Loading...
2012-01-24 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes January 24, 2012 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 24, 2012 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Commissioners Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent and excused: Commissioner Field. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman / Carie Fuhrman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of November 22, 2011, Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2011, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Norton arrived at 7:05 p.m. Hearings PLANNING CASE #2012-04 Fourth Dimension Architectural Signage on behalf of Independent School District 197 Variance for Identification Signs Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Fourth Dimension Architectural Signage, on behalf of Independent School District #197 for approval of a variance from the City’s wall sign regulations. The school district wishes to erect two wall signs upon the Henry Sibley High School (located at 1897 Delaware Avenue), the area of which exceeds Ordinance requirements. The applicants believe the proposed signage would better identify the high school to southbound travelers on Delaware Avenue. Mr. Grittman reviewed the proposed signs the applicants wish to affix to the school building. He noted that according to the Zoning Ordinance, one nameplate sign is allowed for non-residential uses located within residential zoning districts. Such sign may not exceed 12 square feet in size. The applicants are seeking approval of a variance to allow two wall signs, which in total measure 195 square feet in area. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and discussed the practical difficulties of the variance request given the fact the high school was located in a residential neighborhood. Staff indicated a 12 square foot identification sign would not be visible from Delaware Avenue, which according to the submitted site plan, lies approximately 300 feet to the east. He explained the variance request reflects the applicants desire to better identify the school’s main entry which would not only benefit the school patrons, but would also assist in efficiently moving traffic around the school. Mr. Grittman commented the high school site was nearly 80 acres in size and the physical site needs of the high school do not relate well to the sign area allowances of the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that the applicants Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2012 2 request for a variance appears to create a “practical difficulty” and meets the tests of the Zoning Ordinance for variance consideration. Staff recommended approval of the variance based on the finding that one wall sign not exceeding 12 square feet in size does not permit reasonable identification of the use to the traveling public. Commissioner Magnuson requested further information on past sign requests from the school district. Mr. Grittman explained the school district had requested a freestanding sign along Delaware Avenue identifying the entrance drive in the past. However, a proposed wall sign with exposure to southbound traffic would be less intrusive than a freestanding sign near the roadway. Commissioner Noonan commented the 195 square foot variance request was over and above the current square feet of signage affixed to the school. He stated the R-1 zoning standards did not properly address institutional uses in residential areas. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case. Commissioner Hennes did not object to the variance request but questioned if the City had received similar requests in the past. Mr. Grittman stated this was the City’s first request for additional wall signage, but noted the City has reviewed several freestanding sign requests in the past. Commissioner Roston suggested the City propose a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to address these types of variance requests in the future. Mr. Grittman stated this would be one way to approach the situation, however, he did not anticipate a large number of requests. Commissioner Viksnins asked if there were any recommended conditions for approval from staff. Mr. Grittman indicated staff had no conditions for the variance approval. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek indicated that public hearing notices were sent to all properties within 100 feet of the subject property. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Mark Fortman, 4389 Oakmead Lane in White Bear Township, stated he was the Director of Operations for ISD #179. Mr. Fortman commented the proposed signage would greatly enhance the school while assisting traffic to locate the school. Dr. Robin Percival, 14052 Clintwood Way in Apple Valley, introduced herself to the Commission noting she was the principal at Henry Sibley High School. Commissioner Noonan questioned why the proposed signage differed from the existing signage. Mr. Fortman stated the school had different administration in place and the new sign would bring about a better visual presence for the high school. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Commissioner Noonan commented the variance was the practical option for addressing this sign request but suggested staff review the Zoning Code to assure that numerous variance requests were not brought to the City for approval. Chair Norton estimated there were a dozen institutional uses in the City located within residential zoning districts that could bring about such a request. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2012 3 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 8, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-01 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Amendment – Wetlands Permit Process Title 12, Chapter 2 City Code Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of a zoning amendment to the wetlands permitting process. He explained the current process, which requires a full public hearing with final consideration by the City Council, noting this could take up to 45 days from application to Council approval. It has not been uncommon for Wetlands Permits to be requested in which applicants are replacing existing structures (such as decks or porches), but other than during construction, create no additional impacts on the Wetlands areas. Mr. Grittman reviewed the proposed amendment language in detail with the Commission. It was noted the proposed amendment would create a particular exemption to the processing of certain low-impact applications, allowing the City Administrator, or designee, to approve such permits at a staff level, rather than require the full public review process. With the amendment, projects that are otherwise consistent with City requirements and likely to have little impact on the wetland area, or adjoining properties, may proceed on a quicker timeline. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and commented the draft ordinance language would allow staff to approve a permit as submitted, approve with conditions, or refer the item to the Planning Commission for the regular process. Staff recommended approval of the zoning code amendment. Commissioner Roston questioned how comments from concerned neighbors would be taken through the administrative permitting process. Mr. Grittman indicated an appeal process was in place for all administrative or Council decisions. He stated a concerned neighbor would have every opportunity to make comment with the City if concerned about the wetland permit. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT PROCESS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2 ADDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OPTION FOR SIMPLE WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 8, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-02 Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2012 4 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Amendment – Critical Area Permit Process Title 12, Chapter 3 City Code Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request for a zoning ordinance amendment for the critical area minor project permitting process. He explained the Critical Area Ordinance regulates any construction or land alteration activity in the designated Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. It was noted the City has required that all such permits follow the full review process of public hearings before the Planning Commission, and City Council approval. Mr. Grittman indicated the current ordinance does have a clause which permits an expedited review to the City Council for “minor” projects. However, concerns related to public notice for certain projects had resulted in a policy decision to require full review with the public hearing. At the request of the Planning Commission, staff spoke with neighboring communities regarding their Critical River regulations. For the vast majority of other cities, most projects were permitted administratively. Common exceptions included new buildings, major re-grading projects and fences. Other minor projects were routinely processed administratively. Mr. Grittman noted that the City had a number of properties within the Critical Area that have neither steep slopes or river exposure, which makes the full permit review process onerous, particularly for the minimal impact projects. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and suggested the expedited review process be re-started, but with a few parameters added to the ordinance to ensure that no projects with potential impacts for the Critical Area escape public notice and comment. The proposed text amendment was discussed in detail. Staff recommended approval of the zoning ordinance amendment. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if any language was being removed from the current code. Mr. Grittman stated the proposed amendment would be adding language to the current ordinance under Title 12, Chapter 3, Section D. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the Commission was comfortable with language in the last line of Section D. She felt “inappropriate requirements” could be misinterpreted. Mr. Grittman indicated the intent of this language would be to limit vague requests from coming before the Council until applications were full and complete. Commissioner Roston questioned if the public hearing notice would allow the Commission to discuss both the current and amended language for this section of City Code. Mr. Sedlacek explained the hearing notice was inclusive and would allow the Commission to review all language pertaining to Critical Area permitting. Commissioner Noonan suggested the last line be removed from Section D to eliminate any confusion. Mr. Grittman stated the City was trying to avoid receiving incomplete applications from the public. Commissioner Roston requested the word “inappropriate” be replaced with “unduly burdensome.” Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT PROCESS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 12, CHAPTER 3, SECTION D AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, STRIKING THE WORD “INAPPROPRIATE” AND REPLACING IT WITH “UNDULY BURDENSOME.” AYES 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2012 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 8, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-03 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Amendment – Accessory Structures in Residential Zones Title 12, Chapter 1 City Code Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request for a zoning amendment intended to allow accessory structures for institutional uses in residential zoning districts. The proposed amendment would assist the City in handling these requests in the future. He explained the current process required a conditional use permit, coupled with consideration of variances related to the number, size and total square footage of the proposed accessory buildings. Mr. Grittman noted that the City’s zoning ordinance allows institutional uses in residential districts. However, the accessory building regulations for residential districts are structured to address accessory buildings that are typical of residential uses rather than institutional activities. It was suggested that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance be considered that would establish specific accessory use regulations for institutional land uses. The Planning Commission recommended a proportional standard, allowing more accessory building space as the size of property increases. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and discussed the language amendments in detail. He noted with this change, the allowable accessory building size will be clarified for both residential and non-residential properties. Non-residential properties would be allowed an accessory building up to 1,000 square feet, with more accessory space allowed through a conditional use permit, based on the size of the property. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. Chair Norton requested a change to Item 1 noting it should read, four (4) acres or fewer. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE INSTITUTIONAL ACCESSORY BUILDING REGULATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1 AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, CHANGING LESS TO FEWER IN ITEM 1. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 8, 2012, meeting. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11-32 City of Mendota Heights Ordinance 440 Amendment • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 2012 6 Mr. Sedlacek advised that commercial property amendments have been discussed in the past by the Planning Commission and the City Council would be discussing this matter at the February 8th Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:45 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary