Loading...
2008-08-26 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes August 26, 2008 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 26, 2008, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lally, Commissioners McManus, Povolny, Viksnins, Hennes and Field. Those excused: Commissioner Norton. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director / City Engineer John Mazzitello, and Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Rebecca Shaffer. Approval of July 22, 2008 Commissioner McManus moved, seconded by Commissioner Hesse, to approve the minutes of the July 22, 2008 Planning Commission meeting as presented. AYES 6 NAYES 0 Introductions Mr. Sedlacek introduced the new Public Works Director / City Engineer John Mazzitello. Mr. Mazzitello gave a brief bio of himself and his education and career background. Hearin ,zs PLANNING CASE #08 -24 Keith Ostrosky 1680 Lexington Avenue Critical Area Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 1680 Lexington Avenue, which is the second critical area permit that has been requested for this site. The applicant had previously proposed some structural changes on the same footprint that the existing building is. It was found that the applicant is now wanting to do some more improvements to this property, thus the need for a second permit. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is proposing to do the following improvements, numbered according to the submitted site plan: 1. Add three to four boulders to finish existing retaining wall. 2. Shorten the existing retaining wall by approximately 40 feet; replace the timber retaining wall, which is falling down, with a boulder retaining wall. 3. Shorten the sidewalk by 40 feet, reducing the impervious surface. 4. Remove brick walkway and replace with new pavers, with drainage going away from the building. 5. Remove brick pavers and add a larger area for better drainage away from the home and add a pad for utilities (gas, meter, etc). 6. Replace existing wood deck on the ground with wood or synthetic wood deck. 7. Remove timber and brick paver patio which slants toward the house and replace it with new pavers for drainage away from the home. 7.1 Add a 3 -ft walkway to the shed; keep water away from house. 8. Remove a Cottonwood tree. 9. Create a path in the woods without removing any trees and using wood chips. 10. Construct an 8 -ft by 14 -ft shed (112 sq. ft.), 8 -ft high, with roof to match the house (i.e., hip roof). 11. Add a water feature with boulders between the sidewalk and garage. 12. Add three stone posts (6 -ft x 18 -in x 18 -in) for lighting along the sidewalk and driveway. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2008 Mr. Grittman said the calculations increase the overall impervious surface on the property of 38 sq. ft, which is a relatively minor increase on this relatively large lot. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has not documented the proposed work very well on the plan, and the concern is primarily related to the extent of those changes from a detail standpoint. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is in attendance and the Planning Commission may want to ask for further clarification of these changes. Mr. Grittman said without these details, Staff is reluctant to make a strong recommendation of approval. Chair Lally recalled the notices that were not sent out properly at the June hearing for this case. Mr. Sedlacek said code does not require notification outside the city boundaries, but after this case, the City Clerk of the City of Lilydale was notified, and that as always, public notice was listed in the city's official newspaper. Chair Lally said he was concerned that the properties less than 10 feet from this site should be notified, even though they are in a different city, as the City of Mendota Heights would most like hope to be extended that courtesy should the shoe be on the other foot. Chair Lally asked Mr. Grittman if there is enough information at this time to allow the commission to make a recommendation, especially given the controversy of the end of the driveway? Mr. Grittman said the mouth of the driveway is straddling the property line and the remainder of the driveway is on the applicant's property. Mr. Grittman said he hopes the applicant can answer questions to provide adequate information. Mr. Keith Ostrosky, 1680 Lexington Avenue, said the lampposts are all on his property, as are all the proposed improvements. Mr. Ostrosky said he is replacing existing patios and walkways for new pavers, raising some of the pavers to deter water from entering the home. The existing patio has been allowing water to seep into the basement over the past 56 years, and Mr. Ostrosky wants to make improvements to fix this concern. Mr. Ostrosky said his first attempt was to try to deter the water by filling in some dirt, but that was not working. Mr. Ostrosky said he tried some pavers, which seemed to work, and then called Mr. Sedlacek to visit the site to give him some feedback of what his next steps should be. Mr. Sedlacek advised Mr. Ostrosky to immediately stop the work, and come back to the city for the necessary permits. Mr. Ostrosky said he only elevated the ground about 2 degrees. Chair Lally said it seems the property is a very steep slope within the 200 ft coming up from Highway 13. Mr. Ostrosky said there will be no work done on that slope, and the water that will be deterred from around the home will be draining onto the yard. Commissioner McManus said he had a lengthy visit to the site and had much conversation with Mr. Ostrosky about his plans. Commissioner McManus said Mr. Ostrosky now understands that he needs to wait until the necessary permits are obtained, and that Mr. Ostrosky very thoroughly explained to Commissioner McManus all the details of what he is intending to do. Commissioner McManus said he totally understands what the applicant is trying to do, and there will be some extensive renovations done to the inside and outside of the house and property. Commissioner McManus said the applicant is taking a very run down situation and turning it into a very nice building which is to the benefit to the City of Mendota Heights. Commissioner McManus said the applicant has not seen it as being very necessary to provide clearer, written documentation on the plan. Commissioner McManus said given this, he personally understands what the applicant is trying to accomplish, and believes that these improvements are very reasonable, but without this discussion he does not know how he could have made any decision on this matter, but with the discussion, it is very clear. Commissioner McManus asked if there is an existing shed. Mr. Ostrosky said that was correct. Commissioner McManus asked if this shed will be replaced. Mr. Ostrosky said that was correct. Commissioner McManus said he is uncertain why the cottonwood tree, which is right on the bluff line, needs to be removed. Commissioner Povolny asked the applicant is he is using the "design as you go" process. Mr. Ostrosky said he is trying to do the minimal amount he can, but as he does, he sometimes needs to adjust his design. Commissioner Povolny said he understands how this process goes. Commissioner Viksnins asked what size the boulders would be. Mr. Ostrosky said they will be about 500 to 700 pounds a piece and explained how they will be placed by the timber retaining wall that is falling down. Mr. Ostrosky said this wall was poorly built and has deteriorated, and indicated on the drawing how the driveway will be improved. Commissioner Viksnins asked for some clarification on the dimensions and placement of the sidewalk. Mr. Ostrosky indicated how this will be placed, and that the sidewalk will be shortened by 40 ft. This will be surrounded by new sod. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2008 Commissioner Viksnins asked about the pavers and the drainage. Mr. Ostrosky said all the walkways will be replaced and the pitch will be so that the water drains away from the home. Mr. Ostrosky said there new pavers will be concrete. Commissioner Viksnins asked about the deck. Mr. Ostrosky indicated where it will be and said the new deck has been installed because the old deck was unsafe with several slight level changes, causing a trip hazard. Mr. Ostrosky said he made the new deck all one level, using the exact same footprint. Mr. Ostrosky indicated where the new patio went, replacing what is already there. Mr. Ostrosky said about 10% of the work has already been done. Mr. Ostrosky said there is no walkway to the shed, and he does not know if he will even put one in at this time. Commissioner Povolny said he has been in this house when it was empty, and said there is definitely a water problem and smells very musky. Mr. Ostrosky said all that is now gone because he changed the grade and put in these new pavers, this seemed to fix the problem. Commissioner Viksnins asked why the Cottonwood tree is being removed. Mr. Ostrosky said Cottonwood trees ruin the window screens and creates a nuisance. The tree is indicated as #8 on the plan. Commissioner Viksnins asked about the pathway into the woods. Mr. Ostrosky said he has not even thought about this yet, and that Mr. Sedlacek recommended that this list include things that Mr. Ostrosky may want to do later, but not necessarily have to be done. If anything, it would be a path of woodchips. Commissioner Viksnins suggested that the applicant summarize these plans to present to the Council. Mr. Ostrosky said he will. Commissioner Hennes asked about the water feature. Mr. Ostrosky said he wanted to put in a small recirculating water pond that will mask road noise. Commissioner Field said the applicant articulated the water drainage and said it has not rained since the applicant was before the Commission in June. Commissioner Field asked the applicant what his plans will be should the drainage changes not work. Mr. Ostrosky said he will be coming back to the Planning Commission to get more approvals if necessary. Chair Lally said, with regard to the shed, the setback from the Lilydale line is very close to the house and the shed, and asked if the topography will allow a new shed to be built. Mr. Ostrosky said there is plenty of room. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, he asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Viksnins moved, seconded by Commissioner Povolny, to close the public hearing. AYES 6 NAYES 0 Commissioner McManus said that because he had a thorough guided tour with an individual that admits to doing work without having come in for the necessary permits, and because there have been adequate conversations about this, he would like to make the following motion, and acknowledging that he is not certain what should be done with the tree: Commissioner McManus moved, seconded by Commissioner Povolny, to recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit with the provision that the application provide a detailed description and plan for each item of concern as requested by the City Planner, and if possible, in a diagram fashion with more details than currently submitted be provided to the City Council, subject to: a. the applicant providing the following additional details on an updated site plan: • Approximate size of the boulders to be used with the retaining wall; • Location and size of the following: existing timber retaining wall, the portion to be removed, and the new boulder retaining wall; • Location and dimensions of sidewalk being removed. This area shall be seeded or sodded to prevent erosion from occurring; • Location and dimensions of the old brick walkway and new pavers, indicating how the drainage will be directed away from the building; Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2008 • Location, dimensions, and setbacks of the old brick pavers and new, "larger area ". The applicant shall indicate what materials were used in the new area; • Location, dimensions, footing details, and setbacks of the existing and proposed deck; • Location and dimensions of the existing timber and brick paver patio and the new paver patio, indicating how the drainage will be directed away from the home; • Location of the 3 -ft walkway to the shed; • Reasoning for the removal of the Cottonwood tree; • Location and dimensions of the path through the woods; • Shed location and setbacks to property lines and home; and b. The grading and moving of dirt shall be minimal in order to accomplish the installation of the water feature; and c. The grading and moving of dirt shall be minimal in order to install the stone posts; and d. All grading shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Commissioner Povolny asked to include a friendly amendment that the drawing be a more detailed site plan depicting the areas to be changed. Commissioner McManus accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Field suggested that the site plan be acceptable to Staff, and Staff can assist in walking the applicant through what would be satisfactory. Commissioner McManus accepted the friendly amendment. AYES 6 NAYES 0 PLANNING CASE #08 -25 Mendota Heights Lodging Investors, LLC SE Intersection of Pilot Knob Road and Northland Drive Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary / Final Plat Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Preliminary and Final Plat for the Mendota Heights Lodging Investors, LLC, for the property located at the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and Northland Drive. The applicants are proposing to construct a hotel and retail complex on the property owned by Mendota Heights Lodging Investors, LLC. The parcel is 3.761 acres in size and is zoned I- Industrial District. Mr. Grittman said the parcel is less than 5 acres, so it does not qualify for a planned unit development, however the complex will exceed multiple standards of the zoning ordinance such as building height, floor area ratio, setbacks and many others. Staff has suggested that the applicant apply for a significant amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would add "Retail Sales and Service Complexes" as a conditional use permit in the I district with multiple exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance standards allowed. Mr. Grittman said if the amendment is allowed, the applicants are seeking approval of a conditional use permit to construct a retail center, to be developed by United Properties, and a hotel building, to be developed by the North Central Group. In addition, the applicant will be requesting approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat, known as "Mendota Heights Business Center Hotel Addition ". The applicants have requested Section 12 -1G -2 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended by adding the following language: Retail Sales and Service Complex provided that: 1. The Complex be comprised of more than one building; Lot area for the retail site to be less than one acre; 2. The retail uses are listed as permitted or conditional uses in the B -2 Zoning District; 3. Drive -in and Fast Food Restaurants may be included as allowed in Section 12 -1J -3; 4. The site of the proposed use is located adjacent to an Interstate Highway, and is within 300 feet of an interchange entrance or exit ramp with such Highway; Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2008 5. Cross parking and access shall be permitted; 6. Hotels and Motels in the Complex may be a maximum of four stories, or 50 feet in height, notwithstanding the height requirements of the I District; 7. the Floor Area Ratio of the Complex may be a maximum of 65 %, notwithstanding the FAR requirements of the I District; 8. Pylon sign along I -494 to be approximately the same height as the adjacent Courtyard by Marriott hotel, relative to the I -494 elevation; 9. Exterior finishes shall be consistent with Conditional Use Permit application; and 10. All other standards of the I — Industrial District and other applicable zoning standards shall apply, unless otherwise depicted on the attached site plan. Mr. Grittman stated in his report that a number of other accommodations /exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance would need to be identified in the amendment, and included in the text amendment: • Buildings may be set back 35 feet from a front property line or side property line abutting a street, on the hotel lot. • Building may be set back 40 feet from the rear property line or interior side property line not abutting a street, on the retail building lot. • Parking spaces may be reduced to eight (8) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in length. • Parking spaces may be set back 10 feet from a front property line or side property line abutting a street. • The required number of parking spaces for both buildings may be reduced by five (5) parking stalls. • At least twenty five percent (25 %) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass, approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. All lots within the proposed hotel and retail sales development may be calculated together to meet the 25% requirement. • Freestanding or pylon signs may be located 35 feet from a front property line or side yard abutting a street. This shall apply to those property lines adjacent to Interstate Highways. Freestanding or pylon signs may be 10 feet from interior side property lines. • Up to three freestanding or pylon signs may be allowed on one lot within the hotel and retail sales complex. All other lots within the complex shall comply with the requirement of one freestanding or pylon sign. • Freestanding or pylon signs may be located ten (10) feet from a front property line or side yard abutting a public street. This shall apply only to those property lines adjacent to streets that are not Interstate Highways. Mr. Grittman reviewed all the site, structure and general requirements as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Grittman said the conditional use permit is to accommodate this particular use in the industrial district, and generally speaking, this project meets the clauses that are proposed in the ordinance. Staff feels this particular project seems to be appropriate use of the site. Mr. Grittman highlighted some suggestions made by Public Works Director Mazzitello that relate to some engineering details. Mr. Mazzitello suggested that the two entrances to the site off Northland Drive be combined into the center drive isle, and widening the entrance. Mr. Grittman said by combining the two brings a better access management. Mr. Grittman said these suggestions would fit in this site plan. Mr. Grittman said Mr. Mazzitello also made suggestions on storm water, drainage and run off issues and questions on this should be directed to Mr. Mazzitello. Staff is recommending approval of the project with conditions as outlined in the Planners Report. Commissioner McManus said he assumes that the Planner agrees on what the applicant is proposing, and that this is a good plan. Mr. Grittman said he believes it does as it fits into the character of the area. Mr. Grittman said this is better than rezoning the entire site which would look like spot zoning and the city would lose some control as there would no longer be a conditional use permit requirement in play. Commissioner McManus asked what is planned for the smaller retail building. Mr. Grittman said he is not sure, but looks to be some type of drive through, perhaps a coffee shop, sandwich shop or dry cleaner, some type of service option. Commissioner McManus said he is uncomfortable with some of the plan, not because he disagrees with the concept, but because he does not understand some of what is going to go in there. Commissioner McManus said this is one of the most detailed plan proposals he has seen in a long time. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2008 Commissioner Povolny asked if this single driveway will limit trucks from making deliveries to the retail building. Mr. Mazzitello said he did not analyze traffic patterns through the site, and merely made a suggestion for discussion with the developer to try to get the access to the site further away from Pilot Knob Road. Commissioner Povolny explained a way that the trucks could be routed. Mr. Mazzitello said that is something Staff can discuss with the developer and it is certainly not a requirement. Chair Lally asked if United Properties owned that property and if so, when did they acquire it. Chair Lally said the city has waited a long time for a restaurant in that area, and may be willing to make some accommodations. Mr. Grittman said it was his understand that there has been a twenty year restriction on this property to reserve it for a restaurant and that had expired last year. Chair Lally said usually a property is developed with the existing zoning code as opposed to a zoning code amended to fit a proposed development, and that the developer recently came in with a proposal that was denied to place a gas station in that area. Chair Lally asked if this property's parking area is smaller than Mendota Plaza. Mr. Grittman said that was correct, and added that this property is in the industrial district, which make it a bit different than the Mendota Plaza, and can pretty much be built wall to wall. Committee Field said it is somewhat painful to see the southern end of the city is being carved out this way, but given the history of the land and the zoning and what the city could do if it is rezoned, it seems that the developer is using some genius fashion to try to accommodate this, and believes 300 feet from the interchange limits it's use any place else. Committee Field said he applauds the ingenuity and ability to take the existing zoning ordinance and adjust to avoid spot zoning. Chair Lally referred to the parcels along Highway 110 on the south, and east of Lexington Avenue, and asked if this property would also be subject to a similar conditional use permit should this property be redeveloped. Mr. Grittman said it would not because it is not zoned industrial. Commissioner McManus said he believes the City of Mendota Heights would benefit strongly from having a first rate hotel on this site and it is located in a good spot to attract freeway traffic. Mr. George Burkards, United Properties, gave a brief biography of himself. Mr. Burkards said they started with this property, which was zoned, industrial and was supposed to be an industrial park during 1960's and 1970's. Upon the completion of I -494, United Properties took the task, along with the City of Mendota Heights, that this should not be an industrial park, but should be a business park. United Properties since then has created a covenance on this property to make it a business park. This combines offices, light industrial, and services. United Properties have been trying to get a quality retailed since 1974 as well as some hospitality services. United Properties has had numerous offers from other hotels interested in this area. United Properties did not want to sell to a hotel property with having the service unit within that complex. The businesses in the park need some sort of services such as dry cleaning, post office, etc. as well as a coffee shop. Last year, United Properties proposed a convenience center, but the city voted it down. United Properties selected the North Central Group and entered into a purchase agreement to do a development of an upscale or better hotel, and as part of that, they would allow United Properties to build a service center, sharing parking and having cross access easements. United Properties would have control of the architectural and building materials. Mr. Burkard said after several tries, the North Central Group has come through with flying colors. The development of the retail center will be done by United Properties, and constructed following or during the construction of the hotel. The retail center will be limited to 3 to 5 types of services. Mr. Burkard said this site has challenges as it borders three major roadways (Northland Drive, Pilot Knob Road and I -494). Northland Drive is a small road that services the tenants of the park and there are many discretions in terms of setbacks and gas easements. Mr. Burkard said they have been working with City Staff for several years to try to come up with a desirable plan for this area, and feels this proposal is a very high quality project. Mr. Burkard introduced Mr. Nate Gundrum, Director of Development, North Central Group; Mr. Jeff Lenz, Executive VP of Development, North Central Group; Gary Frank, principle architect Frank Associates. Mr. Gundrem said the North Central Group has been in the hotel development business for over 25 years, developing over 40 properties including two hotels in the area (Hampton Inn — Eagan, Hilton Garden Inn — Maple Grove). North Central Group's portfolio consists of 25 motels, exclusively Hilton and Marriott. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2008 Mr. Gundrum said the hotel that is being proposed for this site is a Homewood Suites, an upscale hotel brand that serves as an extended stay hotel. Mr. Gundrum explained that this type of hotel offers a larger suite with separate living, sleeping and kitchen areas. Mr. Gundrum said he believes this type of hotel will be a complement to the adjacent hotels in the area that serve as a more transient type hotel. Mr. Gundrum said their market research analysis shows that this area is in need of an extended stay hotel. JD Powers ranked Homewood Suites as #1 for the extended stay type hotel. Mr. Frank reviewed the site plan, and explained how the hotel will be laid out. Mr. Frank also reviewed building materials for the site. Mr. Frank explained that they planned for two entrances to allow for the separation of different users, the retail use vs. the hotel use, as well as handling the truck traffic servicing the retail building. Emergency vehicles will also have a much better turning and access radius. Mr. Frank reviewed the landscaping plan, highlighting the interior courtyard of the hotel which including barbeque grills for the residents' use. Mr. Frank said the hotel will be 4 stories, in a U -shape configuration, and a one story lodge in the front. Mr. Frank reviewed the elevation plans for the hotel building, using a combination of cultured stone and precast, which Mr. Frank offered samples for viewing. Chair Lally asked how many rooms there will be. Mr. Frank said there will be 120 rooms. Commissioner Povolny asked about the heating /cooling mechanical for the rooms. Mr. Frank explained how they will be installed just below the windowsill and framed by the efface. Mr. Burkard said a good example can be seen at the Wildwood Lodge in Lake Elmo. Commissioner Povolny said some hotels do this and it's very unattractive, and some hotels build them more to the inside of the building and look nicer. Mr. Frank said the color and trim around the units will disguise them a bit more. Commissioner McManus asked where the condensation units will be. Mr. Frank indicated where they will be located. Commissioner McManus asked if there will be a public restaurant. Mr. Frank said there will not, however the hotel will offer a continental breakfast for guests only. Mr. Gundrum explained that the hotel will offer complimentary continental breakfasts in the mornings and a complimentary manager's reception in the evening during the week, of which alcoholic beverages and hors' oeuvres are also served. Commissioner Povolny asked if the hotel will require a liquor license. Mr. Gundrum said that was correct and they apply for this in a separate process. Mr. Burkard said the service building will be built by United Properties and when the plans for that building are available, those plans will come before the Planning Commission at a later time. Commissioner Field asked for comments on the signage. Mr. Gundrum said they are requested that the signage be similar to the adjacent hotel properties, falling in the 20 -ft setback from Northland Drive. Mr. Gundrum said the monument signs will be consistent, but they are requesting that that pylon sign be the same as the I -494 elevation because of the topography of the land. Commissioner Hennes said he believes this is an attractive proposal. Commissioner Povolny asked if there have been variance granted to the other hotel signs. Mr. Grittman said the Fairfield Inn received a variance for their sign location. Commissioner McManus said he was on the commission at that time and one of the reasons given for the variance on the I -494 signs was that the trees in the vicinity may blot out the signs. Mr. Grittman said the language of the amendment covers the monument signs along Northland Drive, saying they will match the existing setback. Commissioner McManus asked about the lighting. Mr. Burkards said it is a requirement of United Properties to have high pressure sodium bulbs casting a mild lighting. Mr. Gundrum asked for clarification of the text amendment and asked from some adjustments to be made. The first item is Section 12- 1B -13 -2 — additional requirements for all districts that require the area for trash handling equipment to be adjacent to the principle structure. Mr. Gundrum said the site plan is proposing that the trash handling facilities be located away from the principle structure, as typically this type of structure is not desirable by the front door. Mr. Gundrum explained where they would be located. Commissioner McManus asked if there will something to house the trash containers. Mr. Gundrum said they will be enclosed to match the hotel finishes. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2008 Commissioner Hennes asked if they will be visible from the highway. Mr. Gundrum said they will not be. Chair Lally asked for the dimensions of the trash enclosure. Mr. Frank said the walls around will be 8 -ft high and have metal doors, and explained how the landscaping will be screening them. Commissioner Field said there is no language in the text amendment regarding the trash enclosures, and would probably require some wording. Mr. Grittman said Staff would need to include that as an additional clause in the amendment to accommodate this. Mr. Grittman asked if there will be a roof on the enclosure. Mr. Frank said they would prefer not to have one and the grade is such that no one will be able to see down inside from the top. Putting a roof on the enclosure would mean that the trash containers will have to be smaller, and it would be more costly to have to do that. Mr. Frank said that the gas line easement, as well as the truck traffic patterns, also determines where the trash compartments will go. Mr. Burkard said these trash enclosures are similar to what was approved at the Mendota Place project. Commissioner McManus asked if hotel guests will be able to look down into the trash containment area. Mr. Burkard said the covenants will not allow covered containment areas, and the property managers are assigned the responsibility to keep these trash containers closed. Mr. Burkard said United Properties has never, in all these years, had any trouble with enforcing this. Mr. Gundrum said the North Central Group will be the owner /operator of this motel and is very meticulous on the maintenance of their properties. Chair Lally said it would be helpful to have some visual aids for the City Council so that they can see what this will look like. Mr. Gundrum referred to Ordinance 12 -1J -1, regarding off street parking, loading, and loading berths. Mr. Gundrum explained that the only unloading of supplies to the hotel is for the breakfast and the manager reception. Mr. Gundrum said there would only be shorter Sysco -type trucks that pull up in front of the hotel and come through the front door for deliveries — there would be no need for the concrete loading docks for this type of hotel. Mr. Grittman said the applicant would have to designate on their site plans where delivery trucks would sit in order to meet the code requirements. Commissioner McManus said it is beneficial to bring these types of things up and resolve as the process goes. Mr. Burkard said another item to come before the Planning Commission at a later time relates to the sign which is currently located on the southwest corner (Mendota Heights Business Park), which has been there for about 20 years. United Properties has been working with Vision Communications which does a lot of their sign designs and they have come up with a new approved sign design. Mr. B said the signs will be changed in this location. Chair Lally said the city also has some design standards that will need to be adhered to. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, he asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner McManus moved, seconded by Commissioner Povolny, to close the public hearing. AYES 5 NAYES 0 Chair Lally moved, seconded by Commissioner Field, to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Preliminary Plat as outlined in the Planners Report with conditions #1 through #20. Chair Lally said this case seems to have a lot of conditions, but is necessary because of the complex maneuvers of the Staff and the applicant. Commissioner McManus asked to include a friendly addition of the amended verbiage that will be provided for the first option regarding the trash containers. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2008 Chair Lally accepted the friendly amendment and said that would be to make sure the trash area would be required in a structure on the property. AYES NAYES Verbal Review Planning Case No. 08 -20 John Apitz/Mary Magnuson Critical Area Permit and Mod. Site Plan • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Case No. 08 -21 Bob Saltzman Critical Area Permit and Mod. Site Plan • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Case No. 08 -22 Beverly Sargent Critical Area Permit and Mod. Site Plan • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Case No. 08 -23 William Stein Wetlands Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Case No. 08 -11 Mendota Mall Associates Wetlands Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD Review for Mendota Plaza Expansion • The City Council had a long discussion around this and focused on where this fits with the character of the community, and has enough been done to preserve the uniqueness of that site to make it fit with the character of the community. After lengthy discussion, the applicant requested an extension of the review period of 180 days and upon receiving the extension, the Council tabled the matter until the second Council meeting in October. This technically does not have to come back before the Planning Commission, and Staff does not know what the applicant will chose to do at this point. They were given some clear direction from the City Council. They have not worked with Dakota County and they have also requested to withdraw their wetlands conservation act permit which was another request they needed. They intend to modify their request. They did mention they may take this to the Parks and Rec board for review. They may ask to come back to the Planning Commission at some point as well. Commissioner McManus moved, seconded by Commissioner Hennes, to adjourn the meeting 9:00 pm Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Shaffer, Recording Secretary