Loading...
1998-08-25 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF 1 1 i HEIGHTS DAKOTA i MINNESOTA PLANNING COMIVIISSION MINUTES AUGUST 25, 1998 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 25, 1998, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Betlej, Friel, Duggan, Lorberbaum, Meinglass, Tilsen. Commissioner Koll was excused from the meeting. Also present were Planning Consultant Meg McMonigal of MFRA, Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. INTRODUCTION i 1 i 1 1 i • STEVE IKLEINGLASS Chair Duggan announced that since Former Chair Mike Dwyer had resigned from the Planning Commission, by the Planning Commission by-laws the current vice -chair, Commissioner Duggan, became Chair of the Planning Commission until the position was up for election again in February of 1999. Chair Duggan then introduced Commissioner Steve Kleinglass, appointed by the Council to serve on the Planning Commission for the remainder of Mr. Dwyer's term. Commissioner Kleinglass said that he would like to thank the City Council for giving him this opportunity to serve the City in this new capacity. Commissioner Kleinglass said that he has lived in Mendota Heights for ten years and that he is the Chief Operating Officer for the Veterans Administration Hospital in Minneapolis. Chair Duggan welcomed Commissioner Kleinglass to the Planning Commission and said that he was confident that Commissioner Kleinglass would prove to be an able planner. Chair Duggan announced that the position of Vice Chairperson was now open and asked for nominations for the position. Commissioner Betlej nominated Commissioner Lorberbaum. Commissioner Friel seconded the nomination. Chair Duggan moved to close the nomination process. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Betlej then made a motion to appoint Commissioner Lorberbaum as Vice - Chairperson. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that she accepted the nomination. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Tilsen moved to approve the July 28, 1998 Minutes with Corrections. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 3 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 (Lorberbaum, Kleinglass, Friel) CASE NO. 98-22: DALE JOHNSON, SUBDIVISION Chair Duggan said that discussion of Mr. Johnson's application for a subdivision had been continued from the previous meeting in order to provide Mr. Johnson time to respond to a request for more information from the Planning Commission. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Johnson for a verbal review of the new information that he had submitted. Mr. Johnson said that the Planning Commission had asked for more information on five items. Mr. Johnson displayed the proposed plat on the overhead projector. Mr. Johnson said that he is proposing five lots ranging in size from 16,000 ft2 to 25,000 ft2. Mr. Johnson said that he had conducted a tree survey and had staked out the cul-de-sac and pinpointed the exact location of significant trees as closely as possible. Mr. Johnson said that under one scenario, the pines would be right in the middle of the proposed cul- de-sac. Mr. Johnson said that there are also pines in the rear of the property and open space to the east. Mr. Johnson said that he had drawn up two options; one with a longer cul-de-sac and one with a shorter cul-de-sac, each option with five lots. Mr. Johnson said that although the option with the longer cul-de-sac would conform to the City's Zoning Ordinance in all respects, he preferred to receive a variance for two of the lots to allow the cul-de-sac to be shorter, thus saving more trees and allowing the houses to be further from the cul-de-sac. Mr. Johnson said that he would like to save as many pines as possible. 2 Commissioner Duggan asked how many pines would have to be taken out under the longer cul-de-sac scenario. Mr. Johnson said that he would have to remove six or seven pine trees of roughly 8-12" in diameter, and that it would be impossible to transplant them. Mr. Johnson said that in the shorter cul-de-sac scenario, he would save more trees and that the longer driveways could easily snake between the trees to save them. Mr. Johnson said that the next issue of concern for the Planning Commission at the last meeting was the front footage variances needed for two of the lots. Mr. Johnson said that he had revised his plan twice from the previous meeting with the Planning Commission, and that he had submitted a new copy of the plat this afternoon. Mr. Johnson said that the south buffer of the western most lot was now 30 feet instead of 40 feet. Mr. Johnson said that the northwestern most lot has a nice slope in back. Mr. Johnson said that the north lot was the same and the east lot was not impacted. Mr. Johnson said that he would take a tree count before the construction of homes began. Mr. Johnson said that there were walnut trees in the back of the property. Chair Duggan said that the Council may want a more detailed tree count. Mr. Johnson said that the trees were mostly 34" in diameter. Mr. Johnson said that the next item of concern for the Planning Commission was soil consistency. Mr. Johnson said that he ran soil tests 36" deep and that on Lot 4, black dirt was from eight to ten inches, clay was fourteen inches, and gravel was the next fourteen inches. Mr. Johnson said that lot three had thin black dirt, and that lot two had black dirt, sand and gravel. Mr. Johnson said that he did not test lots five and six, but that he assumed it had a gravel base. Mr. Johnson said that the next item of concern for the Planning Commission was setback requirements. Mr. Johnson said that in his preferred shorter cul-de-sac scenario, he could not make 100 feet of frontage at the 30 -foot setback line for all lots, but that he would place the houses far back from the cul-de-sac. Mr. Johnson said that in the longer cul-de- sac scenario, he could get 100 feet of frontage but that he would lose trees. Commissioner Duggan asked about Mr. Hood's proposal. Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Hood's proposed featured only 4 large lots, each at 3/4 of an acre, and that these lots were two large. IVIr. Johnson said that five lots would fit nicely on the site. Commissioner Duggan said that Mr. Hood's proposal was more like the other cul-de-sacs. Mr. Johnson said that his lots were actually bigger than other lots in the vicinity of the plat. Chair Duggan said that Lots Two and Six were smaller. Chair Duggan said that the next item of concern to the Planning Commission was erosion control. Chair Duggan said that his biggest concern was that lots one and two would drain to houses to the west. Chair Duggan added that Lot 6 had a three to four foot drop, and that drainage from Lot Six would be a problem. Mr. Johnson said that Lot Six is a flat area. Mr. Johnson said that in lot two he could put rainwater into the cul-de-sac. Mr. Johnson said that the shrubbery might also minimize run-off. Chair Duggan asked about the stream. Mr. Johnson said that the stream drained the wetland and is not a problem. Mr. Johnson said that the street grade would be five to six percent. Mr. Johnson said that he can't fix the fact that the grade on Alice Lane is 10%. Chair Duggan asked if that was true of any cul-de-sac placement. Commissioner Tilsen asked if it made any difference to consider the variance for the shorter cul-de-sac scenario to be a variance to the thirty foot setback line rather than to the 100 foot frontage requirement. Planner McMonigal said that with a shorter cul-de-sac, the plat would save trees and that the impact would be the same as if the lot frontages were 100 feet. Chair Duggan said that if the City granted this variance, a developer in the future might want something similar. Commissioner Friel said that it was irrelevant how the variance was expressed, Commissioner Friel said that the Planning Commission had before them a plat that can meet the City's ordinance requirements, but that would cause a loss of trees and an extension of the cul-de-sac, Commissioner Friel said that it would be better to shorten the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Betlej said that he had three questions about the plat. Commissioner Betlej asked how Mr. Johnson could claim to be saving trees on lots 2, 3, and 4, but be regrading lots 2 and 3 by pushing the hill back. Commissioner Betlej asked how the trees could survive re -grading. Mr. Johnson said that the regrading would go beyond the tree and create a short slope to the cul-de-sac, which does drop of rather rapidly. EI Commissioner Betlej asked how you save trees if you grade the site according to the plan submitted. Mr. Johnson said that he would retain the existing contour in order to afford drainage, and that that was preliminary grading. Commissioner Tilsen said that the preliminary grading plan was close to the existing grading, and that he could save trees. Commissioner Tilsen said that the grading plan would have to be refined to save the trees. Commissioner Betlej said that his second question was that the neighbor in the back of lot 2 had a drainage problem now, and could Mr. Johnson build a swale in back to help. Commissioner Tilsen said that Mr. Johnson could put gutters on the house and bring roof drainage forward. Commissioner Betlej said that his third question was about the cul-de-sac grade. Mr. Danielson said that the grade could be lowered to five or six percent. but that that would make a steep slope from the cul-de-sac to the lots. Mr. Danielson said that there would be some steep slopes. Chair Duggan asked for any comments from the audience. Mr. Steve Lansberger of 2236 Alice Lane said that even though Mr. Johnson says that he wants to keep driveways 12 feet wide, how could he prevent someone from widening their driveway. Chair Duggan said that Mr. Johnson could impose private covenants on the property regulating the width of the driveways. Mr. Lansberger asked how the City could control people cutting down the trees. Commissioner Friel said that a tree ordinance was proposed earlier, and that it was not popular with the community. Mr. Lansberger said that people would- make changes to their driveway. Mr. Danielson said that there are twelve foot driveways in town. Mr. Lansberger said that even if Mr. Johnson puts gutters on all the homes, future owners may decide that they are a headache to clean and may take them off. Mr. Lansberger asked what would happen then. �1 Chair Duggan said that most of the houses built on these lots would cost about $250,000, and that people would take care of their property. Chair Duggan said that there is a problem with the southwest driveway. Mr. Lansberger said that even though Mr. Johnson claims he will do many things, would he be able to change his mind? Chair Duggan said that he could not change. Mr. Lansberger asked what would happen if something were to happen to Mr. Johnson. Chair Duggan said that if the City and Mr. Johnson had an agreement, that agreement would apply to whoever inherited the development. Chair Duggan said that the City could not control the cost of the houses built on the lots. Mr. Lansberger asked how the City could control the width of the driveways, and what if someone wanted an extra four feet on their driveway. Chair Duggan said that that was a speculative question and that the Commission could only give a speculative answer back. Chair Duggan asked if anyone else in the audience had any comments. Mr. Jack Hood of 2230 Alice Lane said that he wrote the letter and the sketch with the four -lot proposal. Mr. Hood said that he respected trees and that he saved as many trees as possible when he built his house, even the scrub trees. Mr. Hood added that trees come and go, but a cul-de-sac is forever. Mr. Hood said that if the houses have 40' driveways from the curb it will not look good and will detract from the neighborhood. Mr. Hood said that although the lots are deep, they are still skinny. Greg Riland of 2829 Alice Lane said that four larger lots made more sense. Chair Duggan asked for a motion to close the public hearing Commissioner Betlej moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Duggan asked for a motion on the application. Commissioner Tilsen said that his preference would be for a subdivision of five lots with the setback variance. Chair Duggan said that the only two negatives would be drainage, 31 i 1 and the spider like effect, and that they do not compare favorably to the two other cul-de- sacs in the vicinity. Commissioner Tilsen said that if the cul-de-sac were extended it could fit without any variances to the setback but that shortening the cul-de-sac brings the driveways tighter, Commissioner Tilsen said that trees come and go and that people have an effect on trees. Commissioner Tilsen said that its that kind of trade-off. Chair Duggan asked if there were no amalgamation of the two options. Mr. Johnson showed his two options once again on the over -head projector. Mr. Johnson said that the shorter cul-de-sac option would need two variances and that the longer cul- de-sac option would need no variances, but would take out all the trees except poplars and scrub elms. Commissioner Duggan asked if a deeper cul-de-sac would be safer. Mr. Danielson -said that it would be easier to snow plow a deeper cul-de-sac. Chair Duggan asked if there were fire concerns. Mr. Danielson said that there were cul-de-sacs of similar length all over town. Chair Duggan said that he had concerns. Commissioner Friel said that the R-1 zone has a 15,000 square foot minimum lot size, and that he understood the concerns raised by neighbors, but that the Planning Commission's job was to determine whether or not the proposal met the City's ordinance. Chair Duggan pointed out that there was an error on Meg's report and that the zoning for this property was R-1, not R -IA. Chair Duggan also pointed out that for the 10% land dedication, Mr. Johnson chose money instead. Commissioner Friel moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the Council approve the Plat with the two variances for lot frontage on the conditions that Staff review and approve drainage and engineering plans and that Mr. Johnson make the appropriate park contribution in cash. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Duggan instructed Mr. Johnson to return to the Council meeting next Tuesday to discuss this application. 7 CASE NO. 98-27: WINTERS, SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE Chair Duggan said that Dr. Winters of 1648 Dodd Road has proposed the Winterhaven subdivision. Chair Duggan asked Commissioner Friel to lead the discussion on this application. Commissioner Friel asked Dr. Winters to say what he had in mind. Dr. Winters said that he wanted to break his lot into two lots, one larger and one smaller. Dr. Winters said that he was at the Planning Commission to ask for a variance. Dr. Winters said that the two lots would have 43' and 113' of front footage on Dodd Road, respectively. Commissioner Friel said that Dr. Winters had a conundrum, because he could not meet lot width requirements without a setback variance. Commissioner Friel said that he only had one question. Commissioner Friel said that in looking at the plat, the width of the property was even front -to -back. Commissioner Friel said that if the width is 105 feet, the width of the remaining lot had to be 45 feet but that the hypotenuse was only 43'. Commissioner Friel said that he thought that the error was in the hypotenuse. Commissioner Tilsen said that this observation was justified. Mr. Danielson said that the hypotenuse dimension should be 48'. Commissioner Betlej asked if the new lot had no access to Dodd, and would share a driveway. Dr., Winter said yes. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that she had no questions, and that she thought the applicant had demonstrated a hardship. Commissioner Tilsen said that he was confused. Commissioner Tilsen said that if the applicant dedicated 60' right-of-way the City could make it a cul-de-sac and satisfy the 100 foot street frontage requirement. Commissioner Friel said that it would not make the width requirement. Commissioner Tilsen said that he couldn't decide if the applicant had a hardship until he saw the rest of the picture. Chair Duggan asked who currently owned the driveway and who would own the driveway. Chair Duggan said that the City would not want a street anyway. 0 Commissioner Lorberbaum asked what the nearby driveways were like. Dr. Winters said that Nelson and Agassi use a shared driveway. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the driveways were paved or gravel. Dr. Winters said that a gravel driveway stacks 3 on one driveway. Commissioner Friel said that the City recently granted another variance for a similar flag lot in the vicinity of this lot. Chair Duggan asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this application. There was no one in the audience to speak on this application. Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved to grant the variance and plat. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Commissioner Tilsen said that he was not convinced that there was a hardship and that he would like to know more about the history of the area. Commissioner Tilsen said that maybe someday this land could connect to Wentworth and that the City needed more foresight in planning this area. Commissioner Tilsen said that the Winters should talk to their neighbors about what might happen in this area and that the City should look at the broader picture. Chair Duggan asked if this subdivision would exclude further subdivision. Mr. Danielson said no, and that the park dedication would be $750. Commissioner Friel said that Commission Tilsen was right about the subdivision perhaps having an adverse impact on the future of the Superblock, but that the City couldn't do anything about that. Commissioner Tilsen said that he understood Commissioner Friel's point, but that this was the only time to tell the Winters to talk to his neighbors on the Superblock about the future. Commissioner Tilsen said that the planner could be available to facilitate these discussions, and that it would be good to encourage dialog to take place. X Commissioner Friel said that by the time property owners on the Superblock came to any kind of agreement on the future of the Superblock, Dr. Winters would be in his "second retirement." AYES: 5 NAYS: 1(Tilsen) CASE NO 98-28: HEIMERL (CHURCH OF SAINT PETER) SIGN HEIGHT AND SETBACK VARIANCE. Chair Duggan recused himself from discussion of this application and asked Commissioner Lorberbaum to lead discussion on this item. Mr. Neil Black of Saint Peter's Church introduced himself and said that Saint Peters Church was requesting a setback and height variance for a sign for Saint Peters Church Mr. Black said that when Highway 13 was reconstructed, the church lost part of its parking lot. Mr. Black said that he had plans that showed where the sign would be. Mr. Black said that the cross is 3' high, and that if it is considered part of the sign, the sign would need a three foot height variance. Mr. Black said that the sign was triangular so that people could see it from all directions. Mr. Black showed the sign plans on the overhead projector. Cormmissioner Betlej asked what the sign setback variance would be. Mr. Black said that it would be a one foot variance and that the Planner recommended the variance. Commissioner Betlej asked if the location of the telephone pole was a factor. Mr. Black said that it was not a factor, and that the church wanted to put the sign in the center of the island. Mr. Black said that the hardship was the highway reconstruction. Commissioner Tilsen said that he was in favor of granting the variance. Commissioner Friel said that he had no problem with the setback variance, but that he was not in favor of the height variance. Commissioner Friel said that Section 23 of the ordinance is not a basis for an exception. Commissioner Friel said that he found no hardship with the height, but that he did find a hardship with the setback. Commissioner Friel suggested that the two variances be handled in two separate motions. Commissioner Betlej said that if a driver comes south or west on Highway 13 they will not be able to see the sign if it is any shorter because of grading variance. 10 Commissioner Friel said that the church had no basis for the 3 foot variance because the highway reconstruction did not change the topography. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this application. There was no one in the audience to speak on this application. Commissioner Friel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for a recommendation. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council grant the setback variance for the sign. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. Commissioner Kieinglass asked if the sign could be placed elsewhere and eliminate the need for the height variance. Mr. Black said that the sign could be placed in the middle of the island. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Betlej moved to recommend that the Council grant the height variance. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Commissioner Tilsen asked if the cross on top of the sign was considered part of the sign. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that according to Section 3.2(13), the cross is part of the sign. Commissioner Betlej said that according to Section 23(1), 50% should be added to the height limit. Commissioner Betlej said that as an added hardship, traffic is rapid on the highway, and that if the sign is not readily visible, people could be late for weddings and a funeral. Commissioner Betlej said that people were late to his own wedding at Saint Peter's Church. 11 AYES: 3 NAYS: 2 (Tilsen, Friel) Commissioner Lorberbaum told Mr. Black to come back to the Council next Tuesday. Chair Duggan returned to the meeting. Chair Duggan said that the reason he had recused himself is that he was. involved in the design of the sign, and that he had mistakenly left out the base as part of the height calculation. Chair Duggan said that if you go past Snelling Park there is a similar type of sign. CASE NO. 98-29, GRASSEMLOUEI, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Mr. Ghassemlouei said that he wanted a variance for a porch at the back of his house. Mr. Ghassemlouei said that the house is on a narrow lot. Mr. Ghassemlouei said that the house is 4' from the neighbors border line even though the rule is 10'. Mr. Ghassemlouei said that it was impossible to move the porch 10' from the garage. Mr. Ghassemlouei said that his plan was a good plan and that it would give his family more room. Mr. Ghassemlouei added that it would also be good for the County because it would give them more taxes on the house. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that she had visited the site, and that it was a good community of neighbors. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if there would be any shrubs i between the porch and the neighbor. Mr. Ghassemlouei said that there would be shrubs, and in fact that the shrubs are already in place. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the shrubs were close to the porch. Mr. Ghassemlouei said that they were. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that she was under the impression that the neighbors wanted the porch and also wanted the shrubs. Commissioner Betlej said that the current Zoning Ordinance was not written for this neighborhood. Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 12 Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to approve the side yard setback variance for the four - season porch. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion, adding that lots in the neighborhood were generally narrow as the hardship. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 98-30 IIERMAN, SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE Ms. Amy Malchior introduced herself as representing Herman Sign Source, contracted by Mendota Heights Gateway Commons for signage. Ms. Malchior said that Mendota Heights Gateway Commons used to be George's Golf Tee, and that they wanted a sign variance based on location. Ms. Malchior showed the site plan on the overhead projector. Commissioner Duggan asked where Tuthill was in relation to Gateway Commons Commissioner Friel said that it was south and east. Ms. Malchior said that she was trying to direct traffic with the sign. Commissioner Duggan said that the hardship for the variance derived from the extra wide right of way. Commissioner Betlej asked why the application for this sign variance was not submitted originally when the application for the building itself was submitted. Ms. Malchior said that she had no idea. Commissioner Tilsen asked staff if they had looked into any conditions placed upon signage with the original approval of the building. Ms. McMonigal said that she did not think so. Commissioner Tilsen said that Staff should look into the records of the original building approval to see if there are any stipulations about signage. Chair Duggan asked if anyone in the audience was there to speak about this application. There was no-one in the audience to speak about this application. Chair Duggan declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Betlej moved to recommend that the Council approve the sign variance. 13 1 Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked that Staff research any signage conditions for Council. Chair Duggan said that if the Council needed justification for the hardship they need only look at the width of the right-of-way. Commissioner Friel said that the applicant had no control over the width of the right of way. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 98-31, SAINT JOHN, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES Mr. Gary Saint John said that he was applying for side yard setback variance for a driveway and garage. Mr. St. John said that his house is on the corner of Ivy Falls and Dodd Road, and that it faces Ivy Falls. Chair Duggan said that he needed clarification of the location of lot lines along Sylvandale. Chair Duggan said that three seems to be some confusion as to the exact location of lots lines along that street. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Danielson for clarification. Mr. Dainelson said that he did not have all the different versions of line locations in circulation, but that the applicant had hired a surveyor, Paul McCleagan. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Saint John to put Mr. McClegan's survey on the overhead projector. Mr. Saint John said that the survey did not have Mr. McClegan's signature, and that it was only a preliminary drawing. Mr. Saint John said that the survey shows Dodd Road, and the slab where he took down the garage. Mr. Saint John said that he got a demolition permit from the City to remove the garage. Mr. Saint John said that the garage was in bad shape and had 4-6" of water. Chair Duggan asked if drainage was a problem for Mr. Saint John's neighbors, the Smiths. Mr. Saint John said that he did not think that drainage was a problem for the Smiths. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Saint John to continue with his presentation. Mr. Saint John said that he had sent a letter on August 4 with his Variance request. He said that he wanted a 4' side yard setback variance instead of a six foot side yard setback variance at this time. 14 Chair Duggan said that the applicant hasn't staked out where the driveway ends and that the gravel is not a straight line. Mr. Saint John said that the previous garage was actually 1.5 feet over the lot line, and that the new garage will be four feet from the property line. Mr. St. John then showed the drawing with the property line. Commissioner Tilsen asked if the new survey is the same as the ones that have irons. Commissioner Tilsen asked if the old line had the garage encroaching more or less than the new line. Mr. Saint John said that the old line encroached less. Commissioner Tilsen said that the new line was then more conservative. Mr. Saint John said that he was aware that he needed to show a reason for the variance. Mr. Saint John said that if he further reduced the size of the garage the bathroom on the second story would become unusable. Mr. Saint John said that there in an entry way between the new garage and the house. Chair Duggan asked what the size of the new garage was. Mr. Saint John said that the size was 23' wide by 24' deep. Chair Duggan asked if the drawings were to scale. Mr. Saint John said that they were roughly to scale. Chair Duggan asked what the distance was from the corner to the property line. Ms. McMonigal said that the distance was six feet. Mr. Saint John said that he had measured it to be more like seven feet. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Danielson if all houses were required to have garages. Mr. Danielson said that yes they were, and that the garages had to be a minimum of 440 square feet in size. Chair Duggan deduced that Mr. Saint John needed to build a new garage. Commissioner Tilsen said that he would like to know more about the survey history. Commissioner Tilsen said that the Commission should hear from the neighbors. Commissioner Tilsen said that the applicant may have 4-5' less to work with. 15 Ms. Saint John showed pictures of the house on the overhead projector. Mr. Saint John said that the old slab leaked and it was not to code, and that he wanted to' replace the slab. Mr. Saint John said that he submitted his building plans in May and that he would not be encroaching on the Smith's property any more. Mr. Saint John said that his lot only allowed a 2' garage. Mr. Saint John said that a four foot setback is grater than a three foot standard garage. Mr. Saint John said that the Stairway was -pivotal; -and that the stairway would be considered a walk -out basement. Mr. Saint John said that he had chosen the only good place for a stairway. Commissioner Duggan asked how old the house was. Mr. Saint John said that the house was built in 1901, but that he had only lived there since 1990. MR. Saint John said that there was a garage on the entire slab. Mr. Saint John placed a drawing on the overhead showing the lot lines along the entire street. Mr. Saint John said that most of his neighbors had lot line problems. Chair Duggan opened the public hearing on this application. Ms. Saint John submitted at letter from a neighbor across the street saying that they are not opposed to the five foot variance for the garage. Chair Duggan invited Mr. and Ms. Smith to come forward to speak. Ms. Smith said that she and her husband are the Saint Johns' next door neighbors. Ms. Smith said that Mr. Saint John's property had construction debris lying around and that Mr. Saint John was operating an illegal business from his house. Ms. Smith said that she and her husband had tried to talk to the Saint John's, and that they did not want to talk to the Smiths. Ms. Smith put a picture of Mr. Saint John's van on the overhead projector. Ms. Smith said that she had called City Hall to find out if the van was legal, and that the City had sent a letter to Mr. Saint John saying that it was illegal. Chair Duggan said that these issues do not relate to the issue of the variances for the garage and driveway. Mr. Smith said that the illegal business on the property has gone on for six or seven years. MS. Smith said that the Saint Johns have lost all credibility with the Smiths. Ms. Smith said that Mr. Saint John told her that after he got the letter from the City saying that the truck was illegal, that he and his attorney were going to try to have the law changed. Ms. 16 Smith also said that Mr. Saint John told her that he now has a place to keep the truck on Smith and Dodd Road. Chair Duggan asked Ms. Smith if she had any comments relating to the garage. Ms. Smith asked if the lot line has been determined. Chair Duggan said that the Planning Commission was attempting to determine the location of the property line and garage in the current discussion. Ms. Smith said that she had received a letter from the City suggesting that she call the County Surveyor about her property line, but that she can't get a hold of the County Surveyor. Mr. Danielson said that in order to establish the property line you need a surveyor. Chair Duggan suggested that this issue be tabled to next month to give people time to establish their property lines. Commissioner Friel suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that the Council grant a 4' or 6' variance from the boundary line as determined. Ms. Smith asked how she and her husband can know where the property line is. Ms. Smith said that she's lived in the house for 24 years. Ms. Smith said that Mr. Saint John plans a room on top of the garage. Chair Duggan said that he needed the size and dimensions of the room. Mr. Danielson said that the new garage will be attached to part of the house. Ms. Smith said that the new addition means that the Smiths will have no privacy. Chair Duggan said that Mr. Saint John was entitled to a garage, and that the Planning Commission did not have the final say in any event. Mr. Smith said that they survey that Mr. Saint John has matches Dakota County .Area Maps. Mr. Smith said that he wouldn't care about the garage if it was only for residential use, but that he wanted to see it in writing that it would only be for residential use. Chair Duggan said that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation based on the survey line. Mr. Danielson said that the City needed a survey before issuing the building permit, and that Smith's survey was up to them. 17 Chair Duggan said that the Saint John's were planning living space. Commissioner Tilsen said that the Saint Johns would need no variance to the old lot line, only a variance for the new survey line. Ms. Smith asked how soon they could know what the new boundary line is. Chair Duggan said that it would be known as soon as Mr. Saint John completes his survey. Commissioner Tilsen said that resolving this issue should be easy, because there is an extra 5 feet between the Saint Johns and the Smiths. Commissioner Tilsen said that this is much better than the usual problem, which is having 5 or 6 feet less between the two neighbors. Commissioner Tilsen said that one neighbor could just give the five or six feet to the other neighbor. Mr. Smith said that the problem is that Mr. Saint John is not using his property merely for residential purposes. Chair Duggan said that Mr. Saint John's illegal business was not the issue this evening, and that the evening should not be consumed in a discussion of trucks. Mr. Smith said that he planned to give a copy of all correspondence on this issue to the City Council. Chair Duggan asked of the soffet overhang was included in setback calculations. Mr. Danielson said that soffets are allowed to encroach on setbacks up to a certain width. Chair Duggan asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak about Saint John's application. Mr. Doug Anasik of 610 Ivy Falls said that the Saint Johns were innocent victims of a faulty survey. Mr. Anasik said that they were nice people and they were trying to be reasonable. Mr. Anasik said that the proposed new garage would serve as an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Bill Novotny asked why everyone was assuming that the old survey was bad and that the new survey was good. Mr. Novotny said that he got a similar letter to the Smiths. Chair Duggan asked if Mr. Novotny got a letter saying that his lot line is different. Mr. Novotny said that the new garage is closer to Mr. Saint John's house, so the City should just let him get it done. Ms. Maryann Novotny said that it was nice to have children on the block again, and that she wanted to support the Saint John's fixing up the house. Mr. Bobb of 2023 Dodd Road said that both the Smiths and the Saint Johns had been excellent neighbors. Mr. Bobb said that in light of this evening's discussions he would have to investigate his own lot lines. Mr. Bobb said that the old garage needed to come down. Mr. Bobb said that the cube van did not seem like an eyesore, and that he did not see Mr. Saint John running a business. Mr. Bobb said that the new garage would be an asset. Ms. Smith said that the reason she and her husband were the only ones complaining about the business is because they're the only ones who live next door to the Saint Johns. Ms. Smith said that she and her husband have lived there for 24 years. Ms. Smith said that she and her husband sound like the only protesters due to the lay of the land. Ms. Smith said that after a business enters a neighborhood the whole neighborhood goes down. Ms. Smith said that this is exactly what has happened in Mendota, where people have too many vehicles on their property. Chair Duggan said that the Smith's would have to go to Council with their other issues. Chair Duggan said that the Planning Commission could not do anything about the - boundary line confusion, but at least the Saint John's will have a nice new garage where 1 they can store their excess equipment. Ms. Smith said that if the Saint Johns are allowed to put a room on top of the garage, the Smith's will have no privacy. Chair Duggan moved to close the public hearing on this issue. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Tilsen said that he looked at the plans, and that it would be a nice addition to an older home. Commissioner Tilsen said that he understood the concern about privacy. Commissioner Tilsen said that the recommendation should ask for additional screening for privacy for Smiths' home. Commissioner Tilsen said that the Commission should assume that the new survey is the correct survey, and that the new survey was actually more conservative than the old survey. Commissioner Tilsen said that as for why the new survey is better than the old, surveying is not an exact science. Chair Duggan asked if there would be any windows on Smith's side. 19 Mr. Saint John said that there would be one window upstairs and one window downstairs. Mr. Saint John said that he would have to walk to the window to see the house, and that he planned to plant arborvitae. Chair Duggan said that Mr. Saint John needs to be careful because Arborvitae can spread. Mr. Saint John said that the Smiths will have privacy because he wont be turning it towards the back yard. Commissioner Tilsen said that the windows in front of the garage will be looking at the back yard. Commissioner Duggan suggested that the Smith's and the Saint Johns meet over coffee to discuss their issues and resolve them. Mr. Saint John said that the truck is gone. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council grant a side yard setback variance no greater than 4' feet from the established lot line as requested on the condition that the Saint Johns obtain an official survey. Commissioner Betlej asked what would happen if the lot line were to move west six feet. Commissioner Tilsen said that the approval can refer to the drawing the Planning Commission as before them. Commissioner Meinglass asked if the titles for these properties will need to be reregistered with Dakota County. Mr. Danielson said no, that the legal descriptions will remain the same. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if Mr. Friel's motion applied to both the garage and family room. Commissioner Friel said that yes it did. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that she wished to add a friendly amendment to Commissioner Friel's motion that the Saint Johns add screening of the garage to provide some privacy to the Smiths. Commissioner Tilsen said that there is a hardship in the fact that the lot line has moved. Commissioner Tilsen added that the improvement is the removal of an encroachment. Commissioner Duggan added that the City requires that Saint Johns have a garage of at least 440 square feet. ME AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Mr. Saint John said that Mr. McClagen had not yet completed the survey. Mr. Saint John asked what if the new survey is different. Chair Duggan said to come back next week and talk to the Council. Chair Duggan declared a five minute recess. CASE NO. 98-32, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, B-1 ZONING DISTRICT Chair Duggan asked Mr. Hollister for a. summary of this issue. Mr. Hollister said that during recent considerations of land use issues, the City Council has discussed the appropriateness of hotels as a land use in the City's B-1, Limited Business District. Mr. Hollister said that Motels and hotels where the site is contiguous to a federal or state highway is listed as a conditional use in the B-1 District. Mr. Hollister continued that the Council has expressed a desire to locate this type of land use in the Industrial area of the City, as opposed to the office parks, which are located at Centre Pointe and in the area along Mendota Heights Road between Dodd Road and I -35E that is guided LB -PUD. Mr. Hollister said that the Council ordered a public hearing on amending the B-1 zoning description at their July 21, 1998 meeting for the August 25, 1998 meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Hollister said that the City has long envisioned an office park at Centre Pointe and has zoned it accordingly, despite skepticism over the years from some in the development community that an office park would ever be viable. Mr. Hollister added that Roseville Properties has now built three pure office buildings at Centre Pointe over the past two and a half years and has just received building permit approval for a fourth. Mr. Hollister said that this recent development activity has validated the City's vision for Centre Pointe as an office park. Mr. Hollister concluded that removing motels and hotels as a conditional use in the B-1 zone still leaves many permitted and conditional land use options within the B-1 zone, and thus could not be considered either a taking or a downzoning of B-1 properties. Commissioner Friel said that the Planning Commission's job was to make a determination as to whether or not the removal of hotels and motels from the B-1 zone was a good idea. Commissioner Friel said that after reviewing the maps of B-1 areas in Mendota Heights 21 provided by Staff, he was convinced that it did not make sense to have motels and hotels in those zones. Commissioner Duggan said that the Planning Commission has not had much time to consider this question. Commissioner Duggan said that the current hotels in Mendota Heights, the Courtyard and the Heritage Inn, are both in the Industrial district. Commissioner Tilsen said that there was another hotel that burned down, but that one is not in Mendota Heights. Commissioner Tilsen said that upon review of the B-1 zoned areas he agreed with Commissioner Friel. Commissioner Tilsen said that the five B-1 areas in the City were inappropriate for Motel and Hotel use. Commissioner Tilsen said that at the time that the Planning Commission reviewed Mr. Votel's application for a Best Western at Centre Pointe, the Planning Commission felt that the use was appropriate given the Ordinance as it existed. Commissioner Tilsen said that now that the Planning Commission was examining the question of removing motels and hotels from the B-1 zone, it is now apparent that these uses are less appropriate in the B-1 zone than in the industrial area. Commissioner Lorberbaum said she agreed with Commissioner Tilsen that the previous finding of the Planning Commission in favor of the Best Western was based on the ordinance as it existed. Commissioner Friel said that hotels and motels were still allowed in the B-3, B-4, and I-1 districts, but would be inconsistent with the health, safety and welfare of the community when placed near residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Duggan said that the Zoning Ordinance defines Conditional Uses as special uses because of unique characteristics, and that the Council may approve these uses under certain conditions, but that the Council still has the final discretionary authority. Commissioner Duggan said that the Council shall take into consideration the effect of the proposed use, and that they are the elected body representing the City's interests. Commissioner Duggan said that no two site are alike, and that thus there are no real precedents in land use decisions. Commissioner Duggan said that Mendota Heights is an evolving City, and that the City reserves the right to change its zoning ordinance. Commissioner Duggan said that the City did not anticipate the development proposal for a hotel at Centre Pointe. Mr. Jim Resop introduced himself as the representative of the owner of the triangular corner piece on the northeast corner of Highway 494 and Highway 35E. Mr. Resop said that his client had a purchase agreement for a hotel on that parcel. Commissioner Friel said that this parcel was not zoned B-1, but rather B -IA. Mr. Danielson said that the parcel was guided LB -PUD in the Comprehensive Plan, which is equivalent to the B-1 zoning designation in permitted and conditional uses. 22 Chair Duggan said that he thought a PUD required 10 acres. Commissioner Friel said that removing hotels and motels from the B-1 zone would have an impact on Mr. Resop's client's parcel, because before the ordinance change a hotel would only require a rezoning and a conditional use permit, and after the change a hotel would require a rezoning, a conditional use permit and a Comprehensive Plan redesignation. Commissioner Duggan said that he thought a PUD required a minimum of 6000 square feet. Commissioner Tilsen said that he agreed with Mr. Friel that this proposed ordinance change would have an effect upon Mr. Resop's clients parcel because LB -PUD is equivalent to B-1. Commissioner Friel said that in either case a hotel would require a rezoning. Commissioner Tilsen said that the Planning Commission has to consider the fact that this ordinance change would impose the additional hurdle of a comprehensive plan change on this parcel for a hotel. Commissioner Friel said that any land in the Comprehensive Plan guided to be LB -PUD would be similarly impacted. Commissioner Friel asked Mr. Danielson what other parcels on the Comprehensive Plan map were guided LB -PUD. Mr. Danielson said that the only parcels so designated were the Bizanz Parcel, the Tousignant Parcel, the Visitation Parcel, and Patterson Dental. Mr. Resop said that affected land owners have not had sufficient notice of this proposed zoning change. Mr. Danielson said that the public hearing on this matter was published in the City's designated newspaper, which is all the notification required by the City's ordinance. Mr. Resop said that he had to scramble to prepare for tonight's meeting and that this proposed ordinance amendment was too important to rush through it. Commissioner Tilsen said that he wasn't sure if the parcel on the corner of 494 and Highway 35E had highway frontage. Mr. Resop said that this parcel is a unique piece of property with high visibility, poor access, and on a flight path. MR. Resop added that the property had no neighbors other than Saint Thomas Academy and Patterson Dental. 23 - Chair Duggan said that the City had recently turned down an application for a hotel/motel at the corner of Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road. Commissioner Betlej said that what Chair Duggan was thinking of was actually a concept plan for a gas station and that they had never applied, so.they were not "turned down." Commissioner Friel said that the Council may have to give notice to both the B-1 parcel owners and the LB -PUD parcel owners because the -proposed ordinance change would affect them both. Planner McMonigal said that LB -PUD is a Comprehensive Plan designation, not a zoning designation. Commissioner Friel said that LB -PUD was both a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation and that both parties would be concerns. Chair Duggan said that Mr. Resop would need to express his concerns to the Council. Mr. Danielson said that the Ordinance only provides for published notice, not letters of notification. Chair Duggan asked if Mr. Resop had any other comments to make. Mr. Resop said that this proposed zoning change creates a conundrum and justifies another study. Chair Duggan asked if Mr. Resop had ruled out all other options for use of that land. Mr. Resop said that his client wanted to do something nice. Mr. Resop said that a nice hotel would be good and attractively done. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Resop if his client had drawn up a preliminary development plan. Mr. Resop said that he and his client have done feasibility studies for a hotel and have made plans for a hotel. Commissioner Friel moved to table the issue to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. Mr. Henry Votel said he wished to speak. Chair Duggan said that Mr. Votel could not speak with a motion on the floor. 24 Commissioner Friel said that he withdrew his motion. Mr. Votel said that he was with Sampson Properties and that in his proposal for a Best Western Hotel he had met all of the City's criteria, and that the only special requirement listed in the City's ordinance was that the sate had to be contiguous to a state or federal highway. Mr. Votel said that after Planning Commission approval, his application went to the June 2 meeting of the City Council, at which point it was denied, even though it met all of the Planning Commission's concerns. Mr. Votel said that Sampson Properties is currently involved in litigation to have the City's denial of his planning application overturned. Mr. Votel said that the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to remove motels and hotels and a conditional use of the B-1 zone is a reaction to his hotel proposal. Mr. Votel said that his investment in the property and planning was under the old ordinance. Mr. Votel said that the other B-1 sites in the City would mostly not be appropriate for hotels and motels anyway. MR. Votel said that the I zone is a bad place for hotels, and that Hotels and Motels were good businesses. MR. Votel said that business customers in business parks like having a hotel in their park, and that this site would be excellent. R. Votel said that he want to be treated as everyone else has been treated. Mr. Votel said that most Councils understand the concept of "spot zoning", and that this zoning amendment would be spot zoning in reverse. Mr. Votel said that the removal of motels and hotels from the B-1 zone would be a punitive action targeted at him with no compensation. Mr. Votel said that the timing with this amendment so soon after his application is denied is too close not to be suspect. Mr. Votel said that the Planning Commission should ask Staff to provide a map with all undeveloped parcels impacted by this proposed amendment,. and that all affected property owners should get more advanced notice. Mr. Votel said that any land that can be developed as a motel or hotel is considered to be of a higher value than other land. Mr. Votel said that this is a special issue and should have received special notice. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Votel how he found out about the public hearing. Mr. Votel said that he read the notice in the paper because he is involved in litigation with the City. Commissioner Friel made a motion to table this issue to the September Planning Commission meeting. Chair Duggan seconded the motion AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 25 Mr. Danielson reviewed the status of previous planning applications. Chair Duggan said that Staff should require applicants to get better drawings. Commissioner Friel said that even if Mr. Votel is right that this proposed Ordinance amendment is in response to his application, it is still a legislative act which the City is well within rights to perform. Chair Duggan said that if the City doesn't want Motels and Hotels in the B-1 zone, the language should be removed from the B-1 zoning description. Mr. Dainelson told the Commissioner that the Council would prefer that in the future the Planning Commission not make "dual recommendations", such as in Horner's recent application for a garage. Commissioner Betlej said that that recommendation was not so much a dual recommendation as a recommendation for a "range". Mr. Danielson said that Mr. Horner and the Council ultimately chose the option closer to the street, and that the Council refunded Mr. Horner's $350. Mr. Danielson said that the Council also tabled Mr. Wolff to request elevations and a better site plan. Motion made to adjourn by Lorberbaum and seconded by Duggan. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjourned at 11:03 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Patrick C Hollister we