Loading...
2012-11-27 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes November 27. 2012 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2012 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 27, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval ofAQenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of October 23, 2012, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearin-as PLANNING CASE #2012 -32 Sean Hoffmann, Mendota Heights BP 2030 Dodd Road Variance allowing electronic sign display Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Sean Hoffmann, Mendota Heights BP for approval of a variance allowing an electronic sign display at 2030 Dodd Road and the property is zoned B -2 Neighborhood Business. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant is proposing to replace an existing pylon sign with a monument sign which includes LED fuel price numbers that are stationary (not animated or flashing), which will change approximately once per day. The issue of electronic signs was last addressed in June of 2006 when the City considered a request by Henry Sibley High School to construct a digital sign on their property. In this case, the council affirmed its position that such signs are not allowed, and adopted a resolution with a series of findings that described the City's concerns related to flashing, animated and blinking electronic signs. Mr. Grittman explained the applicant has proposed that the electronic sign should not result in illumination qualities that would either negatively impact surrounding properties or create a distraction that could pose a safety risk to nearby traffic. The applicant has proposed shutting off the sign at night, so illumination from the sign is not anticipated to be constant. Mr. Grittman discussed the front and side yard setbacks in the B -2 District. He indicated the proposed sign lies within the required setbacks, and would be replacing an existing sign in substantially the same location. The new sign would be lowered in height, which lessens the overall non - conforming condition. The new sign would be modern, compact and will improve the overall appearance of the property, in contrast to the existing 45 foot tall pylon sign. Planning Commission Minutes November 27. 2012 Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and does not recommend the variance. While the applicant suggests that operational issues demonstrate the additional safety and convenience of the LED price technology, the ability to make such changes in message electronically is not unique to this property. It is noted that the reduction in height will, in part, meet that same objective, and the safety and convenience argument would be applicable to any property that wishes to display alternative messages over time. If the Commission believes that this technology is appropriate, it should consider an ordinance amendment rather than the variance for this case. Commissioner Magnuson asked if a variance was necessary with this case. She questioned what language prohibits LED signs. Mr. Grittman reviewed the language in detail with the Commission stating the LED portion of the proposed sign would be prohibited, as it was a steady collection of lights. Commissioner Roston inquired if all illuminated signs were prohibited in the City. Mr. Grittman stated only in the case where the public was able to view the light source. If a diffuser was placed over the individual bulbs, the sign would not be in violation with the current ordinance. Commissioner Roston questioned if LED Christmas lights violated the ordinance. Mr. Grittman commented these were not considered signs and the ordinance did include an exception for holiday displays. Commissioner Magnuson inquired if the intent of the current code was to limit gas station pricing signs. Mr. Grittman did not feel the language spoke directly to LED but, as nay request for electronic displays were denied by the Council in the past. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek clarified it was the intent of the City Code was to limit this type of LED signs. Commissioner Roston was in favor of recommending the diffuser be placed over the LED bulbs, as this would eliminate the need for a variance. Commissioner Field asked if the SuperAmerica sign that was denied was similar in design and nature to the BP sign. Mr. Grittman noted this was several years back and he recalled the lights were essentially the same, however he did not recall if the lights were LED or incandescent. Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the City Attorney had provided the commission with advice on the interpretation of an intermittent, steady or rotating beam. He stated a legal opinion could assist with resolving this matter. Mr. Grittman did not recall receiving direct advice from the City Attorney. Commissioner Noonan commented the matter at hand was the fact the bulb source could be viewed from the proposed BP sign. Chair Norton was in favor of the proposed BP sign as it was newer technology and recommended an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Roston agreed, as this would clarify the current language for future sign requests. Mr. Sedlacek repeated the intent of this ordinance was to not allow an LED sign of any sort. The direction provided to the applicant was either to request to change the ordinance as written or request a variance to the rule. The request before Commission was for a variance to the City Code. Commissioner Viksnins commented the concern with LED was the rotating display. He indicated the proposed gas station sign would not be rotating and therefore did not conflict with the LED concerns. Mr. Grittman stated one of the council's concerns in the past was the flashing of LED lights and video. This would then become a huge enforcement concern for the city. Chair Norton asked if other cities were allowing LED sign displays. Mr. Grittman stated that electronic displays are commonly limited to gas station price displays, with a ban on animation. 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 27. 2012 Commissioner Hennes questioned if an amendment were discussed in the future how this case would be affected. Mr. Grittman indicated an amendment could be made to address the B -2 zoning district. Another option would be to write the language specifically addressing the conditional use permits for the gas stations. Shawn Hoffmann, 2030 Dodd Road, indicated he was the manager of the BP. He commented the current sign language was written before LED technology was available. It was his opinion the language was outdated and he encouraged the commission to consider reviewing the language. He discussed the proposed LED sign further stating it was a cost effective and energy efficient technology. He noted the current highway sign was at an awkward angle and the new sign would alleviate this concern. He stated the new technology would also be safer. Commissioner Roston questioned the timing of the proposed sign and if the request could be delayed for 30 days. Mr. Hoffman stated he owned the sign already. He expressed concern about the use of a diffuser, as this would greatly affect the visibility of the numbers. Commissioner Magnuson understood the safety concerns with changing the prices given the height of the current sign. She asked if a monument sign closer to the ground was feasible. Mr. Hoffman indicated space was not available for this type of sign. He explained if the current sign were lowered it would be difficult for passing traffic to view the pricing. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO TABLE ACTION ON THIS ITEM FOR 30 DAYS AND ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO FIND A PRAGMATIC SOLUTION. Commissioner Viksnins asked if a pragmatic solution should be sought or if the ordinance should be amended. Commissioner Field stated he would not support the motion as he was in favor of amending the ordinance to comply with current technology. He did not want the application delayed in hopes of finding a solution. Chair Norton agreed. Commissioner Noonan stated the applicant could work with a vendor to seek a translucent diffuser in the next 30 days, which would not delay the sign request. Commissioner Magnuson questioned how an ordinance amendment was initiated. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff has received direction from both the council and commission in the past to address city code. Commissioner Roston withdrew his motion to table action on the item. Commissioner Viksnins withdrew his second. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Planning Commission Minutes November 27. 2012 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, RECOMENDING THAT CITY STAFF DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT STATIC LED DISPLAY SIGNS FOR GAS STATIONS. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 4, 2012, meeting. Commissioner Roston left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. PLANNING CASE #2012 -33 Mike Hueg Lots 9 -12, Block 7, Somerset View Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Construct Single Family Home and Attached Garage Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Mike Hueg for approval of a variance and conditional use permit to construct a single family home and attached garage. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicants are proposing to construct a single family home on a parcel in the Somerset View subdivision. The parcel sits at the southwest corner of Somerset Road and Burr Oak Avenue. The city's zoning ordinance requires single family lots to have at least 100 feet of frontage on improved public streets. While this parcel has much more than 100 feet of frontage, neither of the streets are improved, and therefore require approval of a variance to permit the construction. Mr. Grittman explained as part of the request, the applicants also propose to construct an attached garage of approximately 1,480 square feet. The zoning ordinance specifies that attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet and up to 1,500 square feet be allowed only with the approval of a conditional use permit. Lastly, the applicants are seeking approval of a license to construct private improvements within an unimproved public right of way. The applicants' proposal would extend a driveway along the unimproved Burr Oak Avenue to its intersection with Dorset Road. While this request is not technically a zoning application, it is relevant to the consideration of the variance request. Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and recommended approval of the variance and conditional use permit with conditions. The conditions have been proposed to recognize that one single family lot exists in the area as a lot of record, and the improvements necessary to provide public street access to the property can be reasonably seen to be out of scale with the construction of a home on the existing parcel. Further development of the property should only be considered with street access due to the need for better public service vehicles, avoiding a profusion of private use of the public rights of way, and managing traffic generation in the area. Staff had no objections to the CUP as there were no apparent issues with the proposed garage, and it complies with the terms of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Magnuson questioned where the utilities would be located. Public Works Director Mazzitello explained the preliminary location was described to run within the Burr Oaks Avenue right -of -way. He commented there was adequate space for the lines. Mike Hueg, 17590 Hemlock Avenue in Lakeville, stated he was proposing to build a single family home, which would allow him to live closer to family. He thanked staff for their assistance in preparing his application. He encouraged the neighbors to be open minded to the fact there was right -of -way available that would allow him access his lot. He explained a shared driveway was discussed with city staff but was not favorable to the city. 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 27. 2012 Commissioner Magnuson asked if access could be gained from Somerset Road. Mr. Hueg stated this was an option, but that a great deal more green space would be disturbed if this route were chosen. Commissioner Viksnins requested further information on the topography of the parcel and questioned if the site would be further subdivided. Mr. Hueg indicated he had no plans to subdivide the property. He then reviewed the topography of the parcel stating the property would drain properly after construction. Mr. Sedlacek clarified the request before the commission this evening was for a conditional use permit and variance. He noted the license would be discussed by the city council. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Mary Kirby, 3 Dorset Road, commented she has lived at this address since 1993. She explained the request for a license would remove and replace her existing driveway. Ms. Kirby had not issue with the Hueg's building a home on their property, however, she did object to the request for a license to utilize the Burr Oaks Avenue right of way. She recommended the license for access be gained from another direction. She indicated her own driveway has been in place for the past 40 years and has requested a license to formally recognize her use of the right of way. Ms. Kirby expressed concern that the license could result in storm water runoff from city right of way into her property. The city installed a rain garden in the right of way in 2005 to address runoff issues. Ms. Kirby felt that the existing use of the right of way at Dorset Road would pose a challenges to adding an additional driveway. She requested additional conditions to the approval, assuring that she would be notified in advance if anyone were to access her property and that the city be lenient with parking regulations during the construction period. Second, that the applicant will indemnify her from any liability related to the construction and use of her driveway. In addition, the applicant will indemnify her from any liability to water runoff and changes to the right of way. Lastly, she requested the conditions for approval clearly state the party responsible for covering the expenses of the reconstruction of her driveway. Larry Koll, 2 Dorset Road, opposed the request before the commission this evening. He questioned if the variance and conditional use permit could be considered by the commission without a proper license for access in place. Mr. Koll expressed concern with the safety of adding another home to this right of way. Art Miller, 1 Dorset Road, opposed the variance request stating the additional home would change the character of the neighborhood. He questioned if a fire truck or other emergency vehicle could even access the site. Mr. Miller stated the property at 3 Dorset would be negatively affected by the request for a license. He recommended another alternative be sought by Mr. Hueg. He suggested for safety reasons, that the commission deny the request. Pat Henry, 4 Beebe Avenue, opposed the request for the license as the area already had drainage issues. He commented the home and additional impervious surface would compound these concerns. Mr. Henry requested Somerset Road be used to access this single family lot. Commissioner Hennes questioned if a shared driveway was agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Hueg stated have been discouraged by the City in the past. He explained that a shared driveway would be difficult as the Kirby's park in their driveway. He understood that he would be responsible for replacing the Kirby's driveway through the construction process. Commissioner Viksnins asked what other points of access were considered. Mr. Hueg that the site was bound by two undeveloped rights of way. The reason for using Dorset Road was that emergency vehicles would only have to pull line 180 feet. He did not see the benefit of putting in a 1,000 foot road from Somerset Road. He commented he has not seen a water concern on this property. He noted the proposed building pad would be at a lower elevation than the Kirby's. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the parcel could access Dodd Road. Mr. Hueg stated this was not feasible as emergency vehicles could not reach his parcel and utilities would be difficult. 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 27. 2012 Mr. Sedlacek informed the commission that staff's first preference to access this site is a full public street in the platted right of way. The second preference would be to grant a license to utilize the right of way. A distant third option would be to approve a shared driveway. Gary St. John, 7 Meers Avenue, supported the Hueg's decision to build on their property. He requested the city consider shared access from Dodd Road. Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 76 NAYS 0 CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. FUTURE SUBDIVISION OR CONSTRUCTION OF ANY MORE THAN THE ONE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION OF FULL PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY'S ORDINANCES. 2. EXECUTION OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IN THE CITY'S UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY, ALONG WITH AN INDEMNIFICATION OF THE CITY FOR LIABILITY RELATED TO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. 3. CONSTRUCTION, AND RELATED RECONSTRUCTION, OF DRIVEWAYS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO PROVIDE SIDE -BY -SIDE PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS MAINTAINING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AT 3 DORSET ROAD, AND A TOTAL DRIVEWAY CURB CUT WIDTH AT DORSET ROAD OF NO MORE THAN 25 FEET. 4. PROVISION OF A GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN, WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED STORM WATER MODELS, SIGNED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER (PE) REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ENGINEER. 5. PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS SO AS TO REPLACE ALL EXISTING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FEATURES FOR PURPOSE AND FUNCTION, AND TO ENSURE NO ADDITIONAL STORM WATER RUNOFF IMPACTS OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE AREA. 6. NO BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT PROVIDES EVIDENCE THAT A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE, AND NOTING THE RESTRICTION ON FUTURE SUBDIVISION, HAS BEEN RECORDED WITH THE DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS. Commissioner Magnuson asked if it was proper for the Commission to take action on the item without having the license approved by the City Council. She stated she did not have enough information on this case to make a proper decision. Mr. Sedlacek indicated staff debated this issue and how to bring the application forward. The processing of the variance and conditional use permit was known and therefore staff was comfortable with bringing the request forward. He explained the license request would be determined by the council and that approval of the planning case was not an implicit approval of a license. Following the variance request, the applicant needs to procure a license, a building permit and grading permit for the driveway. Each of these decisions will be independently evaluated. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the applicant had considered and exhausted all options. Mr. Grittman commented the current State law has removed the hardship language and replaced it with practical difficulty. For this reason, the case was easier to review. 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 27. 2012 AYES 65 NAYS 1 (MAGNUSON) CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 1,480 SQUARE FEET, AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 65 NAYS 1 (MAGNUSON) Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 4, 2012, meeting. December Meetim- Date Mr. Sedlacek explained the commission would need to reschedule the December planning commission meeting. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RESCHEDULE THE DECEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO DECEMBER 26, 2012 AT 7:00 P.M. AYES 76 NAYS 0 Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012 -28 Curt Skallerup Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012 -29 Daniel Fleischhaker Variance • Approved by the City Council in opposition to the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012 -31 David Williams Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council in opposition to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, RECOMENDING THAT STAFF REVIEW AND AMEND THE CITY CODE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF GARAGE DOORS ALLOWED ON A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AYES 76 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:58 P.M. AYES -76 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary 7