Loading...
2014-06-24 Planning Comm Minutes CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES June 24, 2014 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 24, 2014, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: Robin Hennessy. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of May 27, 2014 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2014, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2014-13 th Ken and Mary Kay Noack, 677 – 4 Avenue Subdivision Request for a Lot Split, Lot Width and Detached Garage Size Variances, and Wetlands Permit Planner Nolan Wall reminded the Commissioners that this is a continuation of the public hearing that was opened at the last Planning Commission meeting. New notices for tonight’s meeting for this discussion topic were published and mailed. The applicant submitted a revised survey and an amended application package for consideration. Planner Wall then highlighted the changes from last month and the Standards of Review applicable to the variance requests. Staff recommended denial of the proposed subdivision and lot width variance requests. Being dependent on those requests being approved, staff recommended denial of the detached garage size variance and wetlands permit requests as well. June 24, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 Commissioners asked questions regarding the need for the variance request for the placement of the current accessory structure no matter how the lot is split, the length of the current lot frontage, discussions had with the applicant and the recommendations of staff proposed at the last meeting, lot frontage lengths in the neighborhood, when the detached garage was constructed \[before or after the change in the frontage length requirement\], and what could be proposed to make the lots compliant. Mr. Ken Noack was present and explained his reasons for the requests. He also answered questions from the Commissioners regarding the replacement of the current garage to enable the lot to be split in compliance, history of the lot, location of rights-of-way, and other options. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Jeff Closmore, 1527 Vandall, was in support of this application and questioned the Findings of Fact for denial of the request. He noted that he grew up in the same neighborhood and that the garage in question has always been where it currently is. The garage has become a fixture in the area, has always been well maintained, and adds flavor to the neighborhood. Mr. Dean Verdoes, 1509 Dodd Road, stated that he personally would be very happy to see a house on the proposed lot. The property has always been perfectly maintained and he would be very comfortable with a house on that site. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Commissioner Viksnins noted that he was struggling with the language that the ‘practical difficulties cannot be created by the applicant or based on economic considerations’ and how to get around what appears to be an economic consideration that they are not supposed to take into account. Commissioner Roston agreed with Commissioner Viksnins comment and believed the Commission was in an unfortunate position of being stuck with the rules that they had and their job was to apply the rules. If the City Council wishes to make a different decision they can but the Commission would need to examine the rules and make a recommendation. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the side lines being perpendicular were a requirement of the code or a preference. Planner Wall replied that it is a requirement of the code. Commissioner Hennes asked if staff had taken into consideration that there are many lots in the area having less than 100 feet of frontage. Planner Wall replied that staff had taken that into June 24, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 consideration and they tried to present objective findings for both sides of the argument. Discussions were had with the applicant and other options explored; however, it had been an issue that was raised with the location and size of the existing detached garage that there would be problems with the code. Commissioner Roston noted that if there is a neighborhood that has this characteristic, the question should be if there should be another residential zoning district with another set of standards. There are communities that have multiple residential zoning districts. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, LOT WIDTH VARIANCE, DETACHED GARAGE SIZE VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT REQUESTS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The proposed subdivision does not meet the lot width standards and is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Code. 2.The practical difficulties associated with the lot width variance request are not unique to the property. They are created by the applicant’s desire to maintain the existing detached garage on Parcel A, which resulted from the required lot combination in order to demolish the former dwelling on Parcel B. 3.The applicant has other options for subdividing the subject parcel in compliance with the Code. 4.In order to facilitate a compliant subdivision of the subject parcel and eliminate the need for the variance requests, the existing detached garage can be demolished and reconstructed on Parcel A in compliance with the Code requirements. 5.The detached garage size variance and wetlands permit requests are no longer relevant if the proposed subdivision and lot width variance requests are not approved. Commissioner Viksnins expressed his desire to come up with a creative solution but was currently unable to do so. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she was troubled as this was a family property that had been in the family for many years and it is intended to stay within the family. However, they seem to be caught up here on some code requirements that just do not fit the situation. She does not have a creative solution around it but wished something could be done that would permit this to happen so that these folks are not required to tear down a garage that has been there since 1962 or not subdivide the property so the family can all live in one area. AYES: 4 NAYS: 2 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 1, 2014 meeting. June 24, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 PLANNING CASE #2014-17 Ned Rukavina and Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane Front and Side Yard Setback Variance Requests Planner Nolan Wall presented that staff report and explained that the applicant requested variances from the front and side yard setback standards to construct an addition to their single family dwelling. The subject parcel is .48 acres, contains a dwelling and a two-car attached garage with cul-de-sac frontage. The property is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential development. The applicant intended to construct an addition to enlarge the garage with an additional stall, add a mud room and small studio, and remodel the kitchen. The existing dwelling, including the existing attached garage, is within the required setbacks for this district. The addition would encroach eleven feet at its greatest dimension into the front yard setback and would encroach five feet at its greatest dimension into the side yard setback. The entire addition would encroach approximately 222 square feet into both required setback areas and would extend the existing structure as much as fifteen feet closer to the street. The subject parcels location on a cul-de-sac does cause a curvilinear front yard setback line, which according to the applicant makes square structures difficult to fit on the lots. The proposed site plan also indicates an expanded driveway within two feet of the property line. The code does require a five foot setback from side lot lines, which would require an additional variance if an alternate design could not be accomplished. Planner Wall then explained the Standards of Review that would apply to this application. Staff recommended denial of the variance requests for construction of the proposed addition within the required front and side yard setbacks. Commissioners asked questions regarding the nature of the application and why the variance for the driveway was not included. Mr. Ned Rukavina was present to explain his request and to answer questions from the Commission. 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 MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 June 24, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Roston commented that he was not unsympathetic to the desire to not block windows and to have a third car stall; however, given where the ordinance is and what the rules are for variances he did not see any way to reconcile this request with the language they have to apply. Commissioners Viksnins agreed with these comments. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she believed this applicant to be different than the one before in that this one probably has a solution even if unacceptable to the applicant. However, she is unaware of how to get over the hurdle of the variance requirement when there seems to be possible design solutions that are available. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The proposed dwelling and garage addition’s encroachment into the required front and side yard setbacks is inconsistent with the intent of the Code to promote green space, preserve adequate drainage and utility easement corridors, and allow for adequate buffering between structures. 2.An addition to accommodate another garage stall may be accomplished without the need for a setback variance. 3.While inconvenient or less desirable, an addition to expand the existing dwelling could be accomplished by expanding other portions of the dwelling without the need for a variance. 4.The proposed encroachments into the required setback areas constitute an unreasonable use of the setback area and will substantially increase the footprint of the structure towards the street, both of which are out of character for the neighborhood. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 1, 2014 meeting. Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area – DRAFT Rules Update Chair Field noted that the Commissioners received a copy of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area – DRAFT Rules Update and a copy of the map. Planner Wall introduced the materials for discussion and for questions. He also noted that staff had some proposed changes and wished to collaborate with the Commission on those proposed changes, and how this critical area rules may impact properties currently in existence and future development within the critical area. June 24, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 Verbal Review Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2014-16 SAC Wireless on behalf of AT&T and the Ridge South Condominium Association 1860 Eagle Ridge Drive Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a wireless antenna facility •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2014-14 Michael and Michelle Bader Concept Planned Unit Development Plan •Discussed by the City Council and no action was taken Staff Announcements  June 17 City Council Meeting – an extension to the development agreement for the Lemay Shores Development was approved. That extension would go through the end of the year.  Topics for the July 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting: Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Discussion o Information regarding some potential code amendments o  City Council did consider institutional zoning at their workshop meeting and will continue to discuss the preferred route – additional amendments in the current zoning ordinance or the establishment of an entirely new institutional zoning district, both of which would be lengthy processes. Chair Field reminded the Commissioners and staff to keep in mind that any solutions they may present to an applicant does not necessarily mean that suggestion would be approved – or even be allowed to be approved. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:26 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 June 24, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6