Loading...
2019-12-19 Planning Comm MinutesDecember 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 15 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 19, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Thursday, December 19, 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, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, and Michael Toth Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of November 26, 2019 Minutes COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 26, 2019 AYES: 3 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (MAZZITELLO) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2019-30 GRAND REAL ESTATE ADVISORS - CITY-OWNED LOTS IN THE VILLAGE CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW – MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Commission was being asked to provide an unofficial concept plan review for the Grand Real Estate Advisors (GREA) out of St. Paul. They are requesting this concept plan for the city-owned property known as The Village Lots located at Dodd Road, Maple Street, and Linden Street. The official address is 725 Linden Street and 735 Maple Street. The public hearing for this concept plan review was posted and published in the local newspapers and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 1/4 mile of the subject property. Development Background • Subject properties consist of four parcels and are guided and zoned MU-PUD Mixed Use • A part of a foreclosure proceeding, the City acquired the ownership rights to these four undeveloped parcels • The city received a proposal from Trammel-Crow group to develop a 5-story, 150-unit senior luxury apartment building; however, the Council elected not to proceed with a proposed Letter of Intent to purchase and the developer withdrew their request • The city fielded a number of other inquiries and request from various developers; staff requested direction from the Council December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 15 • Early 2019, staff received permission to prepare an official Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting development ideas or plan from local development groups • After consideration at a workshop meeting, the Council invited two groups to make a brief presentation of their plans, which were presented on June 4, 2019 • After deliberation, the City Council chose GREA as the preferred developer of the city owned lots • A Letter of Intent and Purchase Agreement of $1,110,000.00 from GREA was later accepted by the City Council Project Description • New 47-unit market-rate apartment building for seniors (55+) age-restricted housing • Units will range from 1-bedroom units at approximately 810 square feet to 950 square feet size; 2- bedroom units 1,000 to 1,350 square feet in size; and 2-bedroom + den units up to approximately 1,500 square feet in size • On-site amenities include a community room, fitness center, and private terrace • The plan includes a 4,700 square foot sit-down restaurant with an outdoor seating patio area • Includes a 1,757 square foot co-working space for residents and outside visitors/tenants • L-shaped 3-story building with a total gross square footage of approximately 108,573 square feet, with a single-story footprint of 28,403 square feet • Access to the site will be from Maple Street to the south and from Linden Street to the east (no access is planned or requested directly from or onto Dodd Road) • Apartment complex will have 25 surface parking spaces and 67 underground parking spaces; the restaurant will provide 41 spaces; for a total of 133 parking spaces for the development • The area north of the apartment complex will not be developed and is intended to serve as a natural buffer space between the Linden Lofts Condo Development and this project Concept Plan Review Process • Since this development is not creating a new Planned Unit Development (PUD), a concept plan review is not necessary • However, to obtain and note any initial thoughts, concerns, comments, suggestions, and likes on the project, staff and the developer agreed it was a good idea to have the Planning Commission hold this review Mr. Benetti shared an image of the various land uses in The Village and the location of the lots under consideration as they relate to surrounding streets, elevations and look of the proposed building (inside and out), access points, landscaping plans, parking areas, typical vehicle movement paths, and location of the amenities inside. A Neighborhood Meeting was held by the developer on Thursday, December 5 at Mendakota Country Club. The meeting was well attended, and the developer received a number of positive comments and addressed concerns and issues. Commissioner Mazzitello requested the parking calculations for the restaurant and the office. Mr. Benetti replied that he was unable to provide that at this time because he did not know how many seats are being provided for in the restaurant. The developer may have an idea or that knowledge. Developer Presentation Mr. Judd Fenlon, owner of Grand Real Estate Advisors, gave the same presentation to the Council that was presented at the Neighborhood Meeting on December 5, 2019. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 15 • Project Partners: o Mr. Judd Fenlon, Mr. Brian Kippers, Mr. Steve Norton, and Mr. Paul Dzubnar • Project Amenities: o Easy access to a number of amenities o Proximity to the current trail and ability to better connect that trail and the surrounding neighborhoods o Lots of green space; including the buffer on the north end of the site o 55+ age group is a critical component and in high demand o Smaller size (47 units) is nice from a community standpoint o Amenities play an important role in creating community connections o Offer housing types for people who have raised their families in Mendota Heights and who want to continue to live there o The Village is a popular amenity o Ability to draw in the Dodd Road frontage by installing a good, full service, family-style restaurant option • Building Amenities: o First floor  Main entrance with large lobby  Soft seating  Coffee bar  Co-working space  Wellness Center / Workout Room / Hydration Station  Restrooms  Restaurant  Some living spaces o Second floor  Large community room  Rooftop terrace for residents  Living spaces o Third floor  Living spaces o Lower (underground level)  Parking spaces  Shop room  Dog washing station • Exterior Design o Intent is to blend in with the architecture already in The Village o Sloped roof o Break up the length of the building  Using a combination of gable roofs and hip roofs  Incorporating balconies and the support for the balconies in a way that articulates the face of the building o Provide the restaurant with its own architecture  Stone  Outdoor patio space with a small roof (weather coverage and noise mitigation) o Materials would include  Brick and stone, vertical board and batten siding, shakes and lap siding that would be hearty materials December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 15 Chair Magnuson asked for the proposed seating capacity of the restaurant. Mr. Fenlon replied that the anticipation is approximately 130-140 seats. Chair Magnuson noted that the restaurant would be open to the public and that the co-working station would be as well. She then asked if the co-working station would be based on membership. Mr. Fenlon replied that it would be based on monthly passes. Chair Magnuson stated that she was not seeing any type of security between the public spaces and the living spaces. Mr. Fenlon replied that they have discussed this quite a bit and noted that there is a door that will be controlled access. Residents within the building will have a key fob to get to and from the restaurant without going outside; however, patrons of the restaurant will not be able to open that door. Chair Magnuson asked about installing a similar type door on the other side of the lobby in the hallway. Mr. Fenlon replied that there is one there as well. Chair Magnuson asked if the fitness center was only available for residents. Mr. Fenlon replied that it would be available for residents as well as members of the co-working space. She then asked what they plan to do about noise, vapors, etc. for the 2-bedroom +den unit directly above the restaurant, adjacent to the community room. Mr. Fenlon replied that there will be a shaft that goes from the kitchen up all of the way through the roof; the exhaust for the kitchen equipment. They will not be venting out the side wall and having it make its way up the side of the building. From experience he has found that venting up through the roof is the best and only way to go to mitigate those concerns. As for noise, the shell of the restaurant space will be built out of a concrete block and additionally there are sound mats and noise mitigation that can go on the underside and top side of the deck. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for the staffing level of the restaurant. Mr. Fenlon replied that he did not know the answer to that question, but he would ask Mr. Dzubnar and get back to him Commissioner Mazzitello then asked if they would be comfortable providing an estimate or range on that number for the Conditional Use Permit application and showing those parking requirements for what they are proposing versus what is codified. Mr. Fenlon replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Katz had questions about the parking – the calculations for the parking that come into from the different businesses as there are going to be multiple businesses besides the residents. He noted the planned underground parking of approximately 67 stalls and asked if that was restricted to only residents. Mr. Fenlon replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Katz explained that he did not understand where the parking would be for the patrons of the restaurant as well as the co-working space. Mr. Fenlon replied that there are two surface lots with a total of 64 parking spaces. There is also on-street parking along Maple and Linden and proximity to a public parking ramp. Commissioner Katz then asked if they felt comfortable, based on the number of patrons anticipated for the restaurant, the staff, and employees, and their previous experience, that there would be ample parking. Mr. Fenlon replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Katz noted that he had heard some concerns, based on emergency vehicle use or the ability to get around these tight spaces, that they are tighter. Mr. Fenlon replied that, as Mr. Benetti alluded to, they did a plan that showed both how a semi-trailer as well as an emergency vehicle would make it through the lot. There are some adjustments that they are going to need to do to some of the islands to make those movements easier. Chair Magnuson stated that she was not concerned about the density of the apartment complex; however, the restaurant is what complicates the parking for her. If they are looking at 130-150 seats in the restaurant, and if it proves to be a popular busy spot, they are going to be looking at some parking issues. She encouraged them to look at that and plan to address those with more specific details in their application. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 15 Commissioner Petschel stated that one thing he has noticed in that area, and it might simply come down to signage, is that there are parking patterns for people who basically only want to park in that central corridor around the park. There is parking behind the buildings and they will not go to it; they will just orbit around that interior area thinking that is the only parking available. Meanwhile, all of the spots in the back of the building or underground are empty. Commissioner Mazzitello requested, with the preponderance of the parking being off the lot of the restaurant, and he was sure their engineers and architects are giving thought to pedestrian connectivity crossing Linden and Maple, that these are shown on their plans. They are going to lose some on-street parking crossing Maple right across from the restaurant and there are codified parking distances from crosswalks. They should make sure that is all taken into account. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Mr. Brad Wallace, 715 Linden Street, lives just north of the proposed development. He noted that the developers have been very gracious about working with their homeowner’s association and for the most part, the homeowner’s association is supportive of the project. The only issue that seems to come up is parking. The neighbors are worried that the parking is going to overflow to those areas where the townhomes are. The on-street parking there is residential parking. If there was some way to work out restricted parking up that way, in front of those townhomes, it would ease a lot of minds. Commissioner Petschel asked if he was referring to permitted parking. Mr. Nelson replied that he was referring to some type of signage, not permitted parking. Chair Magnuson asked if those units had underground parking. Mr. Wallace replied in the affirmative and stated that both the condominiums and the townhomes have underground parking; however, they do not have any guest parking. Guests typically park on the street. Commissioner Katz asked if he felt it was pretty busy during the day with a lot of guest parking along the street and most of those spaces are taken. Mr. Wallace replied that sometimes it is very busy but other times it is not. If there is any type of event or holiday gathering, the parking becomes very busy. Mr. Judd Hanton, 1288 Aspen Way, noted that his question may be more for Public Works (which are terrific), asked about snow removal. He stated that there was mention made of snow removal. If this restaurant is as successful as everyone hopes, the whole issue of getting rid of snow is a big one because parking lots get smaller and the streets get narrower. Whatever the developer could do, in conjunction with Public Works, would be appreciated. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Mazzitello, based on public testimony, asked the applicant to provide an image of snow removal movements, similar to what they did showing truck and emergency vehicle movements, when they submit their application. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 15 Commissioner Katz asked them to entertain thoughts on taking the surface lot that is currently there and turning it into a multi-level ramp as this would possibly alleviate parking concerns. B) PLANNING CASE 2019-31 MATT & JEANNE KENEVAN, 774 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY CRITICAL AREA PERMIT & WETLANDS PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Matt & Jeanne Kenevan were seeking a Critical Area Permit & Wetlands Permit to install a new in-ground swimming pool with a patio/deck in their back yard. This property, 774 Sibley Memorial Highway, is located in the Mississippi River Critical Corridor and requires a Critical Area Permit. Also, because of its proximity to Ivy Falls Creek, it requires a Wetlands Permit. This item was presented under a public hearing process and everyone within 350 feet of the subject property were notified and it was published in the local newspaper. The city has received two letters of objection which were provided to the Commission and will be made part of the permanent record. In addition, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN-DNR) for review and comment. Ms. Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with MN-DNR replied that they have no comments or issues with this application. Mr. Benetti provided background on the subject property, which included the lot size and shape, information pertaining to the existing single-family dwelling, the zoning and use identified on the land use plan, driveways, and accessory structures. These developed portion of the lot takes up approximately one- fourth of the property with the remaining three-fourths being heavily impacted by bluffs and the adjacent Ivy Creek Falls water channel. The homeowners plan to install a new 20-foot by 36-foot in-ground swimming pool with a new concrete patio deck around the perimeter. They also plan to erect a 5-foot high decorative fence to enclose the pool area and a 30-foot by 30-foot seating area with retaining wall features. As mandated under the city’s Land Disturbance Guidelines and Surface Water Management Plan, they will be installing silt fencing for erosion control protection. There is a 20-foot wide permanent utility easement for an underground sanitary sewer main line that runs through the middle of the subject property that connects into the main line systems under Sibley Memorial Highway. The planned pool, fence, and patio areas do not impact this easement. However, there is an existing shed over the permanent easement boundary that staff has requested be removed or relocated out of the easement area. Mr. Benetti reviewed City Code Sections 12-2-1, 12-2-3, and 12-2-6 regarding the Wetland System ordinance, any work or development that would alter a wetland or water related resource area, and the purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. He further explained that all major construction activities related to the installation of the new pool and deck would be located far enough away from the Ivy Creek and adjacent wetland area and that this work would have little if any effect upon these adjacent water features. Mr. Benetti also reviewed the sections of the City Code relating to the Critical Area Permit Review; Sections 12-32, 12-3-5, 12-3-8. Since the plan also calls for a retaining wall, staff recommended a condition be added that the retaining wall must be of an approved native looking stone or wood materials. Mr. Benetti then reviewed how the plans and specifications of this new pool, fence, and deck area meets or exceeds the standards as outlined in the city ordinances. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 15 Commissioner Mazzitello asked, under the new Critical Area rules, is the 40-foot designation from the bluff line a buffer zone or a setback. Mr. Benetti replied that it is both, it is a buffer zone, but it is also a setback. Therefore, no Variance is required from the Critical Area setback standard. With respect to the Wetland Permit, Commissioner Mazzitello asked where the wetland edge was on the site plan. When Mr. Benetti pulled up the Sanitary Sewer Line Easement map, Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the creek was shown well in excess of 100 feet away from the structure. Mr. Benetti explained that on other aerial images it appeared to be a little bit more than what is shown on the easement map. Therefore, staff felt it was better to error on the side of caution and require the Wetland Permit. Commissioner Katz noted that his concern is always about the water and what they would do with the excess. He asked if this would be a saltwater pool. Mr. Benetti could not provide the answer; however, he did note that the city does not allow any pool water to be drained into any type of wetland or water feature. It has to be drained on the neighbor’s properties. The city does allow for some type of drainage out which would allow the chlorine to dissipate. One of the benefits of living in Minnesota is that most people do not drain their pools, they keep them full all year long because of the environment up here. Chair Magnuson noted receipt of a comment from a neighbor objecting to an exemption from the standards established for the Mississippi River Critical Area; she wanted to make it clear that the Commission was not considering any exemptions or waiver or Variance or anything like that. They were simply considering a permit, which is required for any construction within the Critical Area. Mr. Nick Oliver, with Performance Pools, stated that Mr. Benetti did a pretty good job explaining how they are mitigating water drainage. This is a saltwater pool. The actual drainage of pools in Minnesota occurs approximately every 12-15 years with the filtration that Performance Pools use. Mr. Matt Kenevan, the applicant, noted that one of the letters stated that they have had lots of parties. He explained that they have had one party in the last five years, and it was a second-grade fund raiser for a Catholic School. They are not party people. 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 PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-31 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT & WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed new swimming pool, patio/deck and retaining wall structures are reasonable and generally acceptable accessory uses of the subject property; and meets the general purpose and intent of the Code, including the location (setbacks) of the pool and retaining wall materials, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 15 2. The proposed construction activities related to the new pool project and allowed under this Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit meet the development standards and regulations provided under Title 12, Chapter 2, Wetlands and Chapter 3, Critical Area Overlay District of the City Code. 3. The proposed pool project will not affect or impact the general character of the neighborhood or the surrounding properties. 4. The proposed construction activities will be located in an area of the property that is generally open, thereby avoiding any loss of established trees or vegetation to complete the project; and the project does not require excessive grading work, which could potentially damage or impact the adjacent bluff areas or Ivy Falls Creek corridor. 5. New drainage swales around the outer perimeter of the pool will help alleviate any additional storm water run-off towards the Ivy Falls Creek water channel and bluff zones; and adequate erosion control measures will be required in order to safeguard the bluff and creek features. 6. City staff will closely monitor the subject site and ensure compliance with the city’s Land Disturbance Guidelines are met throughout the duration of the project; and all areas disturbed as part of this pool project will be restored after construction is completed. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and the Minnesota State Building Code regulations. 2. The new swimming pool and related structural work shall comply with all applicable standards and regulations noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems and Chapter 3, Critical Area Overlay District ordinances of the City Code. 3. No grading, vegetation removal, or construction activity will be allowed in the bluff impact zone or bluff areas. 4. Draining or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property only, and shall not drainage directly into the nearby bluff impact zone, bluff area or creek/wetland systems. 5. Any new excavating, grading and/or 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. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 6. The proposed retaining wall must be constructed of an approved native looking stone or wood material. 7. The shed located in the permanent utility easement must be removed or relocated outside the easement area. 8. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 9. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the pool project is completed. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 7, 2020 meeting. Unfinished Business (Planning Items) A) PLANNING CASE 2019-20 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE VARIANCE December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 15 Chair Magnuson noted that this is a case that they Commission has heard a number of times. There was a public hearing, which was closed. The Commission has tabled the matter; however, they have never had a public hearing on the Variance request. Mr. Benetti corrected her by explaining that the Commission did have a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance applications; however, the Variance portion was tabled. The Conditional Use Permit was forwarded on to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. The hearings for both items were closed at that time. The Commission is entitled to re-open the public hearing for the Variance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request for a Variance would allow Metro Storage, LLC to exceed the 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) standard up to 1.24. He further explained that the Conditional Use Permit was given favorable recommendation approval at the September 24, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Benetti then provided a quick background on the Metro Storage, LLC proposal to build a 3-story, 118,000 square foot, fully contained, secured self-storage facility in the city’s Industrial Park. There would no outdoor panels or doorways except for the access doors into the site. All storage would take place inside of the building itself. All architectural materials and setbacks are all being met per the Industrial Zoning. All of the parking is being met. The FAR is calculated as the interior floor space (all three floors) divided by the total area of the parcel (building area / lot area). The building footprint at approximately 39,270 square feet only represents a 41% coverage. The building height is still under 45 feet, all of the setbacks are being met. The floor area ratio of 1.24 is calculated as follows: 117,810 square foot building area / 95,920 lot area = 1.24. Mr. Benetti also provided a timeline of related application(s) and resulting council actions from May 28, 2019 through December 19, 2019. Because the FAR related amendments have been rejected by Council, the Planning Commission must give final consideration to the Variance that was originally tabled at the August 27 and September 24 meetings. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development with Metro Storage; Mr. Jim Walston, Land Use Professional; Mr. Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Heilman provided Metro Storage, LLC’s responses to the three-part variance test noted in City Code Section 12-1- 05: 1. Are there practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? a. FAR restrictions are generally used by cities to regulate the intensity of uses and to prevent ‘stacking’ that would cause a strain on neighborhood harmony, municipal services, traffic, and customer safety. The only other less intensive use, than a fully enclosed, aesthetically pleasing, and secure self-storage facility would be a cemetery. In this present application, the 0.5 FAR limitation is obsolete and creates a significant practical difficulty. b. Current self-storage facilities are designed to provide (a) an eco-friendly footprint, (b) a limited number of access points, (c) use of vertical stacking consistent with municipal height regulations, (d) an efficient utilization of horizontal and vertical demising walls as a security barrier. Simply put, Metro cannot construct the project any other way. As such, 0.5 FAR restriction is not a useful restrictive tool for the City to assure the comprehensive and permanent restrictions on a self-storage facility to be located in the industrial park 2. Are there circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? a. No. However, as stated in the variance application, the variance request is not due to any property characteristics, but is due to the inconsistency between the FAR restriction and the City’s Site and Structure Requirements 3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 15 a. No. Metro maintains that the essential character of the neighborhood would not be negatively affected. Commissioner Petschel asked when they say that the FAR is not appropriate for this use, would it be – maybe not charitable – but accurate to say it would not be economically reasonable to build a self-storage facility that fits the FAR for this site. Mr. Heilman replied that he would present it as part of the discussion. It is not THE reason. The practical difficulty is that the FAR is in conflict with the city’s code. Commissioner Petschel commented that they could take a story off and be in compliance with the FAR. Mr. Walston replied that in this whole project economics are a factor. After studying this and learning about all the other applications that Metro Storage has had across the United States, and the in-depth analysis on this, one really has to take a step back and look at the history of self-storage; how it started. That may have been overlooked. They have hinted at it before in discussing the text amendment; but here is how it works. Initially, self-storages were all horizontal outlays with everyone having their own garage door and they sprawled. Huge security problem with fencing, barbed wire, and guard dogs. Because of the security problem and crime issues, loitering, and vandalism, the current generation of self-storage units were developed. The horizontal sprawled units have gone vertical within municipal height limitations. By doing that and using the individual demising walls for each storage unit, they have created security for the other ones. Yes, it is economics; but the model for self-storage in the second decade of the 21st century is to have limited ingress and egress and to build vertical and have it all encapsulated. They could build one- or two- story stories, but that is not where the market is right now. Commissioner Petschel stated that he was in favor of this project and he agreed with all of their statements with respect to practical difficulty. However, he did not buy it as a justification for a variance. He was in favor of eliminating the FAR because he did not believe it worked. However, to say that the project does not work without getting rid of the FAR, without ignoring a particular rule, does not seem like a practical difficulty. From his point of view, the argument cannot be that the rule is stupid or obsolete, other cities around the area do not have the same rule, it does not make any sense – that cannot be an argument. Mr. Heilman stated that the way they look at it, the FAR is a regulator for intensity of use. This generation of self-storage facility has the lowest intensity use there is – by human utilization. Commissioner Petschel replied that another purpose of the FAR is to prevent density of construction inside of an area. This would mean that if they had a larger lot, they could build this. Mr. Heilman stated that this was correct, but it is also a regulator for the intensity of movement, infrastructure, and traffic to that property. Their argument is that their use, being as it is so quiet, that is why it becomes a practical difficulty for self-storage. Mr. Walston presented the log records from Metro Storage for the second week of September for the Burnsville facility. He summarized that the average number of customers there on a 14-hour day is just under 3 per hour. Mr. Heilman’s final parting comment was that they wanted to underscore that there were some concerns that they were trying to accomplish spot-zoning; that that they were telling the city what to do; trying to make a savvy business ploy by first applying for changing the zoning ordinance to allow this as a permitted use in the Industrial Park; and then moving forward with this variance request. The challenge they had was that they were not directed to provide samples of what the structure would look like. To the contrary, they were asked not to do that. It was after they had this that they moved forward with the FAR variance request last fall. Chair Magnuson noted that as she recalled, the application came in and the FAR issue arose a bit as an afterthought. And then it was suggested that a variance needed to be applied for. Mr. Heilman stated this was correct. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 15 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY METRO STORAGE, LLC. AYES: 3 (KATZ, PETSCHEL, MAGNUSON) NAYS: 1 (MAZZITELLO) Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, asked that the slide showing the applicant’s responses to the variance analysis. He then he stated that in viewing the minutes of the past he saw that the City Attorney provided a seminar to the Planning Commission back in May, specifically focused on variances. When he did that, he pointed out that for the granting of a variance one had to find a practical difficulty and that there was a three-factor test. One of the factors of the uniqueness required that the problem giving rise to a variance requests be due to circumstances unique to the property. He pointed out that the uniqueness had to relate to the physical characteristics of the property and not to other factors such as personal preferences of the landowner, as in this case the number of storage units. Also, at the August 27, 2019 meeting Chair Magnuson asked the applicants if they had given consideration to scaling back the size of the building; to which Mr. Heilman replied that he could not make the project economically viable if they were limited by the FAR. Commissioner Noonan at that meeting indicated that he had considerable difficulty with finding a practical difficulty because it was clear to him that the only reason for pursuit the variance was economic considerations and that there were not any physical characteristics relative to the property that provided any basis for a finding of uniqueness. Then with this December 13, 2019 addition to the application [applicants’ responses to the 3-factor test], the applicant has literally agreed with the Commission that one of the requirements for granting a variance request was not met. There has to be something unique to the property in order for the variance to meet all three tests. They agreed that there is nothing unique to the property. No one has indicated at this point that there is anything unique to the property that gives rise to meeting that uniqueness test in order to have a finding of practical difficulty. In fact, the only basis here for the variance is the economic necessity of the applicant, which is prohibited as a basis for the determination of practical difficulty to get to the right to have a variance. The applicants have repeatedly talked about the conflicts between the ordinances of the city as the basis for there being a practical difficulty. Unfortunately, that does not meet the test either of state law or the ordinance for the finding of a practical difficulty in this case. Mr. Friel stated that he also went over the alternative resolutions that Mr. Benetti had prepared and found nothing in the findings that indicates that this uniqueness test necessary to find a practical difficulty has been met by the applicants in connection with this application for a variance. He requested that the Planning Commission not grant the variance as doing so, he believed, would be in clear violation of the city ordinance and state law. Commissioner Petschel asked Mr. Friel, considering his legal background, would he consider lot size to be a condition. Mr. Friel replied that he could understand how that could be focused upon; however, the fact is that is a condition brought to the table by the applicant; it was created by the applicant as he selected the lot size and is not something unique to the property. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 15 AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF- STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council 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 Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the proposed personal self-storage facility to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses up to 1.24, based on the following findings: i.) the proposed structure and project complies with all Site and Structure requirements under 12-1G- 7 of the City Zoning Code (as recently amended by City Ordinance 538) for building height, setbacks, building area, lot coverage and parking requirements, except for the 0.5 FAR standard, and yet the design features of the Project promotes a reasonable use of the property providing a desirable visual appearance along Hwy 55, since there is a low intense overall use of the property due to nature of the business, the applicant will be able to efficiently use the full building height for vertical storage space, without compromising safety, security or aesthetics. ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, due in part to the inconsistency between the Ordinance building area limitation, building height limitation and the FAR limitation, particularly for this recently amended Industrial zoning use; iii.) The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the proposed use of the property will have an overall low intensity operational nature and will be consistent with the characteristics of surrounding land uses- to the north and northeast, which are light industrial, office facilities, and office warehouse buildings with parking and landscaped areas. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of this Variance is only for Metro Storage, LLC, the Applicant as noted herein, and their successors and assigns, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variances must be applied for separately, provide a project narrative, and present and demonstrate a reasonable need or justification to the City in order to approve a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 15 E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-20, dated and presented August 27, 2019 and later appended and presented on September 24, 2019, and is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. AYES: 2 (MAZZITELLO, MAGNUSON) NAYS: 2 (KATZ, PETSCHEL) The motion failed on a tie vote. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY KATZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I- INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE BASED ON THE 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). Motion died for lack of a second COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. To take more time to look over the supplemental information just received 2. To address some of the concerns heard from some of the surrounding neighbors 3. Because the Planning Commission is missing three people who have had a lot of input so far; they would appreciate some time to review this information and provide additional questions Chair Magnuson asked if there was a time issue to consider. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant has extended their review of this until February 5, 2020. If this were to be extended to the next Planning Commission meeting in January, the following Council meeting would be on February 4, 2020. It would be cutting it close, but would still within the extended review period if needed. December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 15 Commissioner Petschel asked, seeing as this is deadlocked as it is, would it still go on to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Benetti was unable to provide an answer as he has not had a deadlocked decision in the past. Chair Magnuson stated that she would not have a problem forwarding this onto the City Council without a recommendation. She did not believe that bringing it back would necessarily be constructive nor really considerate of the time that has been put into this. She apologized for the multi-circular trips that the applicant has had to make here that makes it look like the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. If possible, she would like to move this forward because she does not know if there is a purpose in dragging this out for another month. The motion died for lack of a second COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY PETSCHEL, TO MOVE PLANNING CASE 2019-20 A VARIANCE FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION Before voting, Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the Commission has heard about this application since August 2019. Actually, it was before then, because the code amendment application to disallow the prohibition for self-storage was long before that. These applicants have been here and have been strung out for close to a year. The Planning Commission has no business doing this to an applicant. In the annals he works all over in the Twin Cities Metro Area. He has lived in, experienced, and traveled to 38 states and 33 foreign countries. He can tell all that the City of Mendota Heights does not have a good reputation in the development industry or in the business industry because of crap like this; where the city says ‘oh sure, we are going to make this an allowed use’; however, we have an antiquated, old, outdated, obsolete standard in our code that most municipalities have moved on from. What he sees in this community – and this is the perfect example – if one were to look at the 59-plus organized municipalities that make up the Twin Cities Metro Area, most inter-suburban communities have already gone through what Mendota Heights is going through. The first iteration of our development is done; and now the second wave is coming in. Most communities held to their old rules and became obsolete for the sake of their neighboring suburbs. If Mendota Heights is going to remain the viable, strong community that it is, it has to adapt. The city has a code that says one is allowed to cover their lot by 50% with structures. Those structures can be 45 feet in height with no mention as to how many floors that 45 feet would accommodate. Therefore, one can have a 50% covered lot with a 4-story building. The FAR that this code would provide for is 2.0 – minus stairwells, lavatories, etc. However, the FAR says that they can only do 0.5. He questioned which one was the governing. Why would the city tell an applicant that they can cover their lot 50%, provided they meet all of the other provisions in the code; they can be 45 feet tall – but not really. What kind of message does that send about the viability of the city? He expressed his hope that the City Council could look beyond 1982 and look at 2022 and what this city has to have to remain viable in the face of competition from its neighbors. Mr. Benetti, replying to the question posed above regarding ‘no recommendation’, stated that under the City Code section regarding variances, if no recommendation is transmitted by the Planning Commission within 60 days after referral of the application for variance to the Planning Commission, the City Council may take action without further awaiting such recommendation. In summary, the no recommendation by the Planning Commission can be referred to the City Council. Commissioner Petschel commented that he agreed with everything that Commissioner Mazzitello said. He voted to get rid of the FAR. His one commentary was that yes, they had the City Attorney come and provide a level of opinion about the appropriate application of a variance that actually made them more confused December 19, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 15 than when they started. He has asked for examples of a variance request that was successfully defended in court since the rules were changed a number of years ago. He has requested multiple examples because the big problem is this should not have deadlocked. The rules either apply or they do not. The Planning Commission should not be in the game of deciding the rules are antiquated. He believes the FAR is a stupid rule, but it is still a rule. It is a rule as a matter of vote, the City Council was upheld. They chose not to change it. If he wants it changed, he can run for City Council. The Planning Commission could still use some better opinions as to how this would fit into the determination process and would probably be best done by City Council. Mr. Walston returned and was given permit to speak by Chair Magnuson. He stated with respect to the discussion about what happens next, he wanted to go on the record on behalf of Metro Storage, LLC that they concur, agree, waive any rights they have, that this may move on to the City Council with no recommendation. They are not going to challenge the procedural rule or the legality of that. AYES: 3 NAYS: 1 (KATZ) General Planning Items A) REVIEW AND APPROVE THE 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE / CALENDAR Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that there are some different meeting dates for 2020; most of which work around specific religious holidays. A lot of the dates were moved due to elections. December 2020 was left open as he wanted to obtain their opinion on what date they would prefer. The Commission suggested keeping the regular date of December 22, 2020, with the understanding that changes can be made. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti informed the Commission that the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan is on its way to the Metropolitan Council (Met Council). The six-month jurisdictional review period lapsed approximately one week ago. He anticipates a very nice, hopefully, review letter from them soon. In any case, any changes or suggestions they provide will be brought back to the Planning Commission under public hearing for a recommendation on a final version. Mr. Benetti also stated the Planning Commission’s recording secretary, Ms. Darlene (Dar) Oehlke was resigning her position due to other work commitments and promotion at her full-time job. Mr. Benetti stated Dar does a great turnaround of these minutes; and has been a great asset for the community, the council and the commissions she served. Ms. Oehlke has been very good at what she does, and city staff is going to miss her. The city is currently seeking a new recording secretary service the first of the year. Commissioner Noonan’s last meeting will be in January 2020. The Council has begun the process of opening the window for the posting of the new positions for commissioners; typically appointed by the City Council. Posting will be on the city’s website very soon. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:58 P.M. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0