Loading...
2013-08-27 Planning Comm Minutes CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 27, 2013 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 27, 2013, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Vice-Chair Doug Hennes, Commissioners Michael Noonan, Robin Hennesey, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: Chair Litton Field, Jr. and Howard Roston. Those present were Planner Nolan Wall, Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, and Consultant Planner Stephen Grittman. Introduction Vice-Chair Doug Hennes welcomed and introduced the City’s new Planner, Mr. Nolan Wall, AICP. Approval of June 25, 2013 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2013, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2013-12 Karla Gotham, 1533 Dodd Road Conditional Use Permit for Fence Installation Consultant Planner Grittman presented the request and explained that the property in question is a single family parcel that is occupied by a single family home, on the northwest corner of Dodd th Road and 4 Avenue. The applicant was seeking approval to construct a four foot high chain- link fence around the rear yard to prevent children from running into the street. Because the th fence segment along the south property lines lies within 30 feet of the 4 Avenue right-of-way and exceeds 36” in height, per the Zoning Ordinance a conditional use permit is required. The owner has already constructed the fence due to grant funding timeline restrictions but was made aware that the construction was dependent on the granting of the conditional use permit and did the construction at their own risk. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. August 27, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 Commissioners asked questions pertaining to the current galvanized fencing materials and the reasons for staff recommending the chain link be treated to avoid the galvanized finish, what would need to be done to bring the fence within the code guidelines, and the cost to treat the chain link fence. Ms. Karla Gotham was in attendance and shared photographs of the fence. She also shared photographs of chain link fences in the neighborhood that are galvanized and explained her desire to keep that look. It was noted that the treatment of the galvanized chain link fence is a recommendation only and not a requirement for approval of the conditional use permit. Vice-Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice-Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, 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: th 1.The proposed project will not further impact traffic visibility at the Dodd Road/4 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. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Vice-Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 3, 2013 meeting. August 27, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 PLANNING CASE #2013-13 Alliant Engineering for Scannell Properties at Southwest corner of Lemay Road and Commerce Drive Setback Variance for Office/Warehouse Building Consultant Planner Grittman shared an image of the property location, designated at Lot 1, Block th 2 of the Mendota Heights Business Park 4 Addition, for a proposed office/warehouse building. The site is surrounded by Commerce Drive on the south and west side and Lemay Avenue on the north side. The applicants were seeking to construct an office/warehouse building of nearly 72,000 square feet. The proposed building would have three office spaces of approximately 4,800 square feet each with access points on the west and south sides of the building. The remainder of the building would be warehouse space with dock access along the east side of the building. The way the property is proposed to be designed and set up would require three variances; two parking setback variances and one building setback variance. Code requires parking circulation areas to be set back from the property line 20 feet and the proposal has setbacks of 10 feet on the south and west sides. The building setback variance is being requested to accommodate some encroachments for the corners of the building. The Code requires a setback of 40 feet and these building additions would extend to within 30 or 32 feet of the right-of-way line along the north side. Consultant Planner Grittman continued by explaining that to approve variance requests 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. Planning staff recommended denial of the building setback variance as the applicants can meet the setback requirements with 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. Planning staff recommended denial of the variance to the parking setback along Commerce Drive to the south as a minor reduction in the 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 the Code. Planning staff recommended 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. August 27, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 Commissioners asked questions regarding the necessary building and parking lot modifications to comply with code requirements. Mr. Tim Elam of Scannell Properties was in attendance to address concerns, explain the design of the proposed building, and the reasons for the requested variances. He also explained that they are willing to work with the City on landscaping plans to enhance the view. Commissioners asked questions in regard to the “practical difficulties” the applicant would be facing in not meeting the ordinance and architectural design modifications. Vice-Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice-Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNESEY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PARKING SETBACK VARIANCE – WEST PROPERTY LINE BASED ON THE FOLLOWOING FINDINGS OF FACT: 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. WITH ONE ADDITIONAL FINDING: 6.The proposed site is irregular in shape, is bounded by public streets on three sides, and the narrowness of the east/west dimension poses practical difficulties. Commissioner Noonan commented that he heard the applicant suggest they would work with staff to enhance the landscaping and asked if there was a way to condition those discussions as part of the granting of the variance. Consultant Planner Grittman replied that would be permissible. August 27, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 COMMISSIONERS MAGNUSON AND VIKSNINS AGREED TO ADD THAT CONDITION TO THE MOTION. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PARKING SETBACK VARIANCE – SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.Full “front-yard” setbacks on both north and south property lines restrict 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. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1.The applicant shall work with City staff on the landscaping plan to enhance the property. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF BUILDING SETBACK VARIANCE, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 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. Commissioner Magnuson asked if Findings of Fact #1 should read “with no unique conditions” when the Commission just approved two variances based on unique conditions. Consultant Planner Grittman replied that the intent of this finding is to speak to the variance requirements but also to distinguish the variance as it applies to the building versus variance that applies to other site improvements, such as parking. The reading of the application was that a building August 27, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 could be done with very minor modifications to meet the setback requirements; however, the parking issues were distinct from that because of the setbacks and how they impact the site differently than how they impact the building. He believed that this finding did not raise any conflicts between how the Commission treated the parking versus the building. He suggested that finding #1 could be changed to read “with no unique conditions related to building placement”. COMMISSIONERS VIKSNINS AND NOONAN AGREED TO THE CHANGE OF FINDING OF FACT #1. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Vice-Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 3, 2013 meeting. Verbal Review Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2013-08 Rebekah Villafuerte Conditional Use Permit •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2013-09 British Petroleum Fuel Setback Variances •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2013-10 Curt Hopman Conditional Use Permit •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. VICE-CHAIR HENNES ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 7:45 P.M. August 27, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6