Loading...
2009-01-27 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning CoinnliSSiOn Minutes January 27, 2009 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 27, 2009 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lally, Commissioners McManus, Norton, Povolny, Viksnins, and Hennes. Commissioner Field was excused. Those present were Public Works Director John Mazzitello, Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, and Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Rebecca Shaffer. Approval of November 25, 2008 Minutes Commissioner McManus moved, seconded by Commissioner Viksnins, to approve the minutes of November 25, 2008 as presented. AYES: 5 NAYES: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Commissioner Povolny) Hearings PLANNING CASE 909 -01 Lincoln Danforth, Yardscapes Inc. for Tracy Crocker Wetlands Permit to Install Fence Planner Steve Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 665 Hidden Creek Trail, which is single family home, zoned R -1 and guided for low density residential. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is requesting approval of a wetlands permit that would accommodate the construction of a fence within the wetland buffer in side portion of the property. Mr. Grittinan explained the layout of the home and the proposed landscaping to be done, and noted that part of the proposed fence would run approximately 50 feet from the wetland, which is within the required 70 foot setback to the wetland. Mr. Grittman said there is also a conservation easement around the wetland as well. Mr. Grittman noted that a special condition was approved when the Hidden Creek Estates plat was approved, allowing the wetland buffer to be reduced from 100 feet to 70 feet. The proposed fence, which is proposed to be black wrought iron style, is located within the buffer area and is not necessary to be in the buffer area to enclose the swimming pool. Mr. Grittrnan said it is possible to place the fence without extending it into the wetland buffer zone. Mr. Grittman said Staff feels there would be no negative impact should the fence be installed in this area, and is consistent with the ordinance. Commissioner McManus asked if the applicant is requesting to intrude on the wetland with a manicured lawn or native grasses. Mr. Grittman said it would be a manicured lawn. Commissioner McManus asked if anything like this has been approved in the past. Mr. Grittman said the city has, with the primary concern being that there be a filter strip between the active area and the wetland, approved such requests, even those with manicured lawns. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2009 Commissioner McManus asked if the fence would totally enclose the back yard. Mr. Grittman said not the entire back yard. Commissioner Povolny asked what the distance is between the fence and the wetland. Mr. Grittman said the total setback would be about 40 feet from the fence to the edge of the wetland. Mr. Grittman explained how a conservation easement was placed 30' around the wetland area, and its relationship to the buffer area which is at 70'. Chair Lally asked if there are any alternative placements for the fence. Mr. Grittman explained how the fence would avoid encroachment if it is angled. Commissioner Viksnins asked if there are any issues presented by the pool and the patio area. Mr. Grittman said there are no issues with these areas. Commissioner Hennes asked how much space would be between the pool and the fence should the fence be angled. Mr. Grittman said he would say it would be about 10 feet. Commissioner Hennes asked about the topography of this area. Mr. Grittman said there was a modest slope toward the wetland. Lincoln Danforth, Yardscapes Inc. spoke on behalf of the property owner, Tracy Crocker. Mr. Danforth explained which areas will be left wooded and natural, and the drainage creek that will be constructed to catch run off. Some of the natural vegetation includes some buckthorn. Commissioner McManus asked how much space would be between the pool and the fence should the fence be angled. Mr. Danforth said the lawn area is to be used for the property owner's children and pets, and that this fencing would contain them. The distance between the pool and the fence would be about 10 feet. Commissioner McManus asked if this would constitute a hardship for the property owner. Mr. Danforth said it is more for the aesthetics, and with the vast size of the property which is mostly natural, this is the only sliver of lawn that could be used for the play area. Commissioner McManus asked if the fence was totally attached to the house to allow freedom of movement for the children and pets. Mr. Danforth explained how the fence would enclose the back of the home. Commissioner Povolny asked for the distances between the pool and other areas of the lawn. Mr. Danforth provided that information. Commissioner Viksnins asked for more information on the area where the buckthorn is located. Mr. Danforth said this area has been left undisturbed. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the enclosed area around the pool has been sodded /seeded. Mr. Danforth said there is just topsoil now. Commissioner Viksnins asked if there could be room for a play area to the right of the pool. Mr. Danforth said that area will be patio. Commissioner McManus asked for clarification of where the Swale is located. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Bonnie Berg, 645 Hidden Creek Trail, spoke on behalf of the Hidden Creek Homeowners Association. Ms. Berg said the prerequisite for landscaping plans in this neighborhood is subject to architectural review and approval before doing any work. Ms. Berg said that the Crockers have submitted their plan to the Homeowners Association Architectural Review Committee (Board of Directors), which was accepted except for the fencing into the wetland. Under the homeowners covenants, which the Planning Commission at the time of development, was very involved Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2009 in the writing of the covenants to make sure they are adhered to. The covenants are very clear about the protection of the natural part of the property. This particular wetland is a large marsh and is smaller this year because of the drought, but it can swell with heavy rains. Ms. Berg said Yardscapes has done a beautiful job and informed the property owner of this restricted area on his property and asked him to honor this covenant. Commissioner Hennes asked about the legal requirements of the city. Mr. Grittman said the city's requirements are irrespective of what the homeowners association may require and the city cannot require the homeowner to go before the homeowner association before or after the wetland permit issuance. Homeowner association issues are separate from the city's dealings. Commissioner Hennes asked if these covenants are legally binding on the city. Mr. Grittman said it was not, as it is not the city's responsibility to enforce covenants, however it is the city's responsibility that nothing goes into the conservation easement. Wetland permits can be issued for property outside this easement, yet inside the buffer zone. Chair Lally said there have been similar applications on Foxwood Lane and on Delaware Avenue. These properties were also restricted by private covenants. Ms. Berg said she was one of the first residents in this neighborhood and said that it was the requirement of the city to have the covenants in place and the specific wording for the natural parts of the property. Property owners in this neighborhood are legally bound to follow these covenants. Ms. Berg said while the homeowners association is being told that the city put these covenants in place, and that these covenants are legally binding to be followed. Ms. Berg said she is not asking the city to enforce the covenants, but that she is bringing the city information. Commissioner Viksnins said it would seem to him that the legal issues between the homeowner and the homeowner association are private issues and that the city could take these issues into account for what it is worth. Chair Lally asked how often the association meets. Ms. Berg said the Board of Directors has been meeting a lot recently with the recent construction, but otherwise they have an annual meeting only. The Review Board will meet with necessary. Chair Lally suggested that the homeowner go to the association board first and then come back to the city next month. Ms. Berg said there have been several plans for this property, and none of the previous ones had the fencing on it; it was the request of the board to put a fence on the plan, but to not place it on the wetland. Chair Lally said there was another property at 614 Hidden Creek Trail that has a lot of its property on the wetland. Ms. Berg said that was done during the developer's control, and the developer was not following the guidelines at that time. Ms. Berg said this was a very large wetland and behaves very differently. The reason many people purchase properties in this neighborhood where because of the covenants that were in place, and that there was protection from the wetland, and that it is mandated by the city that these wetlands be respected. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek said staff has looked at the file for this property and verified that the city did not require covenants, but that it only required easements over the wetland areas. Chair Lally said he recollects that the city suggested to the developer at that time, that placing covenants would be a good tool to have. Commissioner Viksnins asked Ms. Berg for clarification that the homeowners association would prefer that the fence be angled. Ms. Berg said that would be satisfactory. Commissioner Povolny asked if the 15 feet into the wetland buffer really mattered that much as the homeowner is not tearing up the scape of the natural property. Ms. Berg said she does not believe that they have gone past that setback line during construction. Mr. Danforth said there is currently silt fencing in place and indicated on the map where this fencing is located. Mr. Danforth said the area beyond the silt fence is all natural and undisturbed. Commissioner Povolny asked if the angled fencing would be a make or break deal for the homeowners. Mr. Danforth said it would not, but the aesthetics would not be as nice. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2009 Commissioner Povolny asked about the water levels. Mr. Danforth said the silt fence was put in by the builder and it is not know how high the water mark is. Mr. Grittman said the high water mark is actually closer to where the conservation easement line is, which is about 40 feet toward the wetland from where the silt fence line is. Commissioner McManus asked for clarification of the staking done by the landscaper. Commissioner McManus asked if the homeowner would be open to having natural plantings inside the fence if the fencing is placed across the wetland. Mr. Danforth said there would be no reason to fence it in. The fencing is to make the property more user friendly, and the fencing is really there to protect the children and pets. Chair Lally said this is an important project as it is the last of the large developed areas in the city, and respects the process that the homeowners association has. Chair Lally said he does not believe that the city's process trumps the homeowners association, and the homeowner may want to have additional discussions with the association. Mr. Danforth said the work will mostly likely not be done until May. Commissioner McManus noted that the homeowner was not present at this meeting to engage in the discussions. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hennes asked if this case could be laid over for another month to encourage the homeowner to have further dialogue with the homeowners association. Mr. Sedlacek said they would be fine under the 60 day time frame. Commissioner McManus moved, seconded by Commissioner Hennes, to close the public hearing. AYES 6 NAYES 0 Commissioner McManus moved, seconded by Commissioner Viksnins, to table this application to the February Planning Commissioner meeting. Further Discussion Commissioner McManus said the city should try hard to encourage citizens to work together in their neighborhoods to meet mutually acceptable goals, and encourages the homeowner to discuss this with the homeowners association. AYES 6 NAYES 0 PLANNING CASE #09 -02 Paul and Megan Plum 1933 Dodd Road Variance to the Front Yard Setback Planner Steve Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 1933 Dodd Road, which is a single family parcel, zoned R -1 Single Family and occupied by a single family home. The applicants are seeking approval of an addition to the front of the existing structure. The setback of the building is actually in excess of the city's normal 30 -ft. requirement, but the string rule comes into play. The applicants are seeking to construct a mudroom / front entrance to the home as well as an open front porch that would extend over the front entrance portion of the construction of the home. The applicants need a variance to the string rule, which is a rule that requires that a building cannot extend forward beyond the nearest buildings on each side. The applicants are suggesting that a hardship is presented because they have to make these necessary improvements to the home in order to make reasonable use of the home. This home is Planning COmniissiaa Minutes January 27, 2009 a rambler that does not have an affective front entrance into the home as the doorway leads right into the main living portion of the building. The city has looked at similar applications in the past to the extent that the applications have included an open front porch to provide weather protection to that entrance. In this particular case, that weather protection is a part of that reasonable use for the single family home. The applicants are also proposing some enclosed space to serve as a mudroom/entrance area. Mr. Grittman said in this particular case, the homes themselves are actually set at oblique angles from Dodd Road; lot lines do not run perpendicular to the roadway and if the homes were developed to be parallel to Dodd Road, there would be no string encroachment of this particular structure. Commissioner Viksnins asked for the purpose of the string rule. Mr. Grittman explained this use and in most cases, serves as an aesthetic purpose to keep homes. Mr. Grittman said this property has no other setback issues. Commissioner Viksnins asked what the ages of the three properties are. Mr. Grittman said he did not know. Commissioner Povolny said the house at 1937 is actually set back. Commissioner Norton said the Dakota County Property Map shows that two properties to the south of the applicant's property is set back approximately the same distance from the road as the applicant's home does. Commissioner Povolny said the applicant's home is quite a ways back from the property line and does not feel this is an issue. Commissioner McManus referred to the three design options that the applicant has proposed and asked which one is the desired one. Mr. Grittman said it was the first one, showing a full porch. Paul and Megan Plum, 1933 Dodd Road, said this is a 1951 rambler, comprised of 1,200 sq. ft. on the main floor. The home has three small bedrooms. The Plums have three small children. The main purpose is for them to stay in this home and make it more usable. The Plums will also be putting on new siding and installing new windows. Mr. Plum said the home to the south was built in about 1955 and the home to the north is very close to the same era. Commissioner Viksnins asked the Plums to describe their site lines with the other homes. Commissioner Viksnins asked the Plums if they have spoken to their neighbors about this project. Mrs. Plum said they have been out of town and does not believe they will have an issue. Mr. Plus said the animal hospital across the street was in favor of the plan. Commissioner Polovny asked which of the example of construction do the Plums favor. Commissioner Povolny said he likes Option 91. Mrs. Plum said that is the one they wish to do. It is noted that the existing home encroaches the string rule by 5 feet, and the applicant is wishing to add 10 feet of addition and another 10 feet for the porch. Commissioner Povolny said he believes the hardship is because the road is curved and the homes are not lining up parallel with the street, so the homes are not in line. Commissioner Norton said the home is still set back from the road a significant amount. Commissioner McManus said this is not like there are a bunch of homes jamming into each other, and that one being forward will not stop the view of the others. Commissioner McManus said that the applicant is trying to improve the value of the property. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hennes moved, seconded by Commissioner Norton, to close the public hearing. AYES 6 NAYES 0 Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2009 Mr. Sedlacek asked for confirmation that the motion would be to approve a variance for the 5 -ft existing section of the home, with the additional 10 -ft enclosed section and an additional 10 -ft open porch section, therefore the variance would be for 25 -ft. Commissioner Norton asked if the porch would be considered the same as an overhang. Mr. Grittman said the code allows for 2 -ft. of cave overhang into the setback. Commissioner McManus asked if this will give the Plum family adequate weather protection with the setback. Mr. Sedlacek said with the 10 -ft porch, there would still be a 70 -ft. setback from the front yard line. Commissioner Norton moved, seconded by Commissioner Hennes, to approve the variance, with the addition of the Findings of Fact as outlined in the Staffs Report on Page 4, as the basis of this variance. Commissioner Povolny asked for a friendly amendment to address the feet requirements. Commissioner Norton accepted the friendly amendment to specify that this variance is for 25 -feet (10 -feet for the addition to the home; 10 -feet for the open porch area; and 5 -ft for the existing nonconforming section of the house that encroaches into the string rule). AYES 6 NAYES 0 PLANNING CASE 409 -03 Old Fire Hall 2144 Dodd Road Site Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Mr. Grittman shared a map showing the location of 2144 Dodd Road. This is a parcel that is actually a combination of three parcels and is currently zoned as Single Family Residential, and guided in the Comprehensive Plan for Limited Business. The application is to rezone this property from Single Family to B -2, Neighborhood business to allow for the purchase of the site and development of a low intensity commercial use. The city considered a similar application about one year ago to rezone to residential as there were some neighbor concerns about adding commercial development in this area. The city then tried to market it for residential purposes but was not successful. Staff recommended that commercial use was the appropriate use for this property and the comprehensive plan anticipates commercial activity on this site. Staff feels that the commercial designation for B -2 is appropriate and is recommending that rezoning at this time to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the character and nature of the property. Commissioner Povolny asked for clarification that there has been no interest shown for residential. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner McManus asked if any of the neighbors have expressed on opinion on this. Mr. Grittman said he was not aware of any. Mr. Sedlacek, on behalf of the applicant, that being the City of Mendota Heights, said that this site has long been held by the City of Mendota Heights and was originally used as the fire hall site. Mr. Sedlacek said this was discussed in early 2007. Prior to that, the city has this listed open endedly to allow any application to come forward. There has been no appetite to turn this into a residential lot at that time, and then the Council attempted to rezone it. When that came to public hearing at the City Council, there was a strong showing of support for keeping this as residential from neighbors to the east and the north. At that point, the Council gave it time to list as residential, the price has been reduced a couple of tunes. The only interest that was received on this lot was for commercial use. Planning COH n7iSSlOn Minutes January 27, 2009 The City Council created a subcommittee on this parcel to review options; and given the feedback, it is viewed that business use is the more appropriate use. Dr. Wild, who is currently located at Mendota Plaza, has expressed interest in opening a new location as he will be going into partnership with his daughter. The City Council feels it is best to leave this as commercial since the only interest is coming from local businesses, from those who wish to stay in the community and expand their business. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Viksnins moved, seconded by Commissioner Norton, to close the public hearing. AYES 6 NAYES 0 Commissioner Norton moved, seconded by Commissioner McManus, to approve the comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation as outlined in the Staff Report on Page 3, as well as the rezoning of the property at 2144 Dodd Road. AYES NAYES Mendota Plaza Update Mr. Sedlacek updated the Planning Commission on the latest activities of the Mendota Plaza, and the discussions that were held at the January 6th City Council meeting. Commissioner Norton moved, seconded by Commissioner Hennes, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 pm Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Shaffer, Recording Secretary