Loading...
1993-03-23 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 1993 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 23, 1993, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Koll, Friel, Dreelan, Duggan, Hunter and Tilsen. Chair Dwyer was excused. Also present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planning Consultant John Uban, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Koll moved to approve the February 23, 1993 minutes as corrected. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 93 -04: SIGN ART - SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE AND SIZE VARIANCE Vice Chair Duggan explained that Sign Art had been before the Planning Commission in February and that the discussion focused on the proper method of measuring signs according to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kevin Snyder, representing Sign Art, stated he will be willing to do whatever the Planning Commission recommends. Planner Uban described three methods of computing awning measurements: 1. Measure just the vertical illuminated sign face on the front of the awning /canopy. 2. Measure the full exposed vertical surface which would include the front exposure of the sloping awning /canopy. 3. Measure all illuminated surfaces including tops and sides. Uban stated Method No. 2 is a good compromise between all three methods. Mr. Snyder stated that Method No. 1 would be the preferrable method and that Method No. 3 seems Planning Commission March 23, 1993 Page 2 unreasonable. He stated that Method No. 2 would be acceptable and that other municipalities use this form of calculating awning measurement. The Planning Commission concurred that Method No. 2 is consistent with the application of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Friel stated the real issue is the monument sign and that the measurement of existing signs totals 133 square feet, leaving 69 square feet for additional signs. Commissioner Dreelan inquired if both sides of the monument side would be measured. Mr. Snyder stated they would prefer a double faced sign since it will sit perpendicular to Dodd Road. Vice Chair Duggan stated there is 70 square feet per side. He stated this is approximately 70 square feet more than the Ordinance allows. Mr. Snyder stated that if the base of the sign is included in the computations, they will change the base materials so it will not be factored into computing the total square footage. Commissioner Friel stated signs are considered an accessory structure. He further stated that if the base of a monument sign is not computed by the ordinance, then there are no provisions to regulate monument bases and piers except setback and height restrictions. He further stated his concern with the lack of regulation within the City's Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Hunter stated there is a lot of signage currently on the property. He inquired if Mr. Snyder would agree to 70 square feet for both sides. Mr. Snyder responded that Sign Art will do what the Planning Commission recommends. Commissioner Tilsen stated that any sign surface should be measured if it has a message. He further stated that fences and signs are not popular within Mendota Heights. Vice Chair Duggan stated that 32 square feet on either side would allow a four foot (4') by eight foot (8') sign. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council grant a sign permit not to exceed the required square footage total available under the City's Ordinance and that a ten foot (10') front yard setback variance be granted allowing the sign to be place at a twenty foot (20') setback from the front property line. Commissioner Hunter seconded the motion. Planning Commission March 23, 1993 Page 3 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 HEARING: CASE NO. 93-08: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITHIN 11 ZONING DISTRICT) PROPOSED PUD ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITHIN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT Vice Chair Duggan briefly explained that Commissioner Friel had requested the Planning Commission and City Council to consider amending the City's Zoning Ordinance regarding accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District. He briefly explained the existing Zoning Ordinance requirements for accessory structures and the proposed amendments. Commissioner Friel stated he would be addressing the questions and comments as noted by Planner tJban in his report dated March 23, 1993. Commissioner Friel stated, under the proposed ordinance amendment, a limit of three structures totalling 800 square feet would be allowed. He further explained that accessory structures are covered in the City's Zoning Ordinance under the general provisions. He further stated that pools, fences and gazebos are all covered under special ordinances or special provisions under the Zoning Ordinance as opposed to accessory buildings which are only covered by general provisions. Commissioner Friel stated the size of the accessory structure and limit of structures will remain the same. He further noted that the current Zoning Ordinance does not permit the use of accessory structures for home occupations. Commissioner Friel noted the Planner's concerns regarding the conditional use process for accessory structures exceeding a certain limit. He stated, as he is proposing, a conditional use permit would be necessary for structures over 800 square feet. Commissioner Friel noted, as described in Sections 4.57 and 4.6(3)d, that the current setback requirements are five feet (5°) from any side or rear lot line, or within any front yard. He stated that with his proposed amendment, where an accessory structure exceeds 400 square feet, it shall not be closer than ten feet (10'). Planning Commission March 23, 1993 Page 4 Commissioner Friel further stated, as noted by Commissioner Tilsen °s concerns in February, that the City should exclude the calculation of property area where there are lakes, wetlands and easements for streets, alleys or private roadway. He further stated that any part of a property, within the Critical Area Overlay District, with slopes greater than 40 percent of the bluffline shall also be excluded in total land computations for accessory structure allowances under his proposal. Commissioner Duggan inquired if the City should consider requiring accessory structures to be constructed with the same material as existing buildings on the property. Commissioner Friel responded the City should not restrict homeowners in constructing pre -built sheds. Vice Chair Duggan opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss the proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioner Tilsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Section 4.6(3) to state: Accessory structures, except that no accessory structure shall be closer than five feet (5°) from any side of rear lot line, or within any front yard, except that where an accessory structure exceeds 400 square feet, it shall not be closer than ten feet (10'). Amend Section 7.2(7) to state: Accessory structures (other than private garages) in excess of the limits prescribed in 7.3(10). Amend Section 7.3(10) in its entirety to state: Accessory structures (other than private garages) as follows: Planning Commission March 23, 1993 Page 5 (a) Not more than 144 square feet if the area of the property on which such structure is to be located is 15,000 square feet or less; (b) Not more than 225 square feet if the area of the property on which such structure is to be located is more than 15,000 square feet and less than 20,000 square feet, (c) Not more than 400 square feet if the area of the property on which such structure is to be located is more than 20,000 square feet and less than 40,000 square feet; (d) Not more than 625 square feet if the area of the property on which such structure is to be located is more than 40,000 square feet and less than 60,000 square feet; (e) Not more than 800 square feet if the area of the property on which such structure is to be located is more than 60,000 square feet; Where the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located exceeds 30,000 square feet and is less than 60,000 square feet, two (2) accessory structures shall be permitted, and if this area exceeds 60,000 square feet, three accessory structures shall be permitted, provided that in either case the total square feet of the accessory structures shall not exceed the limits prescribed in (c), (d) or (e) above, whichever may be applicable. In computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street, alley or private roadway, and nay part which is in the critical area and below the bluffline, as defined in Ordinance No. 403 (the Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance) shall be executed. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Planning Commission March 23, 1993 Page 6 PUD ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Vice Chair Duggan briefly explained the interpretation problems regarding the Planned Unit Development language in Section 22.1 within the City's Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Friel stated that Section 13.1, within the Zoning Ordinance, is a unique and confusing concept. He stated Section 13.1 is unnecessary and inappropriate and that this Section could create some problems for the City. He stated he would like to recommend that the City delete this Section from the Ordinance. Commissioner Friel stated that Section 22.1, as written, is understandable and that it clarifies Planned Unit Developments. He stated that Planned Unit Developments are not designed for use for R -1 housing and a Planned Unit Development is designed to provide the flexibility where the City would like diversity in types of housing. Vice Chair Duggan noted that all clauses are the same in Sections 13.1 and 22.1 except the clause "diversity types ". He stated there should be more clarification in the language relating to Planned Unit Developments. Vice Chair Duggan moved to continue the hearing, until April 27, 1993, to pursue language development between Sections 13.1 and 22.1 within the City's Zoning Ordinance. He further suggested that Commissioner Friel help develop the necessary language relating to Planned Unit Developments with City staff and Planner Uban. HEARING: CASE NO. 93-07: RICHARD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES STRUCTURE (KOCH PIPELINE) Mr. John Hunt, of Barr Engineering, and Ms. Cynthia Hoover, of Koch Pipeline, were present to discuss Koch Pipeline's request for a Conditional Use Permit for Essential Services to allow the construction of a recovery facility to remove aviation fuel where it had leaked from an underground pipeline. Ms. Hoover explained that Koch Pipeline has been working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on the appropriate clean up activities. Planning Commission March 23, 1993 Page 7 In response to a question from Vice Chair Duggan, Ms. Hoover stated they are unsure of the amount of fuel spilled. She further stated the valve leak caused spillage which has accumulated at a depth of about 40 feet. Mr. Hunt stated that once the spillage was found, an investigation was completed with the MPCA. He stated the petroleum product had migrated by gravity down to the water table. He explained the product is currently perched above the water table and that they are pursuing the MPCA guidelines remedial act. In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Ms. Hoover stated the leak was discovered during a routine maintenance check in September of 1992. Ms. Hoover stated the leak was corrected and Barr Engineering was hired to investigate the spill. Mr. Hunt stated, based on their investigation and monitoring of wells, the MPCA instigated their guidelines in remedying the situation. In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Ms. Hoover stated Koch Pipeline owns the pipeline. She stated the pipeline is located on a Soo Line Railroad easement and that the fenced area is owned by MnDOT. Mr. Hunt stated the facility will be operated on an as needed basis through the Summer. He stated he is uncertain how long the procedure will take. He stated the soil consists of clay and that that has helped barrier the contamination of the water table. Vice Chair Duggan inquired if the City has received or is receiving reports regarding the contamination. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if Koch Pipeline is amenable to landscaping the area. Mr. Hunt responded that Barr Engineering has no objection but that the property is not owned by Koch Pipeline and that MnDOT needs to give the approval. Ms. Hoover inquired to the type of landscaping needed. Commissioner Tilsen responded some type of landscaping to detract from the facility. He stated the proposed facility does not fit with the City's industrial park standards. He stated the City has high aesthetic standards. Vice Chair Duggan stated the City's Zoning Ordinance requires screening of facilities. Commissioner Tilsen stated it should be fairly easy to screen the tank. Commissioner Friel stated the owner of the property will have to agree to the conditions. Ms. Hoover stated Koch Pipeline has a permit from MnDOT to construct the structures. Commissioner Friel stated MnDOT should be part of the application as they are ultimately responsible for restoration Planning Commission March 23, 1993 Page 8 of the site He stated confirmation from MnDOT will be needed prior to City Council review. Vice Chair Duggan inquired to the procedure used from tank to truck and what would happen if there is a spill during the procedure. He further inquired what provisions for traffic will be done while the truck is parked and pumping. Ms. Hoover stated Koch Pipeline will be pumping the material and transporting it to the refinery. She stated their personnel are trained in preventing spills during the pumping of the material. She further stated the material being pumped is not considered hazardous material. Mr. Hunt stated the fence is proposed to be five feet high. He further explained the fence gates will be locked at all times and that signs stating "No Smoking" will be posted. In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Mr. Hunt stated the process could take 1 to 3 years. He further stated the street should not be affected by the weight of the tanker truck. Commissioner Tilsen further stated he would like to see signatures on the plans. Vice Chair Duggan opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss this request. Commissioner Friel moved to close the hearing Commissioner Hunter seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council grant the Conditional Use Permit for Essential services to install a recovery facility to remove aviation fuel subject to the following being submitted to the City Engineering Department and City Council meeting of April 6, 1993: 1. All appropriate reports concerning the spill and cleanup be submitted to the City for its review including MPCA Progress Reports. 2. Koch Pipeline provide the City of Mendota Heights a copy of the permit allowing Koch Pipeline access on MnDOT right -of -way. 3. That MnDOT be listed as "Owners" on the Planning Application. Planning Commission March 23, 1993 Page 9 4. That Koch Pipeline provide appropriate landscape screening and fencing around the facility. 5. That all screening material and structure be removed within two months of completing the soil corrections. Vice Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Vice Chair Duggan called a recess at 9:26 o'clock P.M. Vice Chair Duggan reconvened the meeting at 9 :31 o'clock P.M. HEARING: CAO NO. 93-01: HEAVER CONSTRUCTION - CRITICAL AREA VARIANCE Mr. Keith Heaver, representing David and Paula Graff, was present to discuss their request for a Critical Area Variance to allow the construction of a single family home on Lot 7, Block 1, Ivy Falls West 2nd Addition. Mr. Heaver explained that the proposed home will be a two story home with most of the living space towards the rear of the home. He stated they plan on removing one tree for grading purposes. He explained there will be no other improvements to the bluffline. He stated they do not want to put the house closer to the street due to the grade elevations of the lot. He further explained he will redesign the porch so the trees will not be affected. Mr. Graff stated his intentions are to preserve the lot. He stated he feels the proposed home is within the character of the neighborhood. He also stated that other homes in the area have received variances and he feels that they are not trying to be too excessive in their design of the home. Planner tTban gave a brief explanation of the critical area district. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the actual placement of the bluff slope lines as indicated on Mr. Heaver's plans. Public Works Director Danielson noted that the bluffline does not begin where the tree line is located on the plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Friel, Public Works Director Danielson stated the City has a Critical Area Planning Commission March 23, 1993 Page 10 Map showing boundaries of the critical area district. It was further noted that the tree line was not indicated on Mr. Heaver's plans. Vice Chair Duggan noted that the applicant is requesting a fifteen foot (15') variance to the bluffline setback. Commissioner Tilsen stated that no information on grading plans, soil information, erosion control plan, driveway grades, tree survey and building heights have been submitted for the Commission's review as required by the City °s ordinances. He inquired if the applicant could wait a month to prepare and submit the required information for Planning Commission review in April. Mr. Heaver responded that the grade is obviously flat. Mr. Heaver stated the owners would like to proceed on and that grading plans, driveway plans and house elevations are reviewed during the building permit process. Mr Heaver stated they would prefer to submit the required information for City Council review on April 6th. Commissioner Friel stated he is not that optimistic that this request will be passed on to Council for their review based on the lack of information submitted. He stated the Critical Area Ordinance is very specific in requiring information to be submitted. He stated there are 25 absolute standards which need to be complied with. He stated that proving hardship is much tougher within this ordinance. Vice Chair Duggan stated he concurs with Commissioner Friel. He further stated that on the surface, the house appears grand but that the proper information must be submitted for an accurate review by the Planning Commission. He further stated he is uncomfortable with the proposed deck. He stated the lot seems to be a buildable lot. Commissioner Friel stated the house could be moved closer to the street and that a reason for hardship needs to be presented. Vice Chair Duggan opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Bruce Barry, 1284 Wachtler, noted his concern for tree removal and that he too is confused about the placement of the deck. In response to a question from Vice Chair Duggan, Mr. Barry stated there has been some water runoff problems in the past. Mr. Barry reviewed the plans with the Commission. Commissioner Tilsen moved to continue the public hearing to April 27, 1993 to allow Mr. Heaver and Mr. Graff for design alternatives. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Planning Commission March 23, 1993 Page 11 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Danielson provided a verbal review for the planning items at the previous City Council meeting. MISCELLANEOUS Vice Chair Duggan noted his displeasure with the flapping sign at the Subway restaurant. He inquired if another permit is needed and asked that City staff review the original planning request. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned its meeting at 10 :26 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary