Loading...
2016-07-26 Planning Comm Minutes CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES July 26, 2016 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 26, 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 Howard Roston, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Michael Noonan and Christine Costello. 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 June 28, 2016 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2016, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2016-24 All Energy Solar, 1295 Kendon Lane 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 at 1295 Kendon Lane. Planner Wall shared an image outlining the location of the subject property in relation to surrounding properties and streets. The property is zoned R-1 single-family residential and surrounding entirely by other like-zoned properties. The subject parcel is approximately 1.29 acres, contains a single family dwelling with an attached garaged; and is guided low-density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. City Code does permit solar energy systems as a conditional use in all districts subject to various conditions. The Commission has seen a few of these types of applications and is aware of the requirements. Therefore, Planner Wall briefly shared how this application met those applicable code standards. Staff recommended approval of this request. July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 The applicant, a representative of Mr. David Hiner through All Energy Solar (located at 1642 Carroll Avenue, St. Paul), was available to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Hiner, the property owner, was also available. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-24, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE APPLICABLE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant obtains a building permit prior to installation of the proposed solar energy system. 2. 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. 3. 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. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 2, 2016 meeting. B & C) PLANNING CASE #2016-28 and 2016-29 2500 Lexington Avenue South Ordinance 502-Rezoning Request from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial Ordinance 503-Proposed Code Amendment – Warehouse Uses in the Industrial District For sake of clarity, Chair Field noted that Planning Case 2016-28 and 2016-29 would be presented together but that there would be two separate public hearings. Planner Nolan Wall explained that in these cases the City of Mendota Heights was considering rezoning the property at 2500 Lexington Avenue South from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 as well as proposing corresponding amendments to Title 12-1-G1 and Title 12-1-G2 of the City Code concerning warehouse uses in the Industrial District. As part of Planning Case 2016-23 that was before the Commission last month, the owner of the subject property containing the vacant office warehouse building did apply for a code amendment to add commercial recreation and warehouses uses to the B-1 Limited Business District. The City Council then determined, after discussion, that rezoning to the Industrial District and developing additional conditions for warehouse uses adjacent to residential uses was better suited to address the property owner’s request. As a result, the original application was withdrawn and at the direction of the City Council, staff is then proposing two ordinance amendments for continued discussion. Rezoning The subject property is located across from other Industrial uses, but is adjacent to office and residential uses as well. The Industrial District does offer a wider variety of use options than the B-1 Limited Business district that staff felt better fit the building’s existing build-out, which would include business and professional office and warehouse and distribution as a permitted use, as well as commercial recreation as a conditional use. The subject parcel is guided as Business in the Comprehensive Plan and would actually require an additional process to amend the Comprehensive Plan if the rezoning request is approved. Therefore, a condition is included in the draft Ordinance 502 and would be brought back for Planning Commission review and ultimate City Council approval before being submitted to Metropolitan Council. Commissioners had no questions regarding the rezoning portion of this application. Code Amendment Planner Wall continued by explaining that as discussed with the Planning Commission and subsequently with the City Council, the subject property’s location directly adjacent to a residential use does warrant potential additional review and corresponding conditions to mitigate any potential negative impacts for certain future uses of the property. If this property were to be rezoned to Industrial, staff proposes that this corresponding code amendment be passed as well. Section 1, currently Warehousing and Distribution, is allowed as a permitted use in the Industrial District. What staff would add to this section is Warehousing and Distribution not adjacent to a residential use. Section 2 then gets into adding an additional conditional use, which would be Warehousing and Distribution adjacent to a residential use provided that the following conditions were met. Planner Wall then reviewed the proposed conditions with the Commission. Planner Wall also pointed out that there was some intent with using the term residential use as opposed to residential district. He then shared a map showing properties that are adjacent to residential districts; however, the adjacent properties are not a residential use (i.e. Acacia Cemetery or Resurrection Cemetery). July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 Commissioner Hennes asked if staff had received any comments from residents to the north of the subject property. Planner Wall replied that he has not received any negative comments. Staff recommended approval of both the rezoning request and the code amendment request. Commissioner Petschel asked if the fence requirement was intended to be a privacy fence or a visual obstruction or as a security fence to keep people out. Planner Wall replied that the intent was for screening purposes and the standard is 90% opacity. Commissioner Petschel continued by asking if the fencing would only be required along the residential property line or to encompass the entire property. Planner Wall replied that it would only have to encompass the areas that need to be screened. Commissioner Roston asked for a reminder of the original planning case request, which Planner Wall provided. Commissioner Magnuson asked if this ordinance change would have an effect on the R-3 zoned properties adjacent to Acacia Cemetery. Planner Wall replied that the R-3 zoned properties are located across the street from an Industrial zoned area; therefore, staff interpretation would be that it is not adjacent. The intent of the word adjacent would mean that it actually touches or borders. Chair Field opened the public hearing for Planning Case 2016-28, Rezoning at 2500 Lexington Avenue South from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial. Per Chair Field’s request, property owner, Mr. Sean Carey of 665 Arcadia Drive, came forward and acknowledged that he was agreeable to the requests as presented. Ms. Jodi MacLennan, who resides at 185 Dakota Street South, Prescott, WI, is the owner of the building at 2510 Lexington Avenue South located immediately to the south of the subject property. She stated that she has been in the building for only two years; they are a small company and provide private human services to people with disabilities who live in residential group homes. There are five people at the building at all times; however, they can bring in as many as 30 staff for training or clients. They have a 25-foot shared egress that is memorialized on their titles/deeds. This calls for cost sharing for repairs and maintenance. She raised her concern that if this property were to be industrial and, depending on the frequency and volume or heavy truck traffic, was unsure if the current roadbed would be able to support it given its current grade and then there would be the additional cost burden to her for the joint ingress/egress. She further explained that she is fine with the ordinance language but is unsure how it would impact when the industrial use is abutting a different zoning where there is a shared access. Chair Field noted, although he is not a lawyer, that some of these would be a private matter that would be involved within the context of the shared use agreement. He then deferred to Planner Wall. Planner Wall stated that this would probably be better discussed as part of the second or subsequent public hearing as they may be able to work through some of her concerns specific to the ordinance amendment. July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 502, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, AS PRESENTED AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field opened the public hearing for Planning Case 2016-29, Proposed Code Amendment – Warehouse Uses in the Industrial District. Ms. Jodi MacLennan, who resides at 185 Dakota Street South, Prescott, WI, is the owner of the building at 2510 Lexington Avenue South located immediately to the south of the subject property, returned and again brought up her concerns about this code amendment is for those properties adjacent to residential use and does not speak specifically to those uses that abut it when there is a common egress. With this code amendment there is the potential for a heavier and higher level of use. She wished to make sure that if there was something that came as a conditional use permit they would be notified as part of that permit process, even though they are not zoned residential. Planner Wall replied that warehousing and distribution adjacent to a residential use is the qualifying use that requires a conditional use permit. By requiring that permit application, there is a 350-foot notice with every property surrounding it. So Ms. MacLennan would be provided notice based on the proximity to this location. In regards to her concern regarding any impacts to her use, while it is written for an abutting or adjacent residential use, condition number three reads that truck traffic shall not impede vehicular circulation or have a negative impact on surrounding uses. That condition is not meant to be specific to that residential use; it is meant to include all surrounding uses. If it were to be a warehouse-type use occupying the building, they would be required to show how they plan on getting in and out of the site and any impacts that it would have on that access point could be dealt with as part of that subsequent application. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 Commissioner Roston suggested that the ordinance use the word abut rather than the word adjacent, as it is more descriptive of what is intended. In regards to operations shall not include retail sales, Commissioner Roston commented that he thought there was a de minimis exception for most industrial uses. He was thinking of an industrial use that has a pop machine, a company convenience store, or something along those lines. He suggested incorporating the de minimis exception as in other circumstances. Planner Wall replied that Commissioner Roston was correct and his suggestion could certainly be accomplished by amending condition number four to read Operations shall not include retail sales unless compliant with \[code section reference\]. Commissioner Roston was good with that suggestion. Commissioner Roston suggested changing condition number three by dropping have a negative impact on surrounding uses as he does not believe that the City should get into the business of qualitative evaluation. He suggested it say truck traffic shall not impede vehicular circulation as determined by the City Engineer since the intent is to eliminate the concern about conflicting vehicle movements and access and traffic. The negative impact on surrounding use is too murky and problematic for a lot of reasons. Commissioner Magnuson, referencing condition number eight where it speaks to Additional conditions that mitigate potential negative impacts to adjacent residential uses may be included as determined by the City Council, wondered if to adjacent residential uses should be eliminated so it only talks about additional negative impacts. This would give the City Council the ability to hear from members of the community who are within the immediate area but do not necessarily abut the subject property. Commissioner Roston, referencing the preamble, which reads Warehousing and distribution, adjacent to a residential use, provided that: that the eight conditions listed immediately after applies only to residential properties. If it is staff’s intent to make that broader, then the preamble should be broadened as well. Planner Wall replied that Commissioner Roston’s suggestion that condition number three be amended potentially to read truck traffic shall not impede vehicular circulation as determined by the City Engineer could also encompass any surrounding uses and would solve that particular issue. Chair Field editorialized that he is not in love with this solution as it gets pretty close to “spot zoning” as this is probably the only place in the city where these issues will arise. Commissioner Petschel asked if the change to condition number three were completed as proposed, if there is an issue with respect to bringing in heavy vehicles or large a number of heavy vehicles in and through that area, is that simply discussed as a matter of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Field replied that they would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and then would probably have to lay out all of the traffic and then appease both the Planning Commission and the City Council that this was good policy. There would be ample opportunity for the public July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 to comment and for the Commission to carefully evaluate what is being done. Planner Wall indicated his agreement to that assessment. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 503, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING WAREHOUSE USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, WITH THE CHANGES DISCUSSED:  CHANGE THE WORD ADJACENT TO ABUT AND ANY GRAMMATICAL ISSUES REQUIRED THEREOF  CREATE A DE MINIMIS EXCEPTION TO THE RETAIL SALES THAT INCORPORATES EXISTING LANGUAGE THE CODE  AMEND CONDITION NUMBER THREE TO READ TRUCK TRAFFIC SHALL NOT IMPEDE VEHICULAR CIRCULATION AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER  AMEND CONDITION NUMBER EIGHT BY DELETING THE WORDS TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES SO THAT IT READS ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT MITIGATE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS MAY BE INCLUDED AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 2, 2016 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE #2016-25 City of Mendota Heights Ordinance 499 Concerning Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling Units City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering an amendment to Title 12-1D-3 of the City Code concerning temporary family health care dwelling units. As part of the 2016 Legislative Session a bill was passed that requires cities to allow temporary family health care dwelling units as a permitted use. The law contains a number of conditions that address size, accessibility, utility connection, design, and construction standards. In addition, applications are exempt from certain zoning, building, and fire regulations and permits must be approved within 15 days. Many communities voiced concerns and objections to the proposed legislation through the League of Minnesota Cities. As a result, the bill was passed with an opt-out provision that is allowed by ordinance. This new law goes into effect September 1, 2016 and the proposed code amendment includes the recommended opt-out language. Under this new law, all municipalities must allow for installation of these temporary residential dwellings on a property for the care of a mentally or physically impaired person who is related to that resident. The initial permit is then valid for six months and can be renewed once for another six months. A temporary health care dwelling unit that meets the requirements of the law cannot July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 be prohibited by a local ordinance that regulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking or storage. Upon review the new law, staff raised several issues based on the City’s current code and policies and that were included in the staff report. Planner Wall noted that this new law is well- intentioned but there are certain aspects of the proposed regulations that contrast with existing city ordinances. As a policy matter, if the City Council is interested in allowing temporary housing options or accessory dwelling units, staff recommends bringing forward more information for discussion in order to develop regulations that better fit the needs of the community. Staff recommended approval of Draft Ordinance 499, with the proposed language provided by the League of Minnesota Cities being inserted as a section in the accessory structure section of the existing city code. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Commissioner Magnuson noted that the requirements were amazing especially when considering that this is supposed to be a temporary structure. Commissioner Roston suggested adding language at the end of 12-1D-3-E to make it a little bit more clear that reads by opting out the City expressly prohibits temporary health care dwellings as defined in Minnesota Statute 462.3593 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-25, ORDINANCE NO. 499 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING OPTING-OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593 AND ADDING A SECOND SENTENCE THAT READS BY OPTING OUT THE CITY EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS TEMPORARY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS AS DEFINED IN MINNESOTA STATUTE, SECTION 462.3593 Commissioner Magnuson asked if the City Council has had a conversation about this. Planner Wall replied that there has not been a conversation with the City Council. Due to the timely nature of when the legislation was passed and the issue that was presented, the first time they would be hearing of this formally would be in consideration of this request. July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 Planner Wall continued by stating that if there was the desire as a policy matter to incorporate this type of use, a recommendation would most likely still be to opt-out and then let staff work through establishing something that better fits the needs of the community or at least gives the City more local control. Commissioner Magnuson then asked if the proposed insertion of language was adopted would it preclude ordinance amendments that would tailor something more suitable to the City. Commissioner Roston replied that he did not feel that the language he suggested would preclude a subsequent ordinance. Without having done the research, his suspicion on this was that someone had a pet project and needed to force it through the legislature and used a real broad brushstroke to do so in order to pre-empt local zoning. Fortunately, it sounds liked the League of Minnesota Cities caught it and gave the cities the ability to opt-out as a condition to approval. The intent of his motion is: 1. To opt-out of portions of this which he thinks are not consistent with the City of Mendota Heights requirements 2. Give staff and the City Council, if given the direction and staff has the policy they want to incorporate, the time to do it in a deliberate fashion before we get a broad brush legislation imposed on us without the ability to really think about it AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 2, 2016 meeting. E) PLANNING CASE #2016-26 City of Mendota Heights Ordinance 501-Concerning Hotel Definition and First Floor Elevation Standards City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering an amendment to Titles 12-1B- 2 and 12-1E-1-A-5 of the City Code concerning the hotel definition and the first floor elevation standards for new dwellings. Staff proposed one ordinance that proposed two separate code amendments to address issues that have been discovered in reviewing recent development proposals. The proposed amendments seek to clarify existing language as well as the intent of the proposed regulations that are in the code. Hotel Definition The existing definition for a hotel is as follows: A building containing eight (8) or more guestrooms in which lodging is provided for compensation, with or without meals, and which is open to transient guests and in which ingress and egress to and from all rooms is made through an inside lobby or office supervised by a person in charge. July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 Based on this existing definition staff contends that the statement open to transient guests is difficult to interpret and enforce. In the absence of a definition of transient in the code, staff is unclear on whether or not the intent was to prohibit extended-stay hotels. The City Council adopted Ordinance 419 in 2008 as part of larger code amendment process for a proposed hotel and retail development that would have been at the southeast corner of Pilot Knob Road and Northland Drive. According the minutes, the Council did discuss whether or not a separate definition for an extended-stay hotel was necessary and ultimately decided that it would be revisited in the future. An amended hotel definition was included in Ordinance 419 where the words transient or permanent guests were deleted and subsequently read . . . open to guests . . . There is also a provision about cooking in guestrooms which was a significant Council discussion concerning what was the existing definition – that provision was stricken as well. In 2010, the City adopted a comprehensive revision of the entire zoning ordinance. At that point in time, the hotel definition was revised from what was approved originally in Ordinance 419; however, only the word transient was added back into the definition. Permanent did not make it back in and neither did the cooking provision. Therefore, staff did also search the available minutes and staff reports and did not find any discussion that was related to this specific definition revision as part of the ordinance; and no new definition was added for an extended-stay hotel. The original development approved in 2008 did have an extended-stay brand but it was never constructed. Recently, developers that are interested in developing another extended-stay hotel within the Industrial District have approached staff. In addition, the Courtyard and Fairfield Inn and Suites, which are the two hotels that are located in that area, may have guests staying more than the typical 2-3 nights of a typical hotel. For those reasons, staff proposed an option to amend the code to reinstate the hotel definition, which was originally approved as Ordinance 419, which reads: A building containing eight (8) or more guestrooms in which lodging is provided for compensation, with or without meals, and which is open to transient guests, and in which ingress and egress to and from all rooms is made through an inside lobby or office supervised by a person in charge. The word transient is difficult to define and the current hotel definition may be causing existing hotels to be non-compliant and prohibit future development of extended-stay hotels. Therefore staff was seeking clarification on the intent of the most recent code amendment regarding this definition in order to determine how it may impact future development proposals. Commissioner Hennes asked why the phrase “which is open to guests” is even needed. After all they are referring to lodging and guest rooms. Who else would it be open to? Planner Wall replied that staff zeroed-in on the transient word; however, they are certainly open to any suggestions on how the definition could work better. July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 Commissioner Petschel commented that it seemed to him that most of the discussion about the extended-stay hotels previously was about having cooking accessories inside of the hotel rooms. This does not in any way deal with that discussion. He then asked if there were any plans to deal with that discussion. Planner Wall replied in the negative and noted that the focus was on the word transient as a potential issue regarding how it is interpreted and how it is enforced in terms of the existing hotels and if a proposed extended-stay hotel did want to come into the City. Commissioner Roston, in regards to ingress and egress to and from all rooms is made through an inside lobby or office, asked if the word inside was intended to prohibit motels as opposed to hotels – meaning the rooms all have inside access and no outside access. Planner Wall replied that staff was not necessarily intending to look at the entire hotel definition; although he believed it be a useful exercise. His understanding and interpretation of this, being that they have hotels and motels in the City that this applies specifically to hotels. Therefore, the difference being that all access is from within the building. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there was a concern about permanent guests. She read some of the previous comments and there had been concerns raised about having a maximum length of time, which would not be workable. She believed this could be done in a couple of different ways: 1. Leave the word transient in to make it clear that people are not moving in permanently; and add language that this does not prohibit extended-stay hotels 2. Remove the word transient but now it is being opened to guests; and probably the nature of a hotel you probably would not have a permanent guest; however, the opportunity would exist. Commissioner Petschel noted that with an apartment or permanent residence there is a lease; whereas with a hotel there is not. After further discussion, the Commission agreed to have the entire phrase ‘which is open to guests’ removed. First Floor Elevations Planner Wall explained that the Council adopted several standards as part of Ordinance 478 to address concerns regarding teardowns and new single-family residential construction impacts. Generally, a new dwelling may not raise the first floor elevation more than one-foot above the existing condition. However, that first floor elevation can be increased by more than one foot by conditional use permit based on meeting certain conditions. Since adoption of the regulations in 2015, staff has encountered a potential issue with the conditional use permit conditions and proposed an amendment with an additional qualifying condition. The current conditions are: (1) Elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet (2') above the 100-year flood elevation, as established by the federal emergency management agency (FEMA). (2) Protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing groundwater elevation shall be determined by a professional registered engineer in the state of Minnesota or by a certified hydrologist and provided for review and consideration. (3) Meet state building code, city code or other statutory requirements. July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 The proposed fourth condition reads: (4) Comply with standard engineering practices, including, but not limited to, grading, drainage, access, or utility connection at the discretion of the City Engineer. The specific situation that staff encountered is an existing driveway and garage floor that are below the roadway, which is not standard engineering practice. Upon demolition and construction of a new dwelling, a reasonable solution would then be to raise that first floor elevation to a reasonable height to construct a driveway and garage floor at an appropriate slope for proper drainage. Under the current code regulations, this situation would not qualify for a conditional use permit and would; therefore, require a variance. Rather than consider a variance for a situation that seems reasonable and meets the intent of the regulations, staff proposed to amend the City Code to expand the conditional use permit condition which would encompass engineering related issues that would be requiring or that would make it such that the new dwellings first floor elevation would have to be raised more than one foot from the existing condition. The City Engineer would make the initial determination that the situation qualifies, but the Planning Commission and City Council would still review and approve/deny the application request. Essentially, this allows for an additional condition for consideration of raising the first floor elevation more than one foot based on any number of engineering related issues as recommended by the City Engineer. Staff recommended approval of Draft Ordinance 501, which includes the hotel definition component as well as the proposed amendment to the first floor elevation standard. Commissioner Hennes asked if was odd that the same ordinance is dealing with this hotel definition idea and dealing with first floor elevation standards in houses. Planner Wall replied that they could have certainly been two different ordinances; however, staff was trying to encompass two different issues into one ordinance and streamline the process. Commissioner Roston noted that he would be open to scrapping the whole one-foot requirement but assumed no one wanted to address that at this time. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 501 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12-1B-2 CONCERNING HOTEL DEFINITION TO READ “A BUILDING CONTAINING EIGHT (8) OR MORE GUESTROOMS IN WHICH LODGING IS PROVIDED FOR COMPENSATION, WITH OR WITHOUT MEALS, AND IN WHICH INGRESS AND EGRESS TO AND FROM ALL ROOMS IS MADE THROUGH AN INSIDE LOBBY OR INSIDE OFFICE SUPERVISED BY A PERSON IN CHARGE”, AND TITLE 12-1E-1-A-5 CONCERNING FIRST-FLOOR ELEVATION STANDARDS BY ADDING CONDITION (4) THAT READS “COMPLY WITH STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GRADING, DRAINAGE, ACCESS, OR UTILITY CONNECTION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY ENGINEER.” AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 2, 2016 meeting. Verbal Review Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2016-19 st Blue Horizon Energy, LLC, 675 – 1 Avenue Conditional Use Permit to construct a roof-mounted solar energy system • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2016-20 Maris Kurmis, 1787 Lexington Avenue Lot Line Adjustment • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2016-23 Sean Carey, 2500 Lexington Avenue South Proposed Code Amendments – B-1 District Conditional Uses • Withdrawn by the applicant after City Council discussion PLANNING CASE #2016-22 City of Mendota Heights Proposed Code Amendments – Massage Therapy Business Use • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2016-27 677 Cheyenne Lane Wetlands Permit • Administratively-approved by staff July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 PLANNING CASE #2016-16 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat, and Wetlands Permit  Tabled at the July 5, 2016 City Council Meeting  Staff is gathering the comments made and providing responses at the upcoming meeting for continued discussion In regards to the solar panel applications needing a conditional use permit, Commissioner Hennes asked if these applications could be done by administrative approval. Planner Wall replied that this was discussed at the last Council meeting and staff was directed to bring back a code amendment which would potentially allow for certain solar array applications to be considered as a permitted accessory use; which would not require a full conditional use permit process. There may be some aspects that the Council does want to keep as a conditional, but the Planning Commission will get to have that discussion next month. Commissioner Petschel asked for clarification that the Council would be discussing the Mendota Plaza Development next Tuesday, August 2. Planner Wall confirmed. Commissioner Magnuson asked about cleaning up the language on retail sales in the B-1 District for salon-type businesses (i.e. hair salons, nail salons, massage parlors). Planner Wall replied that the focus of the discussion related to the massage license application in that specific case was a Consent Agenda Item, so there wasn’t any discussion. However, her point was well taken and, in his mind, that entire code section should be revisited to make sure that it is current with the existing uses and consistent with what the City envisions for that district. Staff and Commission Announcements Planner Nolan Wall made the following announcement:  The Recycling Zone in Eagan currently does not charge to recycle certain types of televisions and monitors. Starting August 1 they will be implementing a $10 fee. Computer hard drives, modems, laptops, and DVD/VCR players are still free. All types of televisions and monitors will incur a $10 fee starting August 1. City Engineer John Mazzitello made the following announcement:  Highway 13 is under construction, they are on schedule, weekly updates are being posted on the City webpage as well as being sent out on the City Facebook page, the contractor is notifying staff every week with what has been completed the previous week and what to anticipate the following week – the permit expires on September 2  Two years ago Victoria Road was reconstructed from Marie Avenue north to Highway 13. Along the eastern side of Victoria, where there used to be a rock ditch, staff planted a pollinator-friendly native grass and flower garden with the assistance of some Dakota Master Gardeners. On Wednesday, July 27, from 6:30 – 7:30 p.m. there will be an open house at the planting site to talk to residents and anyone who is curious about pollinator- July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 friendly advantages and how they can plant different within their own property to help bees, butterflies, and other flying insects that are beneficial to the environment. Adjournment COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:26 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15