated that they had a meeting not too long ago with MnDOT on this specific issue and they outlined the additional information that they need from the applicant in order to process this permit. One of the issues that came up was the area in-question was purchased from MnDOT by the applicant but that is something that is going to come into play and once the applicant gets all of the information, including the updated full traffic study for the development, MnDOT will come back to them with what type of permitted access they are willing to give. Without speaking on behalf of MnDOT, he noted that the feeling the in meeting was that it was positive and if they can work through these issues that something is likely to happen with that permit. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that Council consideration of this matter is going to be held in abeyance until such time as the answer is given on the access permit. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello confirmed and noted that the City cannot approve a development plan with an access point that is not permitted. Commissioner Noonan then asked what sort of expectation is had with respect to a decision from MnDOT; how does it relate to the 60-day rule. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello replied that one of the topics discussed in the meeting was the timing of the permit and the application process. Walking through that timeline, if everything falls into place, the decision from MnDOT would be received prior to the action deadline for the application. The applicant would be free to extend if necessary. The action deadline is currently August 24, 2016; however, to the extent that the required information is not received by then, the applicant would have to take additional steps to voluntarily extend the deadline. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Noonan asked if the permit to provide the access were not approved, what would that mean in terms of what the Commission was being asked to considered; does the application come back because it would require fundamental rework and then the Commission would have another chance to review the overall operation in light of no permit; Planner Wall replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Magnuson noted that in one of the renderings of the site there is a description of the changes to Highway 110 where it appears that they are adding a turn lane or some type of egress at the so-called private access drive. She then asked if it could be assumed that MnDOT is on-board with this whole project to some extent or that they are actually going to do that; or is this something that was put into the plan and no one knows if it actually will take place. Planner Wall replied, without speaking on behalf of the applicant, that his understanding was that was the purpose of the right-of-way access permit; which would be something to be negotiated between MnDOT and the applicant. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello replied that part of the application for the access permit would be the construction of a deceleration lane on the eastbound Highway 110; that is part of the applicant’s permit application and is not part of the Highway 110 rehabilitation project. If MnDOT were not rehabilitating Highway 110, that would be installed by the applicant as part of their access. Commissioner Petschel, as someone who regularly takes a right at rush hour from northbound Dodd on Highway 110, asked if there was any anticipation that people would be using that access point as a shortcut to eastbound Highway 110. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello speculated that the path from the BP access point on Dodd Road to this access point on Highway 110 is pretty convoluted going through the Plaza’s parking lot. It may be more likely that people would use South Plaza Drive and turn left at the White Pine building, then come across. However, they would still have to negotiate through a lot of parking and business traffic; probably being more trouble than it’s worth for most drivers. Commissioner Magnuson noted that Planner Wall mentioned a few times in his presentation that “this is required by code, this is not being met in this application; however staff believes that what is being proposed is reasonable” and then asked that because this is a PUD if the Commission could use the code as guidance as opposed to requirement. Planner Wall replied in the affirmative and noted that one of the issues with the R-3 zoning code is that it is fairly antiquated and he was unsure if it has been updated to what current standards are. Therefore, arbitrarily holding an applicant to those requirements, certainly in a PUD, seemed onerous. However, they were reviewed and included as part of the analysis. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there were sections of the application that were incomplete, as it sounded to her during the presentation (i.e. parking issues, signage issues); she wondered if these were things that, if this application were moved on to the City Council, staff would work on as this goes through the process. Planner Wall replied that the application is complete because all of the required materials have been submitted. There are some aspects that, due to the speculative nature specific to the commercial development, that raise questions that need to be answered before the ultimate final approval can be given. This particular development also has an extensive Development Agreement, which has outlined various conditions that would be required to be June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 included as part of that agreement. They are included in the staff report and encompassed as conditions. Commissioner Noonan asked if the Commission needs to see the Development Agreement in a draft and if the Commission has any role in terms of looking at the Development Agreement to make sure they are satisfied that is appropriately met the conditions approved. Planner Wall replied that the Development Agreement goes directly to the City Council in concert with the recommendation from the Planning Commission and the conditions that are included for approval. Commissioner Noonan noted that it was mentioned in the presentation that more finalized plans were to be brought forward; that presupposes that the applicant will bring forward a plan. He then asked what would happen if the City does not find that plan acceptable. Planner Wall replied that would essentially be negotiated as part of the Development Agreement process. Commissioner Noonan, in respect to parking, expressed his appreciation of the analysis that was completed by Stantec, as it was quite helpful. He then asked for confirmation that contractually the developer will be obligated to maintain the 20 visitor parking spaces underground. Planner Wall replied that is what staff is recommending. He then asked if an enforcement mechanism was in place in case the building found that it needed more parking and poached into the visitor spaces. Planner Wall replied that it could certainly be a component of that; enforcement of that is essentially a management or operational issue. However, if it did present an issue that the City felt needed to be addressed they could have a clause in the Development Agreement that seeks to remedy that. Commissioner Noonan submitted that this would be more than a management issue because of the potential to spill over into the community. Commissioner Noonan asked what would happen if, notwithstanding the analysis that was done that indicated that the parking is adequate, it was found that one of the components is not adequate. What would the remedy be if it were found that there was a spillover in parking? Planner Wall referred to the following conditions of approval: 3. As part of the proposed high-density residential use, the applicant shall make at least 20 underground spaces available for visitor/guest parking. 4. The proposed commercial development shall be limited to an appropriate square footage of restaurant space to accommodate off-street parking demand and maintain consistency with the traffic analysis, to be included as part of the amended Development Agreement. He continued by stating that at least at this point, with the number provided for potential square footage of the restaurant, that is what staff is basing their recommendation on as being acceptable; therefore, it is staff’s strong opinion that be memorialized in the Development Agreement to establish that any inconsistencies with that square footage which would cause off-street parking issues needs to be resolved by the applicant. Commissioner Noonan continued by asking for confirmation that the staff report stated 20 visitor spaces underground and 20 visitor spaces above ground; Planner Wall confirmed. Commissioner Noonan noted that Condition #3 should be modified to make reference to 20 underground spaces and 20 surface spaces; Planner Wall agreed. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 Chair Field requested clarification on the following:  The Commission’s role was to make recommendation to the City Council  The City Council would make policy decisions, and  The City Council would take the Commission’s input and negotiate the Developers Agreement Planner Wall confirmed and noted the three pieces to be voted upon: 1. Conditional Use Permit to amend the existing Planned Unit Development 2. Preliminary and Final Plat, including the vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements 3. Wetlands Permit request Mr. Phil Carlson, Consulting Planner from Stantec, noted that the analysis done suggested that the amount of parking is enough; however, the condition of approval should be that the actual use needs to stay within that parking and not create a parking problem; therefore, it’s really up to the applicant to operate in such a way that does not create a parking problem. If they create a parking problem they have violated a condition of the approval and; therefore, the City could step in with other measures. Commissioner Petschel asked for clarification that the shared parking would be for the residential property. Planner Wall replied that the total 105 surface parking stalls is the total for the entire commercial development, which includes potentially restaurant and retail uses in the two buildings combined; no underground for the retail. Chair Field asked what the original setback was on the commercial buildings in the original PUD. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello replied that in the original PUD approval, they were set back slightly further than what is being proposed now. Chair Field then asked what the variance was. Planner Wall replied that they were proposing building setbacks of 42.92 feet for building one and 28 feet from the right-of-way for building two; front yard setback in the B-1 and B-2 districts are 30 feet. What is also worth consideration in this respect is that there is a significant right-of-way area between the highway and this particular property, which is left for a visual and vegetative buffer from the site as well. Planner Wall speculated based on previous staff reports and the non-dimensioned/scalable master plan included in the packet, that the original PUD setbacks were approximately 60 to 70 feet from the right-of-way line. Mr. John Kohler, architect with Paster Properties, approached the Commission and noted he and the development team were available for questions. Commissioner Magnuson asked have any consideration had been given to consolidating some of the signs; so instead of having three large pylon signs there could be only one. Mr. Kohler replied that this would be difficult based on the building placements. He then shared an image of the area and the proposed locations of the signs. Commissioner Noonan asked, as a follow-up to the suggestion made by Mr. Carlson, if a recommendation was advanced whereby the parking proposed is specifically called out in the Development Agreement and there was an obligation on the developers/owners to live within those June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 numbers, and if operational problems emerged there would be a commitment to make the necessary steps to bring it back into compliance and eliminate the overage; what would be his reaction. Mr. Kohler replied that since they own the shopping center adjacent to this proposed development and in consideration of the new bridge location, they do have a fallback plan to address any potential parking issues. As far as specific uses/specific parking that is why they worked with Mr. Carlson on working out specific square footages to accommodate what the owner/developers felt was a comfortable worst-case scenario. He believes that if parking is going to be a problem it would probably be a bigger problem for the retailers than for the residents. Mr. Mike Cashill and Ms. Leanna Stefaniak with At Home Apartments came forward to address the parking in the apartments. Mr. Cashill noted that the current development cycle has changed with 70%-75% one-bedroom and 20% two-bedrooms; therefore, the parking requirements have come down substantially. They are seeing most of the new developments in the Twin Cities be approved at the 1.3, 1.4, to 1.5 cars per unit ratios and seeing actual registered car counts of 1.1 to 1.3 cars per unit. So they believed that the 1.6 cars per unit as being very generous. The combination of retail and multi-family is a great mix. Commissioner Noonan, referencing that these apartments would be at market rents, asked for a definition of “market rents” for this building. Mr. Cashill replied that in the Twin Cities they are seeing the rents that are needed for new construction costs are right in the $2/per square foot per month rental range. For example, a 700 square foot apartment would rent for $1,400/month and their rental sizes go from 650 square feet up to 1,400 square feet. Commissioner Noonan then asked how these rates would relate to the affordability guidelines that the Metropolitan Council has. Mr. Cashill replied that they are proposing strictly market rate for this location; transit orientated development on the light rail or buildings that are adjacent to large business centers with a large employment growth would be areas would be more amicable for affordability component. This would mean rent caps for one-bedroom and two-bedrooms; examples would be $700 rent cap for one-bedroom and $1,000 rent cap for two-bedrooms. Commissioner Noonan asked if At Home were unable to get the $2/square foot rent per month, would they be looking for any assistance in terms to fill the gap. Mr. Cashill replied that at this particular time, this is a market rate project so they are not proposing an affordability component. If that were to become an issue, then tax credits, bond financing, etc. would be a part of that program; however, that is not their program for this project. Commissioner Petschel asked if the parking slots are automatically assigned by units. The answer was negative. He then asked if someone has a unit in the building if they would automatically get a parking space or is that an additional charge. Mr. Cashill replied that typically an additional parking spot would be $75/month. For example, there are often times single people who rent a two-bedroom apartment and typically the garage spaces are rented for $75/month. Commissioner Petschel then asked if, especially in an apartment building this close to a surface parking structure, there was the potential for people foregoing the additional charge and just park in the surface lot. In other words, would they need to post signs in the Plaza surface lot that reads No Overnight Parking, etc. Mr. Cashill replied that they would definitely do that and show where people could park. However, that decision has not been determined. They do have many properties where they incorporate one parking spot for one-bedroom and two for two-bedroom apartments. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 Commissioner Costello stated that she noticed that there appears to be a trash enclosure between the two buildings; she then asked if there was a shared area for both commercial buildings. The answer was affirmative. She then noted that it appears that the materials would be different than the structures and asked if the plan was to build it with the same materials as the structures. Again, the answer was in the affirmative. She then asked if it would have a roof structure. The reply was, as this point, the thought was to not cover it because it actually keeps the area cleaner. Commissioner Petschel asked if the access road behind the retail building wraps around into the parking lot. The reply was that it was the drive-through for the potential restaurant space. Planner Wall reminded the Commission that the public hearing was held open from the last meeting. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER COSTELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT, AND WETLANDS PERMIT REQUESTS, INCLUDING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a development. 2. The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 3. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development accounts for a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council’s Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. 4. The proposed project is designed to minimize impacts on the wetland areas and is consistent with the previously-approved PUD. 5. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the proposed project will facilitate recreational opportunities. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development Agreement required by approval of the proposed project, to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. 2. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the Engineering Department and Saint Paul Regional Water Service. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 3. As part of the proposed high-density residential use, the applicant shall make at least 20 underground spaces and 20 surface spaces available for visitor/guest parking. 4. The proposed commercial development shall be limited to an appropriate square footage of restaurant space to accommodate off-street parking demand and maintain consistency with the traffic analysis, to be included as part of the amended Development Agreement. 5. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive signage plan for the proposed multi-tenant commercial buildings that is compliant with the applicable design standards and City Code, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and included as part of the amended Development Agreement. 6. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for building utility areas, but shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process. 8. All loading service, utility and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from public roads and adjacent differing land uses. When natural materials are used as a screen, the screen shall achieve 75% opacity year round. 9. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 10. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. 11. A revised Lighting Plan shall be submitted that includes proposed building lighting and any additional lighting within the MnDOT right-of-way, to be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments and included as part of the amended Development Agreement. 12. The final Storm Water Modeling Report shall be signed by a currently licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 13. Stream flow and corresponding culvert sizing shall be completed using Atlas 14 rainfall quantities. 14. The proposed deck encroachment into Outlot A shall be addressed in the amended Development Agreement. 15. The required traffic report requested by MnDOT shall be signed by a currently licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 16. A MnDOT Right-of-Way Access Permit shall be obtained for the proposed access to STH 110 as shown in the proposed plans prior to final approval. 17. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards, including written approval of the design layout prior to final City Council approval. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 18. The proposed common sanitary sewer line serving both commercial buildings shall be placed within and drainage and utility easement equal in width to twice the depth of the sewer pipe. 19. A profile (elevation) view of creek crossing depicting utility locations and separation distance from creek culvert shall be provided and approved by SPRWS. 20. The proposed trail connection to the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Trail shall be coordinated with Dakota County, including a written agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. A cut/fill analysis shall be provided along with final building permit plans denoting the amount of material export/import expected for the complete development. 22. Proposed retaining walls in excess of four feet in height shall require engineering design provided with the building permit application. 23. The applicant shall begin the work authorized by the wetlands permit within ninety (90) days from the date of issuance of the permit or obtain an extension as permitted by City Code. 24. The applicant shall complete the work authorized by the wetlands permit within the twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of the permit or obtain an extension as permitted by City Code. 25. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 26. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 27. Drive lane access into and out of the off-street parking areas to the building’s front doors shall be unimpeded and a minimum of 20-foot-wide clear access. 28. The radiuses on the Outlot B shall be such that fire truck turning movements are unimpeded, to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. 29. The underground storm water structure in Outlot B shall support fire equipment weight if required to be driven over by a fire truck. 30. No Parking signs shall be posted around Outlot B. 31. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. AND WITH THE MODIFICATION TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3 TO INCLUDE THE 20 SURFACE PARKING SPACES Councilmember Noonan also proposed a friendly amendment that picked up on the suggestion that Mr. Carlson recommended; of 32. The Development Agreement specifically identify the parking proposed within the Development Plan being 105 commercial, 237 residential, including 40 visitor spaces and that there is a commitment on the part of the developer to live within those numbers and that if problems emerge that they will take immediate steps to mitigate parking problems. Commissioner Costello agreed to the amendment. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2016 meeting. Verbal Review Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2016-11 All Energy Solar, 1002 Oxford Court Conditional Use Permit for a Solar Energy System • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2016-14 TruNorth Solar, LLC, 701 Mendota Heights Road – Friendly Hills Middle School Conditional Use Permit for a Solar Energy System • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2016-12 Richard Dugan, 2165 Timmy Street Variance Request • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission • Note: the City Council did accept the Planning Commission’s recommendations specific to the compromise between what the applicant wanted and staff’s recommendation PLANNING CASE #2016-13 Scott and Nancy Knowlton/John Steenberg, 810/804 Ridge Place Lot Split and Variance Request • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2016-15 Michael Hayes, 2305 Apache Street Variance Request • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2016-17 Derwin Weightlifting, LLC, 2535 Pilot Knob Road – Pilot Knob Service Center Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2016-21 Joe Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road Critical Area Permit June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17  As required by code, this item was taken directly to City Council and was approved at their last meeting Staff and Commission Announcements  The 2016 Street Reconstruction Project is underway, the contractor has torn the pavement off of Mendota Road and is reclaiming the pavement in the Warrior Drive Subdivision o The Warrior Drive Subdivision should be completed by early August o Mendota Road should be completed by Labor Day  Highway 13 is going to be closed again for the completion of the slope stabilization project for the property on Woodridge o Anticipated closing date of July 5 and will reopen after MnDOT inspection of the highway and remediation efforts on the pavement o Anticipated to be reopened on September 2 Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:09 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18