Loading...
2004-01-27 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 27, 2004 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Dolan, Hesse, and M. McManus. Those excused: Commissioner Betlej. City Staff present were City Engineer Marc Mogan and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Chair Lorberbaum thanked the City Council for the reappointment of the Commissioners to the Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page 2, 3rd paragraph should read: "Commissioner Dolan asked if the fence located in the very southern edge of the property was within in the utility easement." Page 3, 3rd paragraph under "Further Discussion" should read: "Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Grittman if he were -was comfortable with the location of this fence. given the lan scape he is no awme o " Page 5, Planning Case #03 -59 — title should read as follows: "PLANNING CASE #03 -61 David Langevin 1090 West Circle Court VARIANCE TFO FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK" Page 5, 3rd paragraph under "Further Discussion ": "Commissioner B. McManus said 11 inches is a very minor encroachment and is similar to a case in the past that had much different circumstances. The Commission must be careful before using that argument, and does not recommend that the Commission does. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant ^ « build the addition and make the angles, but he can eet the zoning rules can build the addition, make the angles, and meet the zoning ubes." Pa eg 5, 15` paragraph under "Further Discussion ": "Commissioner Dolan said the home was not built by the applicant, and given the way the home is situated differently than normal, a hardship could be that the applicant can't reasonably expa-asia expand because of the setbacks. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25, 2003 AS CORRECTED. AYES NAYS ABSTENTION (Commissioner Hesse) MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum acknowledged the letter that was received from Maria Traxler, dated January 13, 2004, and passed this letter onto the other commissioners, as well as the Mayor and City Council members. HEARINGS Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 PLANNING CASE #04 -01 Dennis Trooien 1110 Centre Point Curve VARIANCE FOR MONUMENT SIGN Note: Commissioner Dolan excused himself from this case due to personal conflict. Mr. Grittman introduced the request for variances to permit the replacement of an existing non - conforming freestanding sign along Highway 110. The stated property is just south of Highway 110, west of Lexington and there is currently an office building which this sign would be related. The applicant is seeking a variance to reconstruct an existing sign, which is currently adjacent to the frontage road along Center Point Curve. The new sign would identify the applicant's office building. A number of variances are necessary as the existing sign is a legal, non - conforming structure. The size and proximity to Center Point Curve are out of conformance with the current sign ordinance. The sign is actually on a separate parcel of record from the building and according to the sign ordinance; the sign is required to be located on the same property. To repair the sign in the same location would keep the sign non - conforming, as it would continue to be on the parcel that is not part of the property it is identifying. By taking down the existing sign, the applicant loses all grandfather rights. Mr. Grittman said it would be possible to construct a sign that would not need a variance, however there are already two free standing signs on the property that identify the entrances to this building, therefore it is possible to locate the sign on the property and keep in conformance if the other two signs were then removed. The limit of signage on the property is two. Mr. Grittman said the signs cannot be greater that 25' in height, and no greater than 100 square feet in area per side. The base materials are to reflect stone and decorative block as utilized on other signage on the site. Signage is to be located at least 30' from the right of way. The existing sign is located on a narrow portion of the adjacent property, which is also owned by the applicant. Mr. Grittman said all signage should be on the property in which the building is located to keep in compliance Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification of Conditions #4 and #5, and where the location of the sign would be. Commissioner M. McManus asked Mr. Grittman how he would propose to have the parcel subdivided. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan, and explained how the subdivision would be created and the location of the sign. Commissioner Hesse said the piece of property on which the sign is currently located on is in the B -lA district. Mr. Grittman said the B 1 -A district is not very specific on the number of signs or the size requirements. Chair Lorberbaum asked the planner to define a hardship that the applicant needs a pylon sign. Mr. Grittman said it is difficult to come up with a hardship. Commissioner Miller asked if the height limit for signs in the B -1 district was 25'. Mr. Grittman said the height requirement is not clearly delineated for the B -1 district. Chair Lorberbaum suggested to Staff that future reports should contain a better numbering system than in the current ordinance. Commissioner Miller asked who owned the triangle piece of property. Mr. Grittman said it was part of a larger vacant parcel that the applicant owns. Commissioner B. McManus asked why the owner, if he owns both parcels, couldn't put his signs on the other parcel. Mr. Grittman said the assumption is that the vacant parcel will eventually be built on and the new occupants will most like want to put up their own sign, and the ordinance allows for one pylon sign per building. Mr. Dennis Trooien, owner of the property, said the office building is a two -story, walkout type building containing a total of 100,000 square feet and the entire parcel is approx. 12 acres. Mr. Trooien said he must choose, within the next few months, to either re -built the existing sign and showed a picture of what it would look like with vertical lettering, or build a new sign which would have horizontal lettering (from left to right). The new sign would be more legible and identify the property more accurately, according to the applicant's design consultants. Mr. Trooien said he feels the new sign would be the right thing to do. Mr. Trooien said the Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 building was originally built in the early 1970's for Gould Battery. At that time, Gould owned the property up to Highway 110, and there was no frontage road at that time, nor did Outlot A exist at that time. Because this was all one parcel, the sign was then in conformance. In the mid 1980's, there was a decision to plat this property, and in that process, the City acquired and consented to an approved plat where a frontage road was constructed. During that time, the City "blessed" this plan and decided that although the signage was non - conforming, they would not make Gould move it. Commissioner M. McManus said she agrees with the choice of signage as recommended by the applicant's design consultant and asked the applicant how he feels about the Planner's conditions. His response is as follows: The new sign be no greater than 25 feet in height. 2. The new sign be no greater than 100 feet in area per side of a two -sided sign. The base materials reflect the stone /decorative concrete block utilized in the other signage on the site. Applicant agrees to. Applicant does not agree to and would rather keep the square footage he has and somehow decide what to do with the skin. The existing sign cannot be read very well, and feels the newer one would be easier to read if it is shorter and fatter, allowing the wordage to be horizontal. Applicant is willing to remove the existing sign, which is now in a public easement, and willing to not make the sign any bigger. Mr. T. said it was also more expensive to build a new sign, but feels it is worth it. Applicant agrees to. 4. The sign should be located at least 30 feet from the street Applicant is not sure there is a 30 ft setback, and is confused as right of way, in conformance with sign ordinance this is actually in the B -1 district, not the B- IA. Applicant wishes regulations. to keep the sign as visible as possible from Highway 110, without removal of any existing trees that may block the signage. He is okay with going back a bit, but doesn't want to get too close to the trees. The lot should be subdivided and the narrow "neck" of the Applicant agrees to, but has concerns with density calculations parcel with this sign should be added to the parcel with the existing building to eliminate the off -site sign condition. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the applicant would be willing to remove the other signs. Mr. Trooien said there are currently two signs, each indicating directions to the tenants in the building. Mr. Trooien said there is no clear stipulation on the number of pylon signs that are allowed in the B -IA district, which is where this property is located. Commissioner Hesse asked for the rationale of having a wider sign. Mr. Trooien said the current sign is approx. 6' wide, and the new on would be 10' wide, which would accommodate the horizontal lettering. There are no structure problems with the existing sign. Chair Lorberbaum said she appreciates that the applicant wishes to make the sign looks nicer and feels that the monument signs look lovely. Chair Lorberbaum said there have been cases in the area of Highway 55 and Pilot Knob Road where the City has allowed directional signs in the warehouse area, which were larger than this one. Although she would rather see the sign on the same parcel, and asked for the definition of a hardship. Mr. Trooien said this would not be a financial hardship, as the new sign would actually cost more; but that the hardship is created because of the outlet and frontage road situation, in which the public right of way creates the problem. Mr. Trooien said he believes this should not be a variance issue as there is a provision in the ordinance that says "a lawful, non - conforming use of a structure or parcel may be changed to a similar non - conforming use to or to a more restrictive use ". By making a nicer looking sign, it will also improve the situation by removing it from the public utility easement. Chair Lorberbaum said a hardship could be defined as the uniqueness of the property where the City took some of the property for right of way. However, with staff's interpretation, this would be taking away the grandfathering in factor. Mr. Trooien said he agrees with this interpretation in an isolated context. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance does not specifically address directional signs but there is a clause that states address, nameplate, or identification signs having an area of 2 square feet or less are exempt from the current ordinance. Chair Lorberbaum said there have Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 been cases in the area of Highway 55 and Pilot Knob Road where the City has allowed for a warehouse area and allowed for directional signs, which were larger than this one. Mr. Grittman said this was in an industrial area, and there is a separate allowance for industrial areas. Mr. Trooien said the two existing signs are direction signs that indicate service to the north entry (lower level), and the south entry (upper level); traffic needs to be directed to different, specific entrances. Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to have these signs designated as directional signs, which would then give the option to have a third sign. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. There being no one present wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum asked Staff if they identified the previous case where signage was allowed. Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister said this is the roller -blade building, and a variance was obtained for a second monument sign, with the rationale was that the building was so large that it cannot be served by only one sign. Chair Lorberbaum said the other signs were not counted because they were directional signs, and further information can be gained by looking back at the previous minutes. Commissioner Hesse reminded the Commission of the email received from the neighbor to the north in support of this proposed garage. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE GIVEN THE UNIQUENESS OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE TAKING OF SOME OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY BY THE CITY, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NEW SIGN BE NO GREATER THAN 25 FEET IN HEIGHT, BASE MATERIALS REFLECT THE STONE/DECORATIVE CONCRETE USED ON THE OTHER SIGNAGE, THE SIGN BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY OF THAT PARCEL (WHICH REQUIRES SOME REASONABLE REFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY BE MADE), AND THE SIGN SHOULD BE LOCATED AT LEAST 30 FEET FROM THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus asked if this motion takes care of all dimension problems of the new sign. Chair Lorberbaum said the motion takes care of the 100 square feet. Commissioner B. McManus said the company is presently flourishing, and people seem to find their way just fine, that this property is being put to reasonable use, and cannot see a hardship to justify the variance. Commissioner M. McManus said she feels that this is a large piece of property, and the current sign does no justice to the property. This sign would enhance the look of the area and direct people appropriately to the building. 3 AYES 2 NAYS (Commissioners B. McManus and Miller) MOTION CARRIED Note: Commissioner Dolan has joined the Commission for the rest of the cases PLANNING CASE #04 -02 Robert Fink 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 1850 Arvin Drive REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION Chair Lorberbaum acknowledged letters received from Robert Fink's neighbors and said they were distributed to the Commissioners and City Council. Mr. Grittman introduced the application for a preliminary plat to resubdivide the property at 1850 Arvin Drive. Currently, the property contains of a 1.74 -acre parcel, which the applicant's home is located. A second lot of record, consisting of 15, 384 square feet, is also owned by the applicant, and has no public street frontage. Mr. Grittman said the applicant had previously requested a subdivision of similar design, but was denied by the City Council. The reasoning was due to flag lot developments and concerns. Along with the redesign, the applicant has offered to dedicate some additional right of way around the cul -de -sac to accommodate proper street frontage. The current radius of the cul -de -sac is 50', which is below minimum standard. The dedication would increase the radius to 75'. With this dedication, the proposal meets all the zoning standards. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the increase of the cul -de -sac affect anyone else's property. Mr. Grittman said it would not, although the cul -de -sac would be somewhat lope- sided. The cul -de -sac would only have two driveways. Commissioner Miller asked if the City would have any increased responsibility with the increased cul -de -sac. Mr. Grittman said it would relate to improvements and maintenance of the street only, and no variances are needed. Commissioner Dolan asked if there is any limitation on the length of driveways. Mr. Grittman said there are no limitations stated in the zoning standards. Commissioner Dolan asked if there is a limitation on the closeness of the driveways to each other. Mr. Grittman said there is a requirement that there be a certain distance from the side property line, but there are no dimensional separations, and on a cul -de -sac, driveways can meet as long as the setbacks are properly met. There are also no restrictions to additional driveways added to this cul -de -sac. Commissioner Dolan said he sees no benefit to the City by gaining the increased right of way, and is this setting a bad precedence to other property owners that wish to comply with subdivision regulations. Mr. Grittman said he does not see this as a bad precedence unless it makes the right of way dangerous in any way. Commissioner Hesse asked for clarification that all subdivision requirements have been met. Commissioner M. McManus expressed her concerns of setting precedence, and said it has been identified that the ordinance does not provide a maximum cul -de -sac dimension, which means the Commission could be arbitrary to future requests. Mr. Grittman said the City is not required to accept right of way dedications just because a developer requests it. Commissioner B. McManus said there is some indication from neighbors that there is a potential water problem, and asked if this will be reviewed by the City Engineer for approval? Mr. Grittman said it would. Paul McGinley of Loucks McLagan is the representative for Mr. Fink. Mr. McGinley's office is located at 20 East Thompson Avenue, West St. Paul. Mr. McGinley gave a brief background of this property. Mr. McGinley said this new design does not require any variances, and this property has several unique conditions that make this decision unlike inapplicable to any other properties, as stated below: 1. Current status — the existence of two existing parcels of record since 1965. 2. There are four street frontage opportunities, which were eliminated by the vacation of Wachtler Avenue. 3. The south parcel is landlocked. 4. Conditions whereby with the re- establishment of the small segment of right of way in replacement of that lost vacation enables the plan to be approved with no need for a variance. Mr. McGinley said there are no properties in the Bunker Hills area that meet any of these conditions, and any other applications need to be considered on its own merits in accordance with the ordinance and proper planning. This application cannot set precedence for any other requests, as it is far too unique. Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 Mr. McGinley summarized by saying this proposal is a very good one as it addresses the vacation of Wachtler, and it needs no variances. In addition, the design fits in the character of the neighborhood and has no negative impacts. The plan allows for reasonable use of the site, and buffers tree plantings and conservation easements will further conceal the home and give the City control over tree preservation that it currently lacks. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the existence of additional hard surface make the water problem become worse on the other person's property. Mr. McGinley said it is his opinion that the water will only reach a 4" elevation and will run overtop to drain into the storm sewer. Chair Lorberbaum asked why the driveway of the proposed home leads to the back of the home. Mr. McGinley said this is actually the front of the home, and architecturally, the home could be designed in any fashion. Chair Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the type and size of trees that would be removed / planted. Mr. McGinley said a lot of the trees on the property are small scrub trees, and the rest are 8" diameter or larger. The percentages apply to those 8" or larger, which there are 70. Of those 70, there needs to be about 15 removed for the house and driveway, and replace with 5 new 6' high evergreens. Chair Lorberbaum asked why the City Council turned down the previous request. Mr. McGinley said it was concern over drafting a variance for a flag lot, which may precipitate a number of divisions in the neighborhood. Mr. McGinley said Council member Vitalli asked Staff to look at potential subdivisions of lots in the Bunker Hills area; Staff came back with 7 that do not need variances and 8 that do. Commissioner Dolan referred to the statement made that the vacation of Wachtler was not noted on any certificate of title, and it could be that the certificate does not include all the property. Upon the vacation of Wachtler, half of the property goes to the adjoining landowners and that property would not have been added to the applicant's certificate unless he did the proceedings subsequent. So unless the applicant did that, there would be no need to file the document against the applicant's title because it would not have affected the title. Mr. McGinley said the vacation was not recorded in the tract index against Ridgewood Park, and only against Somerset Hills. Commissioner Dolan said it was very probable that the owners, upon purchasing the property, were not aware that Wachtler went through. Commissioner Dolan said he has trouble believing that the owners would assume they would have this entire frontage because there was no evidence that Wachtler was even there. Robert Fink, applicant, 1850 Arvin Drive, said that in the plan the seller gave him, the blueprints show Wachtler right of way. Commissioner Dolan said if it were accurate, it would have shown the vacation, thus this may be more of an issue with the seller than with the City. Mr. Fink said City Staff could not find a record a few months ago, and they were not sure if it were vacated or not. Commissioner Hesse asked for confirmation that the two lots, after a subdivision, would both be greater than the normal lot size. Commissioner Hesse asked for clarification of the drainage issue. Commissioner M. McManus asked Mr. Grittman if the conditions concerning the variance that were previously stated are no longer on the table at this time. Commissioner M. McManus said it was her understanding that this case is a request for re- platting. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Eric Swanson, 784 Hilltop Ct., said Mr. Grittman was wrong when he said there was one driveway currently on the cul -de -sac, however there are two, and indicated on the map of its location. Mr. Swanson said this is a very strange lot and is extremely low and shallow on the first half, and an extremely steep hill on the second half, and the only place a right - minded builder would place a home would be on the very back of the lot. There could be a possibility that the new owner would request a variance to place their home closer to the street. Drainage is also an issue. Mr. Swanson said this definitely changes his view of the trees, and a home placed there will be in his eyesight. Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 Chair Lorberbaum asked City Engineer Mogan to respond to the drainage issue. Mr. Mogan said the drainage would come down the driveway and flow around the east side of the cul -de -sac to the inlet and does not feel this will add to the problem. There will be a culvert that flows northeast and he is not concerned about overflow. Mr. Swanson added that none of these plans for this proposed house have been finalized and the driveway could be located on the southwest instead of the northeast and Mr. Mogan's statement may not be accurate. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Mogan if he saw a problem where the driveway could be placed, which would be a reasonable location to the house. Mr. Mogan said as long as the driveway is east of the current one, there is no problem. Mr. Swanson said Wachtler Ave. has never been there and never existed. Therefore, the property owner would have known that. Les Kapaun, 829 Hilltop Rd, said it was his understanding that the subdivision of lots is not contemplated or done in Mendota Heights, and this will set precedence to other property owners to subdivide. Mr. Kapaun said the applicant is doing this strictly for financial gain, and the neighborhood wishes to keep the area as it is. Mr. Kapaun said the applicant gained a significant amount of land with the vacation and therefore, subdividing should not come into play in this case. Mr. and Mrs. Chuck Kloos, 1817 Valley Curve. Mrs. Kloos said she really appreciates the new design, and that the applicant has met some of their concerns, but some still remain such as a precedence of splitting lots. The Kloos' also hope there will be some accountability to design a home that fits properly, and taking the removal of trees into consideration. Mrs. Kloos referred to some large lots along Valley Curve Road that have not been subdivided. Commissioner Dolan said there should be no concerns about precedence with subdivisions, people have property and want to subdivide, and if they meet all the legal requirements, then they have a legal right to subdivide. Mr. Kloos asked how the enforceability of the conservation easement is handled. Mr. Grittman said the conservation easement was established to be in favor of the City, and therefore, the City will have the rights to enforce any violation of that easement. Commissioner Dolan said it would also be filed of record, which would give property owners notice that it applies. Commissioner Hesse asked for the process from here on, and how will the accountability come into play. Mr. Grittman said a final plat would be needed that the Engineer Department will have to review, and recommendations could be made for the preliminary plat if there were concerns. Sheldon Larson, 805 Hilltop Rd., said he does not have a problem with the subdivision, and asked what the advantage is to subdivide an already subdivided property. Mr. Larson said his father -in -law used to own the property that was sold to the applicant and at that time, there was a discussion about Wachtler being vacated. Mr. Larson said he previously went through a vacation process, where he was told about the vacated land on his property, however there were no records found at the County, but they were in fact at the City. When Mr. Larson searched for the records, the City could not find them. Later, his neighbors came to him with the copy of the original documents of the vacation, which showed all the Mendota Heights signatures /logos, etc., so that proved that the City had the records. Mr. McGinley addressed the concerns expressed by the Kloos' of the lots they said have not been subdivided, and said that was because of the topography — extreme sloping by the roadway and swampland. From a paper standpoint, the lots may look as though they could be subdivided, but from a practical standpoint, it would not be a good area to build on. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 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 PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PLAT AS PROPOSED COMPLIES Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 WITH ALL SUBDIVISION AND ZONING REGULATIONS, AND IS CONSISTANT WITH THE USE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AYES NAYS (Commissioner Dolan) MOTION CARRIED Commissioner M. McManus said she recognizes and appreciates the concerns that were expressed with this preliminary plat, and she had not supported the previous proposal based on the consideration for a variance. The applicant has done a good job of trying to resolve the issues and be attentive to the neighborhood. Chair Lorberbaum said she wished to thank the Mayor and Councilman Vitalli for working with the owners and neighbors. PLANNING CASE #04 -03 Tim McIlwain / Patterson Dental 1031 Mendota Heights Road CUP FOR PUD AND Wetlands Permit Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit in which the applicant is seeking to expand their existing building and parking lot. The property was designated a PUD by the original developer, and the addition is to be located on the south side of the existing building, and will extend over the boundary of Lots 1 and 2. It is anticipated that the Patterson Dental Company plans to replat the property and join both lots. A wetland permit is necessary due to the location of the additional parking on the northeastern corner of the site. The applicant has identified a parking area within the wetland buffer area. The proposed addition meets the requirements pertaining to the height and lot coverage. Staff feels the additional parking is not necessary and should be eliminated, thus maintaining the wetland area and eliminate the need for the wetland permit. Commissioner M. McManus said if additional parking is required, or demonstrated as a need later on, what would be the process of looking at that again. Mr. Grittman said if the wetlands permit is not granted at this time, the applicant would need to do that later. It would be possible to grant the permit now with the expectation that the applicant might only use it later, but there is the chance that a delayed approval sometimes gets lost in record keeping, and it is recommended to have that approval done at a later date. Commissioner Dolan asked for clarification that if the applicant combines the two lots, there would be no need for a CUP amendment. Mr. Grittman said that would eliminate that requirement. Commissioner Dolan asked if there was a limit to the amount of parking spaces people can construct. Mr. Grittman said there is no zoning ordinance maximum, other than impervious surface, which is not an issue with this case. Commissioner Dolan asked what criteria would the applicant need to prove they need additional parking. Mr. Grittman said Staff typically looks at how the existing parking is being used and would rely on the applicant's representation. Mr. Tim McILwain, HCM Architects, Minneapolis, is the applicant on behalf of Patterson Dental Company. Mr. MclLwain said Patterson Dental currently has 250 parking spots on site, and has extra capacity at this point. The applicant acknowledges that they currently have a lot of green space, being around Rogers Lake, and would like to fully develop the rest of the site. The applicant is not opposed to provide proof of parking requirement, and these would be the last parking spots utilized. The building is currently housing about 240 people, and the proposed addition will add enough space to accommodate another 140 people, which will need additional parking space to serve those people. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there are any other building additions proposed. Mr. McILwain said this would be the last, although their company continues to grow. Mr. McILwain said he is comfortable that the company will be able to expand both the building and the parking lot in the near future. Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 Commissioner M. McManus said additional information would be required as to the amount of fill that is being proposed and the amount of vegetation that will be removed. Mr. McILwain said the Planner misread the plan where the drainage easement was interpreted to be the property line. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner Hesse said there seems to be some conditions laid out by the Planner that can be resolved rather simply, and they would not need a CUP amendment or a wetland permit. Mr. Grittman said it appears that the CUP issue would be resolved by combing the two lots, and if the applicant expects to build another parking lot, a wetlands permit will be needed. Mr. MclLwain said if he were to replat and join the property, that would eliminate the need for the CUP, but he does not know if the owners will build right away. Commissioner Hesse asked if wetland delineation has been done. Mr. McILwain explained where the retention basin for the impervious surface is located. Chair Lorberbaum referred to the zoning ordinance, 12.1.L.6.e, if a CUP is granted, the applicant is required to build within 6 months or it's no longer valid. Mr. Grittman said that was the typical case, but it is not uncommon for cities to enter into a development agreement where the timeframe could be extended. Chair Lorberbaum asked if any additional signage would be necessary for the expansion. Mr. McILwain said no. Commissioner Miller asked if a traffic study would be required. Mr. Grittman said not unless there were some particular concerns. Commissioner Miller asked if there is a minimum distance between the two driveways. Mr. Grittman said he does not believe so. Commissioner Miller asked to be shown the flow of the water drainage. Mr. McILwain reviewed the grading and drainage plans. Commissioner Miller asked if the City could grant a wetland permit without going through the delineation process, fill calculations, etc. Mr. Grittman said it is presumed that the additional parking would be encroaching into wetland and feels that there is adequate information to proceed. Commissioner B. McManus said the parking lot does not currently seem to be very full, and is the applicant deliberately exaggerating the need for more parking to give the owner some leeway in the master plan, or is it absolutely needed. Mr. McILwain said the total space would be 100% occupied, and given some training classes that will be offered, it seems to be appropriate. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there were any other configuration to handle the parking without encroaching into the wetland. Mr. McILwain said no, and explained how the neighbors would be affected with any different configuration. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the lighting. Mr. McILwain said the lighting would be consistent with the existing. Chair Lorberbaum said the plans have not been signed and dated. Mr. McILwain said he was not aware of that. Commissioner B. McManus said the property line abuts the athletic field at St. Thomas, and is there any way to fudge the direction of the parking setback lines and save some of the intrusion into the wetlands. Mr. McILwain said there were some trees that provide a nice buffer and it is not a good idea to interfere with them Commissioner B. McManus said that it is not known where the wetland area begins, and could parking spaces along the property that abuts St. Thomas be extended, and cut back on some of the spaces on the northwest corner. Mr. McILwain said that could be done. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH ONE OF THE REPORT, AS WELL AS THE CUP AS THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2, ITEMS A THRU E. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbaum asked if this covers providing the needed information on signage and exterior lighting. Commissioner Dolan said he doesn't know if that is needed or it is a Staff issue. Commissioner Hesse said he would like to propose an amendment as there is no idea of the amount of encroachment onto the wetland (there has been no delineation report provided); is there a way to come up with an idea and a commitment to finalize confirmation of the wetland distance. Chair Lorberbaum said this could be tabled if the Commission desires to do so. Commissioner Hesse explained that without a delineation report provided, it is not known where the edge of the wetland is. A reasonable estimate could be done, taking the winter season into consideration. Commissioner M. McManus suggested separating the issues. Commissioner Dolan said he does not accept the amendment. There are already conditions in the report that would go toward minimizing any disruption to the wetlands. Commissioner B. McManus suggested the applicant give us a winter estimate where the wetland is, and table the case for 30 days. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED TO TABLE THE MOTION FOR THIRTY DAYS. 3 AYES (Commissioner B. McManus, Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioner M. McManus 3 NAYS (Commissioners Miller, Dolan, Hesse) MOTION FAILED Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant if more pertinent information would be available in time for the next City Council meeting, so that people would have more confidence in where the wetland area is. Mr. McILwain said that would be possible. Commissioner M. McManus said she has a concern that there is not enough information to base a decision on, and historically the Commission asks for very detailed information before making decisions. Commissioner B. McManus said he believes more information should be presented before he is comfortable with recommending approval. Commissioner Dolan said Staff seems to know the site quite well, and seems to be comfortable that the impact would be minimal. Commissioner Hesse said it is important to have documentation in the records; therefore there is a need to obtain as much information as possible before making decisions. Chair Lorberbaum called for the question. 4 AYES 2 NAYS (Commissioners B. McManus & M. McManus) MOTION CARRIED 10 Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 PLANNING CASE #04 -04 KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PUD CONCEPT PLAN Mr. Grittman reintroduced the concept plan for a proposed office development that would be located at the intersection of Highway 13 and Highway 55, which is a parcel that has access to a cul -de -sac (Waters Drive). The applicant is looked for PUD approval to develop a series of individual "Town Office Buildings ", which are individual office -style condominiums. Upon the developer gaining some additional insight /suggestions from the Planning Commission and City Council, the concept plans have been updated and presented to the Planning Commission for further review and to gather feedback. Mr. Grittman said the new plans contains two options, each with Phase 1 and Phase 2, and defined the general description of the concept plans in the Waters Drive Business Park Project Narrative, dated January 5, 2004, which was provided in the Commissioners' packet. Option 1 highlights: ♦ Office structure is located in the northeast corner of the site, with parking located south of the building • This option may be more aesthetically appealing from the intersection of Hwy. 13 and Hwy. 55. • Reduced total square footage of building and increased parking spaces. Staff feels comfortable with this level of parking. Option 2 highlights: ♦ Office structure is located toward the southeast corner of the site, with parking north of the building. • This option has slightly more parking and green space • Reduced total square footage of building and increased parking spaces. Staff feels comfortable with this level of parking. Needed feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council: 1. Input needed on which option would be preferred 2. Review of building elevation drawings to achieve a less residential, more commercial/business type of design. Commissioner B. McManus asked if both options meet the requirements for parking. Mr. Grittman said neither meets the 70% requirement, but Option 2 is closer. Commissioner Dolan asked for clarification of a base lot/unit lot platting arrangement. Mr. Grittman said each unit is a base lot, and the rest of the land is a common lot owned by the association. Commissioner Dolan said the Council expressed the desire to have a more "commercial" feel to this instead of the original residential feel. The applicant seems to have addressed that in Phase 2 by constructing the office buildings on the northeast part of the property. If this is approved, is the applicant obligated to finish Phase 2? Mr. Grittman said it would be hard to force the applicant to build it. This project is being built in two phases to accommodate the Waters Drive relocation. Commissioner Hesse referred to Page 3 of the Planners Report, regarding Access, and expressed his concerns with emergency vehicles. Mr. Grittman said Option 1 was more preferred. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification that there are no wetlands in this project. Mr. Grittman said that was true. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there were standards addresses the separation of buildings. Mr. Grittman said PUD ordinances occasionally had some standards, but is a building code issue. Commissioner Dolan asked why a development agreement is necessary. Mr. Grittman said it is advisable because of a series of requirements made specific to a PUD, particularly architectural and landscaping requirements. Mr. Terry Schneider, representing the developer, reviewed the layout of the concept plans, and shared building elevations and designs. Mr. Schneider said the City Council seemed to favor Option #1, and is now looking to the Planning Commission for their preference. After reviewing the differences of the options, the Commissioners gave their preference. 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2004 VERBAL REVIEW Planning Case 03 -59: Timothy Aune, 554 Foxwood Lane • Wetlands Permit: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Case 03 -60: Dwight Rabuse, 2230 Bent Tree Lane • Variance for side yard setback: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #03 -60 Planning Case 03 -61 Dave Langevin, 1090 West Circle Court • Variance for front and side yard setback: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case 03 -56 — Richard Berg, 645 Hidden Creek Trail • CUP for Fence: Council determined the applicant did not have a fence. OPEN DISCUSSION None. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:45 PM. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 12 Preference Comments Commissioner B. McManus Option 1, Phase 2 0 Likes the architectural drawings better than the previous ones Commissioner Miller Option 1, Phase 2 0 Si na e issues Chair Lorberbaum Option 1, Phase 2 ■ Commissioner Dolan tion 1, Phase 2 ■ Commissioner Hesse tion 1, Phase 2 ■ Commissioner M. McManus 1, Phase 2 ■ VERBAL REVIEW Planning Case 03 -59: Timothy Aune, 554 Foxwood Lane • Wetlands Permit: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Case 03 -60: Dwight Rabuse, 2230 Bent Tree Lane • Variance for side yard setback: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #03 -60 Planning Case 03 -61 Dave Langevin, 1090 West Circle Court • Variance for front and side yard setback: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case 03 -56 — Richard Berg, 645 Hidden Creek Trail • CUP for Fence: Council determined the applicant did not have a fence. OPEN DISCUSSION None. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:45 PM. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 12