Loading...
2006-07-25 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 2006 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:30 pm. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners McManus, Lally, Povolny, Dolan, Hesse and Harms. Also present were Mendota Heights City Engineer Sue McDermott and Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Approval of June 27, 2006 Minutes Page 5, first paragraph under Case #06 -20 should be corrected as follows: "Mr. Grittman reviewed the site map showing the location of 1875 Hunter Lane, which is a single family parcel. The applicants are seeking a Critical Area Permit to allow for the construction of an in- ground swimming pool and some pool equipment to be located at on the rear portion of the property." COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LALLY, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2006 AS CORRECTED. 7 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #06 -21 Susan and Jeff Piper 741 Knollwood Court Critical Area Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 741 Knollwood Court in which the application is for a Critical Area Permit. The property was subject to soil failure in the rear portion of the lot. Mr. Grittman noted that the neighbor's property was affected by the failure as well. The application is supported by an extension by the way of geographical report from the applicant's consultant. This information has also been reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Grittman said it is in the interest of the Critical Area to repair this slope in a way to prevent any future erosion. Mr. Grittman said Staff recommends approval of the permit in compliance with the geotechnical consultants' recommendations. Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 Commissioner Hesse asked if the neighboring property will be corrected as well. Mr. Grittman said he expects that the owner of that property will also need to do some work on their property. Chair Lorberbaum asked if one of the properties can be fixed in isolation. Mr. Grittman said it would appear that the consultant feels it would be possible. Ms. McDermott said she read Braun's report which states that this project can be accomplished on its own. Chair Lorberbaum asked Ms. McDermott if she felt this was possible. Ms. McDermott said she is not a geotechnical engineer and will rely on the report from Braun, and she respects the engineer's license. Chair Lorberbaum asked what would happen if the engineer was wrong. Ms. McDermott said they have liability insurance. Commissioner Povolny asked if the damage was due to a previous repair job. Mr. Grittman said he is not aware of any previous repair jobs, but his understanding is that the damage is a result from storm damage. Commissioner Povolny noted the photo showing silt fencing on the neighboring property. Ms. McDermott said she believes there was some work done about 3 or 4 years ago on the neighboring property and this is documented in Braun's report. Commissioner Lally asked if the drainage pipes were operable. Ms. McDermott said the Braun report indicates that they do not know. Commissioner Lally said the Braun report says the proposed solution of these series of baskets that would be anchored into the limestone is a solution that could be extended across to the neighboring property, and the summary of the report indicates that it would reduce installation costs if both properties were corrected at the same time. Commissioner Lally asked if an application from the neighbors have been submitted. Mr. Grittman said to his knowledge, Staff has not received a current application. Mr. Grittman said Staff expects to see one because of the condition of the slope. Commissioner Lally said he does not find any indication in the report that the proposed solution will stabilize the slope, and it would seem to him that the applicant's house could easily slide toward the Falls and feels this could be an issue. Mr. Grittman and Ms. McDermott said they are not aware of any concerns regarding the stability of the home. Commissioner McManus said he was told by the homeowner that the experts feel if there is not some sort of restoration of the soil on top of the base rock, this rock could break down and eventually hurt the safety of the home. Commissioner McManus noted the strong wall on the homeowner's property between the slope and the home. Commissioner McManus said it would seem to him that the neighbor's property is in more need of restoration than the subject property and it would seem if there would be any slide starting, it will be on the neighbor's property as well. Commissioner McManus said it would seem logical from both a cost effectiveness point of view, and the safety of both homes, that the homeowners would work together on this project. Susan Piper, 741 Knollwood Court, said the neighbors had some soil failure and the silt fencing in on the neighbor's property. Mrs. Piper said they have a large drainage pipe on their property which goes from the retaining wall to the creek bed. This pipe is in tact. The pipes on the neighbor's property are not in tact. These pipes were pulled off during the storm on October 4th. Mrs. Piper said the project will take approximately 30 days depending on the weather. Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 Mrs. Piper said since October 4th, she has spent the entire winter and spring working with contractors and engineers, and this project was at one time on the docket for the June Planning Commission meeting, however pulled the application from the agenda because they were hoping to work something out with the neighbors. At this point, there has been no solution with the neighbors and Mrs. Piper's contractor expressed concern about getting the work done during the present growing season. Mrs. Piper said if the project is further delayed, there will be more damage occurring, which will create a greater cost to the applicant. Mrs. Piper said the engineer was very careful to design the project in such a way that if the work proposed would not work out; there would be an alternative plan to jointly fix both properties. Commissioner Harms asked when the work is scheduled to begin if the application is approved tonight. Mrs. Piper said in two weeks. Jim Brownhorst, Carl Bolander & Sons, explained how the restoration will take place, and said the sooner this work is done, the better the restoration will be; they would like to start in two weeks, and complete the project within a month. Commissioner Harms asked how much more damage can be expected if there are any heavy rains if the slope is not fixed at this time. Mrs. Piper said it would make sense that more damage would occur if more rainfall comes. Commissioner Hesse said it seems that there seems to be some problems with the two neighbors jointly correcting this problem. Mrs. Piper said her contractor has been trying to get in touch with the neighbor's engineer ever since late last Fall, and the Pipers have had nothing in the way of communication of any input on this until the communication came out to the neighbors about this Planning Commission meeting. After this notice was published, the Pipers began to hear from the neighbors but have not come to any resolution. Commissioner Dolan said there have been some concerns from the Planner regarding construction equipment coming through. Mrs. Piper explained how the easement is running next to their property and can be used for access. Commissioner Povolny asked if this was the first time the applicant had a wash -out problem. Mrs. Piper said they had some minor damage, but nothing of this magnitude. Mrs. Piper said she wanted to take the high road and not talk about the causation of some of the problems, but will give opinions if asked. Mrs. Piper said some very definite things occurred during that rainstorm. Commissioner Lally asked if water continues to come out of the neighbor's pipe. Mrs. Piper said water gushes out of there. Commissioner Lally asked if there could be a temporary fix, such as a hose line, to correct the neighbor's pipes. Ms. McDermott said that would be possible. Commissioner Lally asked how much the project would cost. Mrs. Piper said she does not wish to share that information. Commissioner McManus said he would like to see both neighbors come together to work on this project as one project. Commissioner McManus referred to Page 6 of the Braun report, and asked for clarification of 1.5 safety scale. Ms. McDermott and Commissioner Hesse explained how this is a scale that is used to determine safety factors; 0 being adequate safe, 1.5 being better than adequate. 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 Mrs. Piper asked the Planning Commission for their support and said they will work within reason with the neighbors for a joint fix. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Rob Stefanowitz, 17900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, is the attorney representing the neighboring property owners (Dr. Gary Kravitz and his wife, Dr. Anna Schorer). Mr. Stefanowitz said his clients want to work with the Pipers to get a joint fix that has been their goal since this incident occurred in October. As of June, 2006, Braun had planned the repair for the Piper property, submit that to the Kravitz's engineer to do a joint fix, and work on modifications to the Piper project to include the Kravitz's property. This was confirmed by the Piper's attorney, Paul Meyer, on June 28th. There was a plan to have both parties get together and work on a proposal, but that never happened. Mr. Stefanowitz said he received a letter from the Piper's attorney demanding that the Kravitz's pay a portion of the repairs on the Piper property. The Kravitz's feel there is no merit to the claim that the Kravitz's are causing this washout. Mr. Stefanowitz explained how the water is coming from the Piper's property onto the Kravitz's property. The Kravitz's response to the letter from the Piper's attorney is that they don't feel they are liable and that they still want to work with the Pipers, agreeing on several points including having a joint fix, a single contractor, a single proposal, and some shared costs for mobilization. The Kravitz's are ready and willing to move forward with the Pipers on this project, and there is a concern about access to the property. If the Pipers are allowed to go forward with their fix without involving the Kravitz's, the Kravitz's will not have access to their property as the only access is across the Piper property. Mr. Stefanowitz said he respectfully requests that the City deny this application and not take action until the two parties get together for a global fix. In the case the City grants the permit, they could make the condition that the Kravitz's will have access to their property to get their repairs done prior to the Piper's repairs. Commissioner Harms asked if both parties' engineers are in agreement that one the Piper's fix is made, can access get around the fix to get to the Kravitz's without harm. Mr. Stefanowitz said it would be just the opposite, if the Piper's fix is made, there is no access. Commissioner Harms said that the Pipers will have to wait even longer to allow time for the Kravitz's to get their fix in place. Commissioner Hesse said he does not want to delay the work and would like to see it get corrected now. Commissioner Hesse said he understands there is a financial issue between the two neighbors, and that it is not in the City's best interest to get involved in those issues. Commissioner Dolan said he is surprised that the easement does not extend into the Kravitz's and there may be a need for some research on why this is. Ms. McDermott reviewed the plat for Ivy Falls Second Addition and showed a sanitary sewer running across the Piper property but does not extend across to the Kravitz property. Ms. McDermott said there is a 20 -ft. bench clear of vegetation and trees that would allow the equipment to access the property. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Stefanowitz how long it will take for his client to get a proposal together. Mr. Stefanowitz said he would talk to their engineer tomorrow, and that they can put it on the front burner to see what can get done by the end of the week. Chair Lorberbaum asked Ms. McDermott if the Kravitz's put a proposal together before next Tuesday, could that proposal skip the Planning Commission and go directly to the City Council so the Council could review both proposals at the same time. Ms. McDermott said it has been the Council's request to send all Critical Area Permits to the Planning Commission. Chair Lorberbaum said this is 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 a unique situation that she believes the Council has the authority if they want to take it. If this is in the best interest of the City and the two homeowners, it may be beneficial. Ms. McDermott said they can add it to the City Council agenda. Ms. McDermott said there was some discussion with the Piper's contractor about doing this, but the City Administrator does not want to do this because of past issues that have been raised, the prime reason being the public notice. Chair Lorberbaum asked the Pipers if they would be willing to give the Kravitz's access through their property to fix theirs. Jeff Piper said that the Kravitz's have had major slope failures on their property. Mr. Piper said he has had minor ones related to the large yellow pipe running down the center of the area where there was some separation. Mr. Piper said all the former work was accessed through the Kravitz's property. Mr. Piper said it would be easier and would make more sense for the Kravitz's to access through the Piper property. Mr. Piper said that the Braun report indicates some "touchy" questions on the Kravitz's property. About 10 -ft to 20 -ft of the fix will go over onto the Kravitz property, and then there seems to be some questionable strata in soil composition that the contractor is not sure of. Mr. Piper said be believes the Kravitz property will require extensive soil composition. Mr. Piper said he is concerned about further delays in this process. Chair Lorberbaum said if the Piper proposal is approved by the City, would the Pipers allow the Kravitz's access to their property after the Piper property has been fixed. Mr. Piper said they would be agreeable if it is possible to do. Commissioner Povolny asked if the Kravitz's can get a bulldozer onto their property without accessing the Pipers. Gary Kravitz, 739 Knollwood, said there was a special road constructed with the previous fix, but the current topography of the land no longer allows the feasibility for any equipment to access the slope. Dr. Kravitz said the geology of his soil has been examined from the previous work done, and said a proposal could be brought to the table in a short period of time. Dr. Anna Schorer, 739 Knollwood, said she is glad the Commission is concerned about the Pipers and appreciates that they have given their side to the Commission, but she does not believe that any of the Commissioners came to visit with the Kravitz's and ask to hear their side of the story. Dr. Schorer said the Pipers have made no attempts to contact the Kravitz, and that the Kravitz's engineer told them that he has been prevented from speaking with the Piper's engineer, and that the Piper's lawyer was not allow to give the Kravitz's, or their engineers, any information. Commissioner Lally asked Mr. Stefanowitz what remedial measures were taken by his clients since the failure. Mr. Stefanowitz said his clients would better answer this question, but there were some tarps placed in the general area of the pipes for a temporary fix. Other than that, there have been no active efforts to fix the slope until a total repair can be done. Commissioner Lally asked for the name of the Kravitz's engineer. Mr. Stefanowitz said it was Jim Overtoom from STS Consultants. Commissioner Lally asked if Mr. Overton has produced any reports or proposals for the Kravitz's property. Mr. Stefanowitz said he has not, but does have a design made for the property, and there have been no proposals /applications made by the Kravitz's yet. Commissioner Lally asked Mr. Stefanowitz if he, or his clients, disagree with the Piper's proposal. Mr. Stefanowitz said they are in agreement, and that their engineer's fixes are very similar. Commissioner Lally asked Mr. Stefanowitz if he acknowledges that the Pipers have gone to some expense to pay their engineer to come up with a proposal. Mr. Stefanowitz said that was correct. Commissioner Lally said if the Kravitz's use the same proposed fix, would they be willing to make some contribution to those costs. Mr. Stefanowitz said he 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 has advised the Piper's attorney that his clients agree that there are some shared costs but have not received a response from him. Commissioner Lally said he is having some trouble understanding how the Kravitz's can put something on the front burner a week in July when stuff seems to have been burning on the stove since October. Mr. Stefanowitz said that is because they have been waiting for Braun to come up with their plan, and it was their decision to do the Piper fix proposal first, and then it would be easy to modify that to cover the Kravitz property. To date, no proposals or itemized costs have been sent. Commissioner Lally said he is concerned that the Kravitz's have not submitted an application yet, and it seems that some of the financial issues can be decided at any time, but the repair is more of an issue at this time as he is sure the situation may get worse with the winter snows. Commissioner McManus asked Mr. Stefanowitz if, in the case the Piper's would have decided to wait until next year to fix this area, would the Kravitz's also have waited. Commissioner McManus said he wonders why the Kravitz's, knowing that the work needs to be accessed through the Piper property, wait so long until the Piper's application until they decided to take action. Dr. Schorer told the Commission that since June, the Pipers and their constituents have made no attempt to contact the Kravitz's and were told by them that they needed to wait until the Pipers had their plans ready. Commissioner McManus said the application seems to be in order. Commissioner McManus asked Mr. Brownhorst if he would be able to do the Piper's work and have the Kravitz's access their property during the work. Mr. Brownhorst explained how he can start the Piper's work, and then at a certain point, a shelf can be created to allow the Kravitz's to bring in equipment to do their work. Then he can finish the Piper's work all in a timely fashion. Seeing no one come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION MEETS THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE ENGINEERS REPORT. Further Discussion Commissioner Dolan said this should be conditioned upon access to the property owner, because if the property owners can't agree it may bring undesirable results. Commissioner McManus said he believes that all the Planning Commission can do is make a resolution which does not interfere with the process of these people working together. Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 Commissioner Dolan is opposing this motion because the City should be thinking long term about how this gets resolved and somehow give more thought about doing this as one project. Commissioner Povolny said he is also opposed and believes a single project makes more sense. 5 AYES 2 NAYS (Commissioners Dolan and Povolny) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #06 -22 Linda Byrne 610 Watersedge Terrace Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed the map showing the location of 610 Watersedge Terrace, in which the applicant is seeking a variance to allow for the expansion of an existing attached garage on the existing home on the property. The application is to add a one -car garage to the existing two -car garage. This expansion would extend to within 8 -ft. of the property line, the zoning ordinance requires 10 -ft. Mr. Grittman said the applicant feels there is a safety concern by having their third vehicle parked in the street; however Staff feels that the applicant has sufficient space in their driveway for this third car and therefore does not recommend the variance. Commissioner Lally asked if the applicant should build a parking area instead of the garage, would that need a variance. Mr. Grittman said it would not and can be within 5 -ft. of the property line. Commissioner Dolan asked about the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Grittman said there is a mixture of both two -car and three -car garages in the neighborhood. Mike Brown and Linda Byrne, husband and wife, reside at 610 Watersedge Terrace and are the applicants in this case. Ms. Byrne said she feels a hardship would be that they have three drivers in the family and feels that the third car is always parked in the street. Being that the street is curvy, there is a safety concern. Mr. Brown said the appearance of the home would be much improved by having the additional section of the garage instead of having an extension of the driveway. Commissioner Povolny said he would rather see the third car parked in the garage rather than on the street. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 7 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER POVOLNY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARMS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. 2 AYES 5 NAYS (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners McManus, Lally, Dolan, Hesse) MOTION FAILED CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BASED ON THE LACK OF FINDING A HARDSHIP. 6 AYES 1 NAYE (Commissioner Harms) PLANNING CASE #06 -23 Sherwin Sieden 1423 Knollwood Lane Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman shared the map showing the location of 1423 Knollwood Lane, in which the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a fence within the 30 -ft setback of Ivy Lane and is in excess of 3 -ft in height. The fence is proposed to be 6 -ft in height with a gate across the driveway. This fence would enclose a swimming pool and the City requires enclosing pools with fencing. Mr. Grittman said there is an issue with the gate as the ordinance requires gates to be no more than 5 -ft in height. This gate would have electronic closure and will be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments for safety and openings. Other than that, Mr. Grittman said because of the location of the driveway, it does not appear particularly convenient to construct this fence in another location to meet setback and Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the modification of the height of the gate. Chair Lorberbaum asked if a separate application is needed for the use of the gate. Mr. Grittman said this was combined into the same application. Chair Lorberbaum asked if special notification is needed for the gate. Ms. McDermott read the notification that went out. The notice read "to consider an application from Sherwin Sieden for a Conditional Use Permit for a 6 -foot warrior style aluminum fence at the following described property... ". Mr. Grittman said the notice did not specifically talk about the gate. Chair Lorberbaum said there should be a public notice on the fence to let the neighbors know. Commissioner Harms asked what the harm would to leave it as is as the City was guiding the applicant on what type of application they should apply for. Commissioner Dolan said this may be getting too technical. Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 Commissioner Povolny said it's best to get the fence up as soon as possible because of the swimming pool. Chair Lorberbaum said she does not know if the swimming pool is in. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED TO TABLE CASE #06 -23 UNTIL PROPER NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE GATE. Having no second, the motion failed. Sherwin Sieden, 1423 Knollwood Lane, said the swimming pool is in. Mr. Sieden explained how the fencing would be laid out, incorporating his new fence with the neighbor's high board fence. Mr. Sieden said he would like the 6 -ft fence as he is planning on getting a dog and would not want the dog to be able to jump the gate, as well as keeping other animals out of his yard. He is also concerned about kids coming climbing the gate and getting into his pool. Mr. Sieden said the fence will also be buffered by landscaping so it will not be so visible from the street. The gate will also match the fencing. Chair Lorberbaum said she visited the property and found that the street was busy and she liked the way the fencing was laid out, and recognizes that the side street is a busy roadway. Chair Lorberbaum said the plans are appropriate to the property and its surrounding area, but is much more comfortable with a 5 -ft. gate. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LALLY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, WITH THE CONDITIONS AND FINDING IN THE PLANNER REPORT, AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE GATE BE 5 -FT. IN HEIGHT. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #06 -24 Steven Weintraut 869 Mendakota Court Wetlands Permit Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 Mr. Grittman shared the map showing the property of 869 Mendakota Court, in which the applicant is seeking a wetland permit to construct two sections of fencing within the 100 -ft. buffer zone of Rogers Lake wetland area. Mr. Grittman said this fencing would extend from some existing fencing that is already in place. The design of the fence is to mirror the existing black aluminum bar fencing until it hits the slope, at which point if would transition to a black coated chain link fence. Mr. Grittman said this proposed fencing would have very minor alteration to the land by installing the fence posts, and Staff recommends approval of this wetland permit. Commissioner McManus asked what the purpose of the existing gate is for. Mr. Grittman said it is not against any code requirement, and suggested that the applicant answer this question. Commissioner McManus asked how far into the wetland the posts would be located. Mr. Grittman said the fencing will have to stop at the ordinary high water line (OHW) of the lake surface which is designated by the DNR. Ms. McDermott said the DNR met with Mr. Weintraut and marked where the line is. Steve Weintraut, 869 Mendakota Court, said the 12 -ft gate is to allow him to get contractors back in this area if necessary as he is still working on his other plan (Planning Case 06 -18), and has always wanted to have access to his property from the golf course as the golf course has been agreeable to this usage. Chair Lorberbaum asked why the additional fencing is needed. Mr. Weintraut said he wanted to enclose his yard without blocking views of the lake. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS PRESENTED BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE REQUEST ADEQUATELY PROTECTS THE WETLANDS WATER QUALITY AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #06 -25 United Properties Investment LLC Minor PUD Amendment and Sign Setback Variance 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for the Mendota Heights Business Center, for a minor PUD amendment and Sign Setback Variance for a currently undeveloped parcel of the property to construct an office building on this property. This property is part of a Planned Unit Development and the site plan requires a minor amendment to the overall area. The applicants are also seeking a variance to allow for a free - standing sign to be located within 20 -ft of the right of way of Northland Drive, along the south boundary of the property where the main entrance will be. Mr. Grittman said the proposed building meets all the zoning requirements for the industrial district, and has excess of parking spaces as well. There are no other zoning issues in relation to this proposal and Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment to allow for the construction of the building. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is also seeking a variance to the sign. The City has had a practice in this area of granting variances to the sign setbacks to allow 25 -ft. setbacks for the businesses in this industrial park. Mr. Grittman said in this case, the applicant's contention is that they will be consistent with the other properties in the industrial park and given the nature of the street and the landscaping of the property, the sign setback of 40- ft would not be visible to passing traffic and without the variance, the sign would not be able to properly identify that building. Mr. Grittman said it appears these conditions are justified and Staff recommends approval of the variance as presented. Commissioner Hesse asked why the amendment is necessary. Mr. Grittman said it has been the City's practice to approve these on a site by site basis as they come out. Commissioner Dolan asked for clarification on the formula for parking spaces. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance defines the floor area of the building to be 90% of its gross floor area, with the intent being that there always will be restrooms and other public areas. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the lower portion of property that is somewhat isolated between the business park's property and the roadway. Ms. McDermott said this property is connected to the property across the street and is owned by the City. The property across the street contains a cell tower that the City leases. Mr. Grittman said it is most likely a remnant piece. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the parking is too close to this other piece of property and will that piece need a variance of any kind. Mr. Grittman said the parking still meets the setback given the dimension of this parcel. Chair Lorberbaum said one of the things West St. Paul is doing in their vision for Robert Street is trying to get parking away from the street view and Mendota Heights has been doing a really good job in this as there are berms and the parking is generally lower with the businesses in Mendota Heights. Is this parking going to be visible from Highway 55? Mr. Grittman said there is a topographical map in the packet but the numbers are hard to read. Mr. Grittman said he believes there may be some visibility. Chair Lorberbaum said it seems that the proposed parking lot is higher than the highway. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman if he has any suggestions as to screening. Mr. Grittman said some more trees or berming may be appropriate. Commissioner Harms said there does seem to be some berming on the elevation plan. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant can best answer this question. Commissioner Lally asked if the only signs proposed are along Northland Drive and not Highway 55. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 Commissioner McManus said he would like to know what the sign will look like. Mr. Grittman showed an example of the proposed signage. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the entrances to the building and the proposed usage of the building, and are these entrances sufficient for fire code. Mr. Grittman said the building code officials will determine this in their review. Ms. McDermott said the plans are in the Fire Chief's inbox and does not know if he has looked at it yet. Mr. Dale Glowa, Senior VP Development for United Properties reviewed the site plan and answered some questions. • There are no tenants lined up for this building. • It is anticipated that this will be a multi- tenant property with anywhere up to ten tenants • This will be a 41,000 square feet facility. • The actual tenant plans as they are prepared for assigned lease tenants will go before the City Staff, including the Fire Department, and a separate permit will be pulled. All the safety requirements as it relates to exiting the building will be reviewed. • Highway 55 is below this site and the traffic on this highway will be looking up to the site, and will look further into the visibility of the parking on this site. • There are some utility easement restrictions that are beyond United Properties control, which run along the property line. It may not be feasible to place bermings in that area and the applicant will work with Ms. McDermott on this. This is seen as a minor issue as the distance from Highway 55 to the proposed parking lot is quite substantial. • The signage around the business park as a whole is very consistent, and the proposed signage and ongoing maintenance will also fit into these requirements. • The design of the project has been done to be able to blend in with the neighborhood. • Lighting will be done to be consistent with the rest of the park, to the point the lighting will be mainly for security of employees. Mr. Glowa said he believes that the City's signage ordinances requiring the 40 -ft setback is outdated and does not know of any other community that poses those same restrictions. Mr. Glowa said this is part of the PUD and the reason for the minor amendment is because the developer did not know what the plans were for this portion of the property back in 1989. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARMS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER HARMS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MINOR PUD AMENDMENT BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 REQUESTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING ORDINANCE AS WELL AS APPROVAL OF THE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE 20 -FT SIGN BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE SIGN SETBACK CONTRIBUTES TO REASONABLE USE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER SIGNS IN THE AREA. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW— Sue McDermott June 28th City Council Meeting PLANNING CASE #06 -20 Dahm / Elliott Critical Area Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. July 18th Citv Council Meetin PLANNING CASE #06 -19 Opus Minor Amendment to PUD, Final Plat, CUP, Critical Area Permit, Variance, and a Wetlands Permit. • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #06 -11 T- Mobile Cell Tower at City Hall — CUP, Variance, Wetlands Permit and Ordinance Amendment • City Council denied as recommended by the Planning Commission. o The T- Mobile representative wants to bring in another proposal for a 75 -ft. tower and is planning on bringing in a crane to the City Hall site to show the Commissioners and Council members what this will look like. • If the T- Mobile people set up a date for this, Staff will notify the Planning Commission to invite them to view this demonstration. • The Police Chief will be dealing with the department's safety communications separately. • Status of the Subdivision Ordinance — there will be a public hearing at the August 1St to take public comments on the subdivision ordinance. Other Business Mr. Grittman introduced Nate Sparks as a member of Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. and said Mr. Sparks will be sitting in on a few meetings. Mr. Sparks may be assisting Mr. Grittman in the future. COMMISSIONER HARMS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:10 PM. 13 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 14