Loading...
1997-06-24 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 24, 1997 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 24, 1997, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Dwyer, Friel, Lorberbaum, Duggan and Tilsen. Commissioners Koll and Betlej were excused. Also present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planning Consultant Meg McMonigal, Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. Commissioner Friel moved approval of the May 27, 1997 minutes with corrections. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 HEARING: CASE NO. 97-14: SCHAEFER - SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR LOT RECONFIGURATION Mr. Louis Schaefer, of 1669 Lilac Lane, was present to discuss his request for a Subdivision Approval for Lot Reconfiguration which would allow the adjustment of his southern lot line by acquiring 1,440 feet of his neighbor's property. Mr. Schaefer explained that the additional land will allow him to enclose his entire yard with a fence. He informed the Commission that he has a pool. Chair Dwyer stated that Mr. Schaefer's property (Parcel A) is currently under the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size. He stated that the additional 1,440 square feet of land will bring Mr. Schaefer's property into conformance with zoning regulations. He stated that the Schribman's lot June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 1 (Parcel B) is a non -conforming lot and that the reduction of square footage will not change the zoning status of the lot. Commissioner Duggan inquired about the reduction of land and whether it will affect any future improvements to the property (i.e. future variance requests). Planner McMonigal stated that the reconfiguration will not cause Mr. Schribman's lot (Parcel B) to be in violation of the Ordinance. She stated that the remaining Parcel B will have some land available to the north should the Schribman's or any future owners wish to expand. She stated that towards the front of the Schribman's house, an additional 10 feet in width could be added, widening out to 25 feet in the rear. Commissioner Tilsen stated that it appears these lots are smaller than other lots in the neighborhood. Tilsen stated that a part of Lilac Lane actually traverses one corner of Mr. Schaefer's lot. Tilsen suggested that the City should request that Mr. Schaefer donate roughly 5 feet from the curb to the City to rectify the situation. Public Works Director Danielson concurred and stated that the City can process the necessary paperwork should Mr. Schaefer concur. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss this request. Commissioner Friel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Tilsen moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Lot Line Adjustment with the request that Mr. Schaefer donate that portion of his lot which currently hosts the road, plus about 5 feet. (The request is not intended as a condition of approval). Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 96-13: DALSETH - UIETI-4VIDS-PE-7,14111 Mr. Patrick Dalseth, representing Mr. and Mrs. Philip Dalseth of 664 Maple June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 2 Park Drive, was present to discuss their request for a wetlands permit which would allow the construction of a porch and deck. Mr. Dalseth explained that the proposed deck will be 11' x 16' and that the deck will surround the porch. He stated that a portion of the deck will extend approximately 3 Y2 feet into the slope of the ravine. Dalseth stated that there is a deteriorating retaining wall that will be replaced. He explained that drainage is not a concern and that after a heavy rain today, there is no standing water in the ravine. In response to a question from Commissioner Lorberbaum, Public Works Director Danielson explained that this ravine is considered a minor drainage way and that it is identified on the City's Wetlands System Maps. Commissioner Duggan moved to waive the public hearing as signatures of consent had been received. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City Council grant the Wetlands Permit with the following conditions: 1. The Wetlands Permit be issued with the Building Permit. 2. The work commence within 90 days of the permit being issued and be completed within 12 months of issuance. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 97-15: LENTZ - FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Mr. Thomas Lentz, of 2236 Apache Street, was present to discuss his request for a 5 foot front yard setback variance which would allow the construction of an addition to the front of his home by extending his garage forward 6 feet, to be 25 feet versus 30 feet, from the front property line. Mr. Lentz explained that he would like to expand his garage and home west June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 3 and north for an additional garage and a family room. The dimensions being: 10' x 10' x 21' deep garage space and along side of the garage a family room of 11' x 3' x 18' deep. He presented a three dimensional drawing. Mr. Lentz stated that the -addition will step into the 30 foot setback by 5 feet and that he is asking for a 6 foot variance to insure adequate property dimension measurements. Chair Dwyer stated that as a part of the zoning ordinance requirements for variances, an applicant must demonstrate hardship. He noted that the City Council has established a Variance Policy within the Friendly Hills neighborhood. Commissioner Friel stated that the Planning Commission has suggested that the Council consider not requiring a resident to process a variance request when there is a consensus amongst the neighbors that an addition will not affect its neighbors. In response to a question from Commissioner Lorberbaum, Mr. Lentz explained that there is an existing foyer which has one step up from the grade and that he assumes there will be one more additional step up to the porch area from the level of the sidewalk. Commissioner Duggan noted that the plans submitted are not to scale. Mr. Lentz informed the Commission that the measurements are accurate. Duggan suggested that Mr. Lentz be required to receive a Certificate of Survey. Commissioner Friel stated that at the time of the building permit process, the building official inspects the property dimensions and insures that the setbacks have been accurately measured. He stated that a Certificate of Survey is an additional expense that should not be required of the applicant. Mr. Lentz reminded the Commission that he has asked for an additional foot for "safekeeping". He informed the Commission that he has submitted a revised site plan. Chair Dwyer stated that all signatures of consent have been received. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council grant the front yard setback variance. Commissioner Lorberbaurn seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 4 HEARING: CASE NO. 97-17: MENDOTA HEIGHTS UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST - SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR LOT CONFIGURATION Mr. Carl Baumeister, representing the Mendota Heights United Church of Christ, located at 680 Highway 110, was present to discuss their request for a Lot Reconfiguration which would allow the transfer of 1.97 acres of land to the Dodge Nature Center. Mr. Baumeister explained that the Church is proposing to transfer 200 feet of its property to the Dodge Nature Center. He stated that the common lot line between the two properties will be adjusted and there will not be any visible change to the properties. He stated that the Dodge Nature Center will mostly likely remove the barb wire fence and out building. He explained that the Nature Center has offered to purchase the land and that the Church is appreciative of the offer since additional funds will be helpful in building their new church addition. Commissioner Tilsen inquired about the number of acres and whether a transfer of property is allowed under the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Public Works Director Danielson responded that it is allowed as per the City's Subdivision Ordinance Section 11.3 - Exceptions. Tilsen inquired if there will be any issues related to future access by creating an additional parcel. He stated that he does not want the Nature Center to be stuck with property that does not have access. It was clarified by Mr. Baumeister that it has been understood that the Nature Center does not intend to use this land for anything else but a nature preserve. Tilsen stated that he does not want to see this property divided in the future because access could become an issue. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss this request. Chair Dwyer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 5 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council approve the lot reconfiguration on the condition that Dodge Nature Center incorporate the donated parcel into the adjacent existing property to prevent the creation of an isolated parcel with no street access. Commissioner Lorberbaurn seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 OJJJJ�� . A 1101 of—ftei :101 MAI 2 ffel oi 9110 fAJ Ll Chair Dwyer explained. that the City Council has requested that the Commission review amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to Recreation Vehicle parking/storage. The purpose is to clarify and strengthen the City's regulations regarding the outdoor parking and storage of recreational vehicles. Dwyer stated that the Planner and staff have submitted two alternatives to the existing language of the zoning ordinance: 1 Allows no parking or storage of recreational vehicles on a residential lot; or 2. Allows storage of recreation vehicles, with the following stipulations: 1 Recreational vehicles may only be parked or stored on the side or rear portion of the lot. 2. Recreational vehicles must be parked or stored on a paved surface that is connected to a paved driveway. 3. Recreational vehicles must not be parked or stored projecting forward of the front of the house. 4. Recreational vehicle parking or storage must meet the zoning district setback requirements. Planner McMonigal stated that there has been some confusion in interpreting the existing ordinance and that the alternatives presented are ordinances that other cities have adopted. She stated that this type of ordinance is difficult to enforce. In response to a question from the Commission, Public Works Director Danielson stated that the City does receive periodic complaints regarding the storage/parking of recreational vehicles. He stated that a recent case June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 6 regarding the interpretation of storage vs. parking is what generated the review of the existing ordinance. Commissioner Friel stated that enforcing such an ordinance is difficult especially if an individual is just parking a vehicle to be used at a later date. He stated that objections occur when there is a "junk" vehicle being stored on the property. He stated that banning the storage/parking of recreational vehicles is a definite consideration but that it will cause a "revolution" within the City. He suggested that "personal watercraft" should be added to the ordinance. Commissioner Tilsen stated that it would be difficult to add parking language to the ordinance. He stated that he stores his vehicles off of his property and that when he uses it, he parks the vehicles in his driveway while he cleans the vehicles. He stated that it would be too cumbersome on the City to chalk tires to determine whether the vehicle is being stored or just parked. Chair Dwyer stated that this is a tough issue and that he does not want to see vehicles stored in front yards. Tilsen stated that storage needs to be defined in a better fashion. He stated that he does not want to include parking within the definition of storage. Commissioner Duggan suggested that language pertaining to licensed/non licensed vehicle should be included to help identify whether a vehicle is being stored or being used. For instance, vehicles being sold from a driveway. He further suggested that the language seems too cumbersome and that using "bullets" would better identify the intent of the ordinance. Chair Dwyer stated that he is not interested in banning the storage of recreational vehicles within the City. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she does not want to see vehicles for sale in a driveway for 30 days consecutively. Tilsen stated that it would be easy to ban the storage of vehicles from the setback area. He stated that the intent should be to get the vehicles far enough back where they cannot be seen. Commissioner Friel stated that he would like to see the vehicles banned from the setback area and front yards. He stated that language pertaining to parking should be included within the ordinance and that parking needs to be distinguished from storing. Public Works Director Danielson pointed out that it is common for people to store their recreational vehicle on their lot during the winter time and park their vehicle on their lot during the summer time. June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 7 Commissioner Tilsen suggested that defining storage as a vehicle being in one location for an 'Y' amount of time should be considered. He stated that the intent should be clearly identified by setting a specific time limit of storing a vehicle. He stated that complaints seem to stem from vehicles being stored on a property for a long period of time. Administrative Assistant Hollister informed the Commission that staff is looking for an ordinance that will make enforcement an easier process. He stated that an ordinance with solid criteria such as where a recreational vehicle can be stored on someone's property will help give staff easier guidelines in enforcing an ordinance. Commissioner Duggan suggested that the Planner and staff should work on "cleaning up" the language within the proposed ordinance. He suggested that staff include a copy of a drawing within the ordinance which specifically indicates where recreational vehicles can/cannot be placed on residential properties. He suggested that staff return with a revised draft ordinance in July. Chair Dwyer called recess at 8:45 p.m. Chair Dwyer reconvened the meeting at 8:55. DISCUSS CELL/PCS DRAFT ORDINANCE Chair Dwyer explained that at the May 27, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed a draft Cellular/PCS Ordinance and made specific and general comments for revision. The Commission then instructed staff to pass their comments along to the City Council. Chair Dwyer stated that the Commission had also instructed staff to send inquiries to the industry hoping that their comments may prove to be of some help in crafting the Cellular/PCS Ordinance. Dwyer stated that one firm has submitted their comments prior to the June 17 deadline. He informed the Commission that two other firms have submitted their letters for review during tonight's meeting. Mr. Peter Coyle, of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren, informed the Commission that his firm represents American Portable Telecom (APT). Mr. Coyle gave a brief summary regarding his comments and concerns with respect to the draft ordinance. Mr. Coyle noted his concern for restricting the height of an antennae to a maximum of 75 feet. He stated that geographical restrictions dictate how June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 8 tall a tower can or cannot be. He stated that 75 feet is not a realistic height and that the industry is not able to accept it. He stated that the City needs to be aware of the varying topography within the City and that there are certain areas were these towers can/cannot be placed. Mr. Coyle informed the Commission that the normal height of their antenna is roughly 165 feet but that it is not unusual to have a 110 or 120 foot antenna. He stated that co -location requirements are hindered if the antennae height can only be the maximum height of 75 feet. Commissioner Duggan inquired about the smallest tower APT has installed to date. Mr. Coyle responded that he is aware of a 90 foot tower. He stated that he is not aware of any towers planned to be smaller than 90 feet. In response to a question from Commissioner Lorberbaum regarding telecommunication technology, Mr. Coyle explained APT is a company that is maturing along with the telecommunications technology. He stated that the determining factor in placing antennas are a direct result of how specific technology is at the current time of placement. He explained that capacity requirements are different amongst the specific telecommunication firms. Commissioner Friel stated that he believes that the number of towers within the City is not the issue, but rather visibility. He stated that he has concerns about all antennas in that the taller an antenna, the more visible the antenna is. Mr. Coyle stated that screening a tower is difficult. Friel stated that the industry can be very imaginative. Commissioner Duggan stated that screening could occur at eye level. He stated that the Commission realizes that the whole tower cannot be screened. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that some towers have buildings next to them and that helps to not create such a visual impact. Mr. Coyle stated that they are trying to strive towards finding a compatible opportunity in locating both a sufficient geographical location and a design that does not visually impact the site. He stated that if APT could find a way to minimize the visual impact of a tower, they would. He stated that if you cannot see a tower, it will not work. Commissioner Duggan inquired if as technology improves, could a tower be lowered. Mr. Coyle stated that this is a thought not considered by other cities. Mr. Coyle stated search radius is a concern and that normal search radius is 1 /4 to 1/2 a mile. He stated that APT has no problem in sharing what their coverage requirements are. He stated that they are not able to discuss analysis information and strategic planning with other companies present. June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 9 Commissioner Tilsen inquired about camouflaging the antennas. Mr. Coyle stated that is not easily done. He stated that towers can be incorporated into bell towers within churches but to make an antennae look like an oak tree is difficult. Tilsen stated that he believes the City should require all antennas within the City to be camouflaged which would then force the industry to be creative when installing antenna within Mendota Heights. Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired about a technology she had heard about which allows the installation of an antenna within a resident's roof. Mr. Peter Beck, representing AT&T, stated that this technology works if the roof is in the right geographical location and at the right height. Commissioner Friel stated that antennae locations are better suited along freeways. Mr. Coyle responded that the bulk of antennae installation occurs along freeways. He explained that the technology is now being designed and encouraged by the FCC to be installed within residential areas also. Commissioner Friel inquired about the amount of cooperation MnDOT has given in allowing antennas to be installed within their right-of-way. Coyle stated that MnDOT has cooperated well, especially in co -locating antennas. Mr. Peter Beck, representing AT&T, briefly summarized his letter. In response to a question from Commissioner Friel, Mr. Beck stated that he was aware that the FCC has sent letters to 19 communities regarding antennae installation within Minnesota. Mr. Beck stated that he would like the City to consider allowing antennas to be building mounted rather than subjecting the company to the conditional use process. He stated most communities have gone this route. Beck suggested that antennas be a permitted use on institutional buildings (i.e., schools). He stated that school districts are very interested in receiving additional revenue. Commissioner Duggan inquired why more antennas are necessary if the demands are being met. Mr. Beck responded that capacity is an issue and that specific cell sites can handle just so many calls. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan, Mr. Beck stated that the telecommunications industry is a capital intensive business. He stated that co -location is a policy that has been pursued quite extensively throughout the industry. Commissioner Duggan suggested that the industry should consider pooling its resources together in determining the best sites within a city. Mr. Beck responded that federal anti-trust laws are an issue. June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 10 Commissioner Tilsen stated that aesthetics is a real concern. He stated that he believes the industry should be required to camouflage the antennas. Mr. Beck stated that this requirement would work as long as it is well defined. He stated that an antennae can easily be camouflaged if it is installed on a light pole. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if antennas can be installed on NSP towers. Mr. Beck stated that this is being researched and that safety is a concern. Mr. Lee, representing U.S. West, was present to summarize his letter regarding the draft ordinance. He stated that he agrees with the other representatives' concerns. He informed the Commission that his company provides a different technology. He stated that their antennae heights are 75 feet. He stated that they are working with NSP to locate antennas on their towers. Lee informed the Commission that U.S. West prefers to construct their antennas on their own property. Mr. Beck suggested that staff meet with industry representatives to discuss the proposed ordinance further. He stated that other communities have pursued this process and that it seems to have worked well. The Commission discussed conducting a workshop to discuss this issue further. It was noted that the Council has given a specific time line in pursuing this ordinance and staff reminded the Commission that the moratorium expires in December. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Planning Commission's request to conduct a workshop to discuss the proposed cellular/PCS ordinance on July 22 and to reschedule the regular Planning Commission meeting to July 29. Chair Dwyer seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 LTA A .1 1 B -;TArA I Public Works Director Danielson gave a brief review of City Council action on previous planning cases. June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 11 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary June 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 12