Loading...
2011-07-26 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes July 26, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 26, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Hennes, Magnuson, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent and excused: Commissioners Field and Noonan. Those present were City Administrator David McKnight, Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval ofAgenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of June 28, 2011, Minutes Chair Norton requested a correction to Page 15, adjournment motion, to indicated it was seconded by Commissioner Magnuson. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2011, AS CORRECTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #11 -14 White Pine Holdings 750 Highway 110 Amendment to conditional use permit for planned unit development Planner Stephen Grittman stated this case is a request of White Pine Holdings for an amendment to a conditional permit (CUP) for planned unit development (PUD) for the Mendota Plaza Redevelopment. However, the applicant has asked that consideration be removed from tonight's agenda so they can address comments made in the staff report. Mr. Grittman explained that notifications expire the first week of September so the appropriate action would be to continue the hearing to a subsequent commission meeting. He noted the city council will meet a day before the expiration of the 60 -day extension so there will be time for consideration. Chair Norton referenced an e-mail from Chuck Rothstein, co -owner of White Pine Senior Living, dated July 26, 2011, at 3:30 p.m., requesting the item be removed from tonight's planning commission agenda. Commissioner Roston asked if there is sufficient time to comply with the 60 -day rule in the event this e-mail is not considered to be a legal waiver. Mr. Grittman stated the applicants were sent a letter of extension, leaving the planning commission and council adequate time to consider this application. Commissioner Hennes referenced the July 15 memorandum from Mr. Sedlacek and letter from Mr. Rothstein of the same date. He asked whether the letter from Mr. Sedlacek addressed issues raised by Mr. Rothstein. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2011 City Administrator Knight answered in the affirmative, noting Mr. Sedlacek's letter was drafted on July 15 but not finished until last week so it is a coincidence the memo and letter are dated the same. He confirmed the city attorney will contact White Pines requesting another extension since they are not in attendance tonight. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE AUGUST 23, 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 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the planning commission would consider this application again at its August 23, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -22 Phillip Cattanach 2455 Visitation Drive Conditional use permit for an accessory structure, variances for total area of accessory structures, and for an overhang greater than eighteen inches Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Visitation School for approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) and variances to allow the construction of an 1,823 sq. ft. accessory building at 2455 Visitation Drive. The property is zoned R -1, single family residential and guided for low density residential. He displayed a map of the subject site and proposed location of the accessory building that would serve as an outdoor classroom and support space for seasonal sports activities. Mr. Grittman noted the zoning ordinance makes provisions for accessory buildings in the R -1 zoning district subject to setbacks of 10 feet, average roof height of 15 feet, maximum of 425 sq. ft., and a maximum number of accessory buildings. He displayed a site plan identifying the building location, existing vegetation, and explained the grading that would take place. Mr. Grittman advised that when considering a variance, the city must find there are practical difficulties putting the property to the use proposed by the applicant and that the request would use the property in a reasonable manner. There must also be a finding that there are unique conditions on the property creating practical difficulties and that the use would not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. He presented staff's analysis as detailed in the planner's report and explained that the proposed sixth accessory building would increase the total square footage to 6,335. He noted the maximum allowed in code is 425 sq. ft.; however, the code does not include an incremental increase to address large -sized properties. It was noted this is a 60 -acre site. Mr. Grittman presented the site plan, noting the location of the proposed building is south of the tennis court, about 500 feet from the nearest residential property to the north. He pointed out the significant vegetation around the property and advised that changes to the overall site plan, including accessory buildings of more than 425 sq. ft., require a CUP and, in this case, a variance to allow the size and number of accessory buildings as proposed. Mr. Grittman stated staff recommends approval of the CUP and variances, based on the seven findings of fact as detailed in the staff report and asking the applicant to provide additional information pertaining to a pedestrian circulation plan and updated site plan if changes are being made. He noted the city has approved similar variances on other large institutional property using the finding that the 425 sq. ft. rule does not translate well to institutional uses. Staff finds the tests for a variance and CUP are met, noting the nature of the use is not changing. Commissioner Roston stated he is not opposed to the project but from a policy and procedure standpoint, the city has been reluctant to grant variances in a variety of circumstances. He acknowledged the new variance ruling and 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2011 asked if from a policy standpoint the city is better off considering variances for these types of circumstances than to amend the zoning ordinance. Mr. Grittman stated if the set of conditions are found routinely and the city wants to approve such requests, writing code around those conditions would be better than considering variances. He stated several schools and the golf course have the same issue with accessory buildings. Commissioner Hennes noted the property is zoned residential, as is the Mendakota property, and asked why it is zoned residential instead of institutional. Mr. Grittman explained that Mendota Heights uses the residential district to accommodate schools and some institutional uses instead of having a specific institutional zoning district. Commissioner Hennes noted if this property was zoned something other than residential, the 425 sq. ft. rule would not be an issue. Mr. Grittman stated there are also restrictions on the size of accessory building construction that apply differently in different zoning districts. Since the city does not have a separate zoning district for this type of use, it is left with the zoning language for residential. Commissioner Hennes asked if the city could create a new zoning classification for institutional. Mr. Grittman stated a new district could be created or more specific language developed on standards for this type of use within a residential district. Commissioner Viksnins stated it seems this application is trying to use variance language in a way that does not quite fit. He asked what is found as the unique condition creating the practical difficulty. Mr. Grittman stated the unique condition relates to the size of the use and the size of the parcel not being commensurate with the limitations in the code. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the unique conditions have to lie with the property. Mr. Grittman agreed it is usually parcel based but the city is not technically restricted. Commissioner Magnusson asked about the process to amend the code. Mr. Grittman stated a public hearing would be published and noticed for the commission's August meeting and then taken up by the council at its following meeting. Dawn Nichols, representing the applicant, explained that Visitation was gifted with an opportunity to further enhance student's education by creating an outdoor classroom. As a result, Visitation has been considering, for some time, how to wisely utilize its resources to create a beautiful outdoor classroom to provide additional opportunities for students. If approved, the classroom would be created in memory of Visitation's dear friends who provided the donation. In addition, the small building would provide multi -use for storage of some sports equipment and two bathrooms, which would be a safety, health, and wellness improvement. Ms. Nichols stated they had hoped to dedicate the building done several months ago but that did not come to pass. Visitation has now completed its programming and is at a point to come forward and ask for the city's consideration. Commissioner Magnuson stated she thinks it is a good and creative use and asked if it would cause a problem to delay consideration if the city wanted to amend its ordinance to address institutional properties and eliminate the variance requirement in this case. Craig Larson, Focus Design Build, stated they want to start construction as soon as city approval is received, hopefully by mid - August so the building can be completed late- September and a dedication held. He stated if this project is delayed to the first part of September, the construction schedule would be tight and depending on weather may have to be delayed until spring. 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 HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2011 CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS DISCUSSED AND CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT RECEIVE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION; 2. THE CITY ENGINEER PROVIDE COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA AND DRAINAGE IMPACTS; AND, 3. THE APPLICANT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO A PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN WITH AN UPDATED SITE PLAN FOR CITY REVIEW PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. Commissioner Roston suggested adding findings added to assure the property supports the variance. He offered the following friendly amendment to add findings: 1. THE PROPERTY IS BEING USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER BECAUSE THE TOTAL BUILDING SIZE OF THE ADDITION, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE OVERALL PROPERTY SIZE, IS REASONABLE; 2. THE PROPERTY IS BEING USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER BECAUSE IT IS AN INSTITUTIONAL USE WITH A SCHOOL AND THIS WILL FURTHER EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS AS WELL AS USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR STORAGE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPORTS AND BATHROOMS; 3. THE USE IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT IS 500 FEET FROM THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL HOME; AND 4. THE USE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Commissioner Viksnins stated he wants to support this application and asked what is unique to this property. Chair Norton stated it is a 60 -acre parcel compared to a parcel of less than an acre that would be typical to a residential property. In addition, the use of the property is unique in that it is an educational institution as opposed to single - family or multi - family residences. Chair Norton noted the staff report contains seven findings of fact that support approval of the CUP and variance for an accessory building in addition to the four stated by Commissioner Roston. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the suggested findings should be included in the motion. CHAIR NORTON ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OFFERED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON. Commissioner Magnuson suggested all findings be incorporated into the motion since they address practical difficulties and other requirements for granting a variance. Chair Norton raised the option of creating an institutional zoning district which may avoid this type of variance consideration in the future. Commissioner Magnuson asked if creating an institutional zone would allow them to build additional classroom buildings without city approval. Chair Norton agreed that could be the case, depending on how the language is drafted and requirements to be met. Commissioner Roston noted the language could be written to require a CUP for accessory buildings. Mr. Grittman concurred and indicated the ordinance can be written as the city determines is appropriate. 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2011 Commissioner Viksnins clarified this matter is not included in the motion under consideration but an option the city could pursue. Chair Norton stated that is correct. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the planning commission could recommend the city consider an ordinance amendment so staff could start the process. Mr. Grittman explained that staff could generate a request and bring it to the planning commission or the planning commission could consider calling for a public hearing at a future meeting. CHAIR NORTON ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF THE UNIQUENESS OF THE PROPERTY AND USE OF THE PROPERTY, AS INDICATED IN STAFF'S FINDING OF FACT NO. 2. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its August 2, 2011, meeting. Verbal Review Mr. Ruzek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11 -11 Paul Elias Conditional Use Permit/Variance • City Council denied Variance and continued the CUP. PLANNING CASE #11 -13 New Cingular Wireless Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -14 White Pine Holdings Conditional Use Permit Amendment • Case had been continued by the Planning Commission and was continued again tonight. PLANNING CASE #11 -15 David Bergh Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -16 Michael Waldman Wetlands Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -17 Michael Cormick Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -18 John and Rebecca Driscoll Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -19 Beverly Sargent Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -21 David Albrecht Variances • Denied by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hennes asked why the Paul Elias CUP was continued. Chair Norton stated the Council wanted additional information on the garage that was to be built. Commissioner Roston asked staff to provide a recommendation on an ordinance revision to create an institutional zoning district. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:37 P.M. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 5