Loading...
2020-09-22 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 12 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Litton Field, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of August 25, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2020 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-19 KELLY VEAZIE, 2142 FOX PLACE – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Kelly Veazie is seeking a variance from the side-yard setback standards to install a new driveway/parking pad next to an existing attached two-car garage. The subject property is located at 2142 Fox Place. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. The applicant has provided a “Neighbor Signatures of Consent” from four of her neighbors not objecting to the variance request. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff reviewed the different options before the Commission which include recommending approval, denial or tabling the request which would require a 60-day extension of the review period. APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 12 Commissioner Toth asked if the 10-foot variance would be to the property line, and staff confirmed that to be true. He noted that the City Code states that a camper could be parked on the backside of the garage and stated that the fence in the picture appears to restrict the ability to park a camper in that location as it is less than 10 feet. He asked the elevation between the two properties. He asked if asphalt in that location would impact the neighboring home under heavy rain. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that typically the reason for a setback is to require grassy areas between properties to help drainage. He confirmed that placing hard surface in that area could impact a neighboring property owner. He stated that the applicant could work with their contractor to ensure that there are not drainage problems for the neighbor. He noted that there would still be an additional 10 feet past the proposed hardcover before the rain would enter the neighboring property. Commissioner Toth asked what would happen if the neighboring homeowner submitted the same type of request. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that if the neighboring homeowner requested the same variance that could result in two pads next to each other. He noted that there are homes in the community that have driveways that abut each other. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if there is a provision in the Code for parking a camper in the setback area with the body of the camper hanging over the property line. He noted that within the report, the dimensions of the body of the camper with the wheelbase could possibly cause the camper to hang over the property line. He noted that the two-foot reduction in the pavement could alleviate that problem. He referenced the issue of drainage and asked if there has been discussion of making this drive pad porous to allow drainage. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that was offered as an alternative suggestion. He noted that could be suggested as a condition of approval if desired by the Commission. Commissioner Corbett asked what would be done to enforce driveways that did not receive variances. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this trailer was parked off to the side, and the applicant did indicate before the meeting that she called the City, and someone indicated that was an acceptable means of parking with bark mulch. He noted that is not an allowed form of parking and therefore if the variance is denied, the applicant would no longer be able to park the trailer in that location. Commissioner Corbett stated that there are existing driveways that encroach into the setback that were never permitted and asked what could be done to enforce that. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that those would be considered preexisting. APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 12 Commissioner Toth commented that the camper is sitting right on the property line, or within one foot. He noted that a letter was received from the adjacent neighbor that had no objection to this. He noted that if the neighbor sells their home, the next homebuyer may have a complaint. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the issue before the Commission is the properties as they stand today and not whom may own the home in the future. Chair Magnuson stated that she did not see anything about screening planned and asked if there have been conversations about that. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that with a ten-foot pad there would be no room to screen. He noted that with the alternate plan it would allow for a screening measure. Chair Magnuson asked if the connector pad were removed would this just be considered driveway. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that it would still be considered a pad and most people would like the connection to prevent marks in the grass when driving the camper/trailer to the pad. Chair Magnuson asked if staff has discussed the alternate plan with the applicant. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he has not been able to discuss that with the applicant. He stated that the applicant did receive the report and can respond to it tonight. Kelly Veazie, applicant, stated that she called the City in 2018 when they purchased the camper and were told that woodchips would be fine for parking as that would be removable. She stated that she would be fine with the alternate plan as well. She stated that she was told by her contractor that cement on the other side of the garage would help to prevent further bowing of the wall of their garage. She confirmed that the contractor has stated that he will pitch the concrete pad to prevent drainage into the neighboring property. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the applicant is familiar with porous pavement. Ms. Veazie replied that she is not and would have to do some research on that. She stated that if woodchips were acceptable, they could go back to the woodchips as well. She stated that they were requesting the cement because of the overall project they are doing. Chair Magnuson stated that City Code requires hard surface parking. She noted that perhaps two strips could be hard surface with woodchips in the middle. Ms. Veazie stated that would leave them without the cement strip on the side of the garage, which is needed to support the garage wall. Commissioner Field asked if the applicant would be inclined towards the alternative or whether the Commission should only be looking at the request. APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 12 Ms. Veazie stated that they would like to be able to park the camper on the side and therefore would support an alternative if necessary. Commissioner Toth asked where the applicant would park the camper if the variance is not allowed. Ms. Veazie stated that there is an offsite area in North Branch where the camper could be parked, but that would be inconvenient. She stated that they have also looked at the backyard and talked with the fence company to check the cost to extend the fence to ten feet. She stated that the cost to extend the fence would be about $2,500 and may interfere with bushes planted by the neighbor. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. No comments. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AND CONDITIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE VARIANCE BE AN EIGHT FOOT SETBACK RATHER THAN A TEN FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE. Further discussion: Commissioner Corbett asked for justification on condition two, as he does not see a need for this that is property specific. He believed that this is the wrong way to proceed. Commissioner Petschel stated that while he understands the desire to create regulations for nonconforming lots, he believed that the commission attempted to do that during the comprehensive plan process and it did not move forward. Commissioner Corbett stated that the commission attempted to create new confirming lot sizes but it was agreed that the better option would be to create new ordinances that would create different conditions for nonconforming lots. Commissioner Petschel commented that he does not believe that this applicant should be punished for lack of action from the commission/city. Commissioner Corbett agreed. APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Toth stated that the applicant stated that there are other options for parking the camper offsite and stated that if these types of variances continue, it could create a situation where asphalt extends from property to property. He stated that homeowners should plan ahead when purchasing a home and additional property. Commissioner Corbett stated that the plight is brought on by the applicant and there are alternatives available. He stated that this property is very similar to the properties adjacent to it. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that if there were ordinances in place that governed nonconforming lots, a variance would possibly not be required. He noted that the uniqueness of the property is that it does not meet the 100 foot width and therefore has less land to work with than it should. Chair Magnuson stated that according to the law, unique means unique and therefore has difficulty in finding this unique or finding a practical difficulty. She stated that she would be intrigued by the compromise option but noted that is not the motion before the commission right now. Commissioner Toth stated that he would be afraid that the commission could see a number of variances moving forward and the commission may see the same situations which result in more boats and trailers parked in neighbors that could be an eyesore. He stated that if one variance of this type is approved, many more could follow. AYES: 2 (PETSCHEL AND MAZZITELLO) NAYS: 5 Further discussion: Commissioner Field stated that he felt additional work was needed between the Applicant and city staff in resolving some of the variance and site issues, and explore other alternatives. Commissioner Field stated the Commission was not prepared to address or resolve those issues at tonight’s meeting, and suggested this item be tabled to allow the Applicant and staff to work together and bring back alternatives for further consideration. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO TABLE THIS DISCUSSION TO THE OCTOBER MEETING IN ORDER TO ENABLE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVES. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (CORBETT) Chair Magnuson noted that this matter will be tabled to the October 27, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff will extend the 60-day review period in writing to allow that additional review and discussion time. APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 12 B) PLANNING CASE 2020-14 CALVIN TRAN W/TEMPO HOMES & VINH TRUONG, 1217 VICTORIA CURVE – RECONSIDERATION OF CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City Administrator Mark McNeill provided background information on the request and the path that it has followed since the last review of the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Calvin Tran and Vinh Truong are requesting reconsideration of a previously considered Critical Area Permit (CAP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications on the property located at 1217 Victoria Curve. The CAP is needed for all major development activities in the critical area overlay district; and the CUP approves an oversized attached garage up to 1,480 sf in size. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; letters received prior to the meeting have been distributed to the Commission. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett stated that he is confused with the timeline and the postponed review by the Council. He stated that the Commission already reviewed and approved the previous plan. He stated that the applicant’s builder explained that drainage would be improved from the current conditions under the last application. He stated that he respects that no one wants to see a home in their backyard but there is nothing to substantiate that request from the neighbors. He stated that the report, paid for by the neighbors, was submitted the day before the Council review and contains vague language that states there is a potential for drainage problems. He was unsure why that was not talked about publicly at the last Council meeting. He stated that he is also curious as to whether the applicants really want this plan or feel like they can only move forward with this plan. He stated that in his opinion there was no reason to delay the review of the Council and there is no reason the Commission should be reviewing this again. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that after the July Planning Commission review, a number of neighbors approached and asked for Councilmembers to meet and/or discuss with them as well as submitted a number of emails and letters expressing their concerns. He stated that staff had approached the applicants to alert them that there are concerns being brought to the attention of the Council and asked if the applicant would be willing to delay the review. He stated that initially the applicant wanted to proceed to the Council meeting. He stated that the report then showed up to the City the day before the Council meeting and staff provided the report to the applicant and their consultant. He stated that staff and the applicant were not prepared to answer the concerns within the report prior to the Council meeting and the applicant agreed to postpone the review in order to have additional time to review the report. He stated that since that time staff met with the applicant and some of the neighbors. He noted that the report from staff now reflects APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 12 the new plan, whereas the neighborhood report reflects the old plan. He noted that when staff coordinated a meeting between the applicant and neighbors, the applicant agreed to move the home to the south and staff has reviewed and approves of the new plan. Chair Magnuson stated that at the August meeting the Commission was given the choice whether it would like to review the plan again or whether it did not feel that necessary and the consensus of the Commission was to review the plan again. Commissioner Petschel asked if the CAP and CUP are only required because of the arbitrary lines of the Critical Area as drawn and if it was not within the Critical Area is would not be receiving the review. He asked for confirmation that this would not affect the bluff line. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that if this were not within the Critical Area Overlay it would only require a CUP for the size of the garage. He confirmed that there are no bluffs or water features in this area. Commissioner Corbett asked if it would be possible for the Commission or applicant to consider the original design, as that has already been approved. Commissioner Field stated that is not the issue in front of the Commission. Chair Magnuson stated that this plan was resubmitted by the applicant and that is before the Commission. Commissioner Corbett stated that his question is whether there was a genuine desire to resubmit a new plan. Calvin Tran, applicant, stated that they would like to move forward. Vinh Truong, applicant, stated that ideally his family would like to place the home in the back of the lot. He stated that after speaking at the last meeting and with the neighbors, they just want to move forward with building and therefore have submitted the redrafted plan. He stated that he is frustrated because he feels like some people are playing this out for him versus his desires as the property owner. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant felt pressured to put this plan together to get this to pass, as he did not see a reason to change the plan. He stated that the original plan looked good and addressed drainage. He noted that the third-party report came in and perhaps the applicant felt that he needed to placate those concerns or voting members. He stated that he does not want to slow down the process but does not want the applicant to feel that he must choose this second- choice home as he feels the applicant has the right to build where he would like. Mr. Truong stated that he does not want to ruffle feathers and wants to proceed with the build as efficiently as they can. He stated that they felt that they met the City’s requirements and there would not be a point to spend time and money to develop a new plan. He stated that this is his second choice, but he wants to move forward with the build. APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 12 Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Kay Jewel, 1948 Glenhill Road, thanked the City and the applicant for the healthy discussions that have occurred to develop a compromise. She believed that everyone supports the proposed plan and noted that they are pleased to welcome the Truongs to the neighborhood as the lot has been overgrown for years. She stated that everything that she has seen presented in the new plan address the concerns related to drainage and the rate of discharge. She stated that a qualified engineer reviewed the engineering of the original plan and developed a new plan that presented a more acceptable rate of drainage and rate of discharge. Alan Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, agreed that they are at a good place following the useful discussion with the applicant and his builder. He stated that the plan presented addresses all of the issues that have been brought forward and encouraged the Commission to approve the proposal. Lynn Burow, 1219 Victoria Curve, stated that she would have preferred the first plan as this plan will more significantly impact her home. She stated that it appears the drainage that was going northeast will now go south and west, which is towards her lot noting that her lot is the lowest lot in the neighborhood. She noted that her driveway will now be 20 feet from the home. She stated that Mr. Truong purchased the lot and should be allowed to build the home he wants as he will be there longer than the existing neighbors in this area. She believed that Mr. Truong should be able to place the home where he wants. She noted that the lot has been vacant for years and someone finally purchased the lot. She stated that if the neighbors really wanted their privacy, they could have purchased the lot. She stated that the neighbors have spent their time and money fighting Mr. Truong’s dream and she is very bothered by that. She stated that she welcomes Mr. Truong to the neighborhood, and she will welcome him no matter the home placement. She stated that this is not fair to the property owner and she feels that Mr. Truong was bullied by the neighbors and perhaps members of the Council. She stated that Mr. Truong does not want to fight, and it makes her sad that this has occurred. Edie Bolin, 1215 Victoria Curve, stated that they welcome Mr. Truong and expected a home to be there. She stated that they are not trying to bully anyone but always expected a home to be built in alignment with the other homes on the street. She stated that the report they submitted was not intended to get to everyone late and was completed as quickly as it could be. She stated that the neighbors did not feel that the City was hearing their concerns about the water issues and house placement and the report was the only way they felt they could be heard. She stated that they do not want to ruin Mr. Truong’s dream home, but they also want to protect their homes and have developed this as a compromise. Greg Bolin, 1215 Victoria Curve, echoed the comments of his wife. He stated that they were not aware of the request until they received the notice for the Planning Commission meeting and therefore hired an engineer to complete the report which they submitted to the City once completed. He thanked the builder and owner for the opportunity to meet on September 3rd and appreciate what they have done to take everyone’s concerns. He stated that the new home placement has assisted with drainage concerns, continuation or orderly development of the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood. APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 12 Julie Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, stated that there is a higher level of care and concern within the Critical Area and how variances are approved as water issues are a big deal. She believes that the second plan has remedied the concerns. John Faraci with Lake and Land Surveying, stated that he completed the drainage calculations for the first plan. He stated that the grading plan was directing the drainage to the front of the house towards Victoria. He stated that the models they use are designed for 250 acres or more. He stated that the report submitted by the neighbors took a stab at the drainage but was not accurate as they did not have the house plans and were not aware it was a flat roof and therefore did not put all the facts together. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed with the assessment of Mr. Faraci, noting that the report submitted by the engineer for the neighbors did not have all the facts and therefore had to make assumptions. Commissioner Katz stated that he has concerns with the drainage towards the home at 1219 Victoria Curve, as that garage currently collects water. He asked if the new plan would alleviate that issue or whether it would compound that issue. Mr. Faraci replied that all of the drainage would be less than the current rates. He stated that there would be an increase of stormwater because of the construction of a home and garage but that will be drained towards Victoria Curve. He stated that the rates towards 1219 would be equal to or less than the current volume of water that drains to the property and described the path drainage would take. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he was not at the July meeting but reviewed those materials. He stated that he reviewed the original drainage plan and the new grading plan and in every scenario that he can see, the worst drainage scenario for 1219 is the existing condition; either development proposal would reduce the rate towards 1219. Commissioner Toth asked if there was any thought given to the placement of the home on the original plan towards using drain tile around the home or within the property that would eliminate water from flowing to other properties and instead directing that to a pond or settlement area on the property. Mr. Faraci stated that could have been done by pipe, but he has elected to do that by gravity towards the road. Chair Magnuson stated that the notice to the public was of reconsideration of a new plan and therefore the Commission needs to take action on that. She stated that notice was not provided for review of a previous plan and therefore cannot review that option, noting that perhaps the Council could make that determination. Mr. Tran stated that his client would want to know if this goes forward, could there be two options to present the original and amended plans to the Council. He noted that the original plan received APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 12 approval from the Commission and therefore if this is also approved, would the property owner have the option of presenting both options. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that technically there is a favorable recommendation on the first plan, which was never officially presented to the Council. He stated that the application was extended and therefore within the statutory review time which would allow a review of the Council. He stated that by making a recommendation on the second option, both options could be presented to the Council. He noted that he would review that with the City Attorney as it would be unusual to present two options to a Council and have the Council make the choice. He, however, believed that the Commission could make the choice to present both options. Chair Magnuson stated that it is her opinion that the Planning Commission can only take action on the matter before it tonight and therefore would be uncomfortable making a recommendation for the Council to review both options. She noted that the Council could notice both applications and make the choice itself. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the report indicates that this is a redo or reconsideration of another plan and that is why the notification was completed again. He believed that it would be a good idea to present one option to the Council and the Council can make the choice. He agreed that the recommendation tonight should only be on this plan presented tonight. Commissioner Field stated that the only thing to consider tonight would be the reconsideration, you cannot have two outstanding plans proposed for the same location. He noted that the Council can make the choice to review both options if it desires. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the case heard in July was 2020-14 and this is an amendment to that case. Chair Magnuson stated that the question can be deferred to the City Attorney and the Council can make the determination on what it would like to do. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1217 VICTORIA CURVE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 12 THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN OVERSIZED ATTACHED GARAGE UP TO 1,480 SF IN SIZE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK. 2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. 3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 4. A COMPLETE AND DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS PART OF ANY NEW BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO REPLANT ONE NEW TREE (MINIMUM 2.5” CALIPER SIZE FOR DECIDUOUS AND 6’ FT FOR EVERGREENS) FOR EACH SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVED FROM THE SITE FOR THIS HOME PROJECT. AS PER THE CITY’S POLLINATOR FRIENDLY POLICY, ALL NEW TREES AND LANDSCAPING SHALL MEET THE CITY’S NATIVE PLANT LIST. 5. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON WEEKENDS. 6. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 7, 2020 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • Special Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 8th to review the Culligan request • Concern was raised over a shed constructed on Lilac Lane, but it meets the ordinance requirements. It was noted that staff will be presenting possible amendments to the ordinance in the near future. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:39 P.M. APPROVED 10/27/2020 September 22, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 12 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0