Loading...
2011-08-23 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 23, 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, Hennes (arrived at 7:47 p.m.), Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent and excused: Commissioner Magnuson. Also present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Interim City Administrator/Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of JUN 26, 2011, Minutes The July 26, 2011, meeting minutes will be considered at the next meeting. Chair Norton stated that in consideration of audience members, the agenda will be reordered as follows: Planning Case #11 -23 and then #11 -14. Hearings PLANNING CASE #11 -23 Bob Sullwold 667 Second Avenue Variance to the front yard setback for a front porch and covered front entry Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Bob and Diane Sullwold for approval of a variance from the front yard setback requirement to permit the construction of a covered open porch that would extend into the required 30 -foot front yard setback. He displayed a site plan and indicated the subject property is zoned single - family residential, guided for low density residential, and occupied by a single - family home. He then displayed a sketch plan of the proposed front porch and covered front entry. The proposed porch is 10 -feet by 14 -feet in size, covering a new deck that provides access to the front entrance. The front of the home is 35 feet from the right -of -way so it would encroach by about 5 feet into the setback. Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and explained the ordinance accommodates an allowed encroachment of five feet (a setback of 25 feet) with a total area of 50 square feet by conditional use permit (CUP). The proposed project meets the required setback, but exceeds the allowable area by about 18 square feet. Thus, the applicant is seeking a variance rather than a CUP. Mr. Grittman explained the applicant's a single - family home meets the setback requirements and so there is nothing unique to compel consideration of a variance. In addition, the configuration of the porch, but for the area, would meet code requirements by CUP. As a result, staff does not believe the test for Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 variance has been met to accommodate the larger proposed structure. Mr. Grittman advised that planning staff believes the conditions supporting approval of a CUP for a porch encroachment of 50 feet would be present, and recommended the applicant consider amending the application to meet that standard and reapplying for a CUP. Commissioner Roston stated his concern that the planning commission consider variance requests in a manner that is consistent to assure all are treated the same. Mr. Grittman noted the city is now applying the new statute standards for a variance. Prior to that statute, consideration for variances was more "cut and dried" because there had to be hardship and almost no other use. The new statute, however, inserts a significant level of subjectivity in whether the applicant is using the property in a reasonable manner. He indicated the current code does not give the planning commission much guidance so staff is looking for uniqueness of the property. Mr. Grittman explained staff recommended approval of the Visitation variance because it was the opinion that application of code was misapplied given the institutional nature of the use in a residential zone. Mr. Grittman explained that in this case, the city has made a specific code amendment to address this kind of application, allowing an encroachment into the 30 -foot setback to allow for this kind of improvement. The city has been rigorous in applying that standard since adoption. Mr. Grittman noted that in looking if there are unique conditions based on other approvals, in this case, staff did not find those conditions and could not recommend approval. Commissioner Noonan asked if the applicants would have to come back for a CUP if the planning commission were to recommend denial and the city council agreed. Mr. Grittman explained that would be the process since staff did not notice this meeting for consideration of a CUP. Commissioner Noonan stated staff had mentioned a 50 -foot permitted encroachment into the front yard but given the house is 35 feet back, the applicant could do a 10 -foot by 10 -foot covered porch as opposed to a 5 -foot by 10 -foot covered porch. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Viksnins asked how large of a covered porch staff would support for a variance. Mr. Grittman stated he has difficulty with the variance issue in this case because of the requirement for uniqueness. He stated if the porch was 5 -feet by 10 -feet instead of 5 -feet by 14 -feet it may be possible to consider a variance; however, the findings may not be clear and it would eliminate the applicant from going through another process. It was noted that a 5 -foot by 10 -foot covered porch would not necessitate a variance and a 10 -foot by 10 -foot covered porch would require a CUP, not a variance. Robert Sullwold, 667 Second Avenue, applicant, stated he was not aware of a CUP process or those parameters. He explained he had already built the deck, which was permitted up to two feet from the property line so he cannot scale it back. He stated he is asking for a variance of 4 feet 2 inches, less than five feet, and noted it is over 50 feet from the street with 15 feet being boulevard that will not be used for anything else. Mr. Sullwold noted this will be good improvement to the neighborhood and the house, making it more aesthetically pleasing than the current door cover. He asked if it would meet the requirements if a smaller roof is constructed. 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 NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 AYES 5 NAYS 0 CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Noonan asked if it is the covered portion that necessitates the variance. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct and there is not the same limitation on the deck as the roof portion. Commissioner Noonan stated the circumstances in this case are somewhat similar to a matter considered previously where a resident wanted a variance to build a three -car garage sized out of desire. In that case, the planning commission determined it had to be true to the variance law and as precise as possible. He stated he supports the motion for denial as it is consistent with past actions. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its September 6, 2011, meeting Mr. Sullwold asked if he has recourse should the city council deny his variance request. Chair Norton recommended he speak with staff regarding that matter. PLANNING CASE #11 -14 White Pine Holdings 750 Highway 110 Amendment to conditional use permit for planned unit development Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated the information contained in the staff report had been vetted through several offices, including legal counsel and Mr. Grittman. He explained the request is for an amendment to the conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for Lot 6, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Redevelopment. He referenced his July 15, 2011 memorandum that outlined ways in which this proposal is different than what was included in the concept plan of Planning Case #2008 -11. Mr. Sedlacek explained that in addition to concerns outlined in the staff report, it was indicated during meetings held last week that the applicant intends to get feedback now so they can return to the commission's September meeting with an updated report and materials. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff discussed the extension to the 60 -day review period. He explained the 60 -day review period had already been extended by the city and will expire September 6, 2011. Staff had hoped to have the original extension letter in hand tonight; however, has only received a facsimile copy. Until the city has a letter of extension containing original signatures (wet document) in hand, legal counsel has advised the review period will end at the next city council meeting. Mr. Sedlacek indicated Staff is urging extreme caution in how to proceed and the city council has indicated if the city does not receive the original extension document, it may hold a special meeting next Tuesday to consider the planning commission's recommendation. Mr. Sedlacek presented the staff report, indicating in 2008 the original PUD included a mixed number of uses including a large residential building. He displayed a site plan of the south elevation that the city council had approved in the concept plan and was included in the developer agreement. Mr. Sedlacek Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 stated the developer agreement for Lot 6, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Redevelopment, contains approximately two acres, as described in Exhibit A, to construct a 100 -unit, four -story residential multi- family senior /assisted living facility. This is what was to be constructed and why staff recommended the new proposal is an amendment to the PUD. In addition to the original exterior elevations being different from the proposed plan, the applicant has also changed the orientation of the building. He presented a diagram of the original concept plan proposal depicting a 4 -story building on west side of Lot 6 with parking on the east. He then presented a diagram of the new proposal, noting it swaps parking and building locations. The new orientation has the building facing towards the development itself instead of towards Dodge Nature Center. Mr. Sedlacek presented the differences between the approved PUD and the proposed PUD as follows: • The original PUD concept plan had 129 parking stalls, less than required for a 100 -unit residential building. The proposed PUD has 60 some parking spaces with proof of parking for up to 83 spaces. • The original PUD concept plan had no signage indicated. The proposed PUD shows three signs on the building. • The original PUD showed balconies on the units. The proposed PUD shows no balconies. • Both the original PUD and proposed PUD will necessitate setback variances, which is part of the flexibility in a PUD consideration. • The original PUD concept plan required at least 25% masonry materials. The proposed PUD shows 24% masonry materials, which the applicant's representative (Paster Enterprises) is prepared to discuss tonight. • The original PUD building use was described as mixed use residential with some independent and some assisted living. The proposed PUD is for fully assisted living, which is allowed by code but would be a change in what as approved in the original PUD. It was noted staff recommends that the request be denied based on the following findings of fact: 1. Pursuant to Section 3.4 of the PUD Agreement, the city's consent to changes to the approved plans may be given or withheld in the city's sole discretion. 2. The Developer has failed to obtain the prior written consent of the city to transfer the property to White Pine as required by Section 6.2 of the PUD Agreement. 3. Pedestrian circulation inadequately integrates the residential building into the mixed use PUD as directed by the previous PUD approvals. 4. Parking under the PUD Agreement was determined based on the mixed use development as a whole and the proposed parking in the modified plan is inadequate. 5. Building materials do not meet the specified requirements of the approved plans. 6. The city council specifically approved balconies on the units and the balconies are no longer shown on the modified plans. 7. Utility plans do not show how the project will connect to the city's sanitary sewer system, among other utility issues, and do not show how the applicants will redesign the project or the sewer to avoid conflicts between the building and city's utility. 8. Signage for the project exceeds the zoning ordinance allowances for the property. 9. The applicant characterizes the proposal as a "health care business" which is inconsistent with the PUD Agreement requirements that the property be used for residential purposes. Commissioner Viksnins asked what communications there have been between staff and the applicant since the July 15, 2011, memorandum was prepared. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff met with the current owner of the property and applicant last week to discuss the issues, the way the staff memorandum was worded, and presentation to be made before the planning commission. 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 Commissioner Noonan asked Mr. Sedlacek to elaborate on the change in orientation and if there were specific concerns by staff with respect to the orientation. Mr. Sedlacek explained the original CUP approved a concept to group buildings in a cluster orientation. The proposed plan is to change the orientation of the buildings and parking. Mr. Sedlacek stated the applicant's representative is prepared to discuss why they think the new orientation is better. Staff has not opined if one orientation is better than the other. Commissioner Noonan stated the planning commission had requested additional information on why reduced parking ratios are appropriate for the nature of the use as assisted living and memory care. He asked if more definitive details had been provided by the applicant. Mr. Sedlacek stated the planning commission was given what the applicant provided and the applicant's representative is prepared to discuss parking needs experienced at similarly -sized facilities. Ken Henk, Paster Enterprises, owners of Mendota Plaza, stated he would provide additional information tonight on behalf of White Pine Holdings because the applicant, Chuck Rothstein, is out of the country. He displayed a colored site plan of the original PUD that was approved as a mixed use PUD on Lot 6 as senior assisted living housing. He reviewed that on January 6, 2009, a joint meeting was held, after many previous meetings, with the planning commission and city council to look at finalizing a preliminary PUD. This joint meeting was attended by some planning commissioners along with city council members and discussions at the meeting pertained to this lot and use as senior housing. The application was wrapped up at the January 20, 2009, city council meeting in which they received unanimous preliminary PUD approval. Mr. Henk reviewed that earlier in 2008, the planning commission, by vote of 4 -3, recommended approval of this PUD. The approved PUD consisted of eight lots containing a mix of retail, restaurant, child care, office, and residential. The lots along South Plaza Drive were for future phases and it was important to the city council that some detail be provided for the future phases to serve as a guide when one of the parcels was developed. For Lot 6, they had proposed a 4 -story 100 -unit, assisted living building that was rectangular in shape and oriented parallel to the west property line with the main entrance facing away from the retail area and parking on the east side. The applicant is now proposing a building of similar size and shape with the north portion in a similar location but the south portion pivoted to the east and parallel with the east property line instead of west property line. The applicant feels this is an improvement because the west facing units are farther away from the retail buildings so the second to fourth floor residents do not look down on retail roofs. Along with that, parking on the west side and the main entrance now faces the retail area. Mr. Henk stated they had talked about clustering the buildings but the proposed plan orients the entrance and parking to face the retail instead of the building turning its back to the retail. Mr. Henk addressed the nine findings of fact detailed in the July 15, 2011, memorandum and staff's recommendation for denial as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 3.4 of the PUD agreement, the city's consent to changes to the approved plans may be given or withheld in the city's sole discretion. Mr. Henk agreed the city is the sole approving authority but the applicant feels that the approval granted previously for future phases of the PUD, included this residential lot, which was for senior housing, 100 - units, and a four -story building with underground parking. He noted the building footprint in the proposed plan is of the same shape but smaller. In the developer agreement Article 1. 1, definition for Lot 6, describes this as senior housing, assisted living. He referenced Section 5.4 relating to park dedication fees and that the city council had made it clear this was an assisted living facility and the park dedication fees were based on that use. However, if more market rate housing was created it would be reconsidered and additional park dedication fees required. Mr. Henk stated it was clear at that point what the use and 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 type of facility would be. At that point they assumed about 50% of the units would be independent living, 35% as assisted living, and 10 -15% as memory care. The applicant is proposing now the first and second floors be memory care and the third and fourth floors be assisted living, so that is a little change in use. 2. The developer has failed to obtain the prior written consent of the city to transfer the property to White Pine as required by Section 6.2 of the PUD agreement. Mr. Henk indicated the city's consent for a land transfer is clear in the developer agreement and Paster Enterprises is working on that matter with the applicant. It will require separate city council action but Paster Enterprises feels the application needs to get further into the process to see if this development will be approved before that financial information is gathered and finalized. 3. Pedestrian circulation inadequately integrates the residential building into the mixed use PUD as directed by the previous PUD approvals. Mr. Henk displayed a site plan and described the locations depicted of buildings and sidewalks, common areas, and proposed sidewalk connections. He noted there are three different pedestrian access points, which they believe are adequate to tie this project to the rest of the development. 4. Parking under the PUD agreement was determined based on the mixed use development as a whole and the proposed parking in the modified plan is inadequate. Mr. Henk noted the proposed plan shows 26 surface stalls and 37 below grade parking stalls for a total of 63. The applicant plans to leave a large area as green space that could accommodate an additional 20 spaces, if needed, for a total of 83 parking spaces. The original PUD identified the same number of spaces, 83, with 47 surface stalls and 36 below grade stalls. Mr. Henk referenced a table on the side of the plan that showed 129 parking spaces are required so there would be a shortage of 46 stalls. Mr. Henk indicated the declarations and covenants allow joint parking of different parcels, noting adjacent Lot 7 has a requirement for 23 stalls yet 56 are provided, so there are more than 30 stalls available on the adjacent lot, if required. Mr. Henk stated he does not argue that 129 are shown on the approved plan but the applicant feels 83 parking spaces on Lot 6 plus the additional 30 on the adjacent parcel, which the covenants allow to be shared, is sufficient. 5. Building materials do not meet the specified requirements of the approved plans. Mr. Henk presented diagrams depicting exterior elevations of the original PUD and proposed plan. He described the approved plan has including first floor masonry, with masonry clad columns at the entrance way and balconies. The proposed plan shows the same area, up to the second floor windows, as being masonry in a stone and all columns at entry ways will be clad in same material. The second and third floors of the approved PUD showed a tan material proposed in EFIS or siding with the fourth floor being a grey band of similar material. The proposed plan shows the second and third floors to be Hardiboard planking set vertically in a darker color and the fourth floor in a contrasting lighter color with horizontal planking. Mr. Henk stated the applicant considers that as being similar to the original PUD. The proposed plan also shows shakes to the fronts of all gables, entrances, and dormers. The roof in the original PUD showed an asphalt shingle roof at same elevation with five dormers and some decorative chimneys to hide mechanical piping. The proposed plan has a similar roof but incorporates five differing steps to break up the expanse. In addition the proposed plan has eight dormers instead of five. The original PUD had a canopied main entrance that extended over the sidewalk at the front. The proposed plan has a much larger area, extending farther to the south with a covered drop off /pick up area. Mr. Henk noted the larger expansive entrance treatment and gabled secondary entrance were not included the original PUD. On the back side of the building, the original plan included a covered first floor common area and no roof dormers. The proposed plan has the same covered area over a common space in addition to common area balconies on three floors above it and the same dormer treatment as on the front elevation. 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 6. The city council specifically approved balconies on the units and the balconies are no longer shown on the modified plans. Mr. Henk agreed that individual balconies were shown for some units on the original plans. The proposed plan does not include those balconies but does have large balconies from the common areas proposed at the center of the building. He suggested that first and second floor balconies would not be appropriate as they are proposed to be memory care units. 7. Utility plans do not show how the project will connect to the city's sanitary sewer system, among other utility issues, and do not show how the applicants will redesign the project or the sewer to avoid conflicts between the building and city's utility. Mr. Henk displayed plans showing the sewer extending from the building going north to the trunk line, which is currently in dispute, so additional engineering will be required. 8. Signage for the project exceeds the zoning ordinance allowances for the property. Mr. Henk indicated the applicant is proposing wall signs on the buildings, which were not included in the submittal two years ago. The applicant proposes adding the "White Pine" name above the main entrance and on both end caps facing South Plaza Drive and Highway 110. Mr. Henk suggested the issues of signage and balconies be addressed at next meeting. He displayed a picture depicting a pylon sign and the monument sign proposed at the southwest corner, noting it is of the same size as the original proposal but constructed of materials to tie into the building. 9. The applicant characterizes the proposal as a "health care business" which is inconsistent with the PUD agreement requirements that the property be used for residential purposes. Mr. Henk stated this is a health care businesses but primarily set up as a residential use. He noted the approved PUD agreement defines it as a "multi - family assisted living facility." He suggested every apartment building could be looked at as a business but their proposed use is truly a residential use. Mr. Henk stated they feel the proposed project would be a great addition to Mendota Plaza, provides the use approved for the lot, and would be developed by a quality firm with a track record of successful buildings. He noted that Chuck Rothstein is from Mendota Heights and offices across the street from Mendota Plaza. Mr. Henk stated the proposed use will complement the adjacent CDA housing and provides needed services. Unlike CDA, this project will generate real estate tax revenue as well as employment opportunities. Mr. Henk encouraged commissioners to view White Pine Holdings' website or tour a nearby facility. He stated some details need to be finalizing such as color selections, balconies, and material selections, but in many ways it is the same project that was approved two years ago. Commissioner Noonan noted Mr. Hank had mentioned that the declarations and covenants associated with the PUD contemplated the notion of sharing parking across lots. He asked if that is also the case of mixed ownership, noting Paster Enterprises will be selling Lot 6 to White Pine Holdings. Commissioner Noonan asked if that issue is addressed in the PUD. Mr. Henk explained that shared parking "rides" in the ownership of the property and all owners are required to follow the declarations and covenants. Commissioner Hennes arrived at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Viksnins asked whether the applicant is willing to extend the review period. Mr. Henk answered in the affirmative and indicated the applicant is willing to extend it to November 15, 2011. He stated the extension letter was signed by Howard Paster, faxed to White Pine Holdings, signed by Chuck Rothstein, and faxed to the city. Mr. Henk stated he does not know where the original document is. He 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 assured the planning commission that the applicant has no issue with the extension and had used the date of November 15 at the recommendation of the city attorney. Commissioner Viksnins stated there is now a different occupancy proposed since the original PUD was for mixed use and the proposed plan is more focus with two floors of memory care and a frail elderly emphasis. Mr. Henk stated when they went through the original process, they had talked with a different assisted living provider and the proposal was for a building like the Southview units in St. Paul. The actual footprint shown on the original plan was from that facility. At that time, the facility had 55% independent and 45% assisted living and memory care. However, Paster Enterprises is no longer working with that proposed buyer and White Pine Holdings is proposing a different ratio. Commissioner Viksnins stated the 2008 discussion was for more of a mixed use facility. Mr. Henk stated the project has always been set up as an assisted living facility and the number of different companies they have worked with were all in that business. Mr. Henk stated he does not know if there are any buildings in existence that combine market rate and assisted living housing. However, there is some housing with limited services, such as meals, and is considered to be independent living. Commissioner Viksnins asked Mr. Henk for his recollection of the discussion in 2008 relating to building occupancy and if that change was the driving force for some of the proposed changes, such as fewer balconies. Mr. Henk recalled there had been no consideration between the use and exterior fagade of the building. He explained that the applicant's buildings at other locations in the Twin Cities and Wisconsin do not have balconies. Mr. Henk stated he is not sure whether Mr. Rothstein would consider something but his thought is that there are other tradeoffs with the proposed plan including a more grandiose entrance and larger common area balconies. Commissioner Viksnins noted Mr. Henk had explained earlier that the balconies were removed for the reason that two floors would be committed to memory care patients. Mr. Henk stated that is true. Commissioner Hennes asked Mr. Henk if it is his sense that the market has changed in terms of demand than perhaps what people anticipated two years ago. Mr. Henk pointed out that this building can tie into the two CDA buildings that provide independent 55 and older housing. He noted the proposed facility would provide a "next step" for individual with part being independent with limited services so as a resident aged they could stay in the same location and move into assisted living or memory care. Commissioner Hennes asked if memory care could not transition into a nursing home facility but would be a step short of that. Mr. Henk stated it could not transition into a nursing home. He displayed and described floor plans for memory care units (floors one and two) and assisted living units (floors three and four). He noted the units on floors three and four are set up as a single- bedroom apartment but have a connecting door in case a spouse wants to rent the abutting unit to create a two bed -room apartment. 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 6 NAYS 0 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 Commissioner Roston asked if the city has a signed review extension letter but it is not the original document. Mr. Sedlacek stated the city has an electronic version but has a practice of only accepting original signed documents for planning cases. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the statement from the applicant's representative that the applicant is willing to extend the review period to November 15, 2011, is sufficient. Chair Norton suggested that determination be left to the city attorney. CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT 1 -9 AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, PAGE 10, AND AS DISCUSSED BY MR. SEDLACEK AND MR. HENK. Commissioner Field he is not comfortable supporting a recommendation of denial because such a motion has consequences since there is no way for the applicant to satisfy the wet signature requirement once it is taken. Commissioner Roston stated support for the motion, indicating if an extension is received and the city attorney confirms it is acceptable, the application can still go before the city council. At that point it may be acted on, postponed, or could be referred back to the planning commission. Chair Norton noted that would be similar to action taken with the original PUD three years ago, when the city council sent the application back to the planning commission on one occasion for further review. Given that, Chair Norton stated he agreed with Commissioner Roston that it is safer to consider a denial and the city council can return the application if an original letter of extension is received by the city. Chair Norton noted several items are problematic; this application has already been tabled once by the city's own action creating additional time but the applicant has submitted no additional material or corrected deficiencies even though they had been identified. In addition, the applicant is not in attendance, though a representative is present that owns the rights to the PUD. Commissioner Roston stated he has four main concerns: the parking issue, signage, lack of balconies, and the transfer provisions in the PUD agreement. He indicated the transfer provision has to be followed to the satisfaction of the city attorney. Commissioner Roston stated he is not as concerned about the difference in usage because this type of senior facility is important for this community, about the change in orientation because he agreed with the reorientation, or the building materials difference between 24% and 25% of masonry because he thinks that small amount can be bridged. Commissioner Roston indicated when these four issues are addressed, he would be supportive of the project. Commissioner Noonan stated he shares Commissioner Roston's view. With respect to parking, he has an open mind but would want more than anecdotal evidence based upon experiences of operator. Rather, he would like to see a professional opinion. On the balcony issue, it involves design consideration but he thinks there is way to bridge the concern for balconies with safety for memory care units while still doing something to enhance the west fagade of the building. He noted that from the history shared about the discussion that supported the initial PUD, a lot of time and effort had been paid to design issues and the planning commission has to respect that. Commissioner Noonan stated signage is an important consideration and the commission has to remember this is residential and if characterized as business there would be additional concerns. Commissioner Noon stated he will support the motion with an open mind to have the application come back with those items addressed. 0 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 Commissioner Viksnins noted the applicant's representative has stated, it is included in the staff report, and all agree the standard being followed is whether the city, in its sole discretion, wants to amend the PUD. This is a decision that is policy entrusted to the city council. He indicated he was not part of the city council discussions in 2008 but has a general recollection that the city council was looking for more of a mixed use facility. Commissioner Viksnins stated his concern may differ from his colleagues that are more focused on the "nuts and bolts" of the application. He indicated his more fundamental concern is that this is a slightly different concept which leads to issues with parking and balconies. Thus, his more fundamental concern is that what is being proposed is not the deal struck in 2008. Commissioner Viksnins stated he would support the recommendation for denial. Commissioner Field stated he is more than familiar with rules with respect to extensions and since the city's legal counsel requires a "wet signature" rather than a facsimile, he would support the motion and appreciates the city council may refer it back. Commissioner Field stated he will keep an open mind but he finds the new proposal changes the model approved in 2009 and while appearance is cosmetic, the city council may feel otherwise. Commissioner Field stated the new proposal is a different package than considered with a 5 -2 vote. He indicated he may or may not support the new application but feels the best action now is to proceed to vote for denial in the absence of the original letter requesting an extension. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its August 30, 2011, special meeting, time to be determined. Presentation Discussion of Property Maintenance Code for Commercially Zoned Properties Mr. Grittman explained the city council had authorized staff to pursue development of a property maintenance code for commercially zoned properties that would essentially mirror the city adopted residential maintenance code. He explained the issues that led to this discussion arose from commercial properties the city council felt were in need of attention and existing codes, perhaps, did not address recourse by the city to improve the condition. Mr. Grittman stated the city council directed staff to develop language that is more focused to address areas the city thinks are potential issues to the community. Staff has undertaken the task of looking through existing codes and maintenance related codes in the zoning ordinance related to improvements that are required to be maintained by commercial uses. The next step will be to gather input on other potential issues and present an outline of a draft ordinance to the planning commission at its September meeting. Commissioner Noonan asked if, generally speaking, commercial /industrial properties in Mendota Heights are being maintained to the appropriate standard and but for those few properties it would not have arisen as an issue. Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello reported that the city council only addressed two specific properties with staff and in driving around the city as the supervisor of code enforcement, he can say with safe assurance that it is a small group of properties that is the focus of this effort. However, if adopted the new ordinance would be applied city wide. Commissioner Noonan stated it would be helpful to get background information on current issues the ordinance would seek to address or point commissioners to areas they should tour. He questioned the kind of outreach that will be specifically taken to solicit feedback from the business community. Mr. 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2011 Grittman stated once the document is prepared, staff will hold a meeting for the business community to get their input. Commissioner Viksnins stated some cities have a similar ordinance so staff dos not need to "reinvent the wheel." Mr. Grittman indicated staff will look at those ordinances. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11 -14 White Pine Holdings Amendment to Conditional Use Permit • This item was removed from the planning commission agenda at the request of the applicant. PLANNING CASE #11 -22 Phillip Cattanach Conditional Use Permit Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. Mr. Sedlacek advised that the city council has asked staff to address accessory buildings on large sized sites. Mr. Sedlacek reported that Planning Case #11 -24, an addition to a deck as part of a remodel within the critical area and forwarded directly to the city council which deemed the code did allow for that and approved the critical area permit. Mr. Sedlacek noted more than one planning commissioners had mentioned that rudimentary planning cases could go directly to the city council instead of planning commission and that process is addressed in the critical area ordinance. Mr. Sedlacek indicated that the next meeting agenda will include code amendments with specific language on minor developments, the property maintenance code for commercially zoned properties, and noise attenuation in aircraft noise zones. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:20 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 11