Loading...
2005-02-22 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 2005 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:30 pm. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Dolan, Hesse, and M. McManus. Those excused: Commissioners Miller and Betlej. City Staff present were City Engineer Sue McDermott and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. ELECTIONS Chair Lorberbaum received nominations for the 2005 Planning Commission Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO NOMINATE SALLY LORBERBAUM AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO NOMINATE JOE BETLEJ AS VICE CHAIRPERSON OF THE 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Approval of November 23, 2004 Minutes Several Commissioners pointed out some typo changes. The Recording Secretary will make those changes and pass on to Staff. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2005 AS AMENDED. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #03 -04 Property Maintenance Ordinance Mr. Grittman reviewed the latest draft of the Property Maintenance Ordinance. During a tour of City Officials and City Staff last Fall, there were seven properties identified with primary concerns that were discussed, such as firewood, vehicles, trash cans, pallets, appliances, and unoccupied or vacant homes. Mr. Grittman said there were some discussions regarding commercial and industrial areas, but it has been decided that this ordinance would only apply to residential areas, and by focusing on these residential areas and completing an agreed upon ordinance, commercial and industrial issues would be addressed at a future date. Mr. Grittman noted in his staff report some comments that were received from interested parties since the preparation of the proposed draft. Those comments were not provided to the Planning Commission prior to this meeting, and are as follows: 1. Section 12 -5 -3 A.2. Add reference to "other accessory buildings" to the list of uses, which require "complete siding ". 2. Section 12 -5 -4 A.1 Add reference to "vandalism and storms" to the "Damaged by fire;" section. 3. Section 12 -5 -5 B.1 Add definition of "cord" to be 128 cubit feet (a full cord is 4 ft. by 4 ft. by 8 ft.). 4. Section 12 -5 -7 A. Replace the word "materials" with the word "refuse ". 5. Section 12 -5 -8 B.1 Change the language to read: "Screening: Garbage and recycling containers shall be stored inside the garage, or if stored outside, shall be fully screened by landscaping and/or fencing from neighboring property and from the public street." With these additional changes, Mr. Grittman said City Staff is recommending approval of the Property Maintenance Ordinance draft as submitted. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification on Section 12 -5 -5: Firewood Storage, if there were any discussions regarding homes that use the firewood to heat their homes. Mr. Grittman said there is one resident who has a significant amount of firewood stored on the property where the firewood is used as the primary source of heat for the home, thereby asking to be exempt from this clause of the document. Mr. Grittman said the City Council will have to grant this exemption. Mr. Hollister said this is a very unique case and has been so for the last forty or fifty years. The City Council has previously had conversations with this property owner about enforcement issues over the years. Mr. Hollister said it is his understanding that it is the City Council's intent that when this ordinance is adopted, it would apply equally to everyone and that if a property owner feels they have a unique circumstance on firewood to heat their house, they will have to plead their case to the City Council. Commissioner M. McManus said there has been some discussion about the length of time a property owner has to remove fallen and uncut trees, and Commissioner M. McManus was concerned about storm damage when it's more difficult to remove trees within the 90 days. Mr. Grittman said there have been no changes to that. Commissioner M. McManus said this should be as an opportunity for education to residents and then followup with enforcement to help residents come into compliance. Chair Lorberbaum stated some of her comments: Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 • Appreciated the number of comments from the residents that were received. • Would rather go with 30 days and have the exception when there are issues that residents may need a longer time depending on the nature or dollar amount of the violation or the season. She would like to see a sliding scale which would depend on the issue, and the seasonal timeframe, and the time the resident would need to secure the funds to correct the situation. • Would like to see some way to allow more vehicles on larger parcels via a conditional use permit. • Would like to keep the garbage containers in the garage. • Received a comment from a resident to remove all language pertaining to offices, warehouses, and stores. • Under 12 -5 -4 A.1, Item #I — there are others issues that could create damage other then fire, such as storm damage. • Under 12 -5 -6, Item #3 — should change the 7 days to 14 days. Chair Lorberbaum said this ordinance is to protect the property values, and to ensure the enjoyment of property. She has received comments that the people that are being hurt are the neighbors to those properties that are not being maintained. Mr. Grittman said there could be language that would require that the trash be kept inside the garage or outside in an area with adequate screening as it is done with outdoor storage. Chair Lorberbaum stated some comments received from Commissioner Betlej: • Not happy with the fact that this ordinance applies to residential and would like to see more language regarding commercial. • There have been too many deletions made in the draft and would like to see more information to give more clarity and makes enforcement more difficult. • Should not force neighbors to put up with the unmaintained properties around them. Commissioner Dolan stated some of his comments: • Believes the ordinance should stick with residential and address the office /commercial at a later time. • Was appreciative from the comments made by a resident, and who addressed in a letter pertaining to adding in Section 12 -5 -7 C — is in agreement with language to address items that are placed on the curb and marked "Free ". Commissioner B. McManus said he agrees with a lot of comments made and feels that some of the language should be put back in, and made the following comments: • Should not address the commercial /industrial areas. • Construction materials are currently stored for a long period of time and feels that 14 days is reasonable. • Section 12 -5 -8 B — should read: "Disposal of Rubbish: Every occupant of a structure shall reasonable store • Section 12 -5 -9 — should read: "General: Drainage of roofs and paved areas, yards, and courts, and other open areas on the Property shall not be allowed to occur discharged in a manner that creates a public nuisance." • Section 12 -5 -10 C — who enforces the fine and how much will it be? Mr. Grittman said the Council will identify that fine. • Section 12 -5 -10 D — should read: "Abatement by City: If in the event that the City chooses ..." Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 • Relating to the "Bill ", it seems that if the bill is not paid within a period of time, it automatically becomes a special tax, which gives the property owner a long time to pay the bill. Mr. Hollister said there could be a penalty tax applied. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mr. John Rosack, 1235 Culligan Lane, said the ordinance needs to be carefully crafted to balance the protection of the neighbors and avoid intrusion by neighbors. He is concerned that the ordinance needs to be more clear in its interpretation of what is clean, what is safe, etc. Mr. Rosack will send some of his suggestions to Mr. Hollister. Mr. Steve Landry, 2085 Elmcourt Circle, said he feels there needs to be more definition on terms used in this document, such as the definition of "dilapidation ". Mr. Jeff Clausdorn, 1527 Van Dal, said a lot of larger families have multiple drivers and need to have more than the required amount of cars on their properties. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW STAFF TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THESE COMMENTS AND BRING THIS DRAFT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE MARCH MEETING. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said the staff can make the changes based on the comments received and would like to bring it back for final approval at the next meeting and put closure to this issue. Commissioner Dolan said he likes the idea that Staff will have the opportunity to revise the document based on the comments received. He believes there has been ample comments received by the public, and does not see the need to continue the public hearing any further. Commissioner Dolan suggested that the Planning Commission instruct Staff to revised and send directly to City Council, thus tabling this hearing. Chair Lorberbaum said she wants to give the public as much opportunity as possible to comment on this ordinance. 4 AYES 1 NAYS (Commissioner Dolan) MOTION CARRIED This public hearing will be tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING CASE #05 -04 Moen Leuer Construction Mendota Heights Road 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 PUD Mr. Grittman reviewed the revised elevation drawings of the proposed office condominium project on the northeast quadrant of I -35E and I -494, on the south side of Mendota Heights Road. This request was tabled from the January 25, 2005 meeting. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has submitted more information regarding building signage and landscaping intentions. The applicant also has retained some circulation feedback from the fire department, in which the fire department is requiring a driveway width of at least 26 -ft. In addition, the fire department made the requirement that the address of the site be on Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Grittman said the total impervious surface is about 61 % and is within the maximum requirement. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the Planner has discussed concerns regarding the white sign / black letters with the applicant. Mr. Grittman said he has not. Commissioner B. McManus said he feels the applicant has acted in good faith and worked hard to meet the requirements and requests of the Planning Commission, and encouraged the Planning Commission to get this project put through to not slow down the process. Commissioner Dolan asked for information regarding the existing chain link fence. Commissioner Dolan asked about the landscaping around the trash containment. Mr. Grittman indicated how the trash containment will be screened. Commission Dolan asked for clarification regarding proof of parking. Mr. Grittman explained that the City would require the applicant to provide adequate parking. Commissioner Dolan asked if the Planning Commission has been provided a sketch of the monument sign. Mr. Grittman said it was in the plans. Chair Lorberbaum asked for information on lighting. Commissioner M. McManus referred to the fire department's comments, and asked who provides assurance that the turning radius will be adequate. Mr. Grittman said there are standards in place that have been created by the fire chief and city engineer. Mr. Ted Mohagen, Mohagen/Hansen Architectural Group, said this chain link fence belongs to the County / State, and the only chain link fence owned by the applicant would be around the pond for safety purposes. Mr. Mohagen said he agrees with the recommendation of Staff regarding the monument sign. The sign will also be 8' high, 6'- 8" in width and will be placed on a 2' base. Mr. Mohagen shared a sketch of the proposed signage, reviewed a lighting plan and indicated how the turning radius for emergency vehicles would be done. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE REQUEST AS PRESENTED. Further Discussion Commissioner Dolan suggested that the concerns of the fire chief be included in the motion. Commissioner M. McManus and Chair Lorberbaum both accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Hesse suggested that the conditions as outlined in the Planners Report of January 20, 2005 be included in the motion. Commissioner M. McManus and Chair Lorberbaum both accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner M. McManus asked that the motion also include the trash enclosure screening, Chair Lorberbaum accepted this friendly amendment. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -05 Greg Conway / Terry Russell 716 Maple Park Court Critical Area Permit Mr. Grittman said this request is for a critical area permit to allow construction of an 8 -ft. by 12 -ft. addition to the rear of the home located at 716 Maple Park Court. Because the property lies within the Mississippi River Critical Area, a permit is required. No variances or other zoning permits are necessary. Mr. Grittman reviewed a site plan which shows a small addition to the kitchen of the existing home. Mr. Greg Conway, President of Conway Construction, spoke on behalf of the owners Terry and Kathy Russelll, who reside at this residence and was available to answer any questions. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS PRESENTED. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -06 Sampson Properties LLC / Henry Votel 1440 Northland Drive Wetlands Permit for Office Building Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for a wetlands permit to accommodate the construction of an office building along Centre Pointe Curve. The site plan shows the proposed building to be within approximately 35 -ft. of an existing wetland area, and it appears this property could not accommodate a building to be located anywhere else on the property. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan and said the pond area will be planted in native grasses. Mr. Grittman said there needs to be some type of continued maintenance to ensure the establishment of these plantings. Commissioner B. McManus asked what the definition of "as built" as it relates to the documents provided. Ms. McDermott said this refers to record drawings of the existing utilities and the actual storm sewer that is located on the property. Commissioner Dolan said the plan shows that the parking lot would be located over the existing drainage. Mr. Grittman said this is not prohibited and should the City need to access this drainage, the applicant would be required to restore the parking / building areas affected. Mr. Grittman said the building is rather small scale and it would not make much difference and it is Staff's opinion that this building makes reasonable usage of the site in this location. Mr. John Farracie, Development Engineering, said all the requirement of the wetlands permit has been completed and he talked about the process of planting the prairie grasses. The impervious surface has been identified as 38 %. Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Farracie for assurance that he notes and accepts the conditions and comments of the City Engineer. Mr. Farracie said that was no problem. Commissioner Dolan asked if the wetlands are accounted for when making a determination. Mr. Grittman said the determination is based on the gross site area. Chair Lorberbaum said she will assume that the proposed building will meet all codes. Mr. Farracie said they will, and will work on getting the trash location in place as directed by the City. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification on the establishment of the financial /maintenance security of the prairie grass plantings. Mr. Farracie referred to the portion of the proposal which has this information and assured the Commission that this will be carried through. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS PRESENTED BASED ON: • THE FINDINGS ATTACHED TO THE PLANNER' S REPORT TO INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY ENGINEER • INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATION OF PROPER ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRAIRIE GRASS WITH A MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WITH AN EXPERIENCED PRAIRIE GRASS INSTALLATION FIRM. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -03 Stanley and Nicole Genadek 716 Third Avenue Wetlands Permit Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 Mr. Grittman said this request is for a wetlands permit that would result in a substantial alteration of an existing wetland and that the applicant currently does not have significant information that was needed for the staff to properly review the application. This application has been tabled from the January 25th Planning Commission Meeting and the applicant is still working on the development of the plans and is currently not prepared to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has not yet withdrawn their request, and will probably not be ready to present until the Spring. Chair Lorberbaum said she questions whether the Planning Commission can table something that has not yet been presented and asked for Staff's council on this case. Mr. Hollister said Mr. Genadek submitted his application in the beginning of January, 2005. Staff notified Mr. Genadek within 10 days of his initial application that the applicant was incomplete. It is the practice of the City to advertise for the public hearing for January to provide the applicant to provide the missing materials in the case the applicant has the materials completed in time for the hearing. Mr. Genadek did not get the required materials into the City on time and at the January 25th public hearing, the hearing was continued until this meeting. Once again, a public hearing was posted in hopes that Mr. Genadek would provide the materials and to date, that has not been done. Mr. Hollister gave his recommendation that because the City has notified Mr. Genadek within 10 days of his application that the application was incomplete, the City is not subject to the 60- day time limit and the clock as not yet started. By state statute, the clock does not start until the applicant submits the missing materials. Mr. Hollister said this matter could be continued to the March Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission could choose to close the public hearing tonight and reopen the hearing upon receipt of the required materials from the applicant. Mr. Hollister said that it has now been two months and the Planning Commission is well within its rights to recommend denial to the City Council because the materials have not been submitted. The applicant would therefore need to re- submit a new application. Ms. McDermott said that because this involves a wetland delineation, and the applicant is in disagreement with the City on this delineation, the applicant has been requested to resubmit his application in April when the growing season has begun. Ms. McDermott said that tabling this case until March would still not give the Planning Commission enough information to discuss this case. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman for his opinion on this case. Mr. Grittman said it would be best to close this public hearing and ask the applicant to resubmit. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Ms. Rhonda Simonson, 1399 Clement Street, said she does not live within the notification area, but read the notice in the paper and wished to comment on this case. Ms. Simonson asked that she be notified by City Staff for any upcoming hearings on this case and gave her contact information to Mr. Hollister. Ms. Simonson said she was concerned about this property's closeness to the walking path. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION WAS INCOMPLETE AFTER TWO MONTHS AFTER INITIAL SUBMISSION. Further Discussion Commissioner Dolan said his motion is based on the opinion of the Planning Commission that this application must be resubmitted and the applicant is to pay another application fee. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Mr. Hollister addressed the audience and apologized for their inconvenience and said this issue will probably come up again at the April Planning Commission Meeting. PLANNING CASE #05 -07 Brown College 1440 Northland Drive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and CUP Mr. Grittman shared the site plan that indicated the location of Brown College, 1440 Northland Drive, and introduced the application seeking an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance that would allow the students of Brown College to serve an internship to the general public in providing massage therapy. Brown College intends to provide these services onsite, which is currently zoned Industrial, as an accessory use. Mr. Grittman said Staff has provided a draft amendment to the Planning Commission that would establish a massage therapy service by condition use permit as an accessory use by a trade school, college, or university, and are permitted uses in the Industrial area. Mr. Grittman said the code does not currently have a separate classification for massage therapy and has interpreted the code to accommodate these services as it does for chiropractic or a salon type commercial usage. Mr. Grittman said the applicant suggests there will be very low volume traffic due to the number of students and also the nature of the program, and the applicant is also proposing to limit the hours of operation for this particular service so that it will not have conflict with parking issues in the area. Mr. Grittman suggested that 10 Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 the Planning Commission indicate the hours of operation in their recommendations to avoid conflict with parking issues. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has previously discussed this concept with the City Council and the City Council referred them back to the Planning Commission with this request for (1) an amendment to the zoning ordinance as an established use and (2) a conditional use permit to occupy the property as requested. There was a notice of a potential variance for this use when the Staff was reviewing the application, but it was not clear at the time whether or not a variance would be requested and it does not appear there is a need, therefore the Staff has withdrawn that application. Staff believes the application is in order and recommends approval. Commissioner Dolan said asked if there are schools and colleges in other districts other than Industrial. Mr. Grittman said there are, but this application is specific to the Industrial district and Staff wanted to start with a very narrow amendment with the possibility of being expanded at a future time. Commissioner Dolan said if the City approves schools and universities in the Industrial district, school and universities in other districts do not need conditional use permits. Mr. Grittman said they would need to come in with a separate request. Commissioner Dolan asked how Staff recommends avoiding the parking problem. Mr. Grittman said it may be good to further restrict hours of operation. Chair Lorberbaum said she is concerned that the City is licensing a use when there is no current structure in place for licensing massage therapy in the city. Chair Lorberbaum said she is in favor of this use as long as there are some regulations to protect both the city and school. Chair Lorberbaum referred to the regulations in place for the cities of Saint Paul and West Saint Paul. Mr. Grittman said in this particular case, the discussion is about a program where the applicant would make students ready for licensing. Chair Lorberbaum said the city can approve as long as the student is supervised by a licensed therapist. Chair Lorberbaum said although the city does not have any regulations for massage therapy, there are currently some massage therapy businesses in the city. Commissioner Hesse asked if there will be another process to go through upon approval on this application where language will have to be added to current ordinances that will pertain to massage therapy activities. Mr. Grittman said a clause would be created to address this issue. Commissioner M. McManus said she appreciates the comments made about licensing massage services in the city, and does not see this particular proposal as a massage parlor because it's done in a learning institution and as a part of a teaching environment where the public will not be charged for their massages. Commissioner M. McManus said this needs to be separated from the massage parlor type business. Ms. Roxanne Moran, Department Chair for Massage Administration of Brown College, said the students will be given the opportunity to work on friends at no charge to their friends to practice massage therapy skills. Ms. Moran said there are ten massage tables that have curtains in between for privacy. Commissioner B. McManus said he sees the applicant coming to the city to acquire permission for licensed teachers to instruct students, and that the students will be properly supervised and the whole process is properly licensed. Commissioner B. McManus said he sees the applicant coming to the city to ask for the first step to 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 change the zoning to allow them to undertake this program, and the City will expect the applicant to meet all the required standards of such a program. Chair Lorberbaum asked about regulations regarding therapy for minors, and it's important to set standards and best practices to insure the safety of the clients. Ms. Moran said it's the school policy that students will not work on people under the age of 18. Chair Lorberbaum said this is the decision of the school and those policies could change without the City's involvement. Chair Lorberbaum said this should be a joint responsibility between the school and the City. Chair Lorberbaum asked if students can choose massage therapy as a minor. Ms. Moran said they cannot, but the program is a nine -month diploma program. Commissioner Hesse said without any language to regulate massage therapy, anyone can come into the city and teach massage because the City approved it, and without this language in the ordinance, there is no guarantee that these entities will be creditable. Commissioner Dolan said this would be a conditional use and anyone would have to come before the City, and the City could impose restrictions as appropriate. Mr. Grittman said this conditional use permit is only available as an accessory to a college /university /trade school use and is not open to any other general commercial activity. Chair Lorberbaum asked if most cities have massage therapy license language in their ordinances. Mr. Grittman said it is not uncommon, but not all cities do. Mr. Grittman said the City feels massage therapy is an allowable use as an accessory activity to chiropractic or salon type of activities and are permitted uses. This particular amendment would allow massage therapy as an accessory use for colleges in the Industrial district only. Mr. Hollister said there are only two contacts in the City where professional massage therapy is currently allowed. One of them is an accessory service to chiropractors and the other is a home occupation. There is a definition in the zoning ordinance for the home occupation, and provided somebody fits that ordinance, and provided their occupation does not conflict with any other laws, they are free to pursue that within their own home as long as they live in that home. The word "massage" does not appear anywhere in the current zoning ordinance and this would be the first introduction of that word in the ordinance. In this case, the Planner has crafted the wordage to make a very limited circumstance in that it has to be in the Industrial zone and it has to be as an accessory or educational activity as part of a college /trade school /university, and it has to be a conditional use permit so each time someone came to the City asking for permission to do this, the Planning Commission and City Council would be at liberty to impose any conditions they want to. Mr. Hollister said he provided the documents relating to the ordinances of the other cities that were provided to the Planning Commission on request from Chair Lorberbaum, and would furnish copies to Brown College as well. Zoning regulations and licensing regulations are two completely separate bodies of law. Mr. Hollister said that larger cities require licenses for all types of activities, and the only license requirements for Mendota Heights of this nature would be the liquor licenses, which are routinely reviewed and renewed by the City Council on a yearly basis. It is fairly automatic to renew these licenses unless there have been some issues brought up by the police department. 12 Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 Mr. Hollister said any conditions, for instance, not working on minors, could be included in the amendment. However, the question on whether or not the City should be licensing is not before the Planning Commission. Commissioner M. McManus said this case involves a learning/educational environment and should be separate from a business license issue, and would expect that Brown College would have language in their policies and courses to address infant and underage massage activities. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING MASSAGE THERAPY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS AN ACCESSORY USE AS PRESENTED; SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Services are provided by only current students in the massage therapy program, 2. Services are provided only during afternoon, evening, or weekend hours, 3. No more than ten massage tables may be used at any one time, 4. In the event parking issues are encountered with the public using the facility, the City may reconsider the conditions of the "Conditional Use Permit ". Further Discussion Commissioner Hesse asked if there is a need to bring to the City Council meeting proposed language or the proposed amendment language to make sure everyone is comfortable with it. Mr. Grittman said this information is provided in the Planners Report. Chair Lorberbaum said she will be abstaining from this as she is in favor of the proposal, and would like to have the City Council consider some language that pertains to licensing. Chair Lorberbaum also suggested that Brown College bring copies of their policies and standards to the City Council meeting. 4 AYES 0 NAYS 1 ABSTENTION (Chair Lorberbaum) MOTION CARRIED (It is noted that Commissioner Marina McManus has left the meeting after this case) 13 Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 PLANNING CASE #05 -08 Opus Corporation Highway 13 and Wachtler (Ecolab Site) PUD Concept Plan for Residential PUD Mr. Grittman said reviewed a map showing the location of Ecolab, located at Highway 13 and Wachtler. The applicant is Opus Corporation, a development company seeking to convert the use to a residential project which would entail the commercial use. The property is currently zoned B -IA, and is adjacent to another B -1 area site (Excel Energy), but is mainly surrounded by R -1 Residential. The site is currently occupied by Ecolab. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan. In connection with discussions regarding the Comprehensive Plan, there is a requirement for an amendment from Limited Business to Medium and High Density Residential with a combination of townhouses and a multiple family condominium building. This change will primarily affect traffic patterns as it will go into reverse. Traffic generation is estimated to be about the same as current. There are a total of 131 residential units; 63 of them are in clusters of two and three unit buildings, the condominium is proposed of a four story building that will house the remaining 68 units. The overall density of this property will be 6.55 units per acre, which falls into the high- density classification, which ranges from 4.35 to 8.54 units per acre. The condominium building sits over a parking garage as well. The building will be next to a low density residential district. There is also a boundary line running through the site, which puts about 2/3 of the site into the Critical Area and dictates where the condominium building would be placed, as it exceeds the Critical Area's regulation for height. Mr. Grittman said the looped road within the center of the project will be a private road, with accesses to both Wachtler and Highway 13. The site reserves the perimeter in regards to green space and trees. Impervious surface is estimated at 36% for the 25 -acre site. The PUD ordinance requires a maximum of 25 %. It is believed that the private road plays a significant part in this percentage. Mr. Grittman shared the elevation drawings for review and also reviewed the street layout and parking areas. Parks and Recreation Committee has reviewed the plans and are looking for some trails to be added and looking at a park dedication cash fee. Commissioner Hesse asked Mr. Grittman to indicate the critical area boundary line on the map. Mr. Grittman said this site is actually two parcels. Commissioner Dolan asked if the Comprehensive Plan amendment will require Met Council approval. Mr. Grittman said it would. Commissioner Dolan asked if any curb cuts would be removed. Mr. Grittman said one would be removed. 14 Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 Commissioner Dolan asked for a density comparison of other projects in the area. Mr. Hollister said the density of Augusta Shores is an R -2 density, and would be comparable to this proposed project if the condominium building is removed. Commissioner Dolan asked the Planner if the average density number of 6.55 units per acre used by the applicant was appropriate. Mr. Grittman said it would be a typical use of a PUD. Commissioner Dolan said the Planner suggested in the report to break up the condominium building and asked Mr. Grittman to explain how he would do that. Mr. Grittman said smaller clusters of multi - family would reduce the mass of the building, for example: separating the one building into two or three separate buildings. Commissioner Dolan said it would make more sense to seek a variance to the Critical Area for the height of the condominium building and place it on the other side of the site so the smaller buildings would be closer to the residential areas. Mr. Grittman said the DNR would have to get involved and is not sure what the reaction from the DNR would be. Commissioner Dolan asked if there would be a concern if the building were visible from the river. Mr. Grittman said that would definitely be a concern. Commissioner Dolan asked about the restricted access on Wachtler concern expressed by the County. Ms. McDermott said the County will be permitting one 60 -ft access for the road into the development. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there would be stoplights at the accesses. Mr. Grittman said there are no plans to do so. Commissioner B. McManus said this is the densest development he's seen in Mendota Heights and suspect it will be denser than Town Center, and it seems this will create an urban environment. Commissioner B. McManus expressed his strong displeasure with the denseness of this project, and feels it does not belong in Mendota Heights. Commissioner B. McManus suggested placing the condominium building along Highway 13 as it would access the great view, and the DNR should not feel this is a bad site from the river as buildings in Lilydale are very visible from the river. Commissioner B. McManus said he suspects this project will be very upscale housing, but doesn't know how this urban development will fit into Mendota Heights. Mr. David Menke, VP of Opus Group, answered questions and solicited some input from the Commission. Mr. Menke made the following comments: • Opus has been a developer for the last 20 years of office / industrial / retail, and have been actively involved in residential for the past four years. • Has over 1,200 homes in the development stages of construction in the Twin Cities. • This project will be the fourth project in the Twin Cities. • Working on this project for the last 3 months, dealing with due diligence, soil work, environmental, title work, etc. 15 Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 • This is a challenging site as there are some significant bedrock issues and a high level of environmental scrutiny. • Impact of the Critical Area • Working with local real estate companies and public group sessions to obtain information to determine the right size and mix of this project. • Project to be upscale with exceptional features. • Working to preserve the buffer and trees. • Hopeful to gain approval by mid -July, obtaining prices during August and begin the site work shortly thereafter. Ecolab occupies the facility and will be moving out of the facility late Spring. It's hoped that the first homes will begin construction during June, 2006. Larry Decker, Land Planner with Bloodgood Sharp Buster, shared the following comments: • Bloodgood Sharp Buster has been in business since 1966. • Focus is residential design. • 12 offices across the country. • Began in building custom designed homes. • Shared photo of existing conditions and said the site is mostly flat with a significant change in grade. There is also a significant piece of woods on this property. In addition, there is a fairly large power company to the west. • Shared photo of proposed development. Typically, in an urban environment, the taller building would be placed along the road with the most traffic. In this case, 50% of the communities being developed today are a mixed use community. This proposal has been designed to bring in condominium and townhomes together to create an environment that fosters being a part of the site. If the condominium building were located toward Wachtler, there would be a clear division communicated between the two. It is felt that by having the condominium in the proposed site, there would be more interaction of the units, and will be nestled into the slope to lessen the visual impact. Loop road arrangement around a water feature — water feature is to open up the site. Plans are being discussed to incorporate an internal gathering space near the water feature. This is to provide space for residents of the community to interact socially such as a block party nature. Proposed design takes away the line of garage doors along a roadway and allows for more viewing space for corner buildings. Desired outcome: to have an overall community that can live and interact together. • If you take the condominiums away and replaced with townhomes, the density of the community would be far less than Stonebridge in Lilydale. The proposal stands at a density of 5.24 and is less than a typical townhome community. The condominium works in here because of the open space that has been created and maintained. Chair Lorberbaum said that she is assuming Mr. Decker was new to the community. He should know that when developers say "developers typically do ..." it does not sit well in the City of Mendota Heights, because what may be fine somewhere else may not be fine for Mendota Heights. Mr. Menke said the area's range for high density runs from 4.8 to 8.4; this project is on that lower point of the range. 16 Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 Mr. Larry Moore, Partner in Charge of the Bloodgood Sharp Buster Central Regional Office, spoke on the architecture of the project. • Reviewed elevation of the duplex buildings. The goal is to make these units appear like a large single family home. The feel driving through the neighborhood is more important than the actual density and green space issues. When driving through this neighborhood, one would get a much more sense of a single family community: large houses, elegant, upscale neighborhood feel. • Goal is to save all the clusters of trees as possible. • Townhouses: Duplex elevations have a European village influence — stone, stucco, acclectic feel of the elements. There will be three unit types ranging from 2,500 sq. ft. finished to 2,900 sq. ft. finished. They will be rambler type, single level living with lower level finished walkouts or view outs, depending on grade situation. Upscale units that are oriented such that there will be major spaces around the perimeter of the units and the lower levels will be bright open space floor plans. Most units on main floor will be two or three bedroom. Garages will be de- emphasized. • Condominium: The condominium building will be a four story building with 68 units over a secured parking garage. Approximate parking ratio will be 1.6 to 1.7 covered spaces per unit, with the remainder of space outdoors. The floor plans on this building in envisioned as 1,200 sq. ft. two bedroom (or one bedroom plus den) up to approximately 1,900 sq. ft. three bedroom units. All flat units with an average square footage of 1,600. Upscale, large spaces with large bedrooms and a lot of glass. Balcony outdoor living space. Materials to be compatible with townhouses, envisioning a cut stone base with brick elements. Reviewed site cut sections to depict the height of the building, showing the relationship of the building on either side. Questions from the Planning Commission (please note that italicized comments are those of the applicant): Commissioner Hesse: • Dakota County had some comments about potential noise due to the increase traffic, which may potentially increase above residential standards. Mr. Menke said based on the discussion with his counsel, there has been no indication that there will be any increased noise levels. • Will there be any type of noise evaluation? Mr. Menke said that has not been comtemplated at this point, but will ask his counsel and work with the County to determine future conditions. It is the applicant's desire to preserve the existing buffer along Wachtler and the County has asked for additional right of way that may impact that area. The Parks Department has also asked to extend a trail along the roadway. Mr. Menke said they are also working with SRF Consultants, who had completed a traffic analysis that will show the traffic count going from 850 to 712. • How will the residential community affect Excel Energy located next door? Mr. Menke said there have been no direct discussions with Excel Energy yet. There will be a visual landscaped barrier constructed between the properties that have not been depicted on the plan. • In regards to the County's requirement of spacing between driveways on Wachtler, how will the applicant construct the access? Mr. Meinke said they now have County input wanting to push the entrance to the north 17 Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 and the State will be probably pushing it to the south and they will have to continue discussions with these entities to determine the best possible placement. Chair Lorberbaum shared the following concerns on behalf of Commissioner M. McManus: • Not in support of a multi - family building as it is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. • Would support medium - density, not high- density. Chair Lorberbaum shared the following concerns on behalf of Commissioner Betlej: • Since the applicant did not provide full renderings for review prior to this meeting, he is assuming this is going to be a really high quality development, comprised complete of brick. • He hopes that since more information has not been provided, the applicant will not be surprised by pushing the applicant back. Mr. Menke said this information will be forthcoming. • Would like to see the multi- family located closer to Highway 13, creating a better transition to the Cherry Hill community, and eliminate the Wachtler entrance. • He is willing to trade the high- density issue for a higher quality building. Mr. Meinke said the price range will be from $325,000 for a smaller unit within the condominium to upwards of $600,000 or more for the townhomes. Chair Lorberbaum: • Would like to see some floor plans at the next meeting. • Assuming these units will not be rental. Mr. Meinke said that was correct. • Type of buyer. Mr. Meinke said they will most likely be empty nesters and singles, not families. • Amenities. Mr. Meinke said there will be a party room but no pool. There will also be trail connections and outdoor gathering spots. • Would like to see a drawing that would depict some sort of view from Cherry Hill. • The City does not permit 4 -story buildings in medium - density; there is a 2 -story limit. Would prefer 2- story, would go with 3- story, but will not approve 4- story. Would like to see a reduction in density, taking units 28, 29, 30, and 31 out of the plan as well as removing the 4th story from the condominium. Get down to 110 or less units. Mr. Meinke asked if the reduction of density is based on the mass of the condominium. If that is so, then the quality will go down as the building will not be able to build a concrete building. The cost of building a two- or three -story concrete building would be too great. Chair Lorberbaum feels the applicant will have a hard time selling a four -story building to the City and suggested that the applicant work on a contingency plan. • Likes the idea of a tiered condominium building and likes the idea of the townhomes being rambler - style. • What benefits will the City receive if trading a PUD? Mr. Decker said that by combining the two designs, they are able to make the interior part of the site more open and useful to the community. If using the typical zoning, that part of the site will be more pushed together. • Like the view of the townhomes and suggested that the applicant provide front and back views for the City Council. • The condominium needs to have a more residential look, and likes the idea of breaking up the building. 18 Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 • The applicant is looking at the cost perspectives of this development, while the City does not feel that's the top priority. • Work with Staff on communicating public meetings so the Planning Commission and City Council members can attend. Commissioner Dolan: • Are there any environmental issues with Ecolab? Mr. Meinke said as of today, there are no issues. However, they may be some when demolition of the Ecolab building takes place. • If the Critical Area was not an issue, would the design be the same? Mr. Decker said it would be. • Feels this project looks too dense. Mr. Decker said the height of the 4 -story building would be 42 ft high. The existing Ecolab building has a penthouse and the total height of that building is about 36.9 ft high. Commissioner Dolan said this building is not as close to Cherry Hill as the proposed one would be. • Was there a density comparison made to Lilydale? Mr. Meinke said that site was approximately 25 to 26 acres in total and includes a retail crunch. The spacing of the proposed project is much more generous between buildings than that of Lilydale, and will have a comparison prepared for the City Council, as well as a comparison with Augusta Shores. • Suggested that the applicant lessen the amount of impervious surface. • Easement may not be sufficient to accommodate the trail. Commissioner B. McManus: • There have been some good questions and answers, and most of his comments and questions were made. • Very enthusiastic when first heard of this project, but has since turned into serious disappointment with this concept plan. • Wonders if the architects were at all acquainted with Mendota Heights and suspect that is not the case, and that these plans were created somewhere else and the architects have never actually been here. Mr. Moore said his team has visited the Twin Cities five times. Commissioner B. McManus said he thinks this plan would fit nicely into Minneapolis, but it doesn't fit within the character of Mendota Heights at all. This huge tenement house with 17 families per floor, 4 floors high, does not fit anywhere in Mendota Heights. He suspects that the developer's motivation is to make money by density rather than quality. This is certainly a wonderful urban development the way it rests, but Mendota Heights is not an urban city, much less a typical suburb. He does not like this project and does not want to see it approved. • Suggested to the applicant to take out the multi - family building and place more upscale, larger single family homes in the area. Reduce the density by 30 %. Mr. Meinke said there is a balance to be struck between density and quality, and the more dense the project, the more you can offer that product at that price. Mr. Meinke said he believes he has offered a good upscale project. • Because this is not Minneapolis, Commissioner B. McManus said he would be more willing to pay more money for a home with more space and better quality. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Ms. Rhonda Simonson, 1399 Clement Street, said she lives close by this area and believes that a single upscale home on the property could be placed there.. Mr. Simonson commented on the way she believes this should be laid out, as well as the increased traffic on Wachtler. Mr. Bob Yankovich, 1553 Park Circle, lives about 5 blocks from the propose site. Mr. Yankovich said he is glad that a nice development will fit well on this site, but agrees that some tweaking should be done. He sees 19 Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 2005 this as a positive as there are a lot of families that live in Saint Paul and are looking for a home in Mendota Heights all the time, and the trail system will be an important aspect. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. VERBAL REVIEW — Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #05 -01 Richard & Diane Smookler - Wetlands Permit for Deck/Porch Expansion • Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -02 Melvin Koppen — Lot split • Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission, with a driveway instead of street extension. PLANNING CASE #04 -43 Dennis Galligan — Critical Area Permit • Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Galligan will have to remove approximately 50 cubic yards of material from his driveway area and the City Engineering Department will be following up on this project. Other Business Mr. Hollister reminded the Planning Commission that the next meeting will be on March 30th instead of the customary 4th Tuesday. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:30PM. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary