Loading...
2018-11-27 Planning Comm MinutesNovember 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 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 Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Chair Field explained that the work that resulted from the workshop held in early November had not been completed and; therefore the Comprehensive Plan Update would be postponed. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TO THE DECEMBER 20, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Approval of October 23, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2018, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-25 STEVE NORTON AND STEVEN POVOLNY, 1925 VICTORIA ROAD SOUTH LOT SPLIT Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Steve Norton, acting on behalf of the November 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 9 property owner Mr. Steve Povolny, had requested a minor subdivision of the property located at 1925 Victoria Road South. This item was presented as a public hearing matter and notices were posted and published in the local Pioneer Press. The notices were mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. The subject property is currently 1.07 acres in total size, with 177-foot of frontage along Victoria Drive and 229-feet of frontage along Stratford Road. This property contains a 1,540 square foot one-story single-family walkout dwelling built in 1954. The home was recently remodeled by Mr. Norton and his team and this house on the lot created if the split is approved would be sold off separately from the vacant lot to be created. Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject parcel and indicated the differences in grade elevation. Parcel A, the proposed vacant lot, would be 100 feet wide by approximately 177 feet deep, consisting of 18,746 square feet or 0.43 acres. Parcel B would be 177 foot by 129 foot size lot, consisting of 27,695 square feet or 0.64 acres. There is also a 33-foot wide roadway easement identified on the survey and is consistent with an easement along county road systems, of which Victoria Road is a part. The city will also have new perimeter drainage and utility easements dedicated along the front, sides, and rear lot lines of each parcel. As shown in one the photographs, there is a 3-tiered landscaping wall system in the rear yard. Part of this wall system encroaches over the lot line but is there to retain some of the back yard slope. Staff has asked that either the wall be removed or reduced as part of a new lot or the owners needed to provide some kind of encroachment agreement or joint maintenance agreement. There is also a ‘string line rule’ in place that says that any structure built on Parcel A has to match in with what the existing houses on either side of the lot. Currently, this measures out to approximately 45 feet; so any dwelling on the newly formed lot would have to have at least a 45 - foot setback off of Stratford Road. Staff recommended approval of this request with conditions. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that on the survey a shed had been identified; however, it did not appear in any of the photographs. Mr. Benetti replied that the shed has been removed. Commissioner Mazzitello then asked if Victoria Road had not been turned back to the city and is no longer a county road. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that at the time of the Furrow Development, just north of Stratford Road, the city negotiated with the county on taking that road back. So, yes, he believed it to be a city street rather than a county road at this time. However, the county right-of-way remains. Commissioner Toth pointed out that on the map provided, one shows the measurement at 176.99 feet; however, the other lot line identifies it as 150 feet. Mr. Benetti replied that the 150-foot line represents the government lot 4; however, the entire lot would be the 176.99 feet. November 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 9 Mr. Steve Norton was available to answer questions from the Commission. He noted that the portion of the retaining wall that would straddle the lot line has been removed. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the removal of the retaining wall would affect the terrain of the new lot such that there is going to have to be something else done there to shore it up. Mr. Norton replied that to the best of his knowledge, the retaining was installed for gardening beds. However, some grading would be done on that area with the development of the new dwelling. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Ms. Katherine Kaszynski, 959 Stratford Road, is the owner of the home next to the subject property. She would like to see the lot split changed a little bit as she did not believe that it maps into the existing neighborhood very well. For example, the gray house that is currently on the market (the existing home on the lot) is 1,500 square feet. This split will give two-thirds of the lot to that 1,500 square foot house. However, the house proposed to be built on the remaining one- third of the lot is anticipated to be 3,500 square feet. It does not seem like a good split to her; she would recommend half and half or two-thirds of the lot for the newly formed property. Most of the homes in the neighborhood are half-acre lots, and the ones located across the street are two- thirds of an acre. The last working farm in Mendota Heights was on Victoria Curve – a nine-acre lot split into seven home sites, which worked quite well. In response to the comments brought by Ms. Kaszynski, Mr. Steve Norton stated that when they looked at the lot split the orientation of the house on Victoria limits the split. The rear yard setback of that home has to be 30 feet; so the proposed lot line is within just a few feet of that 30 foot line. The lot line was proposed at its current location to give the existing home at least some backyard and also to create the new lot having a 100-foot road frontage, which is the city minimum and easier for survey purposes, etc. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-25, LOT SPLIT REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot split request meet the overall spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along Stratford Road. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots on Stratford Road. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: November 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 9 1. As part of any new building permit application on Parcel B, the Applicant/Contractor shall submit full grading and utility plans subject to review and approval by the City; all work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document; and all erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on each parcel site until each have been properly restored. 2. Front-yard setback for any new dwelling structure from Stratford Road shall be a min. of 45-feet. 3. The Applicant shall make provisions to either remove or reduce the tiered retaining wall system that encroaches across Parcel B into Parcel A; or provide a private encroachment and joint maintenance agreement between both properties, which must be on a recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 4. The applicant shall dedicate all new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the certificate of survey prepared by Lake & Land Surveying, Inc. dated 08/13/2018; or by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 5. Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 4, 2018 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2018-26 DEREK & JULIE COOPER, UNADDRESSED PARCEL LOCATED BETWEEN 555 & 561 HIAWATHA AVENUE LOT SPLIT & LOT COMBINATION Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Derek and Julie Cooper requested to split an unaddressed parcel between 555 & 561 Hiawatha Avenue. At one time, this lot did belong to 555 Hiawatha as a separate parcel of record. However, when 555 Hiawatha was sold off by Mr. and Ms. Cooper and 561 Hiawatha was owned by another property owner. The subject parcel is currently a 8,384 square foot, 0.19 acres, in size and located between the two existing homes. It has a curved lot line on the front approximately 88 feet in width. Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property. Mr. and Ms. Cooper are asking to split the lot but are not asking to develop it. Parcel A would be combined with the 561 property and Parcel B would be combined with the 555 property, which has been made a part of the conditions of approval. Another condition of approval would be that neither owner would be able to come back and claim any special or unique circumstances, or hardship of these parcels in claiming a right to develop a new single-family dwelling development on the individual parcels. November 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 9 Staff recommended approval of this request with conditions. Commissioner Mazzitello, as a clarification for the public and for the record, asked for confirmation that not needing a variance for lot size or lot width was covered by conditions one and two. That since the lot split creates two substandard lots, they must be combined with the adjoining lots. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Toth asked if, the last time something like this was before the Commission, they put in some sort of contingency or requirement with respect with reporting to the County on a lot transition like this. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and stated that condition three was very similar to this. Mr. and Ms. Cooper were not available to answer questions from the Commission. 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 TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-26 LOT SPLIT & LOT COMBINATION REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot split meets the spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split will be combined with the adjoining /neighboring properties, thereby eliminating the need for a variance for the reduced lot sizes and lot width standards for R-1 District properties. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The newly created parcel identified and described as “Parcel A” on the attached survey map prepared by Rehder & Associates (dated July 31, 2018), shall be combined with the property identified as 561 Hiawatha Avenue (PID No. 27-17100-03-040. 2. The newly created parcel identified and described as “Parcel B” on the attached survey map prepared by Rehder & Associates (dated July 31, 2018), shall be combined with the property identified as 555 Hiawatha Avenue (PID No. 27-57500-02-200). 3. The applicant shall dedicate a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot line boundaries of Parcel A and B; and 10-foot wide (5-feet on each side) November 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 9 easement along the shared line between Parcel A and B, all on an updated certificate of survey or by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 4. Since this application for the expressed purpose of subdividing the lot and allowing each adjoining owner to combine the newly created parcels to their own personal properties, any approval of this lot split does not in any way provide a special or unique circumstance, or hardship for the Applicant or future owners of these parcels in claiming a right to develop a new single-family dwelling development on the individual parcels. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 4, 2018 meeting. New & Unfinished Business A) PRELIMINARY INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION TO ALLOW “SELF- STORAGE” OR SIMILAR USES IN THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that staff had been approached by a national self-storage facility group requesting the ability to put in a new generation of self-storage facilities in the community. As the staff report indicated, the city currently has no allowances for self-storage facilities in either the commercial or industrial zones. The industrial zone specifically calls it out as a specifically prohibited use for personal self-storage. The facility group is aware of the prohibition, but still want to present this product to the community and are willing to pursue a zoning code amendment. Firstly, they wanted to ‘test the waters’ and have the commission provide their feedback on where they would see such a request going. Mr. Benetti provided images of various new generation self-storage facilities, all secured self- enclosed facilities. No outdoor storage of vehicles, trailers, or campers is permitted. Commissioner Corbett asked why this was prohibited previously. Mr. Benetti did not know the reason. He surmised that the intent of prohibiting it in the industrial zone was to prevent the storage of items outside of the exterior facing doors. Commissioner Petschel asked if it was known what sort of employment these places would have. Mr. Benetti replied that based on his experiences with these types of groups in his previous communities, they would typically have a full-time staff person during normal business hours and usually a little bit after – 1 or 1.5 employees per day. Commissioner Petschel continued by stating that hypothetically they would be replacing a business that would have several to dozens of employees that partake in other businesses inside of the city with a structure that generates income but employees almost no one. To him that would be a downside. November 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Noonan agreed that this was a very important point. This type of use would be somewhat inconsistent with the industrial study that the city commissioned, where they did a look at what the industrial park wanted to be. It is quite clear that the city desired it to be a robust employment generator that supported the economic development aspirations of the city. This section in the Comprehensive Plan currently under discussion certainly supports that notion. A use like this, which one could suggest is rather sterile in the sense that it does not have a larger plant base or the activity that would be associated with the activity in the industrial area, would be out of character. That may have been one of the reasons why it was prohibited originally and has nothing to do with whether the storage is outside or inside. Commissioner Magnuson commented on the large size of the buildings in the images provided. She would not be in favor of putting something like this in a commercial area; however, if they were to seriously consider the industrial park, would they even have the space and could that potential space be better utilized. Mr. Benetti that they were looking at the Laser Tech Building, 2500 Lexington, which has just been recently purchased by Summit Fire Companies. Summit Fire is moving their headquarters from St. Paul and will be bringing approximately 70 new employees. Commissioner Magnuson assumed that in creating codes for this, there are codes that are included in the zoning; however, there are also some language in the ordinances that deal with permitted uses of what could be stored there, how it could be stored, and certain limitations on outdoor storage, security, etc. She would be interested in seeing other codes from other cities that have permitted these before this Commission got too far down the road. Mr. Benetti replied that a Conditional Use Permit would be ideal for something like this as they could put in a number of standard conditions that they would have to meet or comply with. Commissioner Magnuson said she would see a need and there are a fair number of people who come to Mendota Heights, they downsize, and may need a place to store things. It could be an interesting amenity provided it was not a mammoth structure that took up a whole lot of space that eliminated the opportunity to have some good jobs or other good things. If done properly and limited, it might be all right. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed and noted that this discussion could be done at the staff level or with the Commission and the applicant on what those conditions may be, what is the city willing to live with, what would they be willing to live with – and see if there could be a match there. Chair Field stated that, unlike in the past, the business model is more akin to a large, very significant, capital exposure and expense that is going to be there for some time. Most likely, it would be a new building – the mass of some of those buildings, compared with the mass of a lot of the industrial structures, is much greater than what he would have an appetite for. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that working with the previous city pl anner six years ago, on the code amendment that included this list of prohibited activities – it was the desire of the Council at that time to include a number of those uses in the code – specific to the use of outdoor storage facilities was the view of the overhead doors – that was what was not desired and the propensity of those facilities to lead to outdoor storage of campers, boats, trailers, etc. However, the current language is generic. November 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 9 Chair Field noted that it would be interesting to hear from the City Council on their opinion. Commissioner Petschel stated that once something like this was allowed, he did not see how it could be contained. He also suggested that the minutes of the discussion had several years ago be reviewed to ensure this Commission was not missing something in reference to their prohibition. Commissioner Magnuson, for the purposes of providing feedback, stated she would not be in support of this use in a commercial zone; however, she might look at it in the industrial zone. Commissioner Toth asked, due to the language, if this was the first time that an entity has come forward with interest of storage facilities. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative; he has had at least one request a month and noted that self-storage facilities are a hot product right now. Commissioner Mazzitello echoed Commissioner Magnuson’s opinion in so far that he did not believe it belong in the commercial district either. He would be willing to explore discussion for the industrial zone, if the applicant were to understand there would be a very lengthy list of conditions and governances around their proposal. Commissioner Petschel would not be in support at all. B) REVISED PUBLIC HEARING GUIDELINES Chair Field explained that at the last Planning Commission Meeting they agreed to amend the Public Hearing Guidelines to allow for a little more flexibility, which had always been exercised, in the length of the public testimony. However, since that time other edits were included and Chair Field felt it should be returned to the Commission for approval. The public hearing guidelines are now:  Comments shall be limited to the proposed plan or amendment; Comments shall not be used for personal or derogatory attacks against the applicants, planning commissioners, city staff, or members of the public who speak for or against an agenda item;  Comments shall be limited to a reasonable period of time and shall not be repetitious until everyone else wishing to provide comments has testified;  The applicant shall be allowed to speak last to address any questions or comments from the public or the Commission;  The Chair can amend these procedures if necessary; and  All are welcome to speak and participate in the hearing process. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO APPROVE THE REVISED PUBLIC HEARING GUIDELINES VERSION 11/27.18 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 November 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 9 Staff Announcements / Update on Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that at the last workshop, the Commission indicated a potential date of Thursday, December 13, 2018 for a workshop meeting; he then asked if that date still worked for the Commissioners. Commissioner Corbett noted that he would not be available that day. However, Mr. Benetti said he would share the new versions with Commissioner Corbett and they would be on the website. If he had any comments or feedback to be relayed at the workshop meeting, he should provide them directly to Mr. Benetti. Chair Field reminded everyone, for the sake of open meeting laws, there should not be any discussions going on outside of the meeting. Any recommendations from Commissioner Corbett should go directly to Mr. Benetti. Mr. Benetti then advised the Commission that Consulting Planner Phil Carlson from Stantec was aware of the Commissions revising of Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan. They still plan on working with the group on that at the workshop meeting. He th en asked if the Commission wanted to include the public hearing at the December 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting or delay it to the January 2019 meeting. Chair Field replied that the Commission has already left the hearing open from the October 2018 meeting and if after the meeting on the 13th they find themselves needing to take a similar action, they would to do that then. For right now, the plan it to continue the hearing to the December 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. The Planning Commission Workshop Meeting was scheduled for Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. Chair Field asked if the gas lines would be finish being installed prior to the frost. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that they can install gas lines year round, it was the follow-up restoration that would need to occur in the spring. However, it appears that they plan on installing the gas lines through December. When asked about the Dodd Road project, Mr. Ruzek noted that there has not been a wrap-up meeting the MnDOT; the asphalt plants were closing on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. They plan on getting all of their paving done. Any work that was not completed will be carried over into 2019. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:02 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0