Loading...
2013-04-23 Planning Comm Minutes Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2013 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES April 23, 2013 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Field, Magnuson, Noonan, Roston, Hennessy and Viksnins. Those absent: Chair Field and Commissioner Hennes. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of February 26, 2013 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2013, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Field. Hennes) Approval of March 26, 2013 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2013, AS PRESENTED. Assistant City Administrator Jake Sedlacek noted that there was not a quorum at the March 26, 2013 meeting and while there were actions to close public hearings were not formal actions and were not included in the minutes. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Field. Hennes) Commissioner Roston asked if the commission needed to take any actions. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek replied that there were provisions in the code which allowed City Council to consider those actions. In each case the City Council continued the public hearing, closed the public hearing, and took action on the planning application. Hearing Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2013 a) PLANNING CASE #2013-04 Ed Getz Conditional Use Permit for a Fence at 2453 Haverton Road Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request and showed a map outlining the location of the property, a corner parcel with access to Haverton Road and Mendota Heights Road. The parcel is a single family parcel occupied by a single family home and zoned and guided for single family residential use. The applicant was seeking to construct a fence on the north side of the home, within twenty-five of the right-of-way of Mendota Heights Road. The city’s zoning ordinance allows fences within the thirty foot setback to six feet in height, by conditional use permit. The proposal is to construct a decorative metal or iron looking fence five feet in height, 25 feet from the right of way. The planning staff recommended approval of this conditional use permit based on the following findings of fact: 1.The proposed project will not further impact traffic visibility at the Mendota Heights Road/Haverton Road intersection 2.The proposed fence type and height are consistent with Ordinance requirements 3.The fence is compatible with the established character in the area and will not negatively impact any neighboring properties Commissioner Roston asked, since the purpose of the ordinance is to maintain visibility, if a condition needs to be in inserted about some sort of maintenance and visibility. Planner Grittman replied that it is believed that, because of the location and construction, a separate condition is unnecessary. If the fence were to be changed in the future by any owner of the property, then the conditional use permit would need to be amended. Acting Chair Viksnins opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Ed Getz of 2453 Haverton Road introduced himself and explained that his yard has become a short-cut for children, pets and deer in the area. Mr. Getz would like to install an ornamental fence primarily for security reasons, not for privacy reasons. Commissioner Noonan asked the applicant his reason for seeking a fence higher than 3 feet. Mr. Getz replied that he received two quotes for fences and after speaking with the suppliers he discovered that a higher fence, would improve the chances of reducing the number of deer in his yard. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Viksnins asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Field. Hennes) Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2013 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FENCE AT 2453 HAVERTON ROAD AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Field. Hennes) Acting Chair Viksnins advised that the City Council would consider this application at its May 7, 2013 meeting. Discussions a) NAC CASE 254.04 – 13.06 Amendment to City Code Pertaining to Garages Planner Grittman presented potential changes to City Code regarding garages, noting that the draft language is intended to serve as a framework for discussion, rather than as a recommendation from staff. Planner Grittman also noted that the current regulations encourage attached garages, which is common in single family residential communities. Several commissioners shared the opinion that a maximum garage size of 1,500 square feet in area was sufficient for residential properties. The commission felt that garages matching the footprint of the home could result in garages that were bigger than would be desired. Commissioner Roston asked staff to provide language which would require an accessory structure to match the principle structure. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek provided examples of how draft language regarding the size of a detached garage would apply to the range of housing in Mendota Heights. The commission had mixed opinions on 10% of the rear yard as a standard. Commissioner Roston asked staff to clarify language on the total area for accessory structures, and how it applied to properties with one or two accessory structures. Commission members supported the notion of a fixed lineal foot standard for garage doors. Feedback included support for 36’ as included as the draft, and support for 30’ and going up to 36’ by conditional use permit. Commissioner Noonan expressed concern that allowing four single garage doors could result in an “industrial feel.” Commissioner Hennesey commented that she is in support of the underlying objective here to reduce outside storage and asked if there is a standard approach across the region. Mr. Grittman replied that each community approaches the problem differently, but the 10% of lot size was fairly common. Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2013 Commissioner Magnusson noted that the city may want to consider maintaining a preference for attached garages, which may be reflected by allowable sizes. Commissioner Magnusson inquired as to the status of a similar code amendment which would have changed requirements for non-residential properties in residential zones. Mr. Sedlacek reported that the referenced amendment was not passed by city council. Commissioner Magnusson supported the change to allow two double garage doors, and did not support the idea for larger garages or more garage door allowance for requests where the garage was not visible from the right of way. Acting Chair Viksnins asked Planner Grittman to explain the next steps going forward. Planner Grittman replied that staff would refine the proposed ordinance changes given the comments received and bring it back at the next Planning Commission meeting for further discussion. If the Commission could coalesce around some certain ideas then they could call for a public hearing at the following meeting. Mr. Sedlacek requested commission feedback the number of garages allowed. The city code currently allows one garage, either attached or detached. The drafted language would allow for two garages and limit the allowable accessory structures down from three to two. Commissioner Roston supported the idea of allowing two garages to limit outside storage. Acting Chair Viksnins welcomed comments from the public. Mr. Don Wagner, 718 Stanwich Lane, currently has a two car garage and would like to construct a second garage. Mr. Wagner had considered the idea of adding onto the home but due to expense and aesthetics a detached garage is the preferred alternative. A second, detached garage would allow for continued open access to the back of the yard from either side of the garage. Commissioner Noonan asked about the size of Mr. Wagner’s current garage. Mr. Wagner replied that it is currently an attached 24 x 24 [576 square feet] two car garage with one garage door. The second, detached garage he is looking to build would be approximately 22 x 22 [484 square feet] due to the setback requirements, with one garage door. Staff thanked the commission for their discussion and feedback on the issue. b) Amendment to City Code Pertaining to Signs Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek introduced the topic, noting that there had been lengthy discussions regarding City Code pertaining to signs at the end of 2012. City Council discussed the topic at their goal setting meeting, directing staff to proposed changes to modernize the sign code. Commissioner Magnuson asked how this ordinance would characterize flashing signs. Mr. Sedlacek replied that flashing signs are not permitted within any district. Currently, any source of light including LED’s must be diffused. Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2013 Commissioner Hennessy supported the draft language, and asked staff to consider language regarding banners. Mr. Sedlacek noted that banners could be considered as a temporary sign. Commissioner Noonan also supported the draft language, and asked staff to include language to prohibit flag signs, which seem to be growing in popularity. Commissioner Roston sought clarification regarding holiday greeting signs in residential districts. Planner Grittman stated that he has seen sign regulations that specifically exempt holiday displays from the sign regulations, which could be included as an exempted sign. Commissioner Roston also advised staff to focus on sign standards, rather than any specific technology. Commissioner Magnuson asked that staff also provide language allowing certain wall signs for non- residential uses located within residential districts. Acting Chair Viksnins asked about regulating logos or symbols. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek replied that the city may regulate the area of signs, manner of construction, and how they are lit but staff would advise strongly against looking at the content of that sign. Planner Grittman, offered clarification on cabinet signs, stating that some communities prohibit internally lit cabinets as they may broadcast light rather than sign messages. Verbal Review Assistant Administrator Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2013-02 Jane McKoskey Lot Split •City Council continued the public hearing and after the public hearing was closed, recommended approval of that lot split as requested PLANNING CASE #2013-03 Brian Smith Zoning Amendment •City Council continued the public hearing and after the public hearing was closed, voted in favor of a zoning amendment to allow beekeeping Assistant Administrator Sedlacek listed some of the upcoming community events: •Spring Clean Up, Saturday, May 4 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:22 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field. Hennes)