The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-08-23 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA August 23, 2016 – 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Adopt Agenda 4.Approve July 26, 2016Planning Commission Minutes 5.Public Hearings: a.Case No. 2016-31: Jaeger Construction, LLC.ConditionalUse Permit at 2300 Pilot Knob Road. b. Case No. 2016-33:City of Mendota Heights. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 2500 Lexington Avenue South. c. Case No. 2016-34: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed City Code Amendment – Alternative Energy Systems. 6.Verbal Review 7.Staff and Commission Announcements 8.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. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1 4 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5July 26, 2016 6 7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 26, 82016 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 Howard 11Roston, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Brian Petschel.Those absent:Michael Noonan and 12Christine Costello.Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall andPublic Works Director/City 13Engineer John Mazzitello. 14 15Approval of Agenda 16 17The agenda was approved as submitted. 18 19Approval of June 28, 2016 Minutes 20 21COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL 22TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2016, AS PRESENTED. 23 24AYES: 5 25NAYS: 0 26ABSENT: 2 27 28Hearings 29 30A) PLANNING CASE #2016-24 31All Energy Solar, 1295 Kendon Lane 32Conditional Use Permit 33 34City Planner Nolan Wallexplained that the applicant was seeking a ConditionalUse Permit to 35construct a roof-mounted solar energy system at 1295 Kendon Lane. Planner Wall shared an image 36outlining the location of the subject property in relation to surrounding properties and streets. The 37property is zoned R-1 single-family residential and surrounding entirely by other like-zoned 38properties. The subject parcel is approximately 1.29 acres, contains a single family dwelling with 39an attached garaged; and is guided low-density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. City Code 40does permit solar energy systems as a conditional use in all districts subject to various conditions. 41 42The Commission has seen a few of these types of applications and is aware of the requirements. 43Therefore, Planner Wall briefly shared how this application met those applicable code standards. 44 45Staff recommended approval of this request. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2 46The applicant, a representative of Mr. David Hinerthrough All Energy Solar(located at 1642 47Carroll Avenue, St. Paul), was available to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Hiner, the 48property owner, was also available. 49 50Chair Field opened the public hearing. 51 52Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 53hearing. 54 55COMMISSIONER PETSCHELMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 56CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 57 58AYES: 5 59NAYS: 0 60ABSENT: 2 61 62COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 63RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-24, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 64BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACTTHAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS COMPLIANT 65WITH THE APPLICABLE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS, WITH THE FOLLOWING 66CONDITIONS: 671.The applicant obtains a building permit prior to installation of the proposed solar energy 68system. 692.If the proposed solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperable for a continuous 70period of twelve (12) months, it shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a 71public nuisance. 723.If abandoned, the property owners shall remove the abandoned system, including the entire 73structureand transmission equipment, at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit. 74 75AYES: 5 76NAYS: 0 77ABSENT: 2 78 79Chair Fieldadvised the City Council would consider this application at its August 2, 2016meeting. 80 81B & C) PLANNING CASE #2016-28 and 2016-29 822500 Lexington Avenue South 83Ordinance 502-Rezoning Request from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial 84Ordinance 503-Proposed Code Amendment – Warehouse Uses in the Industrial District 85 86For sake of clarity, Chair Field noted that Planning Case 2016-28 and 2016-29 would be presented 87together but that there would be two separate public hearings. 88 89Planner Nolan Wall explained that in these cases the City of Mendota Heights was considering 90rezoning the property at 2500 Lexington Avenue South from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3 91as well as proposing corresponding amendments to Title 12-1-G1 and Title 12-1-G2 of the City 92Code concerning warehouse uses in the Industrial District. 93 94As part of Planning Case 2016-23 that was before the Commission last month, the owner of the 95subject property containing the vacant office warehouse building did apply for a code amendment 96toadd commercial recreation and warehouses uses to the B-1 Limited Business District. The City 97Council then determined, after discussion, that rezoning to the Industrial District and developing 98additional conditions for warehouse uses adjacent to residential uses was better suited to address 99the property owner’s request. As a result, the original application was withdrawn and at the 100direction of the City Council, staff is then proposing two ordinance for continued discussion. 101 102Rezoning 103 104The subject property is located across from other Industrial uses, but is adjacent to office and 105residential uses as well. The Industrial District does offer a wider variety of use options than the 106B-1 Limited Business district that staff felt better fit the building’s existing build-out, which would 107include business and professional office and warehouse and distribution as a permitted use, as well 108as commercial recreation as a conditional use. The subject parcel is guided as Business in the 109Comprehensive Plan and would actually require and additional process to amend the 110Comprehensive Plan if the rezoning request is approved. Therefore, a condition is included in the 111draft Ordinance 502 and would be brought back for Planning Commission review and ultimate 112City Council approval before being submitted to Metropolitan Council. 113 114Commissioners had no questions regarding the rezoning portion of this application. 115 116Code Amendment 117 118Planner Wall continued by explaining that as discussed with the Planning Commission and 119subsequently with the City Council, the subject property’s location directly adjacent to a residential 120use does warrant potential additional review and corresponding conditions to mitigate any 121potential negative impacts for certain future uses of theproperty. If this property were to be 122rezoned to Industrial, staff proposes that this corresponding code amendment be passed as well. 123 124Section 1, currently Warehousing and Distribution, is allowed as a permitted use in the Industrial 125District. What staff would add to this section is Warehousing and Distribution not adjacent to a 126residential use. 127 128Section 2 then gets into adding an additional conditional use, which would be Warehousing and 129Distribution adjacent to a residential use provided that the followingconditions were met.Planner 130Wall then reviewed the proposed conditions with the Commission. 131 132Planner Wall alsopointed out that there was some intent with using the term residential useas 133opposed to residential district. He then shared a map showing properties that are adjacent to 134residential districts; however, the adjacent properties are not a residential use(i.e. Acacia 135Cemetery or Resurrection Cemetery). 136 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4 137Commissioner Hennes asked if staff had received any comments from residents to the north of the 138subject property. Planner Wall replied that he has not received any negative comments. 139 140Staff recommended approval of both the rezoning request and the code amendment request. 141 142CommissionerPetschel asked if the fence requirement was intended to be a privacy fence or a 143visual obstruction or as a security fence to keep people out. Planner Wall replied that the intent 144was for screening purposes and the standard is 90% opacity. CommissionerPetschel continued by 145asking if the fencing would only be required along the residential property line or to encompass 146the entire property. Planner Wall replied that it would only have to encompass the areas that need 147to be screened. 148 149Commissioner Roston asked for a reminder of the original planning case request, which Planner 150Wall provided. 151 152Commissioner Magnuson asked if this ordinance change would have an effect on the R-3 zoned 153properties adjacent to Acacia Cemetery. Planner Wall replied that the R-3 zoned properties are 154located across the street from an Industrial zoned area; therefore, staff interpretation would be that 155it is not adjacent. The intent of the word adjacent would mean that it actually touches or borders. 156 157Chair Field opened the public hearing for Planning Case 2016-28, Rezoning at 2500 Lexington 158Avenue South from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial. 159 160Per Chair Field’s request, property owner, Mr. Sean Carey of 665 Arcadia Drive, came forward 161and acknowledged that he was agreeable to the requests as presented. 162 163Ms. Jodi MacLennan,who resides at 185 Dakota Street South, Prescott, WI, is the owner of the 164building at 2510 Lexington Avenue South located immediately to the south of the subject property. 165She stated that she has been in the building for only two years;they are a small company and 166provide private human services to people with disabilities who live in residential group homes. 167There are five people at the building at all times; however, they can bring in as many as 30 staff 168for training or clients. They have a 25-foot shared egress that is memorialized on their titles/deeds. 169This calls for cost sharing for repairs and maintenance. She raised herconcern that if this property 170were to be industrial and, depending on the frequency and volume or heavy truck traffic, was 171unsure if the current roadbed would be able to support it given its current grade and then there 172would be the additional cost burdento her for the joint ingress/egress. She further explained that 173she is fine with the ordinance language but is unsure how it would impact when the industrial use 174is abutting a different zoning where there is a shared access.Chair Field noted, although heis not 175a lawyer, that some of these would be a private matter that would be involved within the context 176of the shared use agreement. He then deferred to Planner Wall. 177 178Planner Wall stated that this would probably be better discussed as part of the second or subsequent 179public hearing as they may be able to work through some of her concerns specific to the ordinance 180amendment. 181 182Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5 183COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO 184CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 185 186AYES: 5 187NAYS: 0 188ABSENT: 2 189 190COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 191RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 502, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 192THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, AS PRESENTED 193 194AYES: 5 195NAYS: 0 196ABSENT: 2 197 198Chair Field opened the public hearing for Planning Case 2016-29, Proposed Code Amendment – 199Warehouse Uses in the Industrial District. 200 201Ms. Jodi MacLennan, who resides at 185 Dakota Street South, Prescott, WI, is the owner of the 202building at 2510 Lexington Avenue Southlocated immediately to the south of the subject property, 203returned and again brought up her concerns about this code amendment is for those properties 204adjacent to residential use and does not speak specifically to those uses that abut it when there is a 205common egress. With this code amendment there is the potential for a heavier and higher level of 206use. She wished to make sure that if there was something that came as a conditional use permit 207they would be notified as part of that permit process, even though they are not zoned residential. 208 209Planner Wall replied that warehousing and distribution adjacent to a residential use is the 210qualifying use that requires a conditional use permit. By requiring that permit application, there is 211a 350-foot notice with every property surrounding it. So Ms. MacLennan would be provided notice 212based on the proximity to this location. In regards to her concern regarding any impacts to her use, 213while it is written for an abutting or adjacent residential use, condition number three reads that 214truck traffic shall not impede vehicular circulation or have a negative impact on surrounding uses. 215That condition is not meant to be specific to that residential use; it is meant to include all 216surrounding uses. If it were to be a warehouse-type use occupying the building, they would be 217required to show how they plan on getting in and out of the site and any impacts that it would have 218on that access point could be dealt with as part of that subsequent application. 219 220COMMISSIONER PETSCHELMOVED,SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, 221TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 222 223AYES: 5 224NAYS: 0 225ABSENT: 2 226 227Commissioner Roston suggested that the ordinance use the word abutrather than the word 228adjacent,as it is more descriptive of what is intended. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6 229In regards to operations shall not include retail sales, Commissioner Roston commented that he 230thought there was a de minimis exception for most industrial uses. He was thinking of an industrial 231use that has a pop machine, a company convenience store, or something along those lines. He 232suggested incorporating the de minimis exception as in other circumstances. 233 234Planner Wall replied that Commissioner Roston was correct and his suggestion could certainly be 235accomplished by amending condition number four to read Operations shall not include retail sales 236unless compliant with \[code section reference\]. Commissioner Roston was good with that 237suggestion. 238 239Commissioner Roston suggested changing condition number three by dropping have a negative 240impact on surrounding usesas he does not believe that the City should get into the business of 241qualitative evaluation. He suggested it say truck traffic shall not impede vehicular circulation as 242determined by the City Engineersince the intent is to eliminate the concern about conflicting 243vehicle movements and access and traffic. The negative impact on surrounding useis too murky 244and problematic for a lot of reasons. 245 246Commissioner Magnuson, referencing condition number eight where it speaks to Additional 247conditions that mitigate potential negative impacts to adjacent residential uses may be included 248as determined by the City Council, wondered if to adjacent residential usesshould be eliminated 249so it only talks about additional negative impacts.This would give the City Council the ability to 250hear from members of the community who are within the immediate area but do not necessarily 251abut the subject property. 252 253Commissioner Roston, referencing the preamble, which reads Warehousing and distribution, 254adjacent to a residential use, provided that: that the eight conditions listed immediately after 255applies only to residential properties. If it is staff’s intent to make that broader, then the preamble 256should be broadened as well. 257 258Planner Wall replied that Commissioner Roston’s suggestion that condition number three be 259amended potentially to read truck traffic shall not impede vehicular circulation as determined by 260the City Engineer could also encompass any surrounding uses and would solve that particular 261issue. 262 263Chair Field editorialized that he is not in love with this solution as it gets pretty close to “spot 264zoning” as this is probably the only place in the city where these issues will arise. 265 266Commissioner Petschel asked if the change to condition number three were completed as 267proposed, if there isan issue with respect to bringing in heavy vehicles or large a number of heavy 268vehicles in and through that area, is that simply discussed as a matter of the Conditional Use 269Permit. Chair Field replied that they would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit andthen 270would probably have to layout all of the traffic and then appease both the Planning Commission 271and the City Council that this was good policy. There would be ample opportunity for the public 272to comment and for the Commission to carefully evaluate what is being done. Planner Wall 273indicated his agreement to that assessment. 274 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7 275COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 276RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 503, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 277TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA 278HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING WAREHOUSE USES IN 279THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, WITH THE CHANGES DISCUSSED: 280CHANGE THE WORD ADJACENT TO ABUTAND ANY GRAMMATICAL ISSUES 281REQUIRED THEREOF 282CREATE A DE MINIMIS EXCEPTIONTO THE RETAIL SALES THAT 283INCORPORATES EXISTING LANGUAGE THE CODE 284AMEND CONDITION NUMBER THREE TO READ TRUCK TRAFFIC SHALL NOT 285IMPEDE VEHICULAR CIRCULATION AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER 286AMEND CONDITION NUMBER EIGHT BY DELETING THE WORDS TO 287ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES SO THAT IT READS ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 288THAT MITIGATE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS MAY BE INCLUDED AS 289DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 290 291AYES: 5 292NAYS: 0 293ABSENT: 2 294 295Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August2, 2016 meeting. 296 297D) PLANNING CASE #2016-25 298City of Mendota Heights 299Ordinance 499 Concerning Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling Units 300 301City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering an amendment to Title 12-1D-3 302of the City Code concerning temporary family health care dwelling units. As part of the 2016 303Legislative Session a bill was passed that requires cities to allow temporary family health care 304dwelling units as a permitted use. The law contains a number of conditions that address size, 305accessibility, utility connection, design, and construction standards. In addition, applications are 306exempt from certain zoning, building, and fire regulations and permits must be approved within 30715 days. 308 309Many communities voiced concerns and objections to the proposed legislation through the League 310of Minnesota Cities. As a result, the bill was passed with an opt-out provision that is allowed by 311ordinance. This new law goes into effectSeptember 1, 2016 and the proposed code amendment 312includes the recommended opt-out language. 313 314Under this new law, all municipalities must allow for installation of these temporary residential 315dwelling on a property for the care of a mentally or physically impaired person who is related to 316that resident. The initial permit is then valid for six months and can be renewed once for another 317six months. A temporary health care dwelling unit that meets the requirements of the law cannot 318be prohibited by a local ordinance that regulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking or 319storage. Upon review the new law, staff raised several issues based on the City’s current code and 320policies and that were included in the staff report. Planner Wall noted that this new law iswell- 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8 321intentioned but there are certain aspects of the proposed regulations that contrast with existing city 322ordinances. As a policy matter, if the City Council is interested in allowing temporary housing 323options or accessory dwelling units, staff recommends bring forward more information for 324discussion in order to develop regulations that better fit the needs of the community. 325 326Staff recommended approval of Draft Ordinance 499, with the proposed language provided by the 327League of Minnesota Cities being inserted as a section in the accessory structure section of the 328existing city code. 329 330Chair Field opened the public hearing. 331 332Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 333hearing. 334 335COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 336CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 337 338AYES: 5 339NAYS: 0 340ABSENT: 2 341 342Commissioner Magnuson noted that the requirements were amazing especially when considering 343that this is supposed to be a temporary structure. 344 345Commissioner Roston suggested adding language at the end of 12-1D-3-E to make it a little bit 346more clear that reads by opting out the City expressly prohibits temporary health care dwellings 347as defined in Minnesota Statute 462.3593 348 349COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 350RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-25, ORDINANCE NO. 499 AN 351ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D OF THE CITY CODE OF 352THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING 353OPTING-OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593 354AND ADDING A SECOND SENTENCE THAT READS BY OPTING OUT THE CITY 355EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS TEMPORARY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS AS DEFINED IN 356MINNESOTA STATUTE, SECTION 462.3593 357 358Commissioner Magnuson asked if the City Council has had a conversation about this. Planner 359Wall replied that there has not been a conversation with the City Council. Due to the timely nature 360of when the legislation was passed and the issue that was presented, the first time they would be 361hearing of this formally would be in consideration of this request. 362 363Planner Wall continued by stating that if there was the desire as a policy matter to incorporate this 364type of use, a recommendation would most likely still be to opt-out and then let staff work through 365establishing something that better fits the needs of the community or at least gives the City more 366local control. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9 367Commissioner Magnuson then asked if the proposed insertion of language was adopted would it 368preclude ordinance amendments that would tailor something more suitable to the City. 369Commissioner Roston replied that he did not feel that the language he suggested would not 370preclude a subsequent ordinance. Without having done the research, his suspicion on this was that 371someone had a pet project and needed to force it through the legislature and used a real broad 372brushstroke to do so in order to pre-empt local zoning. Fortunately, it sounds liked the League of 373Minnesota Cities caught it and gave the cities the ability to opt-out as a condition to approval. The 374intent of his motion is: 3751.To opt-out of portions of this which he thinks are not consistent with the City of Mendota 376Heights requirements 3772.Give staff and the City Council, if given the direction and staff has the policy they want to 378incorporate, the time to do it in a deliberate fashionbefore we get a broad brush legislation 379imposed on us without the ability to really think about it 380 381AYES: 5 382NAYS: 0 383ABSENT: 2 384 385Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 2, 2016 meeting. 386 387E) PLANNING CASE #2016-26 388City of Mendota Heights 389Ordinance 501-Concerning Hotel Definition and First Floor Elevation Standards 390 391City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering an amendment to Titles 12-1B- 3922 and 12-1E-1-A-5 of the City Code concerning the hotel definition and the first floor elevation 393standards for new dwellings. Staff proposed one ordinance that proposed two separate code 394amendments to address issues that have been discovered in reviewing recent development 395proposals. The proposed amendments seek to clarify existing language as well as the intent of the 396proposed regulations that are in the code. 397 398Hotel Definition 399 400The existing definition for a hotel is as follows: 401 402A building containing eight (8) or more guestrooms in which lodging is provided for 403compensation, with or without meals, and which is open to transient guests and in which 404ingress and egress to and from all rooms is made through an inside lobby or office supervised 405by a person in charge. 406 407Based on this existing definition staff contends that the statement open to transient guestsis 408difficult to interpret and enforce. In the absence of a definition of transientin the code, staff is 409unclear on whether or not the intent was to prohibit extended-stay hotels. The City Council adopted 410Ordinance 419 in 2008 as part of larger code amendment process for a proposed hotel and retail 411development that would have been at the southeast corner of Pilot Knob Road and Northland 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10 412Drive. According the minutes, the Council did discuss whether or not a separatedefinition for an 413extended-stay hotel was necessary and ultimately decided that it would be revisited in the future. 414 415An amended hotel definition was included in Ordinance 419 where the words transient or 416permanent guestswere deleted and subsequently read. . . open to guests . . . There is also a 417provision about cooking in guestrooms which was a significant Council discussion concerning 418what was the existing definition – that provision was stricken as well. 419 420In2010, the City adopted a comprehensive revision of the entire zoning ordinance. At that point 421in time, the hotel definition was revised from what was approved originally in Ordinance 419; 422however, only the word transientwas added back into the definition. Permanentdid not make it 423back in and neither did the cooking provision. 424 425Therefore, staff did also search the available minutes and staff reports and did not find any 426discussion that was related to this specific definition revision as part of the ordinance; and no new 427definition was added for an extended-stay hotel. 428 429The original development approved in 2008 did have an extended-stay brand but it was never 430constructed. Recently, developers that are interested in developing another extended-stay hotel 431within the Industrial Districthave approached staff. In addition, the Courtyard and Fairfield Inn 432and Suites, which are the two hotels that are located in that area, may have guests staying more 433than the typical 2-3 nights of a typical hotel. For those reasons, staff proposed an option to amend 434the code to reinstate the hotel definition, which was originally approved as Ordinance 419, which 435reads: 436 437A building containing eight (8) or more guestrooms in which lodging is provided for 438compensation, with or without meals, and which is open to transient guests, and in which 439ingress and egress to and from all rooms is made through an inside lobby or office supervised 440by a person in charge. 441 442The word transientis difficult to define and the current hotel definition may be causing existing 443hotels to be non-compliant and prohibit future development of extended-stay hotels. Therefore 444staff was seeking clarification on the intent of the most recent code amendment regarding this 445definition in order to determine how it may impact future development proposals. 446 447Commissioner Hennes asked why the phrase “which is open to guests” is even needed. After all 448they are referring to lodging and guest rooms. Who else would it be open to? Planner Wall replied 449that staff zeroed-in on the transient word; however, they are certainly open to any suggestions on 450how the definition could work better. 451 452Commissioner Petschel commented that it seemed to him that most of the discussion about the 453extended-stay hotels previously was about having cooking accessories inside of the hotel rooms. 454This does not in any way deal with that discussion. He then asked if there were any plans to deal 455with that discussion. Planner Wall replied in the negative and noted that the focus was on the word 456transientas a potential issue regarding how it is interpreted and how it is enforced in terms of the 457existing hotels and if a proposed extended-stay hotel did want to come into the City. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11 458Commissioner Roston, in regards to ingress and egress to and from all rooms is made through an 459inside lobby or office, asked if the word insidewas intended to prohibit motels as opposed to hotels 460–meaning the rooms all have inside access and no outside access. Planner Wall replied that staff 461was not necessarily intending to lookat the entire hotel definition; although he believed it be a 462useful exercise. His understanding and interpretation of this, being that they have hotels and 463motels in the City thatthis applies specifically to hotels. Therefore, the difference being that all 464access is from within the building. 465 466Commissioner Magnuson asked if there was a concern about permanent guests. She read some of 467the previous comments and there had been concerns raised about having a maximum length of 468time, which would not be workable. She believed this could be done in a couple of different ways: 4691.Leave the word transientin to make it clear that people are not moving in permanently; 470and add language that this does not prohibit extended-stay hotels 4712.Remove the word transient but now it is being opened to guests; and probably the nature 472of a hotel you probably would not have a permanent guest; however, the opportunity would 473exist. 474 475Commissioner Petschel noted that with an apartment or permanent residence there is a lease; 476whereas with a hotel there is not. 477 478After further discussion, the Commission agreed to have the entire phrase ‘which is open to guests’ 479removed. 480 481First Floor Elevations 482 483Planner Wall explained that the Council adopted several standards as part of Ordinance 478 to 484address concerns regarding teardowns and new single-family residential construction impacts. 485Generally, a new dwelling may not raise the first floor elevation more than one-foot above the 486existing condition. However, that first floor elevation can be increased by more than one foot by 487conditional use permit based on meeting certain conditions. Since adoption of the regulations in 4882015, staff has encountered a potential issue with the conditional use permit conditions and 489proposed an amendment with an additional qualifying condition. The current conditions are: 490 491(1) Elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet (2') above the 100-year 492flood elevation, as established by the federal emergency management agency (FEMA). 493(2) Protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing groundwater elevation shall be 494determined by a professional registered engineer in the state of Minnesota or by a certified 495hydrologist and provided for review and consideration. 496(3) Meet state building code, city code or other statutory requirements. 497 498The proposed fourth condition reads: 499 500(4) Comply with standard engineering practices, including, but not limited to, grading, 501drainage, access, or utility connection at the discretion of the City Engineer. 502 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12 503The specific situation that staff encountered is an existing driveway and garage floor that are below 504the roadway, which is not standard engineering practice. Upon demolition andconstruction of a 505new dwelling, a reasonable solution would then be to raise that first floor elevation to a reasonable 506height to construct a driveway and garage floor at an appropriate slope for proper drainage. Under 507the current code regulations, this situation would not qualify for a conditional use permit and 508would; therefore, requirea variance. Rather than consider a variance for a situation that seems 509reasonable and meets the intent of the regulations, staff proposed to amend the City Codeto expand 510the conditional use permit condition which would encompass engineering related issues that would 511be requiring or that would make it such that the new dwellings first floor elevation would have to 512be raised more than one foot from the existing condition. 513 514The City Engineer would make the initial determination that the situation qualifies, but the 515Planning Commission and City Council would still review and approve/deny the application 516request.Essentially, this allows for an additional condition for consideration of raising the first 517floor elevation more than one foot based on any number of engineering related issues as 518recommended by the City Engineer. 519 520Staff recommended approval of Draft Ordinance 501, which includes the hotel definition 521component as well as the proposed amendment to the first floor elevation standard. 522 523Commissioner Hennes asked if was odd that the same ordinance is dealing with this hotel 524definition idea and dealing with first floor elevation standards in houses. Planner Wall replied that 525they could have certainly been two different ordinances; however, staff was trying to encompass 526two different issues into one ordinance and streamline the process. 527 528Commissioner Roston noted that he would be open to scrapping the whole one-foot requirement 529but assumed no one wanted to address that at this time. 530 531Chair Field opened the public hearing. 532 533Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 534hearing. 535 536COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, 537TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 538 539AYES: 5 540NAYS: 0 541ABSENT: 2 542 543COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 544RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 501 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 545TITLE 12-1B-2 CONCERNING HOTEL DEFINITION TO READ “A BUILDING 546CONTAINING EIGHT (8)OR MORE GUESTROOMS IN WHICH LODGING IS PROVIDED 547FOR COMPENSATION, WITH OR WITHOUT MEALS, AND IN WHICH INGRESS AND 548EGRESS TO AND FROM ALL ROOMS IS MADE THROUGH AN INSIDE LOBBYOR 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13 549INSIDE OFFICE SUPERVISED BY A PERSON IN CHARGE”, AND TITLE 12-1E-1-A-5 550CONCERNINGFIRST-FLOOR ELEVATION STANDARDSBY ADDING CONDITION (4) 551THAT READS “COMPLY WITH STANDARDENGINEERING PRACTICES, INCLUDING, 552BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GRADING, DRAINAGE, ACCESS, OR UTILITY CONNECTION 553AT THE DISCRETION OFTHE CITY ENGINEER.” 554 555AYES: 5 556NAYS: 0 557ABSENT: 2 558 559Chair Field advised the City Council would considerthis application at its August 2, 2016 meeting. 560 561Verbal Review 562 563Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 564 565PLANNING CASE #2016-19 st 566Blue Horizon Energy, LLC, 675 – 1 Avenue 567Conditional Use Permit to construct a roof-mounted solar energy system 568•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 569 570PLANNING CASE #2016-20 571Maris Kurmis, 1787 Lexington Avenue 572Lot Line Adjustment 573•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 574 575PLANNING CASE #2016-23 576Sean Carey, 2500 Lexington Avenue South 577Proposed Code Amendments – B-1 District Conditional Uses 578•Withdrawn by the applicant after City Council discussion 579 580PLANNING CASE #2016-22 581City of Mendota Heights 582Proposed Code Amendments – Massage Therapy Business Use 583•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 584 585PLANNING CASE #2016-27 586677 Cheyenne Lane 587Wetlands Permit 588•Administratively-approved by staff 589 590PLANNING CASE #2016-16 591Mendota Plaza 592Planned Unit Development Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat, and Wetlands Permit 593Tabled at the July 5, 2016 City Council Meeting 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14 594Staff is gathering the comments made and providing responses at the upcoming meeting 595for continued discussion 596 597In regards to the solar panel applications needinga conditional use permit, Commissioner Hennes 598asked if these applications could be done by administrative approval. Planner Wall replied that 599this was discussed at the last Council meeting and staff was directed to bring back a code 600amendment which would potentially allow for certain solar array applications to be considered as 601a permitted accessory use; which would not require a full conditional use permit process. There 602may be some aspects that the Council does want to keep as a conditional, but the Planning 603Commission will get to have that discussion next month. 604 605Commissioner Petschel asked for clarification that the Council would be discussing the Mendota 606Plaza Development next Tuesday, August 2. Planner Wall confirmed. 607 608Commissioner Magnuson asked about cleaning up the language on retail sales in the B-1 District 609for salon-type businesses (i.e. hair salons, nail salons, massage parlors). Planner Wall replied that 610the focus of the discussion related to the massage license application in that specific case was a 611Consent Agenda Item,so there wasn’tany discussion. However, her point was well taken and, in 612his mind, that entire code section should be revisited to makesure that it is current with the existing 613uses and consistent with what the City envisions for that district. 614 615Staff and Commission Announcements 616 617Planner Nolan Wall made the following announcement: 618 619The Recycling Zone in Eagan currently does not charge to recyclecertaintypes of 620televisions and monitors. Starting August 1 they will be implementing a $10 fee. Computer 621hard drives, modems, laptops, and DVD/VCR players are still free. All types of televisions 622and monitors will incur a $10 fee starting August 1. 623 624City Engineer John Mazzitello made the following announcement: 625 626Highway 13 is under construction, they are on schedule, weekly updates are being posted 627on the City webpage as well as being sent out on the City Facebook page, the contractor is 628notifying staff every week with what has been completed the previous week and what to 629anticipate the following week –the permit expires on September 2 630Two years ago Victoria Road was reconstructed from Marie Avenue north to Highway 13. 631Along the eastern side of Victoria,where there used to be a rock ditch, staff planted a 632pollinator-friendly native grass and flower garden with the assistance of some Dakota 633Master Gardeners. On Wednesday, July 27, from 6:30 –7:30 p.m. there will be an open 634house at the planting site to talk to residents and anyone who is curious about pollinator- 635friendly advantages and how they can plant different within their own property to help 636bees, butterflies, and other flying insects that are beneficial to the environment. 637 638 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15 639Adjournment 640 641COMMISSIONERROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 642ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:26 P.M. 643 644AYES: 5 645NAYS: 0 646ABSENT: 2 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16 5a Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:August 23, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-31 Conditional Use Permit – 2300 Pilot Knob Road COMMENT: Introduction The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is seekinga conditional use permit to erect a seven-foot- tall barbed-wire-topped fence on a portion of the subject propertyfor security and screening purposes.The City Code requires a CUP for fences over six (6) feet with a security arm for barbed-wire in the Business and Industrial Districts. Background The subject property is bordered by right-of-way on three sides; Pilot KnobRoadto the west, State Highway 13 to the south, and State Highway 55 to the east. The applicant is proposing to erect fencing around the loading dock area along the south side of the building, facing Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13.The loading dock area is not completely screened from contiguous properties or adjacent streets, but is buffered by existing vegetation from Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13. The attached maps include visual representationsof theapplicant’s proposal and staff’srecommendation for consideration by the Planning Commission. Discussion The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discussthe proposed conditional use permitand make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: August 23, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-31 Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Jaeger Construction, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS:2300 Pilot Knob Road ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial/I-Industrial ACTION DEADLINE:September 23, 2016 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, on behalf of the property owner,is seekinga conditional use permit to erect a seven-foot- tall barbed-wire-topped fence on a portion of the subject property. Title 12-1D-6-C-2 of the City Code requires a conditional use permit for fences over six (6) feet with a security arm for barbed-wire in the Business and Industrial Districts. BACKGROUND The subject property is 6.24 acres andis bordered by right-of-way on three sides; Pilot KnobRoadto the west, State Highway 13 to the south, and State Highway 55 to the east. The approximately 126,000-square foot office/warehouse building was originally constructedin 1989 and was recently purchased by Johnson Brothers Liquor Company. The applicant is proposing to erecta seven-foot-tall barbed-wire-topped fence around the loading dock area along the south side of the building, facing Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13, for security purposes. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided I-Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.The proposed fence is permitted as aconditional use in the applicable zoning district and the use of the property iscompliant with the Comprehensive Plan. Conditional Use Permit Fencing Standards According to Title 12-1D-6-C-2 of the City Code, regarding fences in Business and Industrial Districts: Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height and with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18 The proposed fence would be six feet tall and topped with barbed-wire, which increases the overall height to approximately seven feet. A security gate would be installed at the southernmostdrivewayentranceon Pilot Knob Road. According to Title 12-1D-13-2-E-1-D and 12-1D-13-2-E-2 of the City Code, regarding screening and buffering in the Business and Industrial Districts: External loading and service areas must be completely screened from the ground level view from contiguous properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. Types Of Screening Or Buffering; Opacity: Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscape materials. The screen shall provide a minimum opacity of ninety percent (90%) during all seasons. The existing loading dock area is not completely screened from contiguous properties or adjacent streets, as is the casewith numerous properties in the Industrial District developed prior to the above-referenced standards being adopted. As shown in the attached photos, the loading dock area is screened by existing vegetation from Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13. While not“completely screened,” it certainly provides significant screening/buffering from the adjacent roadways. Applicant Proposal The applicant is proposing a chain-link fence with privacy slats, but has not yet determined the color. The fencing along Pilot Knob Road would have winged-slats that, according to the manufacturer specifications, achieve 90% opacity. The fencing along Highway 13 would have normal privacy slats withan unknown opacity, but is anticipated by the applicant to be approximately 75%. See the attached map for a visual representation. Staff Recommendation While the existing vegetation along Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13 is significant, but muchof it is deciduous and portions are located within MnDOT and City ROW(see attached photos supplied bythe applicant). As a result, there is no way to ensure that it will remain as-is; nor can it be verified that it will achieve 90% opacity during all seasons when combined with the 75% opaque chain-link-slatted option being proposed by the applicant. Several properties within the Industrial District have wood privacy fencing, which is a higher-quality and more expensive material. In an effort to be consistent with previous approvals for surrounding properties, staff recommends the Planning Commission and City Council consider requiring 100% opaque wood fencing along the Pilot Knob Road frontage to completely screen the loading dock area from the street. In order to ensure compliance with the screening standard, staff further recommends that the 90% opaque chain-link-slatted option is constructed for the portion of the proposed fence along Highway 13 and between the building and driveway. See the attached map for a visual representation. CUP Standards According toTitle 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code, the following are to be taken into consideration upon review of a conditional use permit request: The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands; existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. In addition, the following standards must be met: The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19 will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and the proposed useis in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. In staff’s opinion, both the applicant’s proposal and staff’s recommendation meet the applicable standards for granting a conditional use permit and would improve the overall appearance of the industrial property while providing the desired security and screening. ALTERNATIVES 1.Approval of the conditional use permit request, based on theattached findings of fact,with conditions. OR 2.Denial of the conditional use permit request, based on the finding of fact that the request is not compliant with the applicable City Code standards. OR 3.Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permitfor the proposed barb-wire-topped security fence, based on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions: 1.A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction. 2.Wood fencing achieving 100% opacity shall be erected along Pilot Knob Road. 3.Chain-link fencing with dark-colored privacy slats achieving 90% opacity shall be erected along Highway 13 and the portion perpendicular to Pilot Knob Road in front of the building. 4.The fence shall be located entirely on private property. 5.The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Applicant proposal/staff recommendation maps (2) 2.Industrial District fencing example photos/map 3.Planning applications, including supporting materials 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Conditional Use Permit 2300 Pilot Knob Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the conditional use permit request in this case: 1.The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by screening the loading dock area on the subject property, while providing additional securityfor the property owner. 2.The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3.The existing vegetation bordering the surrounding right-of-wayincreases the screening/buffering of the subject property from the adjacent roadways. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21 Planning Case 2016-31 2300 Pilot Knob Road APPLICANT PROPOSAL Chain-link fencing w/ normal slats (approx. 75% opacity) Chain-link fencing w/ winged slats (90% opacity min.) 2250 1395 2300 1400 2311 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. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22 Planning Case 2016-31 2300 Pilot Knob Road STAFF RECOMMENDATION Chain-link fencing w/ slats (90% opacity min.) Wood fencing (100% opacity) 2250 1395 2300 1400 2311 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. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23 Planning Case 2016-31 2300 Pilot Knob Road 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. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24 Johnson Brothers Request for Conditional Use Permit for barbed wire fence 2300 Pilot Knob Rd. We are making application for a conditional use permit to install a 6 high fence with barbed wire on top for a total of approximately 7 tall. This fence is required for our loading dock area for the security of our trucks and trailers. The fence would have a power operated gate. The fence will be made of galvanized chain link fencing with a barbed wire top (See enclosed Photo). The fence would have Winged slats on the Pilot Knob side of the fence. The fence on the Hwy 13 side would have normal slats in it. I have enclosed a plan to show the location of the proposed fence. I am enclosing photos of the 2 sides. As the photo show, much of the area is blocked by trees and shrubs. Many of these are evergreens. I also am showing photos from the inside of the loading dock area out. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30 Photo 1: From Pilot Knob Road Photo 2: From Pilot Knob Road 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 31 Photo 3: From Highway 13 Photo 4: From Highway 13 PLANNINGCASE2016-31PUBLICHEARINGNOTICEMAILINGLIST 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32 2297 & 2301 Waters Drive LLC2297 & 2301 Waters Drive LLC2317 Waters Drive One & Two LLC 18962 Bass Lake Rd18962 Bass Lake Rd18962 Bass Lake Rd Maple Grove Mn 55311Maple Grove Mn 55311Maple Grove Mn 55311 Bloomberg & Podpeskar Properties LLCBloomberg & Podpeskar Properties LLCBurns Properties LLC 2255 Waters Dr2255 Waters Dr2275 Waters Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Burns Properties LLCBurns Properties LLCCh Property LLC 2275 Waters Dr2275 Waters Dr2305 Waters Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Ch Property LLCCiresi Real Estate Holdings LLCCiresi Real Estate Holdings LLC 2305 Waters Dr3745 Drumcliffe Ct3745 Drumcliffe Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120Rosemount Mn 55068Rosemount Mn 55068 Cottrell Law Building LLCCottrell Law Building LLCDuane & Jane Tvenge 2287 Waters Dr2287 Waters Dr2271 Waters Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Hub Properties TrustJohnson Brothers Liquor CompanyK & S Investments LLC % Cbre Attn Equity Commonwealth1999 Sheppard Rd2295 Waters Dr 4400 West 78th St Ste 200Saint Paul Mn 55116Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Minneapolis Mn 55435 K & S Investments LLCLocal 65 IncLocal 65 Inc 2295 Waters Dr2261 Waters Dr2261 Waters Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55118Saint Paul Mn 55120Saint Paul Mn 55120 Lox Properties LLCNatoli Properties LLCNatoli Properties LLC 331 Seven Isles Dr2307 Waters Dr Unit 1112307 Waters Dr Unit 111 Fort Lauderdale Fl 33301Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Pratt Kutzke Properties LLCState of Mn - DotState of Mn - Dot 2315 Waters Drive% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John Mendota Heights Mn 55120Ireland BlvdIreland Blvd Saint Paul Mn 55155Saint Paul Mn 55155 State of Mn - DotState of Mn - DotState of Mn - Dot % Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John Ireland BlvdIreland BlvdIreland Blvd Saint Paul Mn 55155Saint Paul Mn 55155Saint Paul Mn 55155 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33 State of Mn - DotState of Mn - DotState of Mn - Dot % Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John Ireland BlvdIreland BlvdIreland Blvd Saint Paul Mn 55155Saint Paul Mn 55155Saint Paul Mn 55155 State of Mn - DotState of Mn - DotState of Mn - Dot % Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John Ireland BlvdIreland BlvdIreland Blvd Saint Paul Mn 55155Saint Paul Mn 55155Saint Paul Mn 55155 State of Mn - DotState of Mn - DotState of Mn - Dot % Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John Ireland BlvdIreland BlvdIreland Blvd Saint Paul Mn 55155Saint Paul Mn 55155Saint Paul Mn 55155 State of Mn - F TaxTlr Enterprises LLCTlr Enterprises LLC % Treasurer Auditor 1590 Highway 552273 Waters Dr2273 Waters Dr Hastings Mn 55033Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118 United Properties Inv CoVip Real Estate Ventures LLCVip Real Estate Ventures LLC % Cushman & Wakefield Northmarq2303 Waters Dr2303 Waters Dr 3500 American Blvd W Ste 200Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Bloomington Mn 55431 Wdbp Property LLCWdbp Property LLC 2283 Waters Dr2283 Waters Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36 5b Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:August 23, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-33 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – 2500 Lexington Avenue South COMMENT: Introduction The City is considering an amendment to the Land Use Plan in the 2030 Comprehensive Planto re-guide the future land use designation of the property located at 2500 Lexington Avenue South from B-Business to I-Industrial. Background The City Council passed Ordinance 502 conditionally-approving rezoning of the subject property from nd B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial at the August 2meeting. The approval included the condition that a subsequent comprehensive plan amendment was approved by the Metropolitan Council. The Land Use Plan is intended to depict the general desired locations of future land uses. As part of the proposed amendment request, a determination should be made that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding existing and future land uses. Discussion The City is using its legislative authority when considering action on a comprehensive plan amendment request and has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed comprehensive planamendment and make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 37 Planning Staff Report DATE: August 23, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM:Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-33 Comprehensive Plan Amendment APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights PROPERTY ADDRESS:2500 Lexington Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial (conditionally)/B-Business ACTION DEADLINE:N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The City is considering an amendment to the Land Use Plan in the 2030 Comprehensive Planto re-guide the future land use designation of the property located at 2500 Lexington Avenue South from B-Business to I-Industrial. BACKGROUND The subject property contains a vacant 13,940-square foot office/warehouse building and is surrounded by high- density residential, office, and industrial uses. The City Council passed Ordinance 502, as part of Planning Case 2016-28, conditionally-approving rezoning of the subject property from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial at the August 2, 2016 meeting. The approval included the condition that a subsequent comprehensive plan amendment was approved by the Metropolitan Council. ANALYSIS The Land Use Plan, as included in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is intended to depict the general desired locations of future land uses. As part of the proposed amendment request, a determination should be made that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding existing and future land uses. According to Title 12-1L- 9(B) of the City Code, an affirmative vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the City Council is required to adopt amendments to the comprehensive plan. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment also requires approval from the Metropolitan Council. In addition, adjacent governmental units and affected school districts are typically required to be notified and given the opportunity to comment. In this case, the proposed amendment meets the adjacent review waiver criteriadue to its size, non-impact on growth forecasts, and location. Current Future Land Use Designation The subject property is currently guided as B-Business. According to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (p. 44): 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 38 Commerciallandusesaretypicallydividedintotwogeneralcategories;(1)officeand (2)retail.The officecategoryincludeslandusesgenerallyconsideredto be of a limitedbusinessnature,typically a daytimeofficeuse.TheLandUseMapidentifiestheseareasas“LB-LimitedBusiness”or“LB- PUD”.Thecorrespondingzoningdistrictclassificationsare B-1 (LimitedBusiness), B-1A (Business Park) and B-2 (Neighborhood Business). Thesecondcategoryofcommercialusesisforretailandincludesneighborhoodtypeconvenience storesandshoppingcenters.TheLandUseMapidentifiestheseareasas“B- Business”. The surrounding properties are currently guided as follows (see attached maps): HR-High Density Residential (north) B-Business (south) I-Industrial (west, across Lexington Avenue) Proposed Future Land Use Designation The applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Plan to designate the future land use for the subject parcels as I-Industrial. According to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (p. 45): MendotaHeightshasbeenabletoattracthighqualityindustrialuserswithaestheticallypleasing developmentbyrequiringplanned,aestheticallypleasingindustrialdesignandlandscapestandards. TheCitywillcontinueto promote thedevelopmentofthistypeofindustry.Althoughsomelimited retailsupportusesmaybeappropriatetoservethisarea,theCitybelievesthatrestaurantand hospitalityusesshould be consideredtoservethelargeemploymentbase.Conveniencefoodand/or gasolinearenotfavoredin this area. As noted in Planning Case 2016-28, the Industrial District includes a wider variety of use options than the B-1 Limited Business District that better fit the building’s existing build-out. Depending on the future use of the property, adequate standards are in-place to regulate any potential negative impacts to surrounding uses. ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment request, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions, and direct staff to submit to the application to the Metropolitan Council. OR 2.Recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment request, based on the finding of fact that the request is inconsistent with the future land use designation in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Planand with surrounding existing and planned land uses. OR 3.Table the request(s), pending additional information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council, based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1). MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial site map 2.Current/proposed planned land use maps (2) 3.Planning applications, including supporting materials 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 39 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2500 Lexington Avenue South The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the comprehensive plan amendment request in this case: 1.The conditionally-approved zoning on the subject property is not consistent with the current future land use designation. 2.The proposed future land use designation is consistent with the conditionally-approved zoning and surrounding existing/planned land uses. 3.The City Code contains performance standards and other regulations to address potentialnegative impacts a new use of the subject property may have on surrounding uses. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 40 Planning Case 2016-33 2500 Lexington Avenue South 2431 2500 2465 2510 2520 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. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 41 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 44 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 45 PLANNINGCASE2016-33PUBLICHEARINGNOTICEMAILINGLIST 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46 Albert J Lauer CoArcadia Partners LLCCity of Mendota Heights 16700 Chippendale Ave665 Arcadia Dr1101 Victoria Curve Rosemount Mn 55068-1726Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4167 City of Mendota HeightsH & M Holdings of Mendota LLCMendota Heights Family Housing 1101 Victoria Curv2520 Lexington Ave S Ste 500%Dakota County Cda 1228 Town Centre Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167Mendota Heights Mn 55120Dr Eagan Mn 55123 Mn Mining & Manufacturing CoOld Mill Commercial Properties LLCState of Mn - Dot % 3m Company Tax Division Bldg2510 Lexington Ave S% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John 224-5n-40Mendota Heights Mn 55120Ireland Blvd Saint Paul Mn 55144Saint Paul Mn 55155 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49 5c Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:August 23, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-34 Code Amendment – Alternative Energy Systems COMMENT: Introduction The City is considering an amendment to Title 12-1-D, E, F, and G of the City Code concerning alternative energy systems. Background In September 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 485 which createdstandards foralternative energy systems. After approving several applications for roof-mounted systems, the City Council directed staff to propose amendments to streamline the review process. Upon review of recent applications, staff is also proposing additional minor amendments to the existing standards concerning maximum area and color. The proposed amendments include the following, which are further described in the attached staff report: 1.Reclassify roof-mounted solar energy systems as permitted accessory uses. 2.Retain ground-mounted systems as conditional uses. 3.Differentiate the maximum size standards between residential and business/industrial-zoned properties. 4.Revised color standards. Discussion The City is using its legislative authority when considering action on a codeamendment request and has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation Staff recommends the PlanningCommission discussthe proposed code amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 50 Planning Staff Report DATE: August 23, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-34 Code Amendment – Alternative Energy Systems APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights PROPERTY ADDRESS:N/A ZONING/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE:N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The City is considering an amendment to Title 12-1-D, E, F, and G of the City Code concerningalternative energy systems. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted Ordinance 485 creating standards for alternative energy systems, as part of Planning Case 2015-34. The intent was to ensure the same standards are applied to each solar energy system in an effort to encourage sustainable practices that do not adversely impact the community. Since adoption of the ordinance, the City Council has approved four conditional use permit applications for roof-mounted systems. Based on feedback from applicants that the ordinance provisions are workable, but the required review process takes too long, the City Council directed staff to propose amendments that streamline the review process for certain systems. Upon review of recent applications, staff is also proposing additional minor amendments to the existing standards concerning maximum area and color. ANALYSIS The proposed ordinance includes the following amendments: 1.Roof-mounted solar energy systems reclassified as a permitted accessory use(Section 5): The intent is to streamline review of these particular systemsby no longer requiring a CUP. If the building permit application is deemed compliant with the existing standards, then it can be issued without a public hearing or City Council action. 2.Ground-mounted solar energy systems remain as a conditional use and separate maximum area standards for residential and business/industrial districts are included (Sections 2 and 4): 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 51 The City has not yet considered any CUP’s for ground-mounted solar energysystems, therefore it is recommended that they remain a conditional use in all districts. Once the City has processed several of these requests and is confident the existing standards are workable, theycould also be considered for reclassificationas a permitted accessory use. In addition, the maximum area for ground-mounted systems in business/industrial zones would be expanded to 25% of the rear or side yard. The existing standard requiring the system not exceed the maximum size for an accessory structure, which is 144 square feet for properties under four acres and 225 square feet for properties over four acres in residential zones, is not practical for most business/industrial properties. There is no change proposed to the maximum size standards for ground- mounted systems in residential zones. 3.Color standard revised (Section 3): The existing language requires that the system’s color “blends” with the roof material. Due to the fact that panels only come in a few colors, the proposed languageframes the standard as to not be negative by using the phrase “are not visually incompatible” with the roof material; this allows staff more discretion to determine compliance with the intent of the standard. 4.Reference to requiring a conditional use permit in all districts removed (Section 1): Based on the proposed amendment in #2 above and Section 4 of the DRAFT Ordinance, the reference to a conditional use permit being required in all districts would be revised as necessary. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearingand further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 505, as presented or as amended by the Commission. OR 2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 505. OR 3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment. If acceptable to the Commission, action can be taken at this month’s meeting. Staff would proposeto bring back any substantial revisions for reviewand further discussionat a future meeting prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.DRAFT Ordinance 505 2.City Code, Title 12-1D-18 3.Planning application, including supporting materials 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 52 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3ORDINANCE NO. 505 4AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLES D, E, F, AND GOF 5THE CITY CODE CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS 6 7The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 8 9Section 1. 10 11Title 12-1D-18-A is hereby amendedas follows: 12 13A. Solar Energy Systems: Solar energy systems are allowed with an appropriate permit a 14conditional use in all zoning districts subject to the following regulations: 15 16Section 2. 17 18Title 12-1D-18-A-4-D is hereby amendedas follows: 19 204. Ground Mounted Systems: 21d. Maximum Area: 22(1) Residential Districts: The system shall be limited in size to the maximum 23requirement allowed for accessory structures. in the applicable zoning district or 24(2) Business and Industrial Districts: The system shall be limited in size to no 25more than twenty five percent (25%) of the rear or side yardin which the system 26is located, whichever is less. 27 28Section 3. 29 30Title 12-1D-18-A-6 is hereby amended as follows: 31 326. Color: Solar energy systems shall use colors that are not visuallyincompatible blend with the 33color of the roof material on which the system is mounted or other structures. 34 35Section 4. 36 37Titles 12-1E-3-B, 12-1F-1-B, 12-1F-2-B, 12-1F-3-B, 12-1F-4-B, 12-1F-5-F, and 12-1G-2 are 38hereby amendedas follows: 39 40Ground mounted Ssolar energy systems that are accessory to the principal use of the land and are 41designed to supply energy to on site uses, as regulated by section 12-1D-18 of this chapter. 42 43Section 5. 44 45Titles 12-1E-3-C, 12-1F-1-C, 12-1F-2-C, 12-1F-3-C, 12-1F-4-C, 12-1F-5-G, and 12-1G-3 are 46hereby amendedas follows: 47 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 53 48Roof mounted Ssolar energy systems that are accessory to the principal use of the land and are 49designed to supply energy to on site uses, as regulated by section 12-1D-18 of this chapter. 50 51Section 6. 52 53This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. 54 55Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ### day of Month, 2016. 56 57CITY COUNCIL 58CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 59 60 61 62Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor 63ATTEST 64 65 66___________________________ 67Lorri Smith, City Clerk Sterling Codifiers, Inc.Page 1of 3 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 54 12-1D-18: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS: A. Solar Energy Systems: Solar energy systems are a conditional use in all zoning districts subject to the following regulations: 1. Building Permit: No solar energy system shall be erected, altered, improved, reconstructed, maintained, or moved without obtaining a building permit. 2. Exemptions: The following systems shall be exempt from the requirements of this section and shall be regulated as any other building element requiring a building permit: a. Building integrated solar energy systems. b. Passive solar energy systems. 3. Roof Mounted Systems: a. Height: The maximum height of the system shall not exceed the structure height requirements in the applicable zoning district. b. Setbacks: The system shall comply with all building setback requirements in the applicable zoning district and shall not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. c. Mounting: The system shall be flush mounted on pitched roofs or may be bracket mounted on flat roofs. Bracket mounted collectors shall only be permitted when a determination is provided by a licensed professional qualified to certify that the underlying roof structure will support loading requirements and all applicable building standards are satisfied. d. Maximum Area: The system shall not cover more than eighty percent (80%) of the roof section upon which the panels are mounted. 4. Ground Mounted Systems: a. Height: The maximum height of the system shall not exceed fifteen feet (15') in height from the average natural grade at the base of the system. b. Setbacks: The system shall be set back a minimum of fifteen feet (15') from all property boundary lines and thirty feet (30') from all dwellings located on adjacent lots, including any appurtenant equipment. c. Location: The systems shall be limited to rear yards in all zoning districts. d. Maximum Area: The system shall be limited in size to the maximum requirement allowed for accessory structures in the applicable zoning district or no more than twenty five percent (25%) of the rear yard, whichever is less. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php2/23/2016 Sterling Codifiers, Inc.Page 2of 3 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 55 5. Screening: Solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible without impacting their function. Systems located within the business and industrial zoning districts may be required to comply with the standards in subsection 12-1D-13- 2C7 of this article where practical. 6. Color: Solar energy systems shall use colors that blend with the color of the roof material on which the system is mounted or other structures. 7. Glare: Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows and minimize glare toward vehicular traffic and adjacent properties. Where necessary, the city may require additional screening to address glare. 8. Utility Connection: a. All utilities shall be installed underground. b. An exterior utility disconnect switch shall be installed at the electric meter serving the property. c. Solar energy systems shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the national electrical code. d. No solar energy system shall be interconnected with a local electrical utility company until the company has provided the appropriate authorization to the city, in compliance with the national electrical code. 9. Safety: a. Standards: Solar energy systems shall meet the minimum standards outlined by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the American Society Of Heating, Refrigerating, And Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), ASTM International, British Standards Institution (BSI), International Organization For Standardization (ISO), Underwriter's Laboratory (UL), the Solar Rating And Certification Corporation (SRCC) or other standards as determined by the city building official. b. Certification: Solar energy systems shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Solar Rating And Certification Corporation or other body as determined by the community development director. The city reserves the right to deny a building permit for proposed solar energy systems deemed to have inadequate certification. 10. Easements: Solar energy systems shall not encroach upon any public drainage, utility, roadway, or trail easements. 11. Abandonment: Any solar energy system which remains nonfunctional or inoperable for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a public nuisance. The owners shall remove the abandoned system, including the entire structure and transmission equipment, at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php2/23/2016 Sterling Codifiers, Inc.Page 3of 3 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 56 B. Variance: Any required standard in this section that cannot be met may be considered by a variance request, in accordance with section 12-1L-5 of this chapter and considering the following criteria unique to solar energy systems: 1. That the deviation is required to allow for the improved operation of the solar energy system; 2. That the solar energy system has a net energy gain; 3. That the solar energy system does not adversely affect solar access to adjacent properties; 4. That the solar energy system complies with all other engineering, building, safety, and fire regulations; and 5. That the solar energy system is found to not have adverse impacts on the area, including the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. (Ord. 485, 9-15-2015) http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/printnow.php2/23/2016 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 57 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 58 8/23/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 59