Loading...
2019-11-26 Planning Comm MinutesNovember 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 26, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Absent: John Mazzitello. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 24, 2019 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2019-28 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Metro Storage, LLC has requested a follow-up to their previous applications for the Conditional Use Permit and Variance on a personal self-storage facility in the Industrial Park. In this particular case, they are asking for a simple line amendment to Title 12-1G-2 Subsection H regarding Floor Area Ratio (FAR). This item was presented under a public hearing process. Mr. Benetti reminded the Commission that the FAR is defined or determined as the numerical value taken through dividing the floor area of the building or buildings by the lot area. In the case of the Metro Storage, LLC their building was to be 118,000 square foot building, which equated to a FAR of 1.24 and the current ordinance is that any facility shall not exceed 0.5. Mr. Benetti reminded the Commission of recent history involving Metro Storage, LLC: • January 22 and February 26, 2019 – zoning ordinance amendment to remove “self-storage” from the list of prohibited uses in the Industrial zone; along with a related amendment to allow such use with certain standards – RECOMMENDED DENIAL November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 9 o City Council elected to adopt Ordinance No. 538 removing “Personal Self-Storage Facility” from the list of prohibited uses and allow under a Conditional Use Permit • August 27, 2019 – Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow for a self-storage facility in the Industrial zone and to exceed the maximum FAR from 0.5 to 1.24 – TABLED • September 24, 2109 – separate recommendation to strike-out the FAR from the Industrial District Ordinance which would make the Variance request unnecessary. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE CUP only if the strike-out of the FAR was approved by City Council. • October 2, 2019 – City Council tabled the adoption of Ordinance No. 545, which would remove the FAR from the Industrial Zone, along with the CUP request to a workshop meeting • October 28, 2109 – City Council Workshop Meeting – consensus was to keep the FAR intact • November 6, 2019 – City Council DENIED Ordinance No. 545 which would have removed the FAR from the Industrial District Ordinance Metro Storage, LLC is now requesting that the FAR in the Industrial Zone not exceed 1.25, thereby allowing them to construct their proposed 3-story 118,000 square foot self-storage facility. Mr. Benetti shared where self-storage uses are allowed in the surrounding communities, whether by permit, by CUP, or no restrictions. He also shared the FAR standards from said communities. It should be noted that this requested amendment would only apply to personal self-storage uses in the district and would not change or impact the current 0.5 FAR standard for other industrial uses in the district. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request remains a tabled item. Commissioner Noonan requested background on the Council’s decision to deny the removal of the FAR from the zoning ordinance. Mr. Benetti replied that some of the comments were that they felt changes were not needed at this time. It had been on the books for a number of years and most of the current uses were under the 0.5 threshold, except for a couple. Overall consensus (3-2) was that the FAR did not need to be removed or changed for this use or any other. Commissioner Noonan then made note of their discussion that typical zoning standards (parking, height, setbacks, landscaping) were sufficient controls and that the FAR was unnecessary. Also, that the nature of self-storage makes anything less than three stories unfeasible. Commissioner Noonan then asked, in terms of the Council discussion, Council took the action to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning to eliminate the prohibition against self-storage facilities. By that action, the whole notion of a self-storage was sanctioned by Council. Mr. Benetti agreed and then he paraphrased a number of other comments that were made. A few of the Councilmembers said that had they known that was use would have required such a higher FAR, they never would have voted favorably for that use to be brought in. However, staff and the Commission were not talking about the FAR at that point, they were talking about the use itself. They did not know the details of what the applicant’s plan was going to be. Mr. Benetti did not want to muddy the water of the original request – which was did the city want to allow this use in the Industrial zone. The Commission originally denied the request; however, the City Council approved it with a Conditional Use Permit. November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 9 When the use came back to the Commission, the CUP was easily met except for the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). When discussing, the logical step that the Commission took was to remove the FAR from the ordinance and thereby negating the need for a Variance. Staff assumed that Council would accept that recommendation; however, three out of the five Councilmembers disagreed. Commissioner Noonan stated that the Commission has the very narrow choice of either adopting a zoning standard that takes the FAR up to 1.25 or deny it; and then the Variance comes back. Mr. Benetti confirmed and said that if the Commission recommends denial of this request to increase the FAR for self-storage facilities and the Council upholds that decision, then the Variance request would have to come back to the Planning Commission if the applicant so chooses. Chair Magnuson stated that she watched the City Council meeting and she understood that the Council denied the Commission’s recommendation to eliminate the FAR. She noted that their decision was to not eliminate or change the FAR and keep it at 0.5. She asked if the Commission was to recommend adoption of the code amendment to change the FAR – she was afraid to put this applicant in the position of being in the middle of a ping-pong match with them as the ball. She asked what the likelihood was realistically of this going forward. Mr. Benetti replied that the sentiment he got from the workshop meeting was although there were some councilmembers that still favor the use; most seemed unwilling to support the elimination of the 0.5 FAR standard in the Industrial District. Mr. Benetti further stated the Council ultimately decided at the following council meeting to reject the proposed amendment, thereby leaving the 0.5 FAR standard intact. The Council also suggested planning staff and the city attorney work with the applicant to see if there were any other options or ideas to present at a future meeting. Staff did look at the ordinances and discovered that there are other uses that have specific standards that do allow for flexible allowances like this. He reiterated that the ordinance request would apply only to this specific use. Commissioner Petschel stated that the fact that the Commission is having to change the rules should not negate entirely a Variance because they basically would be admitting this project cannot pass the current standards. The last time they were in they were pretty honest and made no attempt to describe a practical difficulty. The rules did not make their business work. Commissioner Katz asked how they came up with the 1.25; there was discussion based on other models of what is the right number to use. Mr. Benetti replied that their number for the Variance was 1.24; and it was suggested that if 1.25 would work for the Applicant, they should make it 1.25. He also suggested that if they wanted to do a higher number they could do so; however, it is important that when people apply for a Variance, you do not ask for more than what you need or desire. The 1.25 basically meets their current 1.24 for this need. Commissioner Katz asked, given the amount of space that is available for future self-storage units, if someone else does want to come in and construct their own self-storage facility does the city have any numbers about what other storage facilities and their FAR calculations are. Meaning if this goes through and another self-storage use wants to come in; they are now stuck with this 1.25 November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 9 FAR and if they want/need more, then they have to go through this same process. Mr. Benetti replied that this was a valid question as there are a lot of ‘what ifs’ built in that question. If someone were to come in with a request for a self-storage facility, their impacts are the same as what Metro Storage had to go through. They are limited by their footprint, setbacks, parking setbacks, landscaping, open space requirements, etc. If that site is bigger or smaller, they still have to maintain the height requirement, the FAR of 1.25, the 50% building footprint threshold and the 25% the open space. Commissioner Noonan stated that if a second user identifies a site in the Industrial Park and they elect to bring forward a self-storage, but it is a much larger site that this one, they are still tied to the 1.25 FAR. However, theoretically the Commission could hear them coming forward and saying that they have a larger site and they need to make their economics work; 1.25 does not give them the critical mass to justify it and they want to do an amendment to take it up to 2.00 for their site. So, this becomes a slippery slope. Commissioner Corbett raised his concern of having an applicant driven amendment opening the door to others. He asked if there was a way to word the amendment so that the raising of the FAR applies to all rather than to a specific applicant/use. Mr. Benetti replied that he believes that to be a good option; however, right now this is what the applicant was requesting. Questions were bantered back and forth about the consequences of recommending approval or denial of the request, potential consequences if the Council were to approve or deny, and Metro Storages next steps if the request was denied by Council. Mr. Jim Walston, attorney for Metro Storage, came forward and stated that he did not have anything to add that hadn’t already been discussed. He believed that after working with staff and the City Attorney they came up with an objective resolution for the zoning ordinance. The Commission asked questions about the footprint of the facility the Councilmembers toured in Burnsville and the similarities of that building to the proposed, and Mr. Heilman’s recollection about the Council discussions. No new information was provided that had not already been shared. Chair Magnuson noted that she was uncomfortable about sending this back to Council and then asked if the Council thought that 1.25 was too much of a jump from 0.5, was there any way that Metro Storage could construct their building. Mr. Heilman replied that there is always a way to do it; however, he would have to go back and work with their acquisitions people to understand metrics to justify anything like that. What he would go back to is that the zoning regulations allow a building of this size. The zoning code and the FAR are in conflict with the remainder of the code. This same building could be built but with only one floor, as opposed to two or three stories. The mass would still be the same, so this is not a mass discussion. It really comes down to intensity. Based on the way they operate they are such a low intensity that FAR does not make sense with their use. This same conflict would be brought up if they had to have a discussion about a Variance. Chair Magnuson asked Commissioner Noonan if the idea of massing was really population or was it density. Commissioner Noonan replied that the massing concern relates to the elimination of the FAR across the entire industrial area. In terms of the floor area and the massing, if they wanted to November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 9 follow the zoning and the FAR, they could build the same ‘box’ with the only difference being that instead of three floors, there would only be one floor with a clear span of 40-50-60 feet, which does not meet the consumer storage facility model. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 552 BY THE INSERTION OF NEW SECTION H WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR ANY FACILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.25 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 3, 2019 meeting. General Planning Items A) PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF NEW ORDINANCE REGULATING THE TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR PRESCRIBED GRAZING AND NOXIOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff requested feedback on creating a new ordinance to Cite Code regulating the temporary keeping of goats for prescribed grazing and invasive/noxious vegetation management on properties in Mendota Heights. A few years ago, the City provided for some goats at the Pilot Knob park area to help control some of the buckthorn and other weeds that were growing up there, which they did a great job. He spoke to colleagues in other cities and they had success using goats to keep down the buckthorn and other unwanted vegetation. Most of the cities he polled allow for two permits per year, one in the spring and one in the fall. They are 30-day permits that can be extended for other additional periods, depending on how infested the site might be. These permits would allow for a professional licensed company to provide goats to a property, property owners, or homeowners association. This professional would fence the goats in, feed them, watch over them, provide shelter and then they would remove them after the permit period is over; then bring them back a second time. Mr. Benetti noted that Council had expressed concerns when they rented goats about the fecal matter not being too close to water bodies. He suggested a 25-foot no disturbance buffer as far as November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 9 the goats are concerned; however, people could go into that area and control the noxious vegetation. Chair Magnuson stated that, as the understood, the process would be that if the Commission had any suggestions or input that they should provide direction. Otherwise, staff would work on an ordinance and bring it back to the Commission for review and approval. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that the goats are not brought in and taken out on a daily basis. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then asked for confirmation that an area of 10,000 square feet could house four goats, and then they could add one goat per X number of square feet. Mr. Benetti confirmed. He then asked if it would be reasonable for a standard Mendota Heights lot. He understood how feasible it could be for a significantly large lot. Mr. Benetti replied that the intent was that staff would carve out the area where this would be needed. For instance, if someone had a regular sized lot with a yard and landscaping but the back one-third was overgrown or wooded, then staff would classify that area only as the area the goats could be in. Commissioner Noonan then asked how the goats are restricted to just that area. It was explained that the company providing the goats would have the entire area where the goats could be fenced in with an electric fence. Commissioner Katz asked about potential noise nuisance to his neighbors. Mr. Benetti replied that currently the city and staff are at an advantage as they can find out what works and what does not work. He has already been told by one community that they have 6-foot high fence allowance. They just realized that a goat cannot eat over a 6-foot high fence, so they need to bring that back down. Some permits require the neighbors to be informed and agree to allow this to come in. Commissioner Katz then asked about the installation of the fences. Mr. Benetti replied that he and staff had no concerns because it is temporary and permitted under the temporary goat grazing permit. Goats are herd animals and even if one were to get out somehow, they are not likely to run off. They stay close to the herd. Also, the company supplying the goats come and check on them daily. Commissioner Petschel asked how often the coyotes get them. Mr. Benetti replied that there have been a few massacres with the chicken coops. It could be an issue, but the benefit is that they are fenced in and hopefully the coyotes would not get in. He did has not heard of it being an issue. In response to the waste generated by the goats, Mr. Benetti replied that it is small pellets and it is easier to just leave it alone. It is next to impossible to pick it up in these areas. This is one of the reasons for the 25-foot buffer between the goats and water bodies. Commissioner Noonan asked if the city was limiting itself by only allowing goats. He asked if there were other grazing animals that could work just as well. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed people were looking at sheep as well, but goats were more manageable and acceptable. Cows are too big. November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Noonan stated that he understood that staff may go through the exercise as geographically defined areas where this would work and where it would not work. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Permits would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Katz asked if they needed to look at the critical area in another way if they decided to go with this. Mr. Benetti replied that the DNR views buckthorn and other noxious vegetation as something that can go. They have no issues with goats taking out buckthorn, even though it thrives in those environments; however, people want to get rid of it. Commissioner Noonan asked if there were obligations of the landowner to revegetate and stabilize the area once the goats have done their job. Mr. Benetti replied that it usually revegetates itself afterwards. Chair Magnuson stated that the Commissioners would provide feedback, suggestions, and other questions to Mr. Benetti in regard to the permitting of goats for buckthorn and noxious plant removal. Commissioner Toth noted that the City of Eagan had a really nice goat grazing ordinance. Mr. Benetti agreed and stated that Burnsville has a nice one too. Commissioner Noonan thought it would be interesting to know the frequency of permits being pulled as well – on an annual basis. Commissioner Toth asked if there would be any fees to the city when a company comes in. Mr. Benetti replied that the only cost to the city would be if they hired a company to bring goats in for a specific area. All fees are encumbered by the applicant. B) PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF A NEW ORDINANCE REGULATING ADULT USE ESTABLISHMENTS AND SEXUAL ORIENTED BUSINESSES IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this discussion stemmed from a phone inquiry from outside resident wanting to bring in a male stripper review or business. He discovered that the city’s ordinance does not address this. He has had city attorneys tell him that if it is not in the ordinance, then it is not allowed. However, a number of years ago the Supreme Court decided that adult businesses are a protected right and cities have to allow them in somewhere. The city has to at least provide for the opportunity for them to come into the community or a local government unit. The city has a right to place any type of higher reasonable standards. In the early 2000’s the League of Minnesota Cities provided a model ordinance for cities to adopt, and many cities throughout the metro and statewide adopted ordinances regulating such uses. However, the City of Mendota Heights never created or adopted a similar ordinance. When Mr. November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 9 Benetti received the phone call, he approached City Administrator Mark McNeill to devise a way to be proactive on this rather than reactive. After discussions with various individuals and with City Attorney Andrew Pratt, it was discovered that Minnesota State Statute 617.242 may not be enough to eliminate or preclude such uses from the city. Therefore, staff approached City Council, who then adopted Ordinance No. 546, a 12- month Interim Ordinance Placing a Temporary Moratorium on Adult Use Establishments & Sexually Oriented Businesses. This was done to allow staff the time necessary to research and prepare information for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider creating a new ordinance that regulates such uses in the community. Mr. Benetti noted that there are other ordinances and language in those ordinances that can be reviewed/used in this ordinance. Chair Magnuson noted a possible typographical error in Ordinance No. 546 and included massage establishments as needing regulation. Mr. Benetti replied that the city reviewed and tweaked the message therapy licensing ordinance just a few months ago and this moratorium does not affect them at all. Commissioner Katz noted that another city dealt with not only adult establishments, but with pawn shops and licensed firearms at the exact same time. He then asked if Mendota Heights would be considering these as well. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Chair Magnuson shared her thoughts by stating that Mendota Heights is predominantly a residential city with small pockets of commercial zones and a small industrial park. So, her recommendation would be, when looking at other ordinances, it would be helpful to look at ordinances adopted by other cities that are similarly situated to Mendota Heights that are predominantly residential with very few areas where these businesses could legitimately exist. She also hoped that the City Council would approve the ability of Mr. Benetti working closely with the City Attorney in crafting the ordinance. Her personal opinion was that the city could not regulate content, but they can regulate time, place, and matter and she would just as soon regulate it to a point of as far as the city could go and not cross the line. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving, safe travels, and get snowplows ready. Chair Magnuson reminded everyone that the next Planning Commission meeting would be on Thursday, December 19 at 7:00 p.m. due to the Christmas Holiday. Mr. Benetti noted that for that evening, the developer of The Village lots would be presenting their concept plan for Planning Commission review and feedback. They also plan to hold a Public Informational Meeting on December 5. November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 9 Adjournment COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:23 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0