Loading...
2018-03-27 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 27, 2018 7:00 PM - Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Approval of February 27, 2018 Planning Commission (Regular Meeting) Minutes 5. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2018-09: Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development, for the properties located at 2160 and 2180 Highway 13 (Michael Development, LLC - Applicant) 6. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments 7. 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. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 21 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES February 27, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 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 John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None City staff present were: Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek and Community Development Director Tim Benetti. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Election of Chair and Vice Chair COMMISSIONER NOONAN NOMINATED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO APPOINT MR. LITTON FIELD, JR. AS THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2018. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO NOMINATED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPOINT MS. MARY MAGNUSON AS THE VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2018. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Approval of January 23, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2018 AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 21 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-03 CHRIS ROBICHAUD, 1991 HUNTER LANE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was for a Critical Area Permit to construct a 20’ x 21’ two car garage addition to an existing attached garage structure. As the property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor, a Critical Area Permit is required. This item was presented as a public hearing item and notices were mailed to all residents located within 350 feet of the subject parcel, located at 1991 Hunter Lane. One phone call was received; however, staff was unable to contact that caller. Mr. Benetti shared an aerial image of the subject parcel relative to its location to surrounding street and properties. The property is 0.61 acres in size and currently has a 2,240 square foot single family dwelling. The residence sits well beyond the setback requirements and the proposed attached to the garage would not cause the need for a variance from those setback requirements. The proposed new garage addition would be constructed of very similar brick material as the existing home and garage but would be recessed slightly behind the existing 2-car attached garage. The city’s ordinance allows for an attached garage up to 1,200 square feet. The addition of this new garage space would make their total 969 square feet, well within the ordinance limitations. Mr. Benetti shared City Code Title 12-3-2, which outlined the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition would comply with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) was notified of this application request and they had no objections. Staff recommended approval of this application. Mr. John “Chris” Robichaud came forward to provide comment and answer questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Noonan commented that he thought it was very helpful to have the proposed elevation that was provided by the applicant. 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. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 21 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-03, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. 3. The proposed garage addition project is in keeping with the character of the area. 4. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition will comply with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 21 B) PLANNING CASE #2018-04 SHIRLEY HETHERINGTON, 2144 THERESA STREET VARIANCE REQUEST Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a Variance Request to build an addition to an existing two car attached garage, which would encroach approximately three feet into the 10-foot side-yard setback standard. This item was presented as a public hearing item and notices were mailed to all residents located within 350 feet of the subject parcel. A mini-petition was also included in the Commission materials. Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the subject parcel relative to its location to surrounding streets and properties. The property consists of 0.24 acres of land with a 2,190 square foot, two-story single family dwelling. The existing two-car garage is approximately 528 square feet with a concrete driveway apron and the proposed addition would not exceed the square foot maximum for an attached garage as outlined in the zoning ordinance. As indicated in the materials, this garage addition would be approximately 18 feet from an existing three-season porch on the southern neighboring residence, the house to the north is also approximately 30 feet away from the garage addition – a very good separate from the proposed garage addition. Mr. Benetti provided an explanation of the findings or determinations that should be met to allow a variance and explained how this request met those standards. Mr. Benetti noted that, as a planner, he really enjoys seeing the full support of a neighborhood like this. According to the survey provided to the surrounding residents, they all seem to be in favor of this request and the mini-petition also supported it. Staff recommended approval of this request. Commissioner Toth, noting a downspout on the side of the existing garage, asked if there would be any drainage issues with the new addition. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not believe there would be because there is currently pretty good drainage between the two properties now and because of the separation of the two properties he did not believe it would be an issue. Commissioner Magnuson asked if staff had explored with the applicant any other construction plans that might reduce the encroachment. Mr. Benetti replied that they looked at doing a tandem style garage as part of the expanded use; however, more and more people want the three-car garage for the usability and the availability. He deferred any other comments to the applicant. Commissioner Noonan asked for an expansion on the analysis with practical difficulties. What the applicant wants and what is convenient may not meet the test of ‘practical difficulties’. Mr. Benetti February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 21 replied that the terminology ‘practical difficulties’ can be very subjective. Looking at this from a development standpoint, would it be reasonable to put on a 9-foot addition to make the garage work. They could have just expanded this garage for additional space without being able to pull in a car. The practical difficulty comes into play when trying to add a third stall, which most people would love to have and want. Is that really a practical difficulty – no. However, if this is something that the applicant feels is necessary to get that extra space or make the house a little more marketable or saleable in the future, adding on that 9-foot space may not meet the practical difficulties test; however, Mr. Benetti still felt that this is a reasonable case. Commissioner Toth asked for clarification that an applicant does not have to show hardship. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this has been changed in the ordinance and an owner no longer has to show ‘hardship’ under the State law to obtain a variance. It is a ‘reasonable’ test instead of a ‘hardship’ case. Chair Field, noting that Mr. Benetti was favorability disposed of the petition with all of the neighbors supporting it, asked what his opinion would have been if two of the neighbors did not sign. Mr. Benetti replied that he still would have recommended approval. Ms. Shirley Hetherington, her son-in-law Dr. Bill Simonet, and her daughter Katie Hetherington came forward to address the Commission. Dr. Simonet explained that the proposal is to keep the existing 16-foot garage door, steal two feet from the four foot wide wall on the side of the garage – keeping the two-foot separation needed for the door to function. The new garage door would be nine feet wide with a two-foot separation on the end; totaling an 11-foot addition. They looked at every possible way to not encroach on the setback and found that there was not room to have a standard 9-foot garage door without encroaching a bit. Commissioner Noonan asked how they were proposing to use the additional garage bay. Dr. Simonet replied that it would be used for storage and his mother-in-law wishes to improve her property value for resale. 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 NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-04 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Construction of the proposed garage addition onto the existing single-family dwelling is a reasonable use of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 21 2. The Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable and practical difficulty for allowing a reduced setback standard in order to construct a new garage addition, which will be in compliance with all other applicable codes. 3. The garage addition on the existing single-family dwelling is considered a reasonable request and use of the property. 4. The addition will tie-in and match the existing dwellings architecture and designs, which will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 5. Granting of the variance is made in accordance with the standards as indicated under the City Code. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 3-feet into the required side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2018- 04). 2. The new garage addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing garage and residential dwelling. 3. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-04 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a ‘practical difficulty’ in proposing a reduced setback Discussion Commissioner Toth asked if there was a good definition of ‘practical difficulty’. Intuitively this does not feel like a practical difficulty; however, he could be wrong. He continued by asking what would be the purpose of any setback rules if people come in and they are very charming and they have the support of their neighbors; and they wanted to go up to the property line, would the Commission just say yes. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative stating that this is not the case. Variances should always be weighed on what they present and stand on their own individual merits and tests. In this case, if he felt that a 7-foot setback was going to be detrimental to the neighborhood he would not have recommended it. He can see where it would probably be concerning if the property next door had a reduced setback. In retrospect, when looking at the setback shown on the shared image, the neighbor is approximately 18 feet away on one side and 30 feet away on the other – there really is not an issue for him. He did agree that ‘practical difficulty’ is a very wishy-washy standard to really apply a variance on. However, this is what the February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 21 city uses. Staff defers to the Commission to decide if this was reasonable and were practical difficulties met in establishing this need for a variance. Commissioner Noonan commented that in the past, when the Commission has wrestled with practical difficulties, certain things have jumped out. For instance, an awkwardly aligned lot line, topography, unusual site conditions, etc. That met the definition fairly easily. In terms of the exhibit shared, to suggest that the city felt comfortable with that because there is a 30-foot separation between the proposed building face and the neighbor, or 18-foot – it sort of transfers the proof onto the adjoining property. There is no guarantee that the 30-foot could not be filled in. That would change the feel of the situation. Zoning ordinances are established for a certain purpose and the standards in there are to be followed to the greatest extent possible. To simply say that we feel comfortable with reducing the 10-foot setback, which is the minimum in the City of Mendota Heights, to seven feet because of the separation with the neighbors just does not feel right. He believed they were throwing the sanctity of the zoning ordinance out for a matter of convenience and a want. Commissioner Noonan continued by saying that the other practical difficulty, and he was not buying it, is the lot has certain dimensions; and there is so much that can be done on a lot. In many cases individuals make have a desire to do more; however, a person can only do so much on a lot in line of the setback requirements. When asked what they wanted to do with the extra space two answers were given. One was for storage – if storage is truly what is needed then punch it out the back of the existing garage. For the desire to seek a variance to enhance the property value, he was not sure that would meet the test. He felt quite strongly that if the Commission goes down the road of being very liberal with respect to the definition of ‘practical difficulties’, the slope gets very steep and very slippery very quickly. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he looks at this in a very different way. Having seen many of these cases in the past, it is sort of the unofficial standard of Mendota Heights for 100-foot lots to have three-stall garages. It is not codified, but it is sort of the unofficial standard. So they look at what the practical difficulty may be that is not caused by the property owner. He then asked for a site plan for the whole site, showing the south end of the house as well. It is not built to the setback line. If the house had been built further to the south they would not need the variance. Had the house been shifted three feet to the south when it was constructed, they would not need the variance for the third stall. Therefore, there is a practical difficulty not caused by the owner in the placement of the house on the lot. Commissioner Toth stated, understanding both comments, he has a hard time accepting Mr. Mazzitello’s explanation on how he came up with the numbers. The City may have that situation in many, many homes within Mendota Heights and many homes in the same situation that have a two-car garage, 10-foot right-of-way, and now they want to go bigger. He was afraid, due to the applicant’s comments on storage and to increase the value of the home, the Commission may be going down the wrong road with many applicants coming forward and opening up a big can of worms. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 21 Commissioner Magnuson stated that she agreed with everything that Commissioner Noonan had said. She liked Commissioner Mazzitello’s argument; however, it just did not do it for her. In her 6.5 years on the Planning Commission they have grappled a lot with these variance and have actually denied garage variances with far less space involved. At least to date, the Commission has always defined practical difficulties in the way Commissioner Noonan has defined them – there has to be something unique about the property that makes it practically difficult to comply with the code. It has always been topography, a unique lot line, or positioning that has made it difficult to comply with the code. She does not see that here. She would be open for the applicant to come back with another application that somehow could meet the standards or some tweaking that would potentially arrive at where they want to go that meets the practical difficulty standard. However, the Commission has been pretty consistently hard and fast on what constitutes practical difficulty. She agreed that if the Commission allowed this to happen they would be opening the floodgates to anybody coming in a saying ‘I want to have this’ rather than coming in saying ‘we cannot comply with the code because there is something unique about our property that does not allow us to’. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Mazzitello) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 21 C) PLANNING CASE #2018-05 LANDFORM / MCDONALD’S, 2020 DODD ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this application was for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Wetlands Permit to remodel and construct anew small building addition to the existing McDonald’s restaurant site. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the existing use and any subsequent improvements in the B-4 Shopping Center business district and the Wetlands Permit is required for any work conducted within 100 feet of the Ordinary High Water level of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature. This item was presented as a public hearing item; a notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and notices were mailed to all owners located within 350 feet of the subject parcel. No objections or comments were received. This facility is located on a 2.26 acre site adjacent to the Mendota Heights Plaza shopping center; however, it actually not officially part of the overall Plaza Planned Unit Development and is not subject to the overall requirements of the MU-PUD zoning of the Plaza. Surrounding businesses include the BP Gas/Mendota Heights Auto Service station, Walgreen’s/Plaza Center, and the Reserves Apartments. The main access point to the restaurant is from the Plaza shopping center, just off of Dodd Road. The building has a very dated look and the plans basically include the re-skinning the whole building, taking out the roof structure and replacing it with a flat-style roof; which appears to be consistent with the other newly remodeled McDonald’s restaurants throughout the metro area. The general placement of the building is not significantly changing under this updated (new) CUP plan. They do plan a small addition on east end to install a new cooler and freezer. All parking is remaining the same except some reconstructed areas along the front edge for handicap parking. Materials in the packet included an explanation of how the subject property is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The analysis of the Conditional Use Permit included the Building Design and Construction, Landscaping, Off-street Parking, Lighting, Signage, and Conditional Use Permit Standards. The Wetlands Permit analysis shared the purpose of the Wetlands Permit and explained that this proposed work has very little, if any, impacts to the nearby wetland/water feature and there are no plans showing major disturbances outside the parking lot areas. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) was notified of this application request and they had no objections. Staff recommended approval of this application. Commissioner Noonan, referring to Condition #5 which reads “McDonald’s shall provide staggered row of new trees and plantings, consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees, along the easterly edge of the property to provide a suitable screening from the adjacent apartment February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 21 development, which planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by city staff”, noted that the applicant had mentioned the difficulties with a staggered row of new trees and asked if that condition would be updated to be “. . . shall provide a row of new trees and plantings., , ,”, which Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then asked if Condition #5 would be necessary given Condition #6 (A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval as part of the new building permit process. City staff shall approve said plan to ensure compliance with applicable City Code provisions). Mr. Benetti confirmed that they could remove Condition #5 and simply go with Condition #6. Commissioner Corbett asked if the noise complaints about the drive-thru order box came from residents. Mr. Benetti replied that these types of complaints often emanate from these types of uses, not from this particular site. He has not received any complaints specific to this site. Commissioner Magnuson shared that the Findings of Fact #2, which reads “additional plantings will be installed to provide an effective screening measures if necessary” can either be removed, or at least have the ‘if necessary’ deleted. Mr. Benetti agreed that this could be taken out since there is the requirement to have an approved landscape plan. After discussion it was agreed to leave the finding #2 in but remove the “if necessary”. Commissioner Toth, going back to Condition #5 requiring the staggered row of trees, asked if the plantings were staggered if they would encroach on city property. Mr. Benetti replied that it could be possible. If the plantings were staggered, he doubted if the city would allow plantings on their property due to the question of who would maintain the landscaping. Commissioner Magnuson, referencing page 4 of the staff report, noted that there was a statement that read “The Planning Commission should make a recommendation or finding that these new finishes, including the “corrugated metal panels” are acceptable under this CUP review” and if this is true, then they should include something in the Findings – at least verbally if not in the written Findings. Mr. Benetti thanked her for the reminder as he had intended to have that reflective recommendation and recommended it be added as Finding #6 to read “The proposed exterior treatment of the building is deemed appropriate and acceptable”. Commissioner Corbett asked if there was any chance that, if trees are planted on the McDonald’s property, the City would ever be responsible for upkeep. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Mr. Kevin Shay with Landform Professional Services, representing McDonald’s, explained that he was the one who was talking this morning with Mr. Benetti on this application and was the one who explained why the staggered row of trees would not work. They look forward to working with staff on the landscape plan to make something work with the ordinance. He also confirmed that the only changes to parking would be the adjustments for ADA handicap accessibility. Commissioner Toth asked, in the event the single row of trees does not work, what would their Plan B be. Mr. Shay stated that they are open to many types of trees or plantings in that area; whatever would work. McDonald’s is committed to doing something along that edge to provide the screen mentioned by Mr. Benetti. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 21 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 TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-04, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Although the Subject Property falls under the general standards and rules of the B-4 Shopping Center District, the City of Mendota Heights recognizes, acknowledges and accepts the continued use of this fast food restaurant use, and further determined this use to be an acceptable and allowable use to continue under this remodeling plan, along with the following statements of support: a. this project will enhances the overall appearance of the restaurant building and property; b. McDonald’s intends to leave intact most of the existing impervious surfaces, which should help stormwater management and improve drainage in this commercial area; c. sustains and supports the growth of an existing, historical and successful local business operating since 1978; and d. addresses several existing legal non-conformities. 2. Additional plantings will be installed to provide an effective screening measures if necessary. 3. No part of the existing parking lot is planned for expansion, and no part of the adjacent wetland feature will be impacted or affected under this project. 4. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit and wetlands permit, and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including (but not limited to): a. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment (ref. – no impact to the Wetlands); b. Support industrial and commercial developments in designated areas. 5. The proposed project is designed to minimize or cause no impacts to the adjacent wetland areas, and is therefore compliant with the standards for a wetlands permit. 6. The proposed exterior treatment of the building is deemed appropriate and acceptable. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Building and grading permits shall be issued prior to and construction of the proposed project. 2. The proposed trash/recycling container enclosure structure shall be repainted to match the new exterior colors of the restaurant building. 3. [Unless recommended otherwise by the Planning Commission] In order to facilitate a reduction of impervious surface and assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment; February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 21 and to recognize and acknowledge the legal, non-conforming status of this fast-food restaurant use on this site since 1978, a two foot (2’) reduction in the codified depth dimension of parking stalls is allowed for stalls that abut 90-degrees to a curb or walkway, and the subject site is allowed to provide and continue to operate with only 61 parking spaces. 4. All ground level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with materials used in the construction of the principal structure, an approved screening device and/or landscaping material that provides at a minimum of 90% or more opacity. 5. McDonald’s shall provide staggered row of new trees and plantings, consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees, along the easterly edge of the property to provide a suitable screening from the adjacent apartment development, which planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by city staff. 6. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval as part of the new building permit process. City staff shall approve said plan to ensure compliance with applicable City Code provisions. 7. A final Sign Package/Plan shall be submitted for review to the city prior to the issuance of any sign permit or installation of any new signs on the subject site. 8. All new Lighting shall be subject to the standards stated in Section 12-1I-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 10. The property shall comply with the applicable commercial property maintenance standards, as required by City Code. Discussion Chair Field added that Title 12-1D addresses several legal non-conformities, the Commission has made a big enough issue and it is glaring enough that part of him wants to state in the Findings of Fact that this is a parking arrangement as it relates to the ordinance requirement is a legal non- conformity. Commissioner Noonan as the maker of the motion, and Commissioner Magnuson as the second, approved the addition of #7 to the Findings of Fact as follows: 7. The existing parking on site of 61 parking spaces is recognized as a legal non-conformity. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 21 D) PLANNING CASE #2018-06 PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND E) PLANNING CASE #2018-07 PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti asked, since Items D and E were very similar, if he could present both applications together but have separate motions and decisions. Chair Field stated that as long as Mr. Benetti was very clear on which was which, he had no problems hearing both items together. Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Mr. Tim Benetti explained that these requests were for Critical Area Permits (CAP) by Precision Homes, LLC for properties located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and 1224 Wachtler Avenue. These two properties, at one time, were two separate lots conjointly owned by Mr. Hansen, which Precision Homes has purchased. The single-family dwelling that was located on the site has been removed and the two lots have separate addresses, 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and 1224 Wachtler Avenue. 796 Sibley Memorial Highway is legally described as Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow and 1224 Wachtler Avenue is legally described at Lot 7, Goodrich Happy Hollow. Lot 6 is 1.08 acres in size, as is Lot 7. In the last Critical Area Permit staff identified that the entire area on the west end of the lot is very level and flat until one were to get to the back end of it, where it starts to slope up against the bluff line. Most of the activity that has occurred so far and is scheduled to take place are located where the previous structure used to stand. Last year, part of the CAP from the resolution approval in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), staff identified an initial site plan and future home pad layout. Staff also knew that this was not going to be the final layout because of the need for two CAP’s for two new lots. As part of that resolution approval, the applicant has already completed some of the initial site grading work and tree/vegetation removals to clear a site for the new dwelling structure. Mr. Benetti shared aerial images of the two properties relative their location to surrounding streets and properties. The new proposed dwelling at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway would irregularly shaped with a side-loading garage and a single point access, the same one off of Sibley Memorial Highway as previously. There are no issues with complying with the setback requirements. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 21 The new proposed dwelling at 1224 Wachtler Avenue would be a 4,005 square foot finished area home (1,797 square feet main floor footprint). They will have access to this property from Wachtler Avenue and they do have permission from Dakota County since Wachtler Avenue is a county road. The utilities will also come from Wachtler Avenue. Again, there are no issues with complying with the setback requirements. As part of the analyses for these applications, Mr. Benetti explained the standards and provision for the Critical Area Overlay District, Site Planning Requirements, Development Standards, Setbacks, Wildlife Protection and Vegetation Management, and Surface Water Runoff Management. These items were presented as public hearing items and notices were mailed to all residents located within 350 feet of the subject parcels. In addition, the public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department, and the City of Lilydale. No additional comments or conditions were received from any of these agencies. Staff recommended approval of these applications. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the property at 1224 Wachtler Avenue, and taking note of Conditions #3 (The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native stone material) and #5 (All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document) asked if Condition #5 was a second step to ensure that the drainage is appropriate and would not cause any impact on the adjacent owner. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then noted that a point was made that in the application package staff looked to the applicant to spell out the architecture and the building materials, yet there is no recommendation that ties back to the building materials. He then asked if an applicant could come forward, notwithstanding what was presented, and change the materials and compose something completely different that the Commission had not seen. Mr. Benetti replied that he would not recommend a developer, applicant, or builder do that. Commissioner Noonan suggested that a condition be added that reads as follows: “A building permit application shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and the architecture included within the package.” Mr. Benetti whole heartedly agreed with adding that condition. Commissioner Magnuson, also referencing the retaining wall, stated that Mr. Benetti said that the retaining wall should help with the drainage issues and that Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek has looked at it and confirmed that would be the case. She then noted that the only thing in the Conditions is that the retaining wall should be made of natural or native stone materials. She then asked if there was some reason that the Commission may want to put in there “and shall provide satisfactory water control measures as satisfied by the City Engineer”. At this point, the retaining wall can be anything as long as it is made of natural stone and does not have to serve any purpose, at least as currently described. Mr. Ruzek replied that there is the condition about meeting the meeting the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. These documents have been made February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 21 public in both this Critical Area Permit plus the original lot split. He would not approve a grading plan that does not meet the intent of what Engineering is looking for. However, if the Commission wanted to add a Condition, he would be OK with that. Commissioner Magnuson stated that as long as it is covered in the grading plan she would be fine with it. Chair Field suggested that Conditions #3 and #5 be combined for clarity. At this point (8:10 pm) - Commissioner Mazzitello, having an excused absence, left the meeting. Mr. Pavel Bodnar, 10937 – 93rd Avenue in Maple Grove and the owner of Precision Homes, stated that he spoke with both neighbors on both of the sites and asked them what the problems were before they came in to see how they could make it better. The neighbor on the Wachtler side said that there was a drainage problem. So their purpose is to level the grade and put up the retaining wall so their water would not drain into the neighbor’s yard. The neighbor on the Sibley side was concerned about the height of the new home, but he believes they are good on the height. Commissioner Toth asked, once the retaining wall is installed, where the water would go. Mr. Bodnar replied that they would ensure that the water would drain out to the street. They would do whatever they could to meet the city requirements. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Dan Caruso, 1238 Wachtler Avenue, is located just to the south. He noted that their situation is that several years ago the previous homeowner illegally brought in approximately 50 to 70 dump trucks of dirt. He elevated his yard from the front through the mid part of his yard and, as a result, his yard got flooded. He informed city hall several years ago and they said they would remedy the situation. In the spring and after rainfalls, they typically have a lake in their yard that is approximately 12 or 18 inches deep and approximately 150 to 200 long and 60 to 80 feet wide. Chair Field interjected that the Commission cannot and it is not their job this evening to remedy whatever a previous owner may or may not have done. Mr. Caruso stated that this is not the current owner is not guilty of this. However, what really is required – if he is installing a retaining wall it is almost irrelevant because the retaining wall may be 50 to 100 feet long but the water will go where it will go. He believes that what is required – and what the city said it was going to do back then – is to have a ditch dug along the property line so that when the water goes in that it drains to the street. To do that there needs to be a decrease in elevation so that it slopes to the street. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the city said this would be taken care of; however, there was never an application submitted by the former owner. Mr. Caruso replied that the previous owner said he would dig a ditch along the property line, which he dug a ditch and it did not do anything. Commissioner Noonan stated that it was unfortunate that the former owner did not do what was necessary. However, Mr. Caruso heard the testimony this evening that 1) the retaining wall would be installed to intercept some flow coming north to south and redirect it and 2) the City Engineer said that there would be a grading plan provided so that there would be positive drainage on the site so that it would go from front to back to the street. There is in the February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 21 package a survey and engineering plan that shows just that. However, there has not been a detailed grading plan prepared as of yet. Chair Field noted that the Commission is only setting the standard, the City Engineer would deal with the details. However, his concerns have been noted and are part of the record. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-06, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and related development standards. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS (added condition as noted): 1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. A building permit shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and materials proposed by the applicant and included in the staff report. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello) February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 21 E) PLANNING CASE #2018-07 PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-07, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and related development standards. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS (added condition as noted): 1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native stone materials. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 6. A building permit shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and materials proposed by the applicant and included in the staff report. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider both of these applications at its March 6, 2018 meeting. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 21 F) PLANNING CASE #2018-08 PATTERSON DENTAL COMPANY AND ST. THOMAS ACADEMY 1031 AND 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this applicant was for a lot line adjustment and Variance request. They are asking for a simple lot line adjustment between the two properties – Patterson Dental Company to the west and Saint Thomas Academy to the east. Patterson Dental would be deeding over a six foot strip of land to Saint Thomas Academy to help adjust or provide relief on some encroachment issues. Based upon this six foot relinquishment to resolve the encroachment issues, Patterson Dental would require a Variance from the minimum parking lot setback standards. Chair Field stated that this sounded like a harmonious clearing up of a long standing case of adverse possession. Staff recommended approval of this request. Ms. Pam Kunkel of St. Thomas Academy came forward but had nothing to add to the staff report. 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: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello) COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-08, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the shared property boundary line between two separate property owners. 3. The existing conditions were not created by Patterson Dental Company owners, and this encroachment issue may create some practical difficulties for the owners in future title February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 19 of 21 work or sale of properties, and the effective remedy of this requested lot line adjustment and variance are both appropriate in this case. 4. Other alternatives to attain compliance would require removal or relocation of existing and long term features (fence, bleachers, concrete pads, etc.), which is not practical or necessary in this case. 5. Approval of the lot line adjustment and variance will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. The appropriate documents are recorded with Dakota County Commissioner Magnuson stated that, in light of the Commission’s action earlier and the fact that the Commission is really approving a Variance, she wanted to point out that in this case the applicant did a very nice job explaining what the practical difficulties were and why this action would be something that would be appropriate for a Variance. Clearly it would not be practical to leave bleachers and a variety of other things on Saint Thomas Academy land and she believes that the fact that the statement from the applicant was included in the packet was very helpful and provided the Commission with the basis needed to go forward with this as a Variance. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 20 of 21 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Consulting Planner Phil Carlson of Stantec provided the Commission a status update on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, a copy of one of the chapters that has been formatted more or less in its final form, as well as a summary of information received from the several community events and the input received on-line. There were over 100 comments received online and during community meetings, which were broken down into the following topic areas: • Character • Environment • Generations • Location • Traffic • Bike/Walk/Bus • Governance Key Issues Identified in the Plan: • Character and Natural Feel • Commercial/Retail Options • Development/Redevelopment Sites • Housing Stock / Need for other kinds of housing • Vikings Facility • Airport • Aging Infrastructure Discussion occurred and suggestions were made by the Commissioners. No decisions were made or expected. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments • Community Development Director Tim Benetti will have a pre-construction meeting with the WoodSpring Hotel contractor/developer on Tuesday, March 6 • Construction on The Reserves is wrapping up / still on target to be open sometime in June or July. Look for open house invitations • Gemini Medical is wrapping up their building • Orchard Heights hearing was held in mid-December and staff expects a decision sometime in the next few weeks. Deadline for the 90-day rule is around March 16, 2018. • Hearing was held before Judge Baxter on the Michael Development on the apartments at the Larson Garden Center and the Mendota Motel site. Mr. Benetti believed it went very well for the city’s side. As direct result of that hearing, Mr. Michael Swenson will be back before the Planning Commission in March asking for an amendment to the Final Development Plan. This would be presented under a public hearing. February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 21 of 21 • Next Thursday, March 8 in the Council Chambers an Active Master Gardener Group will be hosting an Invasive Plants seminar to help residents learn how to identify invasive plants, remove them, and replant them. This is a free workshop from 7:00 – 8:30 p.m. No registration is required. Chair Field expressed his appreciation to city staff for the fine plowing they did during the most recent snow events. Adjournment COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:31 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)