Loading...
2011-10-25 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 25, 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, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent and excused: Commissioner Hennes. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval of 4zenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval ofJuly 26, 2011, Minutes COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2011, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Approval of Septem ber 2 7, 2011, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2011, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2011 -03 City of Mendota Heights Ordinance 439, amending Title 12 of the City Code pertaining to flood districts Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of the City of Mendota Heights to amend Zoning Ordinance 439. He explained that recently the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) updated its floodplain maps for Dakota County, including maps specific to Mendota Heights. With the issuance of the updated maps, the city is required to update its floodplain management regulations, thus maintaining its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Grittman noted that the draft presented for review is essentially the DNR model ordinance. He explained the changes from the previous DNR model are slight, collapsing three floodplain districts into two and making procedural and regulatory changes. However, for the purposes of Mendota Heights, the changes are extraordinarily minor because only one small area at the west boundary is subject to these regulations. Mr. Grittman explained that in most cases the city would look through the regulations in a lot of detail to determine how they may impact areas of the community. But since this ordinance impacts a small area, staff recommends the city adopt the model as provided by the DNR. He noted the land use on this impacted parcel, Jack's Manufacturing, will eventually require significant redevelopment in any case. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 Commissioner Roston asked if this is the only property within the jurisdiction of Mendota Heights that would be impacted by this ordinance. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative and used a map to point out the location of the parcel and small portion within the floodplain. 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 FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE NEW FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its November 1, 2011, meeting. Old Business a. Discussion of Critical Area Permit Processing b. Discussion of Wetlands Permit Processing Planner Stephen Grittman explained staff was unable to compile the requested materials and suggested these items be tabled to the November meeting. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO TABLE DISCUSSION OF CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT PROCESSING TO THE NOVEMBER 22, 2011, MEETING. AYES NAYS New Business a. Commercial Property Maintenance Standards Planner Stephen Grittman explained staff has prepared an outline of what the ordinance will contain, noting the contents follow the current Residential Property Maintenance Code. This format provides a familiar framework so staff will have a good handle on enforcement. He explained that a more fully developed draft ordinance will be presented at the November 2011 meeting Commissioner Noonan referenced Section 12.83C relating to building maintenance adjacent to residential and Section 12.85G relating to ground maintenance adjacent to residential. He asked if there will be other policies to address ground and building maintenance when adjacent to land uses other than residential. Mr. Grittman explained this is just an outline and the intent is that each section will address general and specifics guiding building and ground maintenance requirements and special regulations that apply specifically to residential. b. Institutional Accessory Building Conditional Use Permits 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 Planner Stephen Grittman stated this item was discussed several months ago. He explained the current zoning ordinance contains specific rules for accessory building size and because it allows most institutional uses in residential zones, the ordinance applies residential accessory building rules to institutional projects. As discovered with the Visitation School project, this does not translate well to institutional projects due to having to address size issues through the variance process. Mr. Grittman stated staff has laid out a structure to amend the district language to specifically address the possibility of allowing more accessory building space for institutional projects. He noted staff had proposed alternative ways to approach the issue to set a threshold size for institutional uses or tie accessory structures to the size of the lot or building. Mr. Grittman explained that for tonight's discussion, staff would like to receive the Commission's feedback. Staff will then present a draft at a future meeting for public hearing. Commissioner Roston stated he thinks the city needs to be careful to not "tinker" with normal residential lots so he would prefer setting a baseline lot size to which this language would apply. He suggested the lot size be large enough to assure it will not apply to single family homes. Commissioner Roston stated support for alternative 2, basing the size of the accessory structure on the size of the parcel. He stated he wants to be objective in treating people the same, which would be accomplished if using a ratio based on the size of the property. Mr. Grittman asked if that scenario would allow a percentage of the acreage. Commissioner Roston answered in the affirmative, noting it could also be calculated as a hard surface restriction or floor /area ratio. Chair Noonan asked the commission to keep in mind that it should also consider the exterior footprint and building height. He noted that a garage with spancrete can allow the use of the space below so a garage can be constructed with a basement, main floor, and even an attic without much impact to the appearance. He suggested the language also address the building footprint and height requirements. Commissioner Noonan stated this ordinance largely deals with institutional uses in a residential zone. He asked what is the smallest lot with an institutional use in a residential zone, noting if dealing with a small lot the city needs to be careful about the proportionate basis. Mr. Grittman advised that places of worship would be the smallest nonresidential uses in a residential zone and most have 3 -4 acres as the minimum size. Commissioner Noonan asked whether a residential use can be established as a place of worship. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Noonan stated in that case the proportionate square footage requirement would have to be looked at closely. Mr. Grittman noted that Commissioner Roston had suggested a minimum acreage threshold be established, which would avoid that scenario. Chair Norton stated if the lot size is below the established threshold, it would have to comply with the regular rules. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative and explained another way to deal with it is proportionate to the size of building on the property. He noted, however, that method does not always work. Mr. Grittman cited the Par Three Golf Course as an example, noting it has a very small club house and so the maintenance building would have to be some portion of that size. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the commission would want to consider a maximum number of accessory buildings on a property. She noted it is conceivably possible to get to 1,000 sq. ft. with ten accessory buildings. Mr. Grittman advised the current code allows a maximum of three accessory buildings. He pointed out that Somerset Golf Course and Visitation School have four or five buildings but a maximum number could be set as long as it does not establish unintended non - conformities. Commissioner Magnuson felt a larger parcel could withstand a higher number of accessory buildings so, perhaps, the number of accessory buildings allowed should be tied to the size of the property. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 Commissioner Roston agreed the number of acceptable accessory buildings may depend on the size of the property, especially if the accessory buildings are not seen. Mr. Grittman stated staff will inventory the number of accessory buildings on a single parcel and report back. Chair Noonan pointed out that golf courses often have several small storm shelters. Mr. Grittman advised that from a code standpoint, they would qualify as accessory buildings. Chair Noonan stated asked staff to address this issue since it is common to see on a golf course. Mr. Grittman stated his perspective that regulating accessory buildings proportionate to the size of the parcel is the most reasonable /practical method because it is relatively easy to administer and for property owners to understand. Staff will present a draft ordinance at a future meeting for public hearing. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11 -20 New Cingular Wireless Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -27 New Cingular Wireless Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -26 Frank Pilney Wetlands Permit • Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -28 Robert and Kathy Thompson Critical Area Permit • Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -29 Dodge Nature Center Wetlands Permit • Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. Commissioner Field reported the Mendakota Sign was installed and looks quite nice. Commissioner Roston inquired regarding city council feedback on the process for critical area. Mr. Sedlacek advised the city council is awaiting feedback from the planning commission after its November 2011 meeting. Adiourn COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:25 P.M. AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 2