Loading...
1991-11-26 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1991 DRAFT The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 26, 1991, in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 o'clock P.M. The following Commission members were present: Koll, Dreelan, Friel, Dwyer, Tilsen and Krebsbach. Commissioner Duggan was excused. Also present were Public Works Director James Danielson, Planning Consultant John Uban, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Friel moved approval of the October 22, 1991, Minutes. Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: TILSEN AND ROLL ZONING ADMINISTRATION AND POLICIES AdMinistrative Assistant Batchelder explained that the City staff follows a written set of procedural -requirements for the administration and processing of planning applications. He explained that with the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, there are changes in variance procedures, public hearings and the elimination of Minor Conditional Use Pekmits. He 65<plained that for these reasons, the Procedural .Requitements for Planning Applications needs to be revised. Administrative Assistant Batchelder further stated that staff sought Council approval on the revisions and that the City Council desired Planning ,.,Commission input before their adoption., Final Platting. Administrative 'Assistant Batchelder explained that the Procedural Requirements for Planning Applications also addresses subdiVision requirements. He explained that - the policy staff has followed regarding final platting - 'has been to process the final plats through the City .engineering 'staff and then to the City Council. He stated that the Subdivision Ordinance states otherwise. He explained that according to the Subdivision Ordinance, final plats are to be received and reviewed by the November 26, 1991 Page 2 Planning Commission. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated that it is staff's opinion that the procedure on final platting remain the way it has been with only Engineering Department and City Council review of final plats. He stated that the engineering staff reviews the final plat for conformance with Planning Commission recommendations and City Council conditions to determine if there have been any significant changes made from the preliminary plat approval. He stated that once that conformance has been determined, the final plats are then sent to the Council for approval. Public Works Director Danielson stated that he is not aware of any problems relating to the final platting procedure. He stated that time constraints are significant in that final platting needs to be approved by both the City and County and sometimes the State. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the preliminary plat stage and the changes that occur prior to final platting. Commissioner Tilsen stated that a lot of Cities do send final plats back to their Planning Commission for their review. He further stated that he would not have a problem with reviewing final plats. Commissioner Friel stated that a City policy should be consistent with City Ordinance language. He further pointed out that the language within the Subdivision Ordinance states that the Planning Commission Chair is to sign off on final plats. Commissioner Friel stated he agrees with the preliminary plat procedure with the Planning Commission reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council. He questioned what would happen if a final plat was materially different than the preliminary plat. Planner Uban stated that that plat would then have to go back to the preliminary plat phase and have those changes reviewed. Commissioner Dreelan pointed out that the City Council reviews preliminary plats and sometimes makes changes. She stated that the Planning Commission never sees those changes. Commissioner Friel stated the Planning Commission is considered an advisory board and that the \ planning commission makes recommendations to the Council. ) November 26, 1991 Page 3 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council amend the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 3.2(1) to reflect that final plats not be submitted to the Planning Commission for review except when material changes have occurred after preliminary plat approval. Chair Dwyer added a friendly amendment stating that the City Council should consider amending the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 4.2(3)d to not require Planning Commission Chair signature on the final plat. Commissioner Friel added a friendly amendment that the City Council reaffirm the "Procedural Requirements for Planning Applications". Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Housekeeping Variances Administrative Assistant Batchelder explained the new side yard setback requirement for the R-1 Zoning District, based on height, might make many existing single family homes legal non-conforming structures. Administrative Assistant Batchelder cited clauses from the newly adopted Zoning Ordinance. He explained that the current policy dictates that, as legal, non- conforming structures, they would need side yard variances to make them conforming structures prior to any issuance of building permits for additions, enlargements and certain structural improvements. Administrative Assistant Batchelder explained that past practice has been to process legal, non-conforming structures as "housekeeping variances" before a building permit is issued. He cited several examples of recent planning cases. Commissioner Tilsen stated that in certain areas of the City, property lot lines are inaccurate, for instance Hunter Lane. He stated that the policy of processing housekeeping variances may be the only way to control certain situations where there are problems with property lines. Commissioner Friel stated that the existing ordinance permits flexibility in reviewing variances. He stated if the ordinance changes, staff will be a little less able to exercise discretion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 November 26, 1991 Page 4 Commissioner Krebsbach stated her concern for changing the character of the community if housekeeping variances are no longer reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Planner Uban gave a brief explanation regarding housekeeping variances. He stated that staff should have a clear understanding of the extent of the problem and that they should look into what is being affected when a variance of this nature is brought up for review. He stated that it is important to protect the neighbors when an addition is proposed but that it is also important to upgrade homes. Administrative Assistant Batchelder pointed out that staff can accommodate the processing of housekeeping variances. He stated that under the new Zoning Ordinance there may or may not at this time be many houses with non-conforming setbacks, it is unknown as to how many homes will have this status and how many variance cases could result. Commissioner Krebsbach moved to recommend that the City Council retain the old procedures for "housekeeping variances". Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Mining/Grading Commissioner Friel briefly outlined his letter he sent to Public Works Director Danielson regarding mining/grading/land reclamation. He stated that he wants the City to enforce the Ordinance on land reclamation. He stated that he feels that Mary Anderson Homes should have sought a Conditional Use Permit for mining to undertake the grading that occurred for Bridgeview Shores Third Addition. He questioned the definition of mining within the ordinance and what "an approved development plan" consists of. Administrative Assistant Batchelder explained that Bridgeview Shores Third Addition is an approved development plan by the City Council. He stated that Mary Anderson Homes is clearly grading in connection with an approved development plan. He explained that Bridgeview Shores is an approved subdivision project in which there is a developer's agreement signed by the City and the developer. 1 November 26, 1991 Page 5 Public Works Director Danielson explained that if there was no developers agreement, then the City would enforce the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for land reclamation. Commissioner Friel stated that if there is no conditional use permit issued, the City has no control over how much impact on the land occurs during development. He stated that tree preservation is also a major concern. Commissioner Krebsbach stated her concerns regarding land reclamation during residential construction. Planner Uban briefly outlined the Tree Preservation Ordinance adopted by the City of Eden Prairie which was submitted to the Planning Commission for their review. He briefly explained the formulas used to calculate the amount of trees which would be removed during development and then the replacement values. He stated that during the development process, inspectors can keep a close watch on the amount of trees removed. Commissioner Friel suggested that the language within the definition section regarding mining be changed in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Tilsen and Planner Uban pointed out that it is during the grading plan review where all of the issues regarding mining are reviewed. They stated that it is at that time that changes are made and that the developer is made aware of those changes and then a developers' agreement formalizes those requirements. Commissioner Krebsbach stated she agrees with Commissioner Friel that the City should have a better "hold" on developers with respect to the removal of land. She stated she would like the City to better enforce mining and land reclamation both in single family development and commercial development. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council delete "except grading and/or excavation in connection with an approved development or building plan" from the definition section on mining with the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the motion. AYES: 2 NAYS: 4, DWYER, TILSEN, DREELAN, KOLL MOTION FAILS 1 November 26, 1991 Page 6 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved to table the discussion regarding mining and tree preservation until the next Planning Commission meeting so staff could pursue further research on tree preservation ordinances and residential and commercial land reclamation. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Chair Dwyer called a recess at 9:45 o'clock P.M. Chair Dwyer reconvened the meeting at 9:51 o'clock P.M. BOUNDARY DISPUTE Commissioner Friel briefly discussed his letter submitted to Public Works Director Danielson regarding a boundary dispute. He explained that his concern is with the Bridgeview Shores Third Addition and his property which abut. He stated that he understands that boundary line disputes are private matters between abutting property owners. He further stated that he is concerned over the issuance of building permits that may be affected by the outcome of the property line dispute. Public Works Director Danielson stated that Commissioner Friel's concerns are valid and that the City will review any site plans for setbacks from the affected lot lines in Bridgeview Shores Third Addition according to the property line viewpoints of both the disputing parties. CLARIFICATION OF DISCUSSION REGARDING NORTHEAST CORNER MARIE AND DODD Administrative Assistant Batchelder explained that the City Council is looking for clarification regarding the recommendation from the Planning Commission to purchase the northeast corner of Marie and Dodd. Chair Dwyer explained that this particular issue centered around the discussion regarding the Knaeble Subdivision request and the Super Block area. Commissioner Krebsbach stated that she would like to see the corner stay wooded and well preserved. Chair Dwyer stated that there is also a wetlands area which should be preserved. ) November 26, 1991 Page 7 SUBDIVISION - PARK DEDICATION FEE Administrative Assistant Batchelder explained that the Parks and Recreation Commission, during their review of the Park Ordinance, directed staff to research and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the possibility of raising the park dedication fee of $600 per lot. He explained that the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities publishes a Municipal License and Permit Survey that lists the park dedication fees charged by the metro area cities. He explained that that list has been submitted for the Commission's review. He explained that the City of Mendota Heights has not raised the park dedication fee since 1980. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he would like to see the park dedication fee also raised for commercial developers. There was a brief discussion regarding why the Parks and Recreation Commission directed staff to research the possibility of increasing park dedication fees. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he does not want to see the park dedication fee increased just for single family subdivisions, he stated that the dedication fee should also be increased for commercial/industrial developers. He stated that he does not want to see the increase of park dedication fees burdened upon the single family developers of subdivisions. Administrative Assistant Batchelder pointed out that there is not a lot of open space for single family development left in the City. He stated that City's Industrial district is widely respected amongst developers. He stated that raising the dedication fee in the commercial area could impact economic development. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council increase the park dedication fee from $600 to $1,000 and that the City Council should consider increasing the park dedication fees for the commercial/industrial district developers. Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 November 26, 1991 Page 8 CONSIDERATION OF DECEMBER MEETING Administrative Batchelder explained that the December Planning Commission meeting falls on a Christmas Eve. He also informed them that there were currently no pressing planning cases to be reviewed by the Commission. He stated that if a pressing issue were to come up for review, a special meeting could be organized. Commissioner Tilsen moved to cancel the December 24, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary