Loading...
2019-08-27 Planning Comm MinutesAugust 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 13 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 27, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 27, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of July 23, 2019 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2019 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (NOONAN) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2019-20 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE –CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE for NEW SELF STORAGE USE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Metro Storage, LLC was requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to develop a new climate controlled self-storage facility in the Industrial Park. The storage facility would be located on the vacant parcel located at the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Highway 55 (1178 Northland Drive). Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. The parcel is 2.2 acres in size and is currently guided and zoned I-Industrial. The property was previously owned by General Pump (next door) and has been sitting vacant for a number of years. The initial review of this application revealed the possibility of a wetland on the site. According to the Dakota County GIS mapping, the 2011 National Wetland Inventory layer showed a PEM1A wetland on the site. The applicant hired Kjolhaug Environmental Services to inspect and perform August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 13 a wetland assessment. The report came back and indicated no wetlands were present or delineated on the subject parcel. Metro Storage provided some concept images of their proposed building – a new three-story, 117,810 square foot, fully contained, climate controlled, interior only self-storage facility. It has light-colored limestone features, precast panels along the front, nice break-up of color with some glass curtain walls on the entryway. Mr. Benetti shared images or renderings of what the building would look like. Site and Structure Requirements for Industrial District uses: • Not more than 50% of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings o Current plan occupies 41% of the lot area • Structure Height: no structure shall exceed 45-feet in height o Current building roof line is 42.5-feet with the upper parapet at 44.5-feet • Side yard abutting a street on a corner lot shall be not less than 40-feet in width (40-feet from Northland Drive and 40-feet from Highway 55); 30-feet from the side yard; and 50- feet from the rear yard o Facility will have a setback of 40-feet from Highway 55 and off of Northland Drive o The east side roadway is not technically a roadway – it more of a private drive • Floor area ratio (FAR) shall not exceed 0.5 o The sites FAR equated out to 1.24%; thus the need for the Variance request • Minimum Lot Area Requirement is 1 acre with a minimum lot width of 100 feet o This site is 3.76 acres in size and is 153-feet wide along Northland Drive and 255- feet along the MnDOT ROW • Parking setbacks require 20-feet and 10-feet from the side yard • Parking population netted out to approximately 15 required spaces; they are providing over 22 spaces Interior Space: • Front entry point and office in the front • Exit point in the back • Internal hallways separated out • 11 interior parking spaces for loading and unloading • 21 new track wall-mount style lights – no pole lights Grading/Drainage/Utility Plan: • Very little grading on the site • Infiltration Basin on the south side of the building with drainage swales and inlets; to be tied to an existing 15-inch storm pipe leading out to a wetland feature in the Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way (MnDOT ROW) • Infiltration Basin along the west side of the building till take stormwater drainage from the north parking lot area and roof drains from the building • Building utilities will be tied into the existing main service lines underneath Northland Drive to the north August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 13 • Water service will be provided to the building by a 1-inch copper service line for typical/potable water needs • Fire suppression or interior sprinkler systems will be serviced by a 6-inch ductile iron pipe • Sanitary service will be provided by a new 6-inch PVC pipe, with a clean-out located at the angled junction of said line Landscape Plan: • Reviewed by the city’s Master Gardeners, who suggested the following changes (recommendations, not requirements: o Substituting ironwood trees for the river birch o Replacing the velvet crabs with serviceberry species o Replace tor spirea bushes with Little Bluestem species o Replace sumacs with honeysuckle, serviceberry, chokeberry, or prairie drop seed grasses o Replace the proposed rock mulch bed with shredded wood mulch o Substitute the MnDOT 25-121 seed mix with a preferred MnDOT or other native seed mix • Landscape plan was revised and resubmitted with some of the recommended changes Mr. Benetti then reviewed the criteria to be met in the granting of a CUP (Title 12-1L-6): a. Not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community b. Nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards c. Nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d. That the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan He then reviewed the conditions to be met per the code amendment that now allows for personal self-storage uses as a conditional use in the Industrial Zone: A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited. B. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility. C. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone. D. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete. E. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility. F. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. G. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. Staff believed that all of these conditions / standards have been met. Mr. Benetti then reviewed the criteria or standards to be met when granting a Variance and the applicant’s response to those standards: August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 13 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner 3. The Variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties The Variance is required because the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), at 1.24, exceeds the allowable 0.5. Mr. Benetti researched other neighboring cities and beyond and found that the buildings in their Industrial Zones ranged from 30%-35% (Inver Grove Heights and Eagan) and up to 50% (West St. Paul). The maximum lot coverage ranged from 70%-75% to 95%. Bloomington and St. Paul are the only ones that have an FAR, and they range from 1.0 to 2.0. Most of the neighboring cities do not use or apply an FAR. We also limit out building height and footprint and impervious surface percentages. Mr. Benetti explained that the applicant’s plans demonstrate that all of the Industrial Zone standards are being met, except for the FAR. Staff recommended that the Commission give serious consideration to this application because the FAR is probably a bit more of what they should expect in a community of the size of Mendota Heights and that this Variance is only for the personal self-storage use and shall apply specifically to this site and its use only. Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Petschel asked why there was not an option to approve the Conditional Use Permit but deny the Variance. Mr. Benetti replied that this is an option if the Commission so wished. However, the applicant would prefer that the Variance be approved. If the Commission were to approve the CUP without the Variance, they would essentially be approving a 1-story building. Commissioner Noonan asked if they were to only approve the CUP, would the applicant have to come back and rework their site plan and thus, get a renewed approval of the CUP. Mr. Benetti replied that may be a possibility. Commissioner Petschel asked if denying the Variance would cause time penalties for re- application on the site. Mr. Benetti replied that it would not cause any time penalties, as there are no time penalties for CUP’s or Variances. Chair Magnuson, noting that the city only has an FAR of 0.5, stated that they were limiting any development of any remaining area within the Industrial Park to single-story structures. Mr. Benetti concurred. She then asked, when the City Council considered the amendment to the ordinance, was there any conversation about changing the FAR requirement. Mr. Benetti replied that he had a discussion with the former planner and he indicated that this FAR never came up in the discussions on the August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 13 ordinance. He was shocked when he heard about it because it had never been an issue but that he probably should have changed it when the ordinance was updated several years ago. Commissioner Noonan disagreed as the Industrial Park was developed under an FAR of 0.5 and it was never brought up as an issue before. This is an interesting one because it is proposing an FAR of significantly higher than what others in the Industrial Park have worked with. To suggest a 3- story building cannot be done with a 0.5 FAR is not an accurate statement. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the 0.5 FAR rule has existed as the Industrial Park has developed. It does not mean that the Industrial Park was developed under the 0.5 FAR; it was just in code. The Sun Country headquarters is just one example of a multi-story building in the Industrial Park that was developed under a time when they had to have an expansive surface parking lot for the building. Their lot is big enough to lower their FAR. This is a unique situation under consideration; where the lot is small, the building being proposed fits on the lot. It is important to realize that this FAR rule applies to the entire Industrial Zone and he would be willing to provide an expensive dinner if every lot in the Industrial Zone were developed within the 0.5 FAR; but that is that they weren’t. Commissioner Petschel asked what if they wanted to build a 7-story building. Commissioner Mazzitello replied they would run into the height restriction. Commissioner Petschel stated that it was only a restriction; to apply a one restriction arbitrarily as opposed to another. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that his point was that the FAR was an antiquated requirement. FAR, antiquated or not, conversations continued. It was pointed out that if the proposed building were to remain inside the current footprint and have only one story, it would be below the required FAR of 0.5. Commissioner Toth, going back to the timeframe between 2009 and 2014, this lot was identified as a wetland. Now coming back to July 26, 2019 it is not a wetland. He asked if there was a misunderstanding or if additional soil was placed on the property. Mr. Benetti replied that it has been his experience working with wetland mapping, especially from a National Wetland Inventory, it is generalized or best estimate sometimes. Sometimes it is based on old historical interpretation of aerial mapping. The GIS mapping flags the city to inform owners or applicants that there is potential for a wetland and they need to investigate for accuracy. If the Wetland Report, done independently, comes back and says there is a wetland, then they would have been talking about how to mitigate that on site or do some other type on-site mitigation. Fortunately, that is why they hired these people to come out and do an independent testing or analysis and they came back and said there was no longer a wetland on the site. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development with Metro Storage, Mr. Quinn Hutson of CNH Architects, and their engineer from Wier & Associates came forward. Mr. Heilman answered the question regarding the wetland by stating the parcel, through their investigation in Phase 1, was an area that was used by MnDOT as an off-ramp relocation when they did the roadwork. There is approximately 6-feet of fill on that site – it goes from 6-feet to approximately 12-feet. None of that is natural material. This was done before the 2000’s. August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 13 Mr. Heilman then gave a brief history on Metro Storage and their footprint in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. As for the FAR, Mr. Heilman stated that what they have experienced is that the issue is the intensity of their use is so low – basically the lowest use; however, the FAR is high and the intensity of the use is so low that they offset each other. Also, in this case, they are meeting all other aspects of the code – height, building coverage, impervious surface coverage – he could essentially build the same building but with only one floor and no one could tell from looking at the outside. They find this to be inconsistent with the FAR – it does not match the other codes to be found in the zoning code. Mr. Hutson continued with highlights of the specific building by sharing an image of the site plan and explaining that they are not pushing the limits of the site but putting in a building that is proportionate to the site. He also shared a rendering of the building elevation. Addressing the FAR issue, Mr. Hutson noted that looking at the building from the outside it matches other buildings in the Industrial Park – including ones with high ceilings inside. They are just a different type use and that is what makes it different. This use is different than other industrial uses permitted in the park. The only thing that brings up the FAR is how they use the inside of the building. Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Hutson could provide any type of argument as to why they have a practical difficulty. Mr. Hutson replied that they feel that the practical difficulty is that the FAR is inconsistent with this particular approved industrial use – because of its extreme low intensity the FAR does not consider that in the way that it would for other types of industrial buildings. They feel that is a hardship for this particular type of use. Commissioner Noonan stated that the FAR is a standard across the entire Industrial Area; it is not specifically targeted to this use. So it is a standard that applies across the industrial and it is not specifically targeted to this site or to this use. Commissioner Noonan was having a hard time with that explanation as a practical difficulty since it is a universal standard across the entire Industrial Area. Mr. Hutson agreed that the standard is universal across the Industrial Area; however, it would be a hardship for any site that would be considering this use. Commissioner Noonan asked, when the zoning was amended to add personal storage in the Industrial Area, why was that not raised as a discussion point given the fact that the standards were published and existed. His understanding was that all that was asked for was to add personal storage as a permitted use within the Industrial Area and not seek to do any modifications to the zoning standards. Mr. Heilman replied that they had an idea on the design of the building; however, they were just attending to the use at that point in time. It was a general use for the area and that was their concentration at that time. Commissioner Noonan noted that one could suggest that a general use should operate under the zoning standards that were there and were posted. If there were a fundamental difficulty they should have been raised and discussed as part of the zoning change. Mr. Heilman replied that he could see Commissioner Noonan’s point; however, this is a use that is fairly new to zoning – it August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 13 was never conceived even ten or fifteen years ago. That is why Metro Storage is here, they are asking for the change based on this new type of use of storage – multi-story, climate controlled, interior, generation five storage. A lot of municipalities he goes to have nothing in their code regarding self-storage. So they go along and develop it as they go through the approval process. Their stance is that FAR is partially to limit intensity on a property. They are coming from the equation with the lowest, other than cemetery, intensity of use for a building. Commissioner Toth asked approximately how many storage units would be in the building. Mr. Heilman replied that based on rentable square footage of 83,000, the units on average are approximately 100 (some at 25 square feet and some as high as 300 square feet) – so that would equate to approximately 810 to 830 rental units. Commissioner Toth then questioned the amount of traffic that the building may see on the average day with the number of parking spaces they have – how did they come up with those numbers. They have said many times that this would be a low traffic area, but now they are looking at 800+ rental units and they are saying that it would be a low volume of traffic. Metro Storage was estimating (one space per 6,000 square feet). Mr. Heilman replied that this comes from the National Institute of Traffic Engineers and their manual, which includes key studies for various different uses of facilities. Commissioner Katz asked if their personal data for Metro Storage matched the data from the National Institute of Traffic Engineers. Mr. Heilman replied that within the storage sector, the typical product is about the same size as is being proposed. Commissioner Katz clarified his question by asking if Metro Storage had other facilities of this size and are they seeing traffic of only six (6) trips per day. Mr. Heilman replied in the affirmative and said he could back up what they were claiming. Chair Magnuson asked when the issue of the Variance became apparent, did they give any consideration to scaling back the size of the building so it would be more compatible with the FAR. Mr. Heilman replied that he could not make a project viable to meet the FAR; no matter what, he would have had to be here for a Variance on the FAR. Commissioner Corbett asked how long it would take to fill this facility or to become stable. Mr. Heilman replied that the pro-forma is roughly three years. However, their facilities in Blaine and Burnsville the lease up was less than two years. Mr. Heilman concluded by stating that the stormwater report obviously works for all of the regulations and they are not changing anything other than what is existing. They are maintaining the water on their site because of their development. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 13 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson suggested that the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance be considered separately; and that the Variance be considered first. Commissioner Noonan agreed since the outcome of the decision on the Variance may necessitate modification to the plans under the Conditional Use Permit. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that if the Commission were to deny the Variance, technically they should deny the Conditional Use Permit because they are intertwined with each other. Commissioner Noonan replied that they could only deny the Variance. A CUP cannot be denied; it can only have conditions imposed upon it. Commissioner Noonan stated that if the Variance is denied, then the Commission could table the Conditional Use Permit. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-20 VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS IN GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED HEREIN, NOTED AS FOLLOWS: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant Variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this Variance to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses; and therefore the City hereby finds the proposed personal self-storage project is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three -part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 13 Commissioner Noonan added that he had considerable difficulty finding the ‘practical difficulty’ in this instance. The last comment of the applicant was quite telling; the only reason they were pursuing the floor area they had, and therefore the Variance, was because it did not work from an economic point of view. That is not a basis for approving a Variance. Either the city has a Zoning Ordinance or they do not, that applies across the board. He has sensitivity to the discussions on intensity but it is also massing as well. For the reasons being is that the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are very clear and have been very clear from day 1. In this case of Variance of 1.25 he finds is beyond what is reasonable in this consideration. Commissioner Petschel stated that the argument that other cities do not have a similar requirement does not hold any water. It looks like fine project and he does not disagree with the project; however, the Commission cannot change the ordinance through a Variance. Especially since they have been nick picked in court over their own code and their own procedural application of that code. Given that there was not even an attempt to offer a practical difficulty other than they need this to make money, he could not support it. Chair Magnuson stated that she personally could see where this is one of those situations – it reminds her a little bit of schools in a residential zone where there is a requirement in place that seems to be perhaps no longer necessary or potentially outdated and that is creating a hang up. The fact of the matter is that it exists. She asked, time wise what would it take if there was any inclination to change that code to either modify the FAR or eliminate entirely, and would that pose a significant time problem for this application. Mr. Benetti replied that currently the applicant’s action deadline was set for October 6, 2019; they are still within the first 60-day rule under this application. It could be extended another 60 days or they could provide a letter stating that they waive the statutory review period. In the meantime, if they wish to come back and apply for an amendment to the code – they could easily come in and they would like to have the FAR restricted or they could amend their own CUP standards to allow for a higher FAR. Chair Magnuson stated that she would be more comfortable changing the code if the code needs to be changed, rather than trying to work around a long-standing standard by Variance. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed with Chair Magnuson’s comment about issuing Variances where the code if flawed; it would be better to amend/correct the flawed code. The FAR does not match up with the other requirements within the code. He then asked if there was a FAR standard in the Business District (no), is there one in the High-Density Residential District (no), so why is it here. His argument is that it either should not be here or it should be a number that is consistent with 50% lot coverage and a height of 30-45-feet. The FAR is inconsistent with the rest of the code. That is the practical difficulty. Therefore, he would not support the motion for denial. He would support either granting this Variance or a tabling so there could be a code amendment to change or eliminate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard from the Industrial Zone. AYES: 3 (Noonan, Petschel, Magnuson) NAYS: 3 (Mazzitello, Corbett, Toth) ABSTAIN: 1 (Katz) August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 13 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO TABLE THIS ENTIRE APPLICATION UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER 2019 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DURING WHICH TIME STAFF IS INSTRUCTED, OR THE APPLICANT IS INSTRUCTED, TO COME UP WITH A CODE AMENDMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE CODE TO ALTER THE FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD AND REQUEST THE APPLICANT ENTERTAIN AN EXTENSION OR WAIVE THE STATUTORY REVIEW PERIOD AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2019-23 GARLAND’S INC. / JBT LLC, 2240 ENTERPRISE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for OUTDOOR SALE LOT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Garland’s Inc. is purchasing the former Manna Freight property, located at 2440 Enterprise Drive. They wish to relocate their headquarters and their main distribution center. Garland’s Inc. is a distributor of pre-made casters, wheels, shelving units, hand-carts, and a wide variety of material handling products for commercial/industrial based businesses. They are requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an outdoor sales lot to display their very small box trailers, or job-site trailers. This would be under a new enclosed fenced-in area. This item was presented under a public hearing and notice was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments of objections have been received. The property is zoned I-Industrial, is 3.33 acres in size, and contains a 31,320 square foot office/warehouse building. This office/warehouse building would become the new office/headquarters/distribution center for Garland’s Inc. The office space consists of two floors with 5,874 square feet on each level. The first floor office space would be used by 20 employees and the upstairs office space would be converted into a new showroom space. The back warehouse area is approximately 18,512 square feet in size. There are currently 62 parking spaces on the lot with seven (7) loading bays and one (1) at grade bay on the backside. The initial plan that was submitted by the applicant showed a new fence coming in off of the mid-point of the building and back to the rear property line. Storage of trailers would be on the outside. Mr. Benetti shared images showing the types of box trailers or job-site trailers that would be stored on the site. Garland’s Inc. does not manufacture the trailers, they broker them. The customer comes to them and asks for these type of trailers through direct sales or Internet sales. August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 13 Open sales lots do require a CUP and are defined as “land devoted to the display of goods for sale, rent, lease, or trade where such goods are not enclosed within a building”. Garland’s Inc. plans to utilize only the rear portion of the property for the storage/display of the trailers. Staff raised the question early on if these trailers constituted a “vehicle” under this land use category. After discussing this question with the Police Department and researching definitions under the Minnesota State Statues, they discovered that a ‘trailer’ on its own is not considered a ‘vehicle of transportation’ as it does not have the capability to move or travel on its own power. The applicant did share with staff images of fencing on the front of the site; however, Mr. Benetti would like to see fencing on the northwest side as well and asked for the Commission’s opinion on that. The rear of the property does contain an old railroad right-of-way bed that has been vacant for a number of years. It is also heavily landscaped on the opposite site. There may not be any need for screening; however, for security reasons fencing should be considered. Again, Mr. Benetti reviewed the criteria to be met in the granting of a CUP (Title 12-1L-6): a. Not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community b. Nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards c. Nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d. That the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan Commissioner Noonan noted that Condition 2 recommended all new fencing be black vinyl coated chain-linked fencing; yet the images shared were board-on-board. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed the board-on-board would be too much for the front edge; he believed the black chain- link fencing would probably work better. He recommended that the whole fencing area be replaced with the black chain-link fencing with decorative (insertable) slats. Commissioner Mazzitello, referring to the fencing ordinance code amendment recently passed, asked if the city requires fencing on industrial lots. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative; only if they are adjacent to residential are they required to have fencing. Mr. Bob Smith, one of three brothers that own Garland’s Inc., came forward. He stated that Garland’s Inc. is currently headquartered in Minneapolis, with locations in Minneapolis; Burnsville; Des Moines, IA; Denver, CO; and Green Bay, WI. They are one of the top five distributors of material handling products in the United States; they are very good at what they do. They believe it would be a very good addition to their company to move to Mendota Heights. Commissioner Toth noted that he looked at their website and it did not identify trailer sales as of yet. He asked if this was a new entity that they are building into their market, building into Mendota Heights. Mr. Smith replied that this is a new product line and they feel that it will add to their current product line. Commissioner Toth then asked if they would be selling used trailers or could a potential buyer trade-in their old trailer for a new one. Mr. Smith replied that they are not planning on doing that; their focus is on selling of new trailers. Their emphasis is to not sell junk; there would not be piles of junk in their yard. August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 13 Commissioner Corbett asked if the two runs of fencing that was included in their original proposal and not as a recommendation, was that born from them or born from their work with the city. Mr. Smith replied that they asked the city what they thought and they thought it would be a good idea to fence in the front and the sides. Commissioner Corbett asked if they had a genuine security concern. Mr. Smith replied that security is a concern. The backside is all wooded so they assumed a fence would not be necessary. The missing fencing on the west side was because he simply forgot to put it in there. They would be more than willing to put a fence there is the city believed it would be a good recommendation. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for confirmation that if someone wanted to steal a trailer, the only logical way they are going to get it out is through a locked gate. Mr. Smith confirmed. The back wooded area is heavily overgrown and would be very difficult for anyone to even walk back there. Chair Magnuson asked how they would feel about putting a fence back there. Mr. Smith replied that if the Commission and staff recommended it, they would do it. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-23 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The parking and display of any new trailers at this location will be confined only to the fenced-in area and in the space(s) noted on the Site Plan submitted under Planning Application No. 2019-23 and presented in this Planning Report. No trailers will be allowed to be stored at any time outside the fenced-in lot or any unpaved (grass) areas of the subject property. 2. All new fencing shall be black vinyl coated chain-linked fencing, with decorative inserts for added screening measures, and must be a minimum of 6-feet in height at all locations. 3. The Applicant shall provide additional fencing along the northwest corner and along the north (back) line of the property. 4. A fence permit shall be required for the installation of the new fence. 5. Any new sign(s) proposed under this development plan must meet the standards of City Code Title 12-1D-15: Signs. No temporary signs, special sales event signs, flags, balloons, August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 13 pennants or similar attention attracting devices will be allowed or permitted for the promotion, advertisement, or sale of trailers at this location. 6. The Applicant agrees to install a “Knox-box” or similar key/switch feature for fire and police emergency access on the outside of the gate/fence area. AND THE ADDED CONDITION: 7. The site be enclosed with screening fencing. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 3, 2019 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: Planning Case 2019-21 Andy & Natalie Hunter, 1175 Orchard Place Critical Area Permit Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case 2019-22 Tim & Jessica Carlson, 2319 Swan Drive Conditional Use Permit Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Besides the Metro Storage application, next month the Planning Commission will be reviewing and application from ISD #197 - Somerset Elementary for a Variance - added building height. Chair Magnuson asked for a status update on the ordinance changes for schools located in residentially zoned areas. Mr. Benetti replied that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan needs to be adopted first. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan is still in the jurisdictional review period. Staff has heard from four or five of the jurisdictional (there are 22) and will be sending out reminders for soon, even if the response is ‘no comment’. The 6-month review period ends December 11, 2019. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:28 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0