Loading...
2011-06-28 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 28, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Magnuson, Noonan and Viksnins. Those absent and excused: Commissioner Hennes and Roston. 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 Carla Wirth. Approval of 4zenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of May 24, 2011, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2011, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Norton stated that in consideration of audience members, the agenda will be reordered as follows: Planning Case #11 -13, #11 -15, #11 -16, #11 -18, #11 -19, #11 -17, #11 -11, #11 -21, and #11 -14. Hearings PLANNING CASE #11 -13 New Cingular Wireless 1196 Northland Drive Conditional Use Permit for wireless facility Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of New Cingular Wireless for a conditional use permit to allow modification to their existing wireless communication tower located north of I -494 and west of Highway 55 at 1196 Northland Drive. New Cingular Wireless is seeking to upgrade the communication antenna array and platform located on the tower at the same location to ensure successful, secure and ongoing operation of their communication facilities. He displayed a diagram of the proposed equipment and advised there will also be changes to their related equipment. Mr. Grittman indicated the proposed equipment upgrades will not result in any significant physical changes to the tower and the visual change relates primarily to the addition of the platform. This change to the physical equipment requires a conditional use permit consideration. Mr. Grittman stated staff recommends approval with routine conditions, finding it is consistent with requirements for wireless antenna displays. Commissioner Viksnins asked what the platform will look like. Mr. Grittman displayed plan diagrams of the platform and described how it will look, noting there would be little visual impact. Scott Buell, Buell Consulting, 2324 University Avenue W., St. Paul, representing New Cingular Wireless, clarified there is an existing platform and the proposed replacement is more substantial. He displayed a diagram identifying the antennas that will be relocated to a higher location. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Commissioner Noonan asked if the platform will remain in the same location. Mr. Buell answered in the affirmative and stated the color of the tower will remain unchanged. 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 VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO NEW ANTENNA AND RELATED EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION. 2. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FCC REGULATIONS. 3. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE ELECTRICAL CODES. Commissioner Field stated his preference for co- location of antennas. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting PLANNING CASE #11 -15 David Bergh 996 Caren Court Critical Area Permit for a single story addition Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of David Bergh for a critical area permit for a single -story addition at 996 Caren Court. The addition is proposed to be located in the rear (west) yard of the property and measures 168 square feet (12 feet by 14 feet) in size. He displayed a site plan of the subject property depicting the existing home and proposed addition. The property is zoned single family residential and located within the critical area overlay district of the Mississippi River corridor. The zoning ordinance stipulates that any work conducted within the Mississippi River corridor requires a critical area permit and public hearing. The intent is to protect steep slopes in the area adjacent to the river as well as visual impacts as the result of construction activity. Mr. Grittman advised the proposed location is relatively flat in topography and well below the 18 percent slope threshold. He noted the additional landscaping proposed around the patio area, which does not impact the critical area. Mr. Grittman stated staff recommends approval of the critical area permit as submitted, subject to two routine conditions, since the application does not impact the critical area corridor and is compliant with the ordinance requirements. Commissioner Noonan stated concerns with the open -ended wording of the condition #1 relating to city engineer comment and recommendation. He suggested the wording indicate the plan must be consistent with the land disturbance guidance document. Mr. Grittman stated this language is recommended because if site conditions are encountered during construction the city engineer is able to provide guidance and mid - course correction, if necessary. Chair Norton stated such an amendment could be considered when a motion is formulated, if desired. 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 David Bergh, 1361 Interlachen Drive, Eagan, stated he has nothing to add to staff's report. 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 FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE CITY ENGINEER PROVIDE COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA AND DRAINAGE IMPACTS. 2. THE PROPOSED HOME ADDITION MATCH THE EXISTING HOME IN DESIGN AND COLOR. Commissioner Noonan stated his preference for specific language and concern with the open ended wording of condition #1 that suggests further comments or issues may come forward. He felt those issues should come forward tonight so they can be addressed. Commissioner Noonan stated if the wording intends to allow a mid- course correction, he would prefer referencing the land disturbance guidance document so the applicant knows what they are working toward. Commissioner Noonan offered a friendly amendment to replace condition #1 with the following: 1. CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT TAKE PLACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. Commissioner Viksnins stated he is sympathetic with Commissioner Noonan's concerns; however, he would not want to foreclose the city engineer from doing his job should something unknown at this point come forward during construction of the project. He stated he would hope the applicant and City can resolve any issues that arise, was comfortable with the motion, and declined the friendly amendment. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -16 Michael Waldman 580 Watersedge Terrace Wetlands Permit for a fence Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Michael Waldman for a wetlands permit to construct a fence within the rear yard at 580 Watersedge Terrace. The property is zoned single family residential and guided for low density residential. He displayed a site plan of the subject site and advised it is occupied by a single - family home with access to the Fieldstone Court cul -de -sac. The proposed white vinyl fence would enclose a portion of the rear yard to provide privacy with a setback of 60 feet from the adjacent wetland. A wetlands permit is required because the fence would encroach 40 feet into the 100 -foot wetland buffer area. This permit allows the city to review construction activities to assure protection of the wetland resource. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Mr. Grittman displayed a diagram of the proposed fence, noting it complies with requirements for height and 30- percent open design. The primary issue is whether the fence impacts the wetland. He advised there will be minimal grading and the only construction is to provide post hole digs. The applicant indicated they will retain the natural conditions next to the wetland. Staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit, as requested, subject to several routine conditions and the addition of condition #3 indicating: "Construction shall comply with the land disturbance guidance document." Commissioner Magnuson referenced findings of fact #4 indicating: "The area between the fenced in pool area and the wetland will be maintained in its natural state with additional native vegetation to serve as a buffer." Mr. Grittman confirmed there is not a pool and additional vegetation will not be planted. The planning commission concurred to modify finding of fact #4 to indicate: "The area between the fence and the wetland will be maintained in its natural state." Michael Waldman, 580 Watersedge Terrace, applicant, clarified that the fence will be a wood -on -wood fence, not a vinyl fence as stated earlier. 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 FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE AREA BETWEEN THE FENCE LINE AND THE WETLAND REMAIN IN A NATURAL VEGETATIVE STATE. 2. THE SWCD FINDS THE PROPOSAL TO BE ACCEPTABLE. 3. CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -18 John and Rebecca Driscoll 21 Dorset Road Conditional Use Permit for a covered front entry Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of John and Rebecca Driscoll for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a covered porch (entryway) at 21 Dorset Road. The property is zoned single family residential and guided for low density residential. He displayed a site plan of the subject site identifying the single - family home, access point to the south, and proposed addition to the front to provide protection over the front entry. He then displayed an architectural drawing of the proposed entry, noting it extends into the setback requirement. However, the code accommodates this type of addition with a CUP to allow a minimum (40 square foot) encroachment. The total addition area is 64 square feet but only a portion, about 30 square feet, encroaches into the front yard setback area 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 which is under the threshold of 40 square feet. Mr. Grittman stated the proposed location appears to meet code requirements and materials are consistent with the existing home so staff recommends approval of the CUP with clarification that the porch is no closer than 25 feet from Staples Avenue and to modify the site plan to illustrate the location of the sidewalk connection between the porch and driveway. At the request of Chair Norton, Mr. Grittman provided a synopsis of the CUP process that allowed consideration of a front porch if it minimally encroached into the front yard setback without the requirement to show hardship, as required with a variance process. John Driscoll, 21 Dorset Road, applicant, displayed a colored photograph of his property that identified a clear line of sight remains and the sidewalk approach that will be extended to meet the new porch. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the walkway will be inside the existing retaining wall. Mr. Driscoll pointed out the location of existing stairs and described how the walkway will meet the new entry. 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 VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE PORCH (ENTRYWAY) BE LOCATED NO CLOSER THAN 25 FEET FROM THE ADJACENT STAPLES AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY. 2. THE SITE PLAN BE MODIFIED TO ILLUSTRATE THE LOCATION OF THE SIDEWALK CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PORCH AND DRIVEWAY. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -19 Beverly Sargent 1040 Sibley Memorial Highway Critical Area Permit for a patio Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Beverly Sargent for a critical area permit to construct a patio at 1040 Sibley Memorial Highway. He displayed a site plan of the subject site, noting the property is zoned one family residential, guided for low density residential and currently occupied by a single - family residence. It was noted that a critical area permit was previously approved to place a fence along the side yard and the applicant is now proposing to construct a 400 square foot patio on the east side of her home. Mr. Grittman stated the property is within the critical area so a critical area permit is required to assure any construction or land alteration will not negatively impact the river or create negative visual impacts from the river. He noted the location of the proposed patio and indicated it meets code requirements for slope and appears there are no impacts to the steeper portions of the property. 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Mr. Grittman stated impervious surface will be created by the patio but not impact the critical area or neighboring property. A condition of approval allows review and comment by the city engineer related to impervious surface impacts. Mr. Grittman advised staff found this request is consistent with the critical area requirements, does not create adverse impacts, and is recommended for approval subject to conditions identified in the staff report. Commissioner Magnuson asked who receives the information required by the conditions of approval. Mr. Grittman stated it would be submitted to staff prior to construction. Commissioner Noonan referenced condition #4 and asked what the impervious surface coverage impacts might be. Mr. Grittman explained the patio will create a change in the amount of drainage and the applicant has provided illustrations of landscaping but staff will need to address the direction of runoff and how it will be handled. Chair Norton asked if the city has enough information to move the application forward, noting four conditions are recommended. Mr. Grittman stated a final grading plan has not yet been submitted but it is a fully developed site so staff knows generally how the site drains. The applicant has been asked to verify, as part of the permit process, how much soil will be moved. However, it is conceivable that something could come up during construction and if it changes the nature of the permit considered by the planning commission, it will be presented for re- consideration. He estimated the grade to be 3 -feet, at most, so assumptions can be made relating to the amount of dirt that will be moved. Mr. Grittman stated if the planning commission is not comfortable with the level of information provided with the application, it can be continued until that documentation is submitted. Chair Norton asked whether the information required in the conditions is typically submitted by the applicant prior to planning commission consideration. Mr. Grittman stated it is not always submitted, especially for single - family or small projects. He explained staff attempts to balance requirements so it is not overly burdensome to the applicant yet is enough information for the commission to consider. In this case, staff felt there was enough information to proceed and assure it will be constructed in a responsible manner. Beverly Sargent, 1040 Sibley Memorial Highway, applicant, stated this is a relatively flat area and she plans to use pervious pavers, consistent with the existing retaining wall. She noted the location of large Maple trees that will be protected and may result in a patio that is smaller than 20 feet by 20 feet. Commissioner Magnuson asked if a landscape company will do this work. Ms. Sargent stated she has experience with pavers and plans to do the installation. She added that she is comfortable with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Chair Norton asked where the dirt will be relocated. Ms. Sargent stated the dirt will be used to fill a low area by one of the Maple trees as well as a divot between the two Maple trees. Chair Norton asked if the retaining wall needs to be part of the application. Mr. Grittman stated the plans don't specify the retaining wall but the drawing shows a line so it is fair to interpret as a retaining wall given the slope. 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 MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 1. THE VOLUME OF DIRT TO BE RELOCATED BE SPECIFIED BY THE APPLICANT. 2. THE PROPOSED SOIL RELOCATION AREA BE ILLUSTRATED ON THE SITE PLAN. 3. THE APPLICANT SPECIFY WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED PATIO CONSTRUCTION WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF ANY VEGETATION (OTHER THAN TURF). 4. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE IMPACTS BE CLARIFIED. THIS ISSUE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO COMMENT BY THE CITY ENGINEER. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the retaining wall will not be part of the consideration, motion, or conditions of approval. Chair Norton offered a friendly amendment to the staff report, Page 2, "Action Requested," to indicate: A. APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO ALLOW THE PATIO AND RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION, BASED ON..." Commissioners Noonan and Field accepted the friendly amendment to assure there is no question at a later point in time. Mr. Grittman advised that one of the critical area considerations relates to visual impact and one of the rules is that materials must be of a natural material. He recommended that requirement be specified. Commissioner Field suggested the condition clearly identify the retaining wall under consideration and its intended location. Commissioner Viksnins offered a friendly amendment to the staff report, Page 2, "Action Requested," to indicate: A. APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO ALLOW THE PATIO AND RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION AS DEPICTED ON THE ATTACHED DIAGRAM, BASED ON..." And to add an additional condition as follows: 5. RETAINING WALL AND PATIO TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF NATURAL MATERIALS. Commissioners Noonan and Field accepted the friendly amendment. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -17 Michael Cormick 1176 Sibley Memorial Highway Critical Area Permit to replace a single family home Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Michael Cormick for a critical area permit to replace a single - family home at 1176 Sibley Memorial Highway. The property is zoned single - family residential, guided as low density residential, and occupied by a small single- family home. He displayed a site plan identifying the subject site and described the location of the existing home that the applicant is proposing to remove. The applicant would like to construct a larger home and garage and relocate the driveway to avoid the steep slope on the east side of the property. The property is within the critical area and required to receive a critical area permit for any construction or land alteration. This will involve a significant amount of construction with the removal of the existing home and construction of a new story- and -a -half lookout style house. He displayed exterior elevations depicting the proposed home, noting total height is about 23 feet, less than the height restriction threshold of 25 feet. 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Mr. Grittman advised there is not a setback issue from the bluff and given the existing layout of the property, the construction is on slopes less than 10- percent and the driveway relocation is more consistent with the Code than the current location. Vinyl shake siding meets the critical area ordinance requirement for natural or natural looking external materials and there will be no impacts from the river related to visibility. Staff believes it is designed in a manner that is consistent with the critical area ordinance and recommends approval subject to routine conditions. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the proposed shed raises planning concern. Mr. Grittman advised it is a portable shed and meets the city's critical area requirements. Commissioners Viksnins asked if the land disturbance guidance document addresses displaced soils. Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello explained the land disturbance guidance document governs how construction projects are managed while the soil is disturbed. With the prior application the project was too small to apply these standards. However, this application project is of a large enough scale that the land disturbance guidance document is applicable. He indicated the building permit will require submittal of an erosion and sediment control plan, which will be applied to the land disturbance guidance document to assure they are meeting all of the requirements. Commissioner Noonan noted the sanitary sewer easement and asked if it will interfere with respect to construction activity or if the construction may impact the city's ability to maintain of that utility. Mr. Grittman explained the sanitary sewer is within an easement and the city has rights to use that easement. If sewer work is required within the easement, replacement requirements are the burden of the property owner. However, if work is on land outside the easement the city is required to obtain that land. Mr. Mazzitello explained that during the pre - application process, staff addressed this easement with the applicant so they could design the site. The only things placed over the easement are things the property owner would be willing to replace should removal be necessary to maintain the utility. Michael Cormick, 1176 Sibley Memorial Highway, applicant, stated he had nothing to add to staffs presentation. Commissioner Magnuson noted the reference that construction will occur in two phases: removal of the house /driveway; and, construction of the new house. She asked if the applicant has an anticipated timeframe. Mr. Cormick stated they have no time frame because there are a lot of details to work out but are hoping to start this fall. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek advised that the permit is valid for one year from the date of approval. 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 FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 2. ANY FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY ENGINEER REGARDING GRADING, EROSION AND STORMWATER CONTROL. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -11 (continued from May 24, 2011 meeting) Paul Elias 2242 Lexington Avenue South Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for a detached garage Planner Stephen Grittman explained that Paul Elias is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a detached garage at 2242 Lexington Avenue South. He displayed a cross section plan of the three -car garage with a vaulted storage loft that is 864 square feet in area. Mr. Grittman stated staff's recommendation from the May 24, 2011, meeting stands. That staff recommendation indicated support of the CUP to allow a detached accessory structure upon the subject site; however, staff does not recommend approval of the associated variance to allow the structure to exceed 750 square feet in size. Commissioner Viksnins asked if there has been discussion between staff and the applicant relating to this proposal. Mr. Sedlacek advised that following the May meeting staff provided Mr. Elias with a list of items that needed to be included in his application as specified by the planning commission. Commissioner Field noted both a CUP and variance are being requested but a building of 750 square feet would not require a variance. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct. Chair Norton thanked Mr. Elias for submitting the requested additional information and asked if he had anything to add. Paul Elias, 2242 Lexington Avenue S., applicant, stated he had nothing to add. 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 VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Commissioner Noonan noted the requests are distinctly different and asked if the consideration will be split into two motions. Chair Norton stated that is correct and is up to whoever makes the motion. The commissioners noted condition #1, as written in the staff report, contains two options related to whether the variance is approved. Commissioner Viksnins noted the condition could remain as written since it presents an "either /or" scenario. The planning commission concurred. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE CITY APPROVE THE REQUESTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AREA VARIANCE, -OR- THE APPLICANT REVISES HIS REQUEST TO MEET THE 750 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA. 2. A SPECIFIC PLAN ALTERNATIVE BE SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT. SUCH PLANS, DRAWN TO SCALE, SHALL BE MODIFIED TO SPECIFY PROPOSED FINISH MATERIALS, COLORS, AND STRUCTURE HEIGHT. 3. THE GARAGE NOT EXCEED 15 FEET IN HEIGHT. 0 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 4. THE GARAGE MATCH THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IN COLOR AND SHOW COMPATIBILITY IN MATERIALS. 5. THE APPLICANT CONSIDER MATCHING THE GARAGE'S ROOF STYLE AND ROOF PITCH WITH THAT OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. 6. THE EXISTING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE BE REMOVED AND RE- ESTABLISHED IN TURF AND /OR PAVEMENT AS A PART OF THIS PROJECT. AYES NAYS COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN THAT IT EXCEEDS THE AREA LIMIT WHICH THE CITY HAS DETERMINED TO BE "REASONABLE" WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. 2. THE AMOUNT OF ACCESSORY STORAGE SPACE PROPOSED UPON THE SUBJECT SITE COULD CONCEIVABLY OCCUR WITHOUT NEED FOR A VARIANCE (VIA A COMBINATION OF ATTACHED AND DETACHED GARAGES). 3. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING WOULD SET AN UNDESIRABLE PRECEDENT IN REGARD TO THE ALLOWANCE OF FUTURE OVERSIZED STRUCTURES. 4. THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A "REASONABLE" USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Commissioner Noonan stated the commission discussed, at the last meeting, the new test of "reasonable use" under the newly signed variance law. He stated it is reasonable to have an accessory building; however, the question is whether it is reasonable to push the size beyond 750 square feet "just because" there is need to accommodate more things. He is not compelled that there is justification as to the reasonable use or practical necessity because there is sufficient area to accommodate a garage that would provide for a reasonable accessory structure without having to grant the additional square footage requested by the variance. Chair Norton concurred and stated he does not find that sufficient information has been provided to this body to establish the practical difficulties that is currently required by Minnesota state statutes. Commissioner Viksnins concurred. Commissioner Magnuson noted another criteria to consider is that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. She recalled the property is quite narrow but the need for a three -car garage is based largely on the land owner's need to accommodate a large number of vehicles as opposed to any practical difficulty that relates to the land itself. She stated that as sympathetic as she is to allowing the creation of a garage to accommodate all of those things, she agreed there is not enough information to demonstrate that particular standard of the ordinance has been met. Thus, she agrees the city cannot grant the variance. Commissioner Field noted that based on the charge to the planning commission, this variance cannot be considered. He stated he would like to find a way to grant the variance but his "hands" are tied by the legal circumstances surrounding the city's ability to grant the variance. Chair Norton stated that putting aside his personal preference for a detached garage that might be larger than 750 square feet, that is the city's ordinance. He explained to Mr. Elias that the public hearing has been closed and the planning commission is obligated to follow the rules and bound by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Commissioner Viksnins called the question. AYES 5 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -21 David Albrecht 1345 Mendota Heights Road Variances to required setback for monument sign Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of David Albrecht for a variance to the required setback from both Mendota Heights Road and Northland Drive for a monument sign at 1345 Mendota Heights Road. The property is zoned and guided for industrial. He displayed a site plan of the Brown College property and explained the zoning ordinance requirement for freestanding sign setbacks along roads is that no sign is to be located within the building setback, which is 40 feet for the industrial district. The sign along Mendota Heights Road is proposed to be located 15 feet back of the existing curb and the sign along Northland Drive is proposed to be located 12 feet back of the existing curb. Mr. Grittman explained that given the fact there is boulevard landscaping, it would virtually be a zero setback from the property line. Based on an original PUD approval, a 20 -foot setback for monument signs is the common occurrence. The variance is to be judged whether there are practical difficulties that are unique to the property. In this case, the applicant cited vegetation that interferes with views of the signs at the driveways from both streets. However, landscaping is a common condition of the property development and does not, by itself, meet the test for "uniqueness" required by the variance analysis. In addition, staff believes there are options with the existing vegetation to resolve visibility issues of signage that do not require a setback variance as requested. Mr. Grittman stated staff finds that the conditions for variance are not present and recommends against approval. Staff believes it is appropriate to approve signage consistent with the 20 -foot setback applied to this and other property in the district and approved through the original PUD. Chair Norton asked if a separate action is needed by the planning commission to allow the signs to be placed at the 20 -foot setback. Mr. Grittman explained the signs can be replaced at the 20 -foot line without separate planning commission action. Commissioner Viksnins asked where the signs would be located with a 20 -foot setback. Mr. Grittman used a site plan to draw the location of the right -of -way and 20 -foot setback lines. He also displayed a photograph depicting the existing sign that meets the 20 -foot setback. Commissioner Viksnins asked what are the options to address sign visibility. Mr. Grittman stated the trees could be trimmed, relocated, or removed. He explained trees were planted throughout the industrial park and cannot be found as a unique condition to grant a variance, cautioning such an approval would establish a precedent. Commissioner Magnuson asked if Brown College owns the trees and has the ability to trim or remove them. Mr. Grittman advised the trees are located on their private property. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the proposed signs, located at the 20 -foot setback, would be consistent with the city's code. Mr. Grittman stated he thinks the proposed signs are consistent with code and original PUD approval if at the 20 -foot setback. Commissioner Magnuson reviewed the past consideration of the Mendakota sign and asked if this consideration is consistent with that detailed analysis. Chair Norton noted the Mendakota sign is located in a residential zone. David Albrecht, Albrecht Sign Company representing the applicant, explained their variance request is due to the trees that are in the way. He displayed a photograph that depicted stakes at the setback line and explained that passing drivers would not be able to see signs in those locations, have to slam on the car breaks, and turn around. He pointed out that across the street the tree lines are set back farther than on the applicant's property. In addition, 11 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 there is a permanent sign in the area at 17 feet from the back of the curb so he would question how that was approved. Chair Norton explained the planning commission has to abide by state statute and asked Mr. Albrecht what are the practical difficulties that exist on this property that would lead the city to conclude the requested variance is necessary. Mr. Albrecht stated the practical difficulties are that multiple trees would have to be cut to assure visibility of the signs. In addition, the trees are quite large so they could not be trimmed. Chair Norton asked Mr. Albrecht if he is aware of any restrictions that would prohibit the property owner from removing the trees. Mr. Albrecht answered that he is not. Commissioner Magnuson asked why the sign must be in this particular location. Mr. Albrecht explained the signs were sited in locations to assure drivers on the road would be able to see it. Commissioner Magnuson noted an area that is more open and asked if that location could be considered. Mr. Albrecht explained it is typical to locate monument signs at the point of entrance. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there is no other location on the property where the sign could be located and meet the 20 -foot setback requirement. Mr. Albrecht stated there may be but not at the two entrance points where the trees are massive and block the view of the sign. Commissioner Viksnins asked if signs could be placed consistent with the setback along Mendota Heights Road that contain wording to identify the location of the entrance. This option would inform the driver of the entrance point and be consistent with the setback requirement. Mr. Albrecht stated that is a possibility and explained he is a subcontractor for a national sign company that has been hired by Brown College. Thus, he is bringing forth their recommendation and information. Commissioner Viksnins stated he thinks the College can accomplish what it desires and still meet required setbacks. Commissioner Noonan asked if the tree behind the bus stop off Mendota Heights Road, east of the entrance, is blocking the sign. Mr. Albrecht stated that is correct. Commissioner Noonan stated it appears there is nothing to prohibit trimming the lower branches to increase visibility. Commissioner Noonan stated the tree on the other side of the driveway could also be trimmed and farther to the west there is an open area that would accommodate appropriate signage to alert the driver of the entrance location. 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 VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FERGUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED, BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. THE CONDITIONS RAISING ISSUES FOR SIGN VISIBILITY ARE NOT UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, BUT ARE COMMON THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT. 2. THE CITY HAS SET A STANDARD FOR SIGN SETBACK BY PREVIOUS PUD APPROVAL AT 20 FEET, WHICH HAS BECOME THE COMMON CONDITION IN THE AREA. 3. VEGETATION OBSCURING VISIBILITY OF THE SIGNS CAN BE MODIFIED OR REMOVED TO RESOLVE THE DIFFICULTY. 4. GRANT OF THIS VARIANCE WOULD BE ESTABLISHING A PRIVILEGE FOR THIS PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED TO OTHERS IN THE DISTRICT. AYES 5 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -14 White Pine Holdings 750 Highway 110 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Mr. Sedlacek advised there is pending litigation regarding this parcel of land and the location of a sewer line that is currently located within the parcel. Tonight the decision is specific to the request for a senior housing building and whether it fits with the character of the community and spirit of that approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). He recommended the planning commission stay away from any points involved in the litigation. Planner Stephen Grittman displayed the site plan, noting the proposed senior facility is part of Mendota Plaza. The subject property is in the southeast corner with access from South Plaza Drive. The original PUD incorporated a property in this area for MU -PUD. Mr. Grittman explained at the time of the PUD approval, a number of documents were brought forward but the housing portion was conceptual because the PUD developers anticipated they would not develop the housing component. One of the conditions in the original proposal was that at the time of transfer of land to an alternative developer, it would have to be part of the PUD documents through an amendment. This requested amendment incorporates the condition that the transfer is approved as part of the project. Mr. Grittman presented the request of White Pine Holdings for a PUD amendment and final PUD approval to construct a four -story, 100 -unit senior residential facility with varying levels of service, and an underground parking facility. There is also surface parking along the entrance drive. The application came forward with a significant set of plans but is still missing some detail from a planning review standpoint. He explained the submittals did not include a thorough application letter, a common requirement, to describe the project so staff can understand detail that may be missing. In addition, it is not clear what exterior materials are proposed as part of the building application. When the city council considered the PUD, it was concerned about the aesthetics of the building so conditions were placed on architectural details and materials. That information needs to be provided to assure consistency with the original PUD approval. Mr. Grittman noted that code requires 200 parking spaces and 60 parking spaces are proposed, which is one -third of the requirement. He explained the applicant was asked to submit supporting documentation that the reduced level of parking spaces would be sufficient. Mr. Grittman advised that the information provided on the signage did not include detail on total square footage on the site. Because this is a residential portion of the PUD, there is also the issue of monument sized signage. An applicant is typically asked to submit a complete sign package to identify all signage, materials, configuration, and rationale if the submittal varies from residential standards by PUD. Chair Norton stated that other application deficiencies are noted in the staff report and asked if that information has been provided to the applicant. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Field asked if a complete application has been submitted. Mr. Grittman explained that information is missing that would help staff evaluate the proposal. Commissioner Field stated he views this is not a complete application and was annoyed that it had been placed on an agenda when there are nine cases to consider. Commissioner Noonan stated he shared that frustration. He noted the city council paid particular attention to the issue of architectural character and asked about specific concerns related to architectural character or additional information requested to complete the application. Mr. Grittman stated it was an issue for the city council and for the purposes of the staff report, reflected more the lack of specificity of materials. Commissioner Noonan asked if there is anything with the renderings that was inconsistent with what the city council desired on this site. Mr. Grittman explained a specific requirement was that 25- percent of the building be covered with stone or brick. However, the drawings indicate that standard is not met. He stated staff did not want to speak to the city council's desire but, rather, commented on the requirement. 13 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Commissioner Viksnins asked about the timeframe to reconsider if it is tabled. Mr. Grittman stated the applicant submitted materials on May 10, 2011, and it was accepted. Staff believes there is not adequate material for full staff review and report. Mr. Grittman explained the application is active so the city has 60 days to review the application. Or, with notice to the applicant, the city can unilaterally extend for an additional 60 days from date of application to the time Council takes action. Commissioner Field recalled a past case where he had objected to an encroachment on his easement and the city attorney indicated it would not become involved in a private dispute. He asked why the planning commission would proceed with consideration of this application prior to the litigation being resolved. Mr. Sedlacek explained the city council has advised this is a planning application and directed staff to, as best it can, consider the application on its merits and leave the litigation on the side. Commissioner Magnuson stated if the applicants agree in writing to extend the timeline, is it beyond the 120 days. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative and explained the applicant can waive, in writing, the 120 day period. Chuck Rothstein, 1807 Welsh Lane, co -owner of White Pine Senior Living, stated they are not part of the litigation by the seller of the property, the underlying owner, who has a dispute with the city. He stated they have no desire to antagonize anyone on the planning commission. Mr. Rothstein referenced a letter from Mr. Sedlacek indicating the city has received a complete plan on May 10, 2011. He stated it usually happens that they submit a lot of plans and resolve issues with staff between the first and second planning commission meeting. He stated they cannot anticipate every possible question or nuance in the city's ordinances and he understands there are six outstanding issues. Mr. Rothstein stated they will provide that information to staff to make a reasoned decision. He explained that this is a complicated development project and he does not object to continuing consideration to the July meeting. Commissioner Noonan asked what would be considered comparable projects. Mr. Rothstein stated they have two projects in Inver Grove Heights, Arbor Point behind Rainbow Foods, that contain the same architectural contours, style, gables, and pitch as proposed in Mendota Heights. He displayed a materials board and invited commissioners to visit the Inver Grove Heights facility to see the building style, number of parking spaces provided, and people served. Commissioner Noonan requested additional detail on the types of units that will be provided so the commissioners can understand the residents to be served and cross reference it with the number of parking spaces being provided. Mr. Rothstein stated the proposed units are not apartments because they have a smaller square footage and not inhabited by anyone who can live independently. He stated there are parking standards for assisted living, usually one parking unit for three assisted living units. Mr. Rothstein stated they have no relationship with Paster Enterprises other than they purchased the property. He and his wife own White Pine Assisted Living in Minnesota and Comforts of Homes in Wisconsin, which are completely unaffiliated from Paster Enterprises. Mr. Rothstein assured the commissioners that they will work in good faith with staff to resolve the six identified issues and are willing to sign an extension beyond the 60 -day period. Commissioner Noonan requested a colored building rendering depicting the architecture. 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 Magnuson asked if the matter has to be tabled to a meeting date or if it could be tabled until all of the issues have been resolved. Chair Norton stated his understanding it should be tabled to a date certain and if not resolved to the satisfaction of staff by that date, the application can be tabled again at the discretion of the applicant. Chair Norton noted the applicant has indicated he would be agreeable if that were to occur. 14 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO THE JULY 26, 2011 MEETING WITH THE ANTICIPATION STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WILL RESOLVE ISSUES TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE APPLICATION AND SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANTS AGREEING, IN WRITING, TO EXTEND THE TIMELINE FOR ZONING APPROVALS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE 15.99. AYES NAYS Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11 -10 Beverly Sargent Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -12 Patrick Costello Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission with an added condition to limit operating hours. Commissioner Viksnins asked about the fine imposed on Case #11 -10. Mr. Sedlacek explained the planning commission had recommended a double fine to the extent allowed by the ordinance. Upon further review, staff determined that only applies to certain building permits. It has been taken under advisement for the fee schedule which will be revised by the city council. Commissioner Magnuson stated it would be helpful to receive the original PUD requirements for the White Pines development. Mr. Sedlacek stated that information will be provided. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:03 P.M. AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 15