Loading...
2013-08-27 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Agenda Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the June 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings: a. Case No. 2013-12: Karla Gotham of 1533 Dodd Road: Conditional Use Permit for fence installation. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. b. Case No. 2013-13: Alliant Engineering for Scannell Properties at Southwest Corner of LeMay Road and Commerce Drive: Setback Variance for Office/Warehouse building. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 6. Verbal Review 7. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. June 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES June 25, 2013 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 25, 2013, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Field, Commissioners Roston, Noonan, Hennes, Hennesey, Magnuson, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Others present were Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted Approval of May 28, 2013 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2013, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2013-08 Rebekah Villafuerte of 713 Marie Avenue Conditional Use Permit for fence installation Planner Stephen Grittman explained that this request is a for a conditional use permit for the construction of a fence in a side yard that abuts the street. The property is located on the corner of Marie Avenue and Dodd Road and is zoned and guided for Single Family Residential Use. The property is currently occupied by a single family home and the applicant is proposing to construct a fence on the Dodd Road side of the property. The Zoning Ordinance states that fences within 30 feet of a roadway can only be 36 inches in height, except by a conditional use permit. The applicant's property is a "corner lot" and is accessed from the south via Marie Avenue West. The applicant wishes to enclose the rear yard of her home with a wooden, shadowbox panel type fence. The fence, as proposed, appears to meet all of the requirements for both the fence ordinance and for the conditional use permit approval. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. June 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes page 2 Commissioners asked questions regarding the ownership of the chain link fence that would abut with this new fence, code requirements for maintenance and appearance of the fence, and location of the fence in relation to existing trees in the area. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Neighbors Louis and Nancy Strobel, 1781 Dodd Road expressed their opposition to this fence. There being no other comments from the public, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FENCE CONSTRUCTION GREATER THAN 36" IN A REQUIRED YARD ADJACENT TO A RIGHT-OF-WAY AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACTS: 1. The proposed project will not impact traffic visibility at the Dodd Road/Marie Avenue West intersection 2. The proposed fence type and height are consistent with Ordinance requirements 3. The fence is compatible with the established character in the area and will not negatively impact any neighboring properties. Comment was made by Commissioner Roston that the City has elected not to make these types of fences unpermitted and therefore, the Commission cannot deny the conditional use permit based on aesthetics. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 16, 2013, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2013-09 Sean Hoffman (Wieland, Inc.) for British Petroleum Fuel Station at 2030 Dodd Road Setback Variance for fuel station canopy expansion Planner Stephen Grittman explained that this request pertains to a commercial property that is zoned B2-Neighborhood Business and is guided for mixed use planned unit development. The applicant and operator of the fuel station located on the property is asking for two changes to the current site, both of which would require variances given the configuration of the property. The June 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes page 3 first relates to the canopy, which he would like to replace with a slightly larger one. The code allows for canopies to encroach into the normal front yard setback but maintaining a 20 foot setback from the right-of-way line. The current and proposed canopies are at 15 feet setback from Dodd Road. The second request is to expand the parking lot in the northeast corner of the site. Currently the parking lot is designed with curb line angling off of that portion and the applicant is proposing to extend the parking paved area to within approximately five feet of the property line, both on the east and on the north sides. The code requires a setback requirement for commercial parking lots of 10 feet; as a result the applicant is seeking a variance to expand the parking lot to that five foot setback line. Staff recommended approval of both variance requests. Commissioners asked questions regarding language in the list of conditions for approval and whether the request for the parking lot variance was for additional parking spaces or more efficient use of the lot, vegetation in the parking lot area, and lighting in the new canopy. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE CANOPY SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The existing degree of canopy setback nonconformity will not be increased 2. Other than setback requirements, all canopy-related requirements of the Ordinance (i.e. lighting, signage and height) will be satisfied 3. The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance have imposed a practical difficulty upon the applicant which prevents use of the property in a reasonable manner 4. The practical difficulties resulting from the provisions of the Ordinance are unique to the subject property AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of the setback variance is documented as part of an amended or new conditional use permit applied to the subject property 2. The new canopy shall not exceed 20 feet in height 3. Signage affixed to the new canopy shall conform to applicable requirements of the Ordinance June 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes page 4 4. New canopy lighting shall concentrate light upon the premises so as to prevent any glare or rays of light being directly visible upon adjacent streets and properties. Site lighting shall not exceed more than 0.2 foot-candles as measured at the property line. AND TO APPROVE THE PARKING SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The existing degree of parking setback nonconformity will not be increased 2. Other than parking setback requirements, all parking—related requirements of the Ordinance will be satisfied 3. The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance have imposed a practical difficulty upon the applicant which prevents use of the property in a reasonable manner 4. The practical difficulties resulting from the provisions of the Ordinance are unique to the subject property AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of the setback variance is documented as part of an amended or new conditional use permit applied to the subject property 2. The site plan shall be modified to illustrate parking stalls and drive aisles within the expanded off-street parking area 3. All new and/or modified stalls and drive aisles shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the Ordinance AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 16, 2013, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2013-10 Curt Hopman of 1807 Walsh Lane Conditional Use Permit for fence installation Planner Stephen Grittman explained that this a request for a conditional use permit to construct a fence six feet in height within a 30 foot setback. The property is located at 1807 Walsh Lane, at the corner of Marie Avenue and Walsh Lane, and is zoned and guided for single family use. This fence would be along the Marie Avenue side of the property. The applicant is proposing to construct an alternating board fence that would extend from the rear corner of the property towards the Marie Avenue right-of-way line and parallel to Marie Avenue to the back corner and then return to an existing fence at the neighbor’s property line. Commissioner Roston noted that these types of conditional use permit requests are received quite frequently and are typically passed. He then asked at which point the Commission would recommend an amendment to the code. Planner Grittman replied that he believes staff would consider a motion from the Planning Commission on amending this portion of the code as only June 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes page 5 one conditional use permit application has been denied in the past and that was due to the fencing materials not being consistent with the neighborhood. Additional points were discussed but no motion made. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FENCE CONSTRUCTION GREATER THAN 36" IN A REQUIRED YARD ADJACENT TO A RIGHT-OF-WAY AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed project will not impact traffic visibility at the Walsh Lane/Marie Avenue West intersection 2. The proposed fence type and height are consistent with Ordinance requirements 3. The fence is compatible with the established character in the area and will not negatively impact any neighboring properties AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 16, 2013, meeting. Verbal Review City Engineer John Mazzitello gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2013-06 City of Mendota Heights Sign Ordinance Amendment • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2013-07 City of Mendota Heights Garages & Accessory Structures Ordinance Amendment • Tabled by the City Council to a work session, which was held on June 18, 2013. • At the conclusion of the work session, City Council sent the ordinance back to staff for editing and will be discussed at another work session in the future. June 25, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes page 6 Adjourn COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:42 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: August 22, 2013 MEETING DATE: August 27, 2013 SUBJECT: Fence CUP CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 - 13.12 APPLICANT(S): Karla Gotham LOCATION: 1533 Dodd Road ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking approval of a conditional use permit to place a four foot high chain link fence in a required yard adjacent to a public right-of-way (4th Avenue). The Zoning Ordinance states that fences in such required yards cannot exceed 36” without the granting of a conditional use permit. The applicant’s property is a “corner lot” and is accessed from the south via 4th Avenue, but has frontage along Dodd Road. The proposed fence is to enclose the rear yard area of the site, including access gates attached to the rear building line of the existing house, extension of the fence along 4th Avenue as noted, and connection along the rear (west) property line to attach to an existing neighbor’s fence along the north property line. Analysis: The applicant is proposing to fence the rear yard of her property. The fence is intended to contain the rear yard and protect against children running from the yard into the street. 2 Because the fence segment along the south property line lies within 30 feet of a public right-of-way (4th Avenue) and exceeds 36” in height, the processing of a conditional use permit is required. The applicant has not specified the proposed setback of the fence, but it appears to be located along the 4th Avenue right of way line, based on the drawing submitted with the application. The CUP provision for such fences was enacted to permit the City to evaluate the conditions on the site and in the area before a fence could be constructed that might interfere with public safety or aesthetic conditions. There would not appear to be any visibility issues with the proposed fence as located or designed. For similar applications, the City has asked that property owners constructing chain link fences in the setback areas utilize vinyl-coated fencing, colored black or similar, to avoid the industrial look of an unfinished galvanized fence material. According to the Ordinance, no fences, structures, manmade berms, or plantings may exceed thirty 36 inches in height above the center grade of the intersection within any front or side yard area on a corner lot which may interfere with the visibility across the corner. The proposed fence will not impact visibility at the Dodd Road/4th Avenue intersection. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the conditional use permit for fence construction greater than 36” in a required yard adjacent to a right-of-way as proposed by the applicant, based on the findings attached to this report. Staff would recommend a condition that the fence be coated with black vinyl or similar treatment rather than a galvanized finish. 2. Denial of the conditional use permit based on a finding that the proposed fence will have a negative impact on traffic visibility and on the neighboring properties. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit. It appears that the fence will meet the intent and conditions of the zoning ordinance regulating such fences, with the recommended stipulation that the fence is coated with black vinyl or similar material, as has been required in similar situations for chain link fencing in the setback areas. Supplementary Materials: 1. Site Location Map 2. Application Materials Dated 4/1/13 3. Draft Findings of Fact for Approval 3 Site Location – 1533 Dodd Road 4 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Getz Conditional Use Permit 1533 Dodd Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Permit: 1. The proposed project will not further impact traffic visibility at the Dodd Road/4th Avenue intersection. 2. The proposed fence type and height are consistent with Ordinance requirements, with the recommendation that the chain link fence is finished to avoid a galvanized finish. 3. The fence is compatible with the established character in the area and will not negatively impact any neighboring properties. MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: August 22, 2013 MEETING DATE: August 27, 2013 SUBJECT: Scannell Office-Warehouse Setback Variances CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 – 13.13 APPLICANT(S): Scannell Properties LOCATION: Commerce Drive and Lemay Avenue ZONING: I, Industrial GUIDE PLAN: Industrial Background and Description of Request: The applicants are seeking to develop an existing parcel of land, designated as Lot 1, Block 2 of Mendota Heights Business Park 4th Addition. The parcel is adjoined by Commerce Drive on the south and west, and Lemay Avenue on the north, and abuts industrial property on its east boundary. The parcel lies just north and west of the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and State Highway 13. The applicants have proposed to construct an office-warehouse building on the site, with employee and visitor parking on the south and west edges of the property nearest to Commerce Drive, and loading dock facilities on the interior east side. The proposed building is approximately 71,933 square feet in area, constructed of smooth finish concrete panels, with two entrance door areas to the west, and one to the south. Of the nearly 72,000 square feet identified on the plan, three separate office spaces of 4,800 square feet each are shown, one at each of the primary entrance door areas. Thus, office space totals 14,400 square feet, with the remaining 57,600 square feet left for industrial/warehouse floor area. 2 The applicants calculate a zoning code requirement of 61 parking spaces assuming office and warehouse as noted, while the site plan provides 104 total parking stalls. As noted, loading dock doors line the east side of the building, with 15 dock-height recessed access doors and two at-grade overhead doors. The building and site improvements cover 83% of the site with impervious surface. To accomplish development of this intensity, the applicants are seeking a variance to building setback on the north along Lemay Avenue, along with parking lot/curb line setback variances on all four sides of the property. The building setback requirement for industrial district buildings is 40 feet for all portions of the property abutting a public street. In this case, the site is adjoined on three sides by a public street. The applicants proposed to meet the setbacks on east, south, and west sides, but the corners of the building encroach into the north setback in two locations, leaving triangular encroachments to 32 feet and 30 feet. The applicants indicate that about 263 square feet of building area would be within the setback area under this design. The proposed parking setback is 10 feet, whereas 20 feet is the standard requirement for any parking area adjoining a public street. For the proposed development, parking setback variances have been requested for the west and south parking lots adjoining Commerce Drive in both cases. Analysis: When the City considers variances, the Zoning Ordinance provides the following standard of review: The City must find that an application for variance is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, not inconsistent with the manner in which other property in the neighborhood may be used, and where there are unique conditions on the property, not created by the applicant, that constitute “practical difficulties” in using the property in such a way. To approve the variance as requested, the City must find that the proposed setbacks for the building and parking areas constitute a reasonable manner of use, and that the conditions leading to the variance are unique to the property in question, not created by the applicant, and would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the property is located. With regard to the building setback, the north wall of the building abuts Lemay Avenue at an angle, leaving two corners encroaching in to the required setback area. As noted above, variances require that there are unique conditions on the property that create practical difficulties in using the property in a reasonable manner. It would appear that a small reduction in the floor area – either by “shaving off” these corners, or redesigning this portion of the building, would permit the applicants to meet the requirements of the ordinance without variance. 3 The parcel is approximately 4.37 acres in area, and could accommodate many building designs – the variance appears to be necessitated in this case by the applicant’s interest in maximizing floor area and reserving significant areas of buildable area for loading dock space, rather than in some physical condition on the property. Corner lot conditions are not uncommon in the district, although it is relatively rare to find a single parcel with three distinct frontages. With regard to the parking lot setbacks, there are a variety of parking setbacks in the area, with 20 feet being common, although 10 feet (or less) is also seen, particularly to the north of Lemay Avenue and to the east along Pilot Knob Road. The applicant suggests that the width of the building utilizes a standard dimension that, when combined with the circulation requirements of the loading area, leaves only enough space along the west boundary for a single-loaded parking aisle, and this with only a 10 foot setback, rather than the 20 foot setback otherwise required. The practical difficulty in this case would appear to be the limitations of the lot width from east to west, and the usable dimensions of the building. Together the landscaping plan provided by the applicant that shows a planting of trees and shrubs along the full length of the site, it would appear that a 10 foot setback along the west frontage could be seen as consistent with the conditions in the area, and constitute a reasonable manner of use. For parking to the south of the building, the applicants also proposed a 10 foot setback for a double-loaded parking area. Moreover, the parking dimensions are shown at just 60 feet deep curb to curb. The zoning ordinance requires 64 feet for such designs, and as noted, the site plan has provided many more parking spaces than required by code. The 20 foot setback could be accommodated on the south side by reducing the length of the building overall by just 10 feet out of more than 450 feet of length – about 2% - which would permit the site plan to be modified to meet the parking setback and, most likely, provide adequate dimensions for the proposed parking. The circulation needs of the loading area do not affect this north-south dimension as they do the east-west dimensions of the site plan. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission should consider recommending approval or denial of three separate variances as identified below: 1. Building setback variance to accommodate encroachments into the required setback area along Lemay Avenue to within 30 feet and 32 feet, a total of 263 feet of building floor area. 2. Parking lot setback variance to accommodate an encroachment into the required 20 foot setback area along Commerce Drive to the west of the site to within 10 feet of the street right of way. 4 3. Parking lot setback variance to accommodate an encroachment into the required 20 foot setback area along Commerce Drive to the south of the site to within 10 feet of the street right of way. Staff Recommendation: Attached to the staff report are alternative findings of fact for either approval or denial of each of the three variance requests identified above. Planning staff recommends as follows: 1. Denial of the variance into the Lemay Avenue building setback requirements. The applicants can meet the setbacks by relatively minor modifications to the building, and the conditions resulting in the setback encroachments do not appear to be unique to the site, but are the result of the building design. 2. Approval of the variance to the parking setback along Commerce Drive to the west. The dimensions of the site, along with the needs of loading area circulation, appear to interfere with reasonable use of this area, and appear to justify the reduced parking setback. 3. Denial of the variance to the parking setback along Commerce Drive to the south. The north-south length dimensions of the building would not appear to be as sensitive as the east-west dimension, as noted in the report. A minor reduction in length of the building would impact only about 2% of the space and provide the required setback, as well as permit the parking area to meet the full dimension identified in the zoning ordinance. The applicant would also have the option of eliminating some of the parking in this area since the site plan has more parking than required by code. Supplementary Materials: 1. Site Location Map 2. Application materials dated August 5, 2013 3. Findings of Fact for Approval or Denial 5 Site Location – Commerce Drive and Lemay Avenue 6 Draft Findings of Fact For Approval Commerce Drive and Lemay Avenue Lot 1, Block 2 Mendota Heights Business Center 4th Addition Building Setback Variance 1. The proposed site is irregular in shape, and bounded by public streets on three sides. 2. The additional setback standard imposed by three frontages places a substantial burden on making reasonable use of the property difficult, and constitutes a “practical difficulty” for such use. 3. The setback encroachment is minimal, and is offset by areas of the same frontage in which the setback is greater than the requirement. 4. The encroachment as designed is not incompatible with the uses and character of the neighborhood or locale. 7 Draft Findings of Fact For Denial Commerce Drive and Lemay Avenue Lot 1, Block 2 Mendota Heights Business Center 4th Addition Building Setback Variance 1. The parcel on which the building is proposed is a fully conforming parcel under the zoning regulations, with no unique conditions such as topography or restrictions that limit its use. 2. The site in question is larger in all dimensions than the minimum requirements of the code, and can accommodate many design and site planning options. 3. Reasonable use can be made of the property without variance with building architecture that reflects the site. 4. Any difficulties in utilizing the site are the result of actions of the applicants through design and use of the building. 8 Draft Findings of Fact For Approval Commerce Drive and Lemay Avenue Lot 1, Block 2 Mendota Heights Business Center 4th Addition Parking Setback Variance – West Property Line 1. Common width and loading area circulation needs constricts the usable area of the property from east to west. 2. A 10 foot parking setback is not uncommon in the immediate neighborhood for industrial property. 3. Additional landscaping along the parking boundary will help to mitigate the impacts of the parking area encroachment along the west frontage. 4. Parcels across Commerce Drive from this encroachment are not likely to be impacted by the variance as proposed. 5. Use of the property – with the building width as designed – is a reasonable one for the site in question. 9 Draft Findings of Fact For Denial Commerce Drive and Lemay Avenue Lot 1, Block 2 Mendota Heights Business Center 4th Addition Parking Setback Variance – West Property Line 1. Changes to the building may be made which would provide adequate parking setback. 2. Reasonable use of the property may be made without violating the parking setback along Commerce Drive. 3. Any practical difficulty resulting in a reduced parking setback is due to actions of the applicant through design of the building or site plan. 4. There are no unique conditions on the property that would justify a reduction in parking setback as proposed. 10 Draft Findings of Fact For Approval Commerce Drive and Lemay Avenue Lot 1, Block 2 Mendota Heights Business Center 4th Addition Parking Setback Variance – South Property Line 1. Full “front-yard” setbacks on both north and south property lines restricts the ability to design parking areas on the south side of the building accessible to the proposed office. 2. A 10 foot parking setback is not uncommon in the immediate neighborhood for industrial property. 3. Additional landscaping along the parking boundary will help to mitigate the impacts of the parking area encroachment along the west frontage. 4. Parcels across Commerce Drive from this encroachment are not likely to be impacted by the variance as proposed. 5. Use of the property is a reasonable one for the site in question, and adhering to the additional parking setbacks on both frontages interferes with this reasonable use. 11 Draft Findings of Fact For Denial Commerce Drive and Lemay Avenue Lot 1, Block 2 Mendota Heights Business Center 4th Addition Parking Setback Variance – South Property Line 1. Changes to the building may be made which would provide adequate parking setback. 2. Reasonable use of the property may be made without violating the parking setback along Commerce Drive south of the building. 3. Any practical difficulty resulting in a reduced parking setback is due to actions of the applicant through design of the building or site plan, including north-south length. 4. There are no unique conditions on the property that would justify a reduction in parking setback as proposed.