Loading...
2020-03-24 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketAuxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2020 7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Approve the February 27, 2020 regular meeting minutes 3.Public Hearings a.Case No. 2020-04: Conditional Use Permit for a new freestanding electronic message sign in the R-1 One Family Residential District at the Fire Station property, located at 2121 Dodd Road. City of Mendota Heights – Applicant/Owner b.Case No. 2020-05: Variance to City Code Section 12-1D-1 related to Nonconforming Uses, to allow the expansion of the BP-Amoco Motor-Fuel Station, located at 2030 Dodd Road. Sean Hoffmann and Jeff Wieland – Applicant/Owner 4.Staff Announcements / Update on Developments 5. Adjourn Meeting 1 February 27, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 8 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Thursday, February 27, 2020 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, Litton Field, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2020 Chair Magnuson opened the nominations for the position of Chair. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO NOMINATE MARY MAGNUSON AS PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR FOR 2020. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO NOMINATE JOHN MAZZITELLO AS PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIR FOR 2020. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Approval of January 28, 2020 Minutes Commissioner Katz noted on page four, the fourth paragraph, it should state, “…deliveries do not some come…” On page seven, the last paragraph before the motion, it should state, “Commissioner Katz Petschel…” On page seven, the motion at the bottom, it should state, “Commissioner KATZ PETSCHEL MOVED…” On page eight, the bottom, it should state, …TABLE to the February 27, 2019 2020…” COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2020 AS AMENDED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (FIELD) 2 February 27, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 8 Hearings A)PLANNING CASE 2020-02 JOHN COSGRIFF, 1875 AND 1885 HUNTER LANE – LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. John Cosgriff, in cooperation with Ms. Joy Van, are requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment between the properties located at 1875 and 1885 Hunter Lane. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. John Cosgriff, applicant, stated that he was present to address any questions the Commission may have. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING THE REQUEST, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.APPLICANT SHALL FILE LOT/PARCEL COMBINATION DOCUMENTS WITH DAKOTA COUNTY INDICATING THE NEW PARCEL CREATED BY THIS LINE ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE ADDED TO OR COMBINED WITH 1875 HUNTER LANE PROPERTY, PARCEL ID NUMBER 27-18200-00-050. 2.ALL TRANSFER OR DEED DOCUMENTS WHICH CONVEY THE PORTION OF LANDS UNDER THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT SPLIT PROCESS SHALL BE RECORDED WITH DAKOTA COUNTY. 3.NO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING GRADING/FILLING WORK, LANDSCAPING, TREE REMOVALS, RETAINING WALLS, FENCING, STAIRWAY 3 February 27, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 8 OR WALKWAYS, OR ANY STRUCTURE REQUIRING A ZONING AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE ALLOWED UNLESS AUTHORIZED UNDER A SEPARATE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICATION. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 4, 2020 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE 2020-03 RACHEL QUICK, 554 JUNCTION LANE – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Rachel Quick, owner of 554 Junction Lane, is requesting consideration of a variance of two feet from the ten-foot side-yard setback requirements, in order to provide an addition and connection to a new two-car garage. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Rachel Quick, applicant, stated that she is present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Chair Magnuson asked why the garage could not be moved over two feet. Ms. Quick replied that there are significant water issues on that side of the house, and they are restructuring that corner of the house to resolve some of those issues which causes the tilt of the garage to protrude two feet into the setback. 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: 7 NAYS: 0 4 February 27, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 8 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED HEREIN. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 4, 2020 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE 2020-01 GRAND REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, THE VILLAGE AT MENDOTA HEIGHTS AT 725 LINDEN STREET AND 735 MAPLE STREET – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Grand Real Estate Advisors is requesting approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) development plan, which would allow a new mixed-use development proposal for the city-owned lots, generally located in The Village at Mendota Heights. The lots are bounded by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Toth commented that parking is a premium in the metro area and would hope that the employees of the restaurant would understand that the premium parking spaces are for customers and employees should park further away. He referenced the parking identified on the street on Maple, noting that the City of Mendota Heights plows that area but acknowledging that the street width becomes smaller in the winter with accumulated snow. He suggested that perhaps the City does its best to keep those areas cleared. Commissioner Katz referenced the comment that the intersection at 62 and Dodd maybe an issue at the future but would be an issue of the County and asked for additional information. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that intersection has been studied in the past as there are known issues. He stated that there are alternatives and things that could alleviate that problem but because of the cost that will need to occur in the future. He noted that the new development proposed would not compound the issue. He stated that the State/County is aware of the project but the project falls into prioritized projects. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided additional details on the proposed designs currently being reviewed for that intersection, noting that the future project would be a collaboration with MnDOT and the County as well. 5 February 27, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Katz asked if the State would conduct its own traffic study before reviewing suggested designs. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek agreed that is the process and noted that the City has been working with the State and County on this intersection for decades. He explained that if the City were to move forward without the State and County, the City would solely have to fund that improvement. Commissioner Katz asked if additional residents living in this proposed development would raise the attention of MnDOT. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that overall Dodd Road is a low volume road for MnDOT, and their efforts would focus more on 62. Commissioner Mazzitello commented that the 2017 traffic study reviewed the existing traffic conditions and assumed the worst case, most intensive development possible for the future and made recommendations for future improvements and the timing of those improvements. He explained that this development is less intensive than the originally planned development for the site and therefore the 2017 traffic study would still be relevant. Commissioner Corbett asked who owns the underground parking space. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that would be a privately-owned underground parking area but would be available for public use. Commissioner Corbett asked if an agreement would be necessary to use that for employee parking. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that an agreement would not be necessary as the parking would be available for public parking under the PUD. Commissioner Toth stated that his understanding was that the discussion was about employee parking tonight but would not require any specific employee parking. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that to be true. He stated that it is the management of the site and business. Commissioner Petschel asked if staff has reviewed the impervious surface comparison and finds that to be acceptable/accurate. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that as proposed this would meet the City’s goals and requirements. He referenced the storm water pond on the corner of Dodd and 62, noting that was originally sized for 19 townhome units and therefore would accommodate the proposed development along with the infiltration proposed. 6 February 27, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 8 Judd Fenlon, Grand Real Estate Advisors, stated that he and his team are present tonight to address any questions the Commission may have. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Cindy Johnson, Master Gardener, stated that she works with the City related to pollinator friendly and sustainable landscaping. She thanked the developer for meeting with her, noting that they were very open to hearing about the information she shared. She stated that she was pleased to report that after the meeting, changes were made to make the plan is now more pollinator friendly and more sustainable. She highlighted some of the recommended changes that were discussed and those that were incorporated into the new landscaping plan. She believed that this modified plan will be a beneficial plan that will accomplish the goals of the developer but will also be sustainable and long lived. Chair Magnuson referenced the change from mulch to turf and asked if there was discussion on how turf maintenance would have an impact on the pollinator friendly goals. Ms. Johnson replied that they had discussed that the groundcover would be a better choice. She noted that there was discussion of minimal herbicide use and they did mention the high maintenance of turf grass. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Jack Ammerman, Civil Design Engineer with Wenck, stated that they can continue to work with the Master Gardeners to come to a plan that would satisfy all parties. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2002 MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER (THE VILLAGE AT MENDOTA HEIGHTS), WHICH WOULD ALLOW A NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A 48-UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING WITH A RESTAURANT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE DEVELOPER SHALL ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, IN A FORM PREPARED BY THE CITY 7 February 27, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 8 ATTORNEY; AND FINAL DRAFT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 2. DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A CLEARLY MARKED CROSSWALK ON AMPLE STREET OVER TO THE SEPARATED PARKING LOT, WITH FINAL LOCATION AND DESIGN APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. 3. NECESSARY DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE INCLUDED ON THE FINAL PLAT, AS DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND IF NECESSARY, THE SAINT PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES. 4. ALL NEW BUILDINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ONLY IN CONFORMANCE TO BUILDING AND SITE PLANS CERTIFIED BY A REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND ENGINEERS (AS APPLICABLE); AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL ARCHITECTURAL AND BUILDING STANDARDS FOUND UNDER TITLE 12-1E- 8, SUBPART F “ARCHITECTURAL CONTROLS” AND SUBPART G – STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL REQUIREMENTS. 5. ANY GROUND-LEVEL MECHANICALS AND UTILITY APPURTENANCES, MUST BE SCREENED WITH VEGETATION OR ONE OR MORE OF THE MATERIALS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, WITH MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. 6. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE UTILIZED AS A SCREENING ELEMENT FOR ANY BUILDING UTILITY AREAS, BUT SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS OR HYDRANTS, TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND VERIFIED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS. 7. A PARK DEDICATION FEE OF $4,000/RESIDENTIAL UNIT SHALL BE PAID AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPROVALS. 8. A PERFORMANCE BOND OR LETTER OF CREDIT SHALL BE SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO AT LEAST ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE VALUE OF SUCH SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 9. THE DEVELOPER AND/OR THEIR RESPECTIVE AGENTS SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING IN A CONDITION PRESENTING A HEALTHY, NEAR AND ORDERLY APPEARANCE AND FREE FROM REFUSE AND DEBRIS. PLANTS AND GROUND COVER WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY AN APPROVED SITE OR LANDSCAPE PLAN AND WHICH HAVE DIED SHALL BE REPLACED AS SOON AS SEASONAL OR WEATHER CONDITIONS ALLOW. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS MUST BE IRRIGATED. 10. THE PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO SAINT PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICE (SPRWS) STANDARDS. 11. BUILDING AND GRADING PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT. 12. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AS PART OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN 8 February 27, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 8 COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 13. ALL APPLICABLE FIRE AND BUILDING CODES, AS ADOPTED/AMENDED BY THE CITY, SHALL APPLY AND THE BUILDINGS SHALL BE FULLY PROTECTED BY AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. Further discussion: Commissioner Mazzitello commended the applicant for providing the information requested by the Commission at the last meeting prior to tonight’s meeting and for working cooperatively with the Master Gardeners. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 4, 2020 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • The chicken ordinance recommended by the Commission was adopted by the City Council. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:56 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 9 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: March 24, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2020-04 Conditional Use Permit for Freestanding Electronic Display Sign APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights (Fire Department) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2121 Dodd Road – City Fire Station ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential / City Hall/Public Works/Fire Hall ACTION DEADLINE: N/A INTRODUCTION The Mendota Heights Fire Department is seeking a conditional use permit to provide a new freestanding electronic (LED) message display sign, located on the fire station property at 2121 Dodd Road. The property is generally located at the NW corner of Dodd Rd. and Mendakota Drive (see GIS image – below). A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received. 10 Planning Case 2020-04 (CUP-Fire Station Sign) Page 2 of 7 BACKGROUND The fire station property is located in the R-1 One Family Residential district, and consists of 2.45 total (unplatted/deeded) acres. The legal parcel includes part of adjacent Dodd Road (Hwy. 149) right-of-way, and factoring out this ROW results in a net area of approximately 2.2 acres of usable area. The fire station was originally built in 1985 as a 12,000 sf. building, with 4 fire-truck bays, and includes various support offices, conference/meeting rooms, kitchen area, TV/lounge area, and housing quarters for local ambulance service personnel. The subject site is currently undergoing a major renovation and expansion project to the existing facility. The new sections of the fire station are scheduled to be open March 23rd, with demo/remodeling of the old space to begin on March 30th, with completion of work by August 2020. The original freestanding identifier sign (see image – below) was an old 6’ x 16’ concrete panel sign located near the SE corner of the station that sat parallel with Dodd Road. The old sign has since been removed as part of this project; and this new freestanding sign will be used as the new replacement for the property. The new sign is approximately 9-ft. in height, and 10-ft. in overall width. The monument style sign consists of a field brick lower base, a burnished CMU (concrete masonry unit) support column, and aluminum composite panel (ACM accents. The new sign will consist of a 3’-8.5” x 6’-9.25” (25.1-sf) electronic (digital) programmable sign cabinet, with “Mendota Heights” aluminized letters on top of the cabinet. 11 Planning Case 2020-04 (CUP-Fire Station Sign) Page 3 of 7 The new sign will be located near the northeast corner of the fire stations site, and will now sit perpendicular to Dodd Road (see site plan image – below). ANALYSIS of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1D-15, certain types of signs are permitted in the R-Residential districts, with the following standards: 7. By conditional use permit, an institutional use in the R-1 or R-1A zoning district which is allowed either as a permitted or conditional use may install one freestanding electronic display sign, provided that each of the following requirements are met: a. The parcel, or campus containing contiguous parcels, on which the sign is proposed must be no less than two (2) acres in size. b. The sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area per surface. c. The sign shall not exceed nine feet (9') in height from the average natural grade at the base of the sign. d. The total area per surface for an electronic display is not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the sign's total area. Only one contiguous electronic display area is allowed per surface. e. The sign shall be set back at least ten feet (10') from any external property boundary line and shall not be located closer than fifty feet (50') to any surrounding residential property boundary line, unless a less intrusive sign placement can be accomplished as approved by the city council. f. The electronic display message shall not change more than once every one hour, except for emergency safety messages. Time, date, or temperature is considered one electronic display when displayed alone, however it may be included as a component of any other electronic display but cannot change more than once every three (3) seconds. g. The hours of operation shall be limited to six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. h. The electronic display message shall be limited to static letters and numbers. No portion of a message may contain animation, video or audio, scroll, flash, twirl, fade, or change color. 12 Planning Case 2020-04 (CUP-Fire Station Sign) Page 4 of 7 i. The electronic display area shall be a black background and messages shall not contain more than one font color. j. The electronic display message shall be a minimum of four inches (4") in height or larger as necessary to ensure readability. k. Messages shall be limited to advertisement of products, events, persons, institutions, activities, businesses, services or subjects which are located on the premises only or which give public service information. l. Malfunctioning signs shall be shut off immediately by the owner. Additionally, the sign owner shall immediately stop the display if notified by the city that the sign is noncompliant. m. The sign shall be constructed in monument style fashion, including a base of natural stone, brick or other masonry material of at least twenty-four inches (24") in height from the average natural grade. n. The sign shall be landscaped with materials subject to a plan as submitted with the application approved by the city council. o. The sign shall be equipped with a sensor that detects the ambient light level and adjusts the brightness of the sign accordingly. Brightness shall not exceed 0.3 foot-candle above ambient light as measured using a brightness meter from a preset distance depending on the sign size, as indicated in the table below: The fires station site is considered an “institutional” use in this R-1 Residential district, and therefore this proposed sign by means of a CUP application is acceptable. The proposed sign meets the following CUP standards (as noted above): a) The subject site measures just over 2.2 acres in size, and meets the minimum 2-acre parcel size for these signs in a residential district; b) The sign’s potential message area (the area between the side and bottom support panels or base) is approximately 63-sq. ft., and therefore does not exceed the 100 sf. maximum sign area; c) The new sign does not exceed the 9-ft. max height allowance standard; d) The surface area of the electronic display is approx. 25.1 sf. in size, and does not exceed the 50% of the sign's total area; e) Assuming a 66-foot wide ROW for adjacent Dodd Road (Hwy. 149), and factoring out a 33-ft. even-width section from the easterly parcel boundary line, the new sign is established with a 10-ft. setback from this “net” measured lot line; and sits approx. 54-ft. from the north lot line (Mendakota CC – service building area); and f), g), h), i), j), l), m), and o): As for the new electronic sign display details, such as changeable messages, hours of operation, font color, and other operational standards, the submitted plans are absent of these details. However, all of these standards noted herein shall be made part of any final approvals with the future (required) sign permit application. n) The project architects also prepared and supplied a landscape plan for the fire station site. As per standard item n) above, the sign must include landscaping approved by the city council. The plan calls for 9 firelight spirea and 10 juniper bushes, mixed with switch grass plantings and Karl Forester grasses. The landscape plan is currently being reviewed by the city’s master gardeners. Any suggestions or recommendations will be made part of any conditions of approval. (Below is a close-up image of the landscape plans around the base of the sign, and general images of the proposed plantings). 13 Planning Case 2020-04 (CUP-Fire Station Sign) Page 5 of 7 Prince of Wales juniper Firelight Spirea shrub Karl Forester grasses Ruby Ribbon Switch grass Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains specific standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request; and the following are to be taken into consideration: • The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands; • existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and • the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. In addition, the following standards must be met: • The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; 14 Planning Case 2020-04 (CUP-Fire Station Sign) Page 6 of 7 • will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; • will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and • the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. Staff believes the proposed electronic message display board will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; nor should pose any problems or impact to the neighboring homes or the adjacent highway/local roadway traffic. Staff also believes the proposed new signage can be considered to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code; and that there is no reason to believe that the proposed signage request will be contrary to the standard of review for conditional use permits listed above; and should be compatible with the spirit and intent of such signs allowed for similar institutional uses in the residential districts. The sign will be used as an effective means of displaying various messages related to the operations of the fire station, including fire safety events or activities, recruitment of volunteer firefighters, and other community or civic announcements, such as Park Celebration Day, 4th of July Celebration, and others. The sign can also be used to display daily time, date and temperatures, and used to make emergency or public safety messages, such as weather or driving advisories, Amber Alerts and others. As per the standards under City Code, this sign must be programmed to be turned off after 10:00 pm.; and the level of brightness from the message board is regulated by strict standards under the City’s Sign Code. As the city’s fire department (hence the city in general) will be the operating authority over this sign, the management and compliance of this sign will be ensured by fire department leaders and city staff. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit, based on the findings of fact that the proposed freestanding (monument) electronic message sign will be compliant with the standards and regulations of the City Zoning Code; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit on the proposed freestanding (monument) electronic message sign, with specific findings of facts as determined by the Planning Commission that support such a denial; or 3. TABLE the request, pending additional information as requested by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the City of Mendota Heights, which allows the installation of a new freestanding (monument) electronic display sign at the Fire Station property, located at 2121 Dodd Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The new freestanding electronic message sign shall comply with all standards under City Code Section 12-1D-15: Signs: Subsection H. Signs in R Districts, Subpar. 7 2. The final landscaped plans for the new sign area shall be reviewed by the Master Gardeners for compliance with the city’s pollinator friendly policy. Any plantings or revisions recommended by the master gardeners will be incorporated (as best as possible) by the city’s contractor. 3. A new sign permit for the electronic sign shall be submitted and approved by the Building Official and city staff prior to any work on the sign. 15 Planning Case 2020-04 (CUP-Fire Station Sign) Page 7 of 7 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for Freestanding Electronic Display Signs Fire Station – 2121 Dodd Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed new electronic display sign will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any traffic hazards; will not depreciate surrounding property value; and said signage appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed new electronic display sign will be made compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. 3. The sign will be used as an effective means of displaying various messages related to the operations of the fire station, and other community or civic announcements. 16 4" 1' - 7 1/8" 6' - 9 1/4"1' - 8"1' - 5 1/2"3' - 8 1/2"8 5/8"1' - 3 3/8"Prefinished metal cap Burnished CMU Field brick Foundation wall and footing Prefinished metal flashing Digital programmable sign ACM panels Aluminum letter signage ACM accent band 1' - 8"6' - 9 1/4" 1' - 7 1/8" 4"1' - 3 3/8"8 5/8"3' - 8 1/2"1' - 5 1/2"Prefinished metal cap Burnished CMU Field brick Foundation wall and footing Prefinished metal flashing Digital programmable sign ACM panels Aluminum letter signage ACM accent band 7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: DATE:© COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.REVISIONS: 17113 SC91Mendota Heights Fire StationRemodel & Expansion2121 Dodd RoadMendota Heights, MN 5512002/18/20 Monument Sign Elevations 1/4" = 1'-0"SC91 1 Monument Sign - North Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0"SC91 2 Monument Sign - South Elevation 17 18 19 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: March 24, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-05 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Mendota Heights BP-Amoco (Sean Hoffmann & Jeff Wieland) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2030 Dodd Road ZONING/GUIDED: B-2 Neighborhood Business / MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Dev. ACTION DEADLINE: May 3, 2020 (60-Day Review Period) INTRODUCTION Sean Hoffmann & Jeff Wieland, manager and owner of Mendota Heights BP-Amoco station, are requesting consideration of a Variance to the provisions of City Code Section 12-1D-1 related to Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lands. This variance would allow the owners to expand a legal nonconforming structure and use at this location. The property is located at 2030 Dodd Road. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any comments or objections to this variance request item. BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION The subject parcel is located at the NE corner of Dodd Road and North Plaza Drive. The service station site is located in the B-2 Neighborhood Business district, and is surrounded by MU-PUD Mixed zoning for the Mendota Plaza center. The subject property is a trapezoidal shaped lot consisting of 14,685-sf. (0.34 ac.) of area. The original service station structure was built in 1966 and consists of 1,637-sf. of floor area. The structure has two (2) service bays on the front, with a small office/convenience store area to the side. Two gas dispenser islands sit out front with an overhead canopy system. (see image – below). 20 Planning Report-Case #2020-05 (BP-Amoco-Variance) Page 2 Street View of BP-Amoco Store – looking easterly (Google Maps) The current interior layout of the service station contains two service bays that front towards Dodd Road; a cashier/retail product space; a uni-sex restroom, and two small storage rooms, accessed only to the outside (covered) area, which is used for an air hose station and propane tank storage (see image – below). The Applicants wish to remove/relocate the cashier and restroom areas, and install a new 3rd auto service bay in their place. The existing outside covered area will be walled-off, matching with the existing front and side walls, which will create the new interior space for the cashier and restroom areas (see image - below). 21 Planning Report-Case #2020-05 (BP-Amoco-Variance) Page 3 In 2013, the city approved two separate variances on the subject property: 1) a reduced setback from 20-ft. to 15-ft. for the new overhead canopy structure; and 2) a reduced setback to 5-ft. for parking surface. As evidenced by the aerial image of the property (see image-right), and review of an old survey in city records, this gas stations structure sits only 4-feet off the back (east) lot line, and less than 2-ft. from the corner lot lines at the furthermost (SE) corner of the building. The building sits approx. 70 +/- feet off Dodd Road and approx. 45-ft. off the north line. The site contains 15 parking spaces, with some additional space (4-5 vehicles) along the south side of the parking lot, which is actually part of The Plaza lands. Although “Motor fuel stations” alone are listed as conditional uses in B-2 zoning districts, these uses are further regulated under separate City Code Section 12-1D-13-3: Motor Fuel Stations and Convenience Stores, which include the following added standards: Minimum lot size 1 acre Lot width 200 feet Front yard 60 feet Side yard: Interior Adjacent to a street 30-feet 50-feet Rear yard 50 feet Pump setback 40 feet The subject property (including the service station structure) was developed in its current situation prior to many of the current zoning controls and these higher site standards were set in place. Since the property and structure do not meet most of these minimum standards, and yet still operational, it is now considered a legal nonconforming use by City Code standards. ANALYSIS of VARIANCE City Code Section 12-1D-1 addresses nonconforming uses and structures. In effect, the city allows for “the continuance of non-conforming structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this chapter may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date except as hereinafter specified.” Section 12-1D-1: Subpart 4 also provides the following: “Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful nonconforming use is permitted, including necessary nonstructural repairs and incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the nonconforming use.” As noted earlier, this original service station structure was constructed in 1966. Reviewing the old city Zoning Ordinance of 1954, “Service Station” was a permitted use under the old BC-Business and 22 Planning Report-Case #2020-05 (BP-Amoco-Variance) Page 4 Commercial Districts (staff assumes the subject site was zoned commercial). It appears there were no minimum lot or structure setback standards in that period; new site plans were simply reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. In later Zoning Ordinance editions, “Motor fuel stations” were added as a conditional use in the B-2 District. Searching city records, there does not appear to be any evidence of a conditional use permit issued for this motor fuel station at this location. In this particular application, approval of the requested variance would technically constitute an amended or new conditional use permit applied to the property. Under this application review, the Applicants are seeking relief (or a variance) to the Subpart No. 4 noted above, since the expansion is technically extending or intensifying the nonconforming use. Variance Process City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: • Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. • Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. • Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. • Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text), followed by a brief staff response: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: The [owner] is unable to keep up with business capacity with existing layout, due to property lines unable to make building bigger. Staff’s Response: The subject property as it exists today continues to function well and successfully as a motor fuel station and automobile service center for the locality and community. This structure was built with small, covered, open area at the NW corner of the building; and the Applicant’s request to simply fill this space in with additional usable building space appears reasonable. The site requires at least 4 spaces per bay, plus one space for each 150-sf. of retail floor space. The site appears to meet 23 Planning Report-Case #2020-05 (BP-Amoco-Variance) Page 5 this requirement, so no additional parking will be needed or an added variance to parking needed, due to this new service bay and store expansion/remodel. Staff opines the proposed 3rd service bay addition and remodeling/expansion to this motor fuel/auto service station does not drastically change the overall use of this property; the overall use and enjoyment of this commercial property will continue as it was originally intended to serve – as a motor fuel/service station; the building footprint remains the same; and there are no impacts to the surrounding uses, parking, or setback/lot lines. Therefore, this requested variance is considered a reasonable request and an appropriate means for allowing the continued and successful use of this property 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The old building is outdated. Property lines make expansion not a viable plan. Staff’s Response: In reviewing the old 1966 survey record, and theorizing that setbacks may not have been applicable back in 1966, it appears the property and structure was developed as it currently sits and exists today. The current B-2 Districts’ setback standards of 30-ft. side-yard and 50-ft. rear-yard, and 1-acre lot size requirement, clearly make this property fall under the nonconforming category, and very unique for similar commercial zoned properties. Since this structure was built with very reduced setbacks and a limited sized site, the opportunity for expansion is restrained and limited. However, in this case, the areas of the building where the Owners wish to remodel and expand into, are essentially within the overall footprint established by the building’s roofline. There is no true “outward” or extended expansion outside the building; and no increased impacts to setbacks, which have already been established by the building’s current footprint. Due to the location of the service station structure and its proximity to the adjacent side-yard lot line will not be impacted by the expansion, this variance request appears treasonable; which may give some added weight to creating or supporting this practical difficulty argument on the property owner. 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: The building will be same use; [as a] service station. Staff’s Response: The subject property is surrounded entirely by commercial uses, with Mendakota Golf property on the opposite side of Dodd Road. The new service bay addition and remodeling project represents a considerable investment by the Owners. Staff believes the Applicant has demonstrated through their design/elevation plans, that the new bay addition and remodeling will not look out of place, or detract from the overall design and feel of the existing structure; and should have very little impact to the neighboring properties. Staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered by the granting of this variance. 4. Restrictions on Granting Variances. The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations into account alone should not be the reason for either denying – or approving a variance. In this particular case, the owners are simply requesting to add a 3rd service bay, due to the increased demand placed by customers, which is partly attributed to some part by the addition of new residents from the nearby Reserves Apartments. Although one can conclude this new service bay and addition will provide some economic value to the Applicant by increasing auto service business and added property values, the Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and reasonable justifications for requesting 24 Planning Report-Case #2020-05 (BP-Amoco-Variance) Page 6 this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting this variance. b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the requested expansion and improvements plans for the subject site as requested by the Applicant, are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the B-2 Neighborhood Business district, as this proposed addition is consistent with similar allowed uses in the underlying zoning. The city is not allowed to permit a variance on any use not allowed in the district where the property is located (i.e. “use variance”); and this variance is not requesting such a use. The subject property is designated MU-PUD in the current 2030 Comp Plan and scheduled to continue as MU Mixed Use in the proposed 2040 Comp Plan. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below (note: LUG= Land Use Goal; LUP = Land Use Policy): • 2030 LUG #3: Support industrial and commercial development in designated areas. • 2030 LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • 2040 LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • 2040 LUP #2.2.4: Encourage development and planning of land that provides reasonable access to the surrounding communities. • 2040 LUP # 2.2.6: Provide a mechanism to allow for the maintenance and reinvestment in select non-conforming properties. The guiding principles in both comprehensive plans provide for supporting commercial development (and improvements) in commercial areas; and providing mechanisms to allow for the maintenance and reinvestment of nonconforming properties, such as the subject property. The requested variance appears to meet these goals and policy statements established under the comprehensive plans for the community; and will provide an opportunity for substantial investment to an existing nonconforming property; and enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner. The proposed addition poses no threat or any effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This new addition and request for variance can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: 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.” 25 Planning Report-Case #2020-05 (BP-Amoco-Variance) Page 7 B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance to City Code Section 12-1D-1, as it relates to expanding or increasing a nonconforming structure on the subject site, located at 2030 Dodd Road, by: i.) the proposed 3rd service bay addition and remodeling/expansion to this motor fuel/auto service station does not drastically change the overall use of this property; the overall use and enjoyment of this commercial property will continue as it was originally intended to serve – as a motor fuel/service station; the building footprint remains the same; and there are no impacts to the surrounding uses, parking, or setback/lot lines. Therefore, this requested variance is considered a reasonable request and an appropriate means for allowing the continued and successful use of this property. ii.) the subject property was originally developed in 1966 with the absence of certain lot/setback standards, which are now in effect and present today, thereby creating some unique circumstances, difficulties or impediments to the Owner/Applicant on providing a reasonable addition to the business, except by means of a variance. iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties are all commercial, and no properties will be negatively impacted or affected by approving this variance; and iv.) This new addition and request for variance to expand a nonconforming structure/use is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed goals and policies in the comprehensive plans for the community. 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 Variance 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 the Variance is for 2030 Dodd Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020- 04, dated and presented March 24, 2020 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-____. (final number to be assigned later) F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed expansion shall not extend further than what is presented in the Site/Elevation Plans as presented with Planning Application Case No. 2020-04. ii.) The new addition will match the overall architecture and design (including any new upgrades to the exterior) as proposed by the Applicant. iii.) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one-year from said approval date. 26 Planning Report-Case #2020-05 (BP-Amoco-Variance) Page 8 2. Recommend denial of the variance request, 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 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 not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance to expand an existing nonconforming structure or use in the B- 2 Neighborhood Business district. The proposed addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact remains the addition can only be allowed by means of a variance, which is contrary to the general spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. 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). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of the variance with findings of facts to support the granting of said variance, with the conditions noted therein. Attachments 1. Aerial/Site Location Map 2. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative) 3. Site Plan/Floor/Elevation Plans 4. Survey – 1966 5. City Code Section 12-1D-1 27 2030 Dodd Road Property Information March 18, 2020 0 110 22055 ft 0 30 6015 m 1:1,200 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 28 12-1D-13-3: MOTOR FUEL STATIONS AND MOTOR FUEL STATION CONVENIENCE STORES: A. Conditional Use Permit Required: All motor fuel stations and motor fuel station convenience stores shall require the issuance of a conditional use permit as per section 12-1L-6 of this chapter. Upon the issuance of a conditional use permit for a motor fuel station and convenience store by the council, said permit shall be in force on a temporary basis for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) months from the date of issuance. If, during said fifteen (15) month period, construction has not been completed and the motor fuel station is in operation for a period of less than thirty (30) days, said conditional use permit shall be void. B. Compliance With State Regulations; Flammable Liquids: 1. Any building used as a motor fuel station or convenience store shall be constructed and maintained as required by the rules and regulations relating to the state fire marshal governing the handling, storage and transportation of flammable liquids. 2. Every facility, whether underground or aboveground and whether indoors or out of doors, for the handling, storage, and movement of flammable liquids shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the rules and regulations of the state fire marshal. C. Yards And Setbacks: 1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in other sections of this chapter, the following minimum requirements shall be observed for yards and setbacks of motor fuel stations and convenience stores: Minimum lot size 1 acre Lot width 200 feet Front yard 60 feet Side yard: Interior 30 feet Adjacent to a street 60 feet Rear yard 50 feet Pump setback 40 feet 2. Each side abutting a public street shall be considered a front yard. 3. A setback of any overhead canopy weather projection freestanding or projecting from the station structure shall be not less than twenty feet (20') from the street right-of-way line nor less than twenty feet (20') from the adjacent property line. 29 D. Height Limit: Total height of any overhead canopy or weather projection shall not exceed twenty feet (20'). E. Parking And Driveways: 1. The surface parking and service areas, except for access driveways, shall be no closer than twenty feet (20') from any exterior property line. 2. Entire motor fuel station site other than that part devoted to landscaping and structures shall be surfaced with asphaltic or cement concrete surfacing to control dust and provide adequate drainage, and such surfaces shall be designed to fit the requirements of a minimum seven (7) ton axle load. 3. All interior curbs shall be constructed within the property lines to separate driving, parking and service areas from landscape and the public right-of-way areas. Such curbing shall be constructed of concrete and shall be of a six inch (6") nonsurmountable design. 4. The minimum distance between driveways shall be thirty feet (30') measured along the property line. 5. The minimum driveway angle shall be forty five degrees (45°). 6. All outside parking spaces shall be located in the side and/or rear of the principal structure not adjacent to the street. 7. A minimum of four (4) outside parking spaces plus three (3) additional outside parking spaces for each enclosed service stall shall be provided. One additional outside space shall be provided for each one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor space devoted to retail sales in a motor fuel station convenience store. In the case of rental of trailers, trucks and other vehicles, one parking space shall be provided for each rental unit. 8. Access and parking areas shall be designed so as to provide an adequate means of access to a public alley or street. Said driveway access shall not exceed thirty feet (30') in width at the public street right-of-way line and shall be so limited so as to cause the least interference with the traffic movement. All public parking areas shall have access off driveways and not directly off a public street. All outside parking spaces shall be clearly marked on the pavement. F. Storage And Sale Of Vehicles And Products: 1. All rental campers, trailers, or motor vehicles shall be stored within the rear and/or side yard not adjacent to the street. 2. Service station premises shall not be used as a place of storage for wrecked, abandoned or junked automobiles. No motor vehicle in need of repair shall be stored on the premises of a service station for a continuous period of more than seven (7) days, except when so stored pursuant to a police directive. 3. Open storage of inoperable motor vehicles shall not be permitted for a period of more than forty eight (48) hours3. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) 4. Service station premises may be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of ten thousand (10,000) pounds or less, subject to the following standards: 30 a. Only businesses that provide on-site automotive repairs will be licensed to conduct such vehicle sales; b. No vehicles shall be marked or have any visible signs indicating "For Sale" or similar; c. Vehicles for sale under this provision will be limited to no more than two (2) vehicles on the site; d. Vehicles for sale shall not be placed in any front yard setback (including a corner front yard) of the subject property, and vehicles must be stored in an inconspicuous area of the property as approved by the Zoning Administrator. (Ord. 534, 10-16-2018) 5. All goods for sale by the motor fuel station or convenience store shall be displayed within the principal structure. There shall be no outside display or sales. 6. Tires for sale shall not be stored or displayed outside the service station structure, except: a) in a display rack during business hours; or b) in a permanent outside display container located in conformance with the setback requirements of this chapter and completely enclosable. Such display container shall be closed when the station is not open for business. G. Architecture And Landscaping: 1. A minimum twenty foot (20') landscaped yard shall be planted and maintained within all property lines except at driveway entrances. 2. Each motor fuel station shall be architecturally designed so as to be compatible with the general architectural intent of the area in which it is located. 3. For the purposes of architectural appropriateness, each and every side of the motor fuel station shall be considered a front face. 4. Wherever a motor fuel station abuts on a residential district, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than fifty percent (50%) opaque nor less than six feet (6') high shall be erected and maintained along the side and rear property line that abuts the residential district. Application of this provision shall not require a fence within fifteen feet (15') of any street right-of- way line. H. Lighting: All outdoor illumination shall be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades which shall concentrate the light upon the premises so as to prevent any glare or rays of light being directly visible upon adjacent street or roadway, or adjacent property. Site lighting shall create no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the property line of any commercial or industrial parcel or public right-of- way, and zero (0) foot-candles at the boundary line of residential property. I. Debris, Trash And Waste: 1. Used oil cans, discarded auto parts, discarded tires, trash, waste materials, and similar items of debris shall not be stored on service station premises, unless such items of debris are located in an enclosure and are completely out of public view. Such debris shall be removed from the premises at least once a week. 2. No materials shall be burned on the premises of a service station, except in an approved commercial incinerator complying with the ordinances of the City. Barrels and similar containers shall not be used for incineration. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) 31 32 33 34 35 Cashier -Convenience StoreRestroomOutside CoveredAreaStorageStorage36 EXISTING SERVICE BAYNEWSERVICE BAYEXISTING SERVICE BAYNEWCASHIER/RETAIL AREA NEWRESTROOM 37 38