Loading...
2012-04-24 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 2012 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: Chair Norton. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, City Attorney Tami Diehm and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved moving Item 6A after Item 6C. Approval of February 28, 2012, Minutes Commissioner Magnuson requested a change on Page 3, third paragraph, it should state the sign was “not” resized by the city. Commissioner Viksnins requested a change on Page 6, in first paragraph stating the second line needs revision. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek read this sentence aloud for the record stating it should read, “Mr. Bader purchased Lot 3 of Foxwood and brought a subdivision application to the City.” Commissioner Viksnins stated his comment at the bottom of Page 9 should read, “The applicant was requesting an advisory opinion.” COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2012, AS AMENDED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Roston) Approval of March 27, 2012, Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2012-10 Joe Igo 862 Wagon Wheel Trail Variance to the Side Yard Setback for a Driveway Expansion Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Joe Igo for approval of a variance to the side yard setback for a driveway expansion at 862 Wagon Wheel Trail. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 2 Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant currently has a two-car garage with a setback from the side property line consistent with the minimum requirement of 10 feet. The current driveway edge lies approximately 11 feet from the side property line. The setback regulation for driveway surfaces is five feet from side property lines. The applicant wishes to expand the width of the driveway toward the side property line to create an additional parking space on the paved surface. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request, noting staff did not recommend approval of the variance as the available six feet was adequate to park a typical passenger vehicle. Staff understands that a wider surface would be more desirable; however, the requirements for a variance do not appear to be present, including a unique condition of the property, in that the five-foot setback standard has been routinely applied to new driveways throughout the community. Joe Igo, 862 Wagon Wheel Trail, presented the Commission with a sketch of his property stating the additional driving space would assist with storing vehicles in his driveway. For this reason, he was requesting an eight-foot driveway expansion, to the right side of the existing driveway, to assist in keeping his cars off the street and on his property. He explained the eight-foot expansion would better serve his needs than the six-foot expansion, while allowing for snow storage and doors of vehicles to be opened. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the applicant would be pleased with a one-foot variance. Mr. Igo stated he would be pleased with the one-foot variance. Vice-Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice-Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A ONE-FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY SETBACK. The motion failed for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR A DRIVEWAY EXPANSION BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Roston requested an additional Findings of Fact be added to this case stating: “THIS PROPERTY HAD NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND THE PROPERTY WAS NOT UNIQUE.” The Commission agreed with Commissioner Roston’s requested addition. AYES 5 NAYS 1 (Hennes) Vice-Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 1, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-11 Dick Davern on behalf of the Convent of the Visitation School 2455 Visitation Drive Conditional Use Permit and Variances to Construct Softball Dugouts Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 3 Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Visitation School and Convent for approval of a variance for accessory building size and number to allow for two dugouts for the softball field in the northwest corner of their property. Mr. Grittman explained the Visitation property is zoned R-1 and guided as an institutional use. City Code was quite restrictive with regard to accessory structure size and number in the R-1 zoning district. Staff noted a proposed ordinance amendment that would allow non-residential uses in the R-1 district to exceed the normal residential limits have not yet been adopted by the city. He commented that Visitation would be well within the limits of this ordinance with the addition of the dugouts. Mr. Grittman indicated the proposed dugouts would complement an existing use on the property. With an enclosed with a roof, the dugouts qualify as accessory buildings, requiring a conditional use permit. The current ordinance retains the accessory building requirements for such uses under the residential regulations. Under current code, additional accessory building space will require a variance. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the variances. Staff found the structures to be consistent with the current use of the site, will have little or no visual impact on adjacent properties, and would be consistent with the terms of the proposed code amendment for accessory building construction. With these conditions, the request meets the required tests for variance approval, including reasonableness and practical difficulties. Commissioner Viksnins questioned why the dugout was considered an accessory structure. Mr. Grittman explained that structures with roofs meet the zoning codes definition for an accessory structure. Commissioner Viksnins asked for the practical difficulty in this case. Mr. Grittman noted the limitations within the R-1 zoning district given the fact this was an institutional use. Commissioner Roston requested further information on the ordinance amendment. Mr. Sedlacek explained the City Council was reviewing the amendment and had concerns with the ultimate size of an individual accessory structure within the larger square footage requirement for institutional uses within the R-1 zoning district. He stated setbacks were also being discussed. After reviewing a follow up report from staff, the City Council will take action on the amendment. Dr. Dawn Nichols, 2455 Visitation Drive, thanked staff for their presentation this evening and for the commission’s time in considering her request. She noted the dugouts would be a great addition to the softball field and would be painted in the schools colors of red and white. The dugouts would also provide safety to the players and hospitality to visiting teams. Vice-Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice-Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING SIZE AND NUMBER AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WITH THE ADDITIONAL FINDING THE APPLICANT FACES PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN COMPLYING WITH THE CURRENT CITY CODE. AYES 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 4 NAYS 0 Vice-Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 1, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-07 Michael and Michelle Bader Variance to the Right-of-way Width for Foxwood Lane Planner Stephen Grittman explained this Public Hearing was continued from the February 28, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. He indicated the item was tabled due to the fact a number of questions were raised by the planning commission and those in attendance at the February meeting. Staff provided a summarized response to these issues. Mr. Grittman noted the first concern was the impact of approving a variance without the benefit of a subdivision plan from the applicant. Staff agreed the lack of a subdivision complicated the decision on the variance; however, the approval of the variance does not confer any guarantee of subdivision approval. The applicant’s subdivision would need to stand on its own. Mr. Grittman stated it was suggested that a better approach to this application might have been through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rather than a variance. Staff again agreed with this suggestion, however, the applicant has chosen to request the variance to test the acceptability of using Foxwood prior to investing significant sums in engineering a plat that might be acceptable but for the access issue. Mr. Grittman commented a neighbor raised concern with the Comprehensive Plan, and that approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the Somerset Area of the Comprehensive Plan noting parts of the area have the potential to be further subdivided and the possibility exists to either extend cul-de- sacs or provide a connection between Ridgewood Drive and the cul-de-sac located in the northeast quarter of this section. From this description, the Comprehensive Plan appears to contemplate the possibility of both future subdivision and the extension of the existing roadways in the neighborhood. It would appear that the Comprehensive Plan can be read as allowing the use of Foxwood. Mr. Grittman indicated there were other issues with construction of Foxwood and the ability to make required improvements within the existing right-of-way. Staff found it was not uncommon that street and utility construction occurs outside of the existing right-of-way limits through temporary construction easements. The applicant would need to demonstrate that the street and utilities can be constructed within the right-of-way and that any necessary easements are obtained. He noted the acquisition of such easements would be a private party requirement and not a municipal responsibility. Mr. Grittman explained the applicant has provided staff with additional material related to the impact of the construction of Foxwood Lane, along with a more detailed subdivision layout. He discussed the new 30-foot roadway alignment. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and found that the requirements for variance consideration were present with this case. Staff indicated it appears that the applicant could develop the property to the extent of four new lots with a number of configurations. While the proposed subdivision results in an overly long cul-de-sac, it also appears to have the least impact on the land, in relation to grading and tree loss. Because the conditions resulting in the narrower right-of-way for the existing Foxwood Lane are not the result of any actions by the applicant, staff believes that the variance request can be found to be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the four conditions for approval had been revised by staff since the February meeting. Mr. Grittman noted the conditions were the same. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 5 Commissioner Viksnins asked if there were any other conditions that could be added to minimize the impact on the surrounding landowners. Mr. Grittman stated the variance only addresses the construction of a 30-foot street and perhaps additional conditions should be added to the plat request. Commissioner Magnuson inquired how the applicant would proceed if the 30-foot roadway would be impossible to complete once the plat information was complete. Mr. Grittman opined that the 30-foot roadway could fit; however, the expense and need for construction easements were another issue. Commissioner Magnuson indicated Ms. Gray noted an expansion of Foxwood Lane would violate City Code 12-1D- 4, which relates to the size of an open yard or other space. She requested further information from staff on this issue. Mr. Grittman stated this code relates to the side yard setbacks and depending on the location of the roadway, the Gray Home may not meet the City’s current requirements. The setback requirements would be addressed with the subdivision approval and not with the variance request before the commission this evening. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the subdivision would allow for four or five new buildable lots. Mr. Grittman commented Lot 1 was an existing lot and the new buildable lots would be Lots 2-5. Commissioner Roston asked if the proposed traveling surface of the road for Foxwood Lane would be 30 feet. Public Works Director Mazzitello stated current city policy has normal city streets 33 feet from face of curb to face of curb. However, based on each individual project this can be adjusted within reason to meet the engineering needs of the project. He stated the additional right-of-way, beyond the 30 feet, allowed for snow storage and utility line storage. Commissioner Roston inquired if the fire department or police department expressed concern with the roadway width. Mr. Mazzitello was not aware of any concerns. Vice-Chair Field explained this evening was a continued public hearing from the February 28, 2012 meeting. Paul McGinley, Loucks & Associates, addressed the commission speaking to the concerns raised by the commission and public at the February meeting. He noted a meeting was held with the Dakota County Transportation staff. Dakota County was not committal on this issue but provided preferences stating a through street from Delaware was preferred. Mr. McGinley reported that a second preference would be to extend Foxwood. Vice-Chair Field stated these comments were based on Mr. McGinley’s interpretation of the meeting and that no facts were before the commission this evening. Mr. McGinley stated he was advised in February to provide context on the subdivision. He stated the Bader’s have considered reducing the proposed subdivision to four total lots, the one existing lot with three new lots. He then reviewed the proposed location of Foxwood stating the Gray property sideyard setback would be met through the proposed alignment and a landscape buffer would be created in this space. Mr. McGinley reviewed the survey data regarding the Lutz property noting all setbacks would be met through the proposed roadway location. Mr. McGinley noted Foxwood Lane was a public dedicated right-of-way dedicated to the public for use. A private drive surface was allowed to service the homeowners. A 10-foot drainage and utility easement ran along the west side of the roadway, which was dedicated to the public. Mr. McGinley discussed the feasibility of reconstructing the street within the available 50-foot right-of-way. He reviewed several housing developments that were created within a 50-foot right-of-way in Plymouth and Stillwater. He noted all city utilities would be located under the pavement with other utilities located adjacent to the pavement in a 30-inch trench. The impact of the reconstruction on the 50-foot right-of-way was discussed. He noted a water main was the only utility that would be brought down this roadway, along with small utilities. Storm sewer would not be extended to the new roadway. Sanitary sewer, if needed, would be brought to the new subdivision from Ridgewood. Vice-Chair Field stated the relocation of the sanitary sewer lines was the opinion of Mr. McGinley and not fact. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 6 Mr. McGinley commented that the proposed roadway expansion would not harm the character of the neighborhood. He reviewed the comprehensive plan stating the location was guided for R-1A zoning with 1.1 units per acre. The proposed plan by the Bader’s was .6 units per acre, which was half the density required within the comprehensive plan. Mr. McGinley then discussed the zoning code stating the proposed plan met all parcel size requirements. Mr. McGinley read the conclusions from Planner Grittman indicating the possibility exists to extend Foxwood or Ridgewood to service the Bader’s property. He added that it would not appear that the comprehensive plan can be read as precluding the use of Foxwood. Demand exists for these properties and he asserted that if the variance were not approved it would be difficult to find a reasonable way to accommodate the needs of the landlocked 35 acres. Mr. McGinley provided comment on the five findings of fact for denial. He discussed the grading of the lot stating there would be a continuous 6.5% grade if access was made from Delaware, which was a difficult grade. In addition, he noted there would be heavy tree loss if access was provided from Delaware. Another alternative would be a roadway to Ridgewood and would require two or three other homeowners to agree to this 1,200-foot long roadway. It was his opinion that this alternative was impractical and unlikely. He discussed the setbacks on Lot 1, the Lutz property, stating that protecting the wetland forced the home closer to the roadway. It was his opinion that because a variance was not required with the original Foxwood Lane road width, a variance was not required at this time. This was only further stalling the development of the superblock area. Mr. McGinley indicated the extension of Foxwood would increase the length of the cul-de-sac, but was staff’s preferred location given the grading and tree loss that would be required if access were required along Delaware. Mr. McGinley thanked the commission for its time this evening and for hearing his comments based on the concerns raised at the February meeting. He requested the commission recommend approval of the variance request. Mr. Sedlacek provided clarification that examples cited by Mr. McGinley, such as the Somerset Area plat predates city code by 20 years. In addition, staff was unable to locate roadways within Friendly Hills with less than 60 feet in right-of-way. Mr. McGinley stated the roadways near the fire department had 50-foot rights-of- way. Mr. Mazzitello noted that this plat also predated the city. Vice-Chair Field thanked staff for the clarification. Mr. Sedlacek verified for the commission that contrary to the applicant’s assertion, the city would require full utilities be built at this time and not delayed until a future date. Mr. McGinley felt that this could be addressed in the subdivision plans. Commissioner Roston reiterated that the request before the commission this evening was for a variance and not the subdivision. Mr. Mazzitello provided comments to the commission based on the meeting held with the County on March 23rd with the Baders. He stated roadway alternatives were discussed and the County found it unlikely they would approve a cul-de-sac off a County Road. There was no second preferred option noted at that time. At no time did county staff state that a through street was preferred. Vice-Chair Field thanked staff for this clarification. Bill Griffith, 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza, representing the neighbors, provided comments to the commission. He directed his comments to the 1993 plat conditions, the applicant’s inability to meet the variance requirements, and that what is being proposed may not be buildable. Mr. Griffith expressed on behalf of his clients a fair amount of frustration that a plat was not presented for this proposal. This fact was leaving the neighbors from understanding the full impact of the potential plat. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 7 Mr. Griffith explained he read all city minutes addressing the 1993 plat conditions. The concern of the residents was the protection of open spaces and natural areas. This subdivision had specific conditions to address these areas of concern. He read the conditions aloud stating a scenic easement was required for the Gray property. This scenic easement was established in lieu of a utility easement. Vice-Chair Field questioned if the concerns being raised by the neighbors were private matters. City Attorney Diehm stated these issues were flowing into the future subdivision request. However, because this was a public hearing, she recommended the testimony be taken. Mr. Griffith continued stating the next condition of the Foxwood Plat addresses the 20-foot surface area and private drive. While a public right-of-way was provided to the city, a private drive was installed by the homeowners. This would protect the Lutz family, in particular. He stated there was a reference to the 35-foot right-of-way easement, which also protects his clients’ interests. Mr. Griffith noted the difficulty in assessing the impact on the neighbors would be impossible. This burden was to be placed on the applicant, and the applicant needed to prove there would not be a negative impact on the neighboring properties. He stated the original subdivision was approved in 1993 with three lots, several conditions and a 20-foot private roadway. The extension of the roadway was not contemplated, nor was the development of the property to the south. It was his opinion that the Baders had reasonable use of their property as a home site. Mr. Griffith indicated the roadway expansion has two major conflict points, as it will require construction easements from his clients. These easements will not be granted under any circumstances. This means the roadway cannot be built as proposed by the applicant. He requested the commission acknowledge the existence of the covenants for this neighborhood and how these covenants would affect potential building pads. Mr. Griffith recommended other alternatives be sought by the applicant, as there were no practical difficulties with this request. Commissioner Viksnins questioned how the plat conditions were tied to the variance requests. Mr. Griffith stated the essential character of the neighborhood was established through these conditions. The setbacks, wetland protection and narrow roadway created a different look and feel to this development. These essential facts create the character of the neighborhood and the intention of the City Council in 1993. The private covenants match these conditions. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the character of a neighborhood could change over 15-20 years. Mr. Griffith indicated this could happen; however, the restrictions within the original plat created the character of the neighborhood and these covenants were still be held to by the neighbors. Commissioner Noonan explained the commission could not make the determination if the subdivision was buildable at this time because a final plan was not before the city. Mr. Griffith did not agree with this statement. He indicated the limitations and protective conditions within the original plat will not allow for a roadway to be built, as it would be running over scenic easements. The city would have to vacate these easements in order to allow for the roadway to be expanded. Mr. Grittman provided comment on the separation of the variance from the potential subdivision. Mr. Griffith indicated the plat conditions were designed to protect the character of the subdivision. There was a private drive over a public roadway. He reiterated the fact that several construction easements were needed to complete the roadway expansion and the neighbors were not interested in approving these easements. Mr. Mazzitello clarified that the city would not take responsibility for acquiring the necessary easements to complete the roadway expansion. With all private developments, this was the responsibility of the developer. In this case, that would be Mr. Bader. Michael Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, noted he had a written response to Ms. Gray’s letter and submitted those comments to staff. He discussed the restrictive covenants of the neighborhood understanding this was a private matter. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 8 City Attorney Diehm recommended the commission close the public hearing and allow for comments between staff and the commission. Vice-Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 City Attorney Diehm stated this issue has many layers and encouraged the commission to focus their comments on the variance to the street right-of-way width. She then reviewed the criteria for a variance approval in detail with the commission. She asked the commission to limit the discussion to these criteria and avoid comments on the restrictive covenants or potential subdivision. The item being considered this evening is the variance of the standard street width from 60 feet to 50 feet. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH VARIANCE FROM 60 FEET TO 50 FEET FOR THE EXISTING PORTION OF FOXWOOD LANE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Viksnins requested the second finding of fact remove the word “concerns” and replace it with “practical difficulties.” Commissioner Noonan stated the variance approval would allow for further in-depth review of the case when a plat comes before the city. Commissioner Roston commented the fifth finding of fact refers to a “proposed subdivision.” He suggested this finding of fact be removed or amended. City Attorney Diehm supported this recommendation, as the city does not have a potential subdivision to consider. She recommended the fifth finding of fact read as follows: “USE OF FOXWOOD LANE AS PROPOSED IN THE VARIANCE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE USE OF THE SUBJECT LAND CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.” Commissioner Roston offered a friendly amendment to the motion REVISING THE FIFTH FINDING OF FACT AS NOTED BY STAFF. THIS AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY COMMISSIONERS NOONAN AND VIKSNINS. Commissioner Viksnins reviewed the proposed conditions within the staff report. He recommended there be no more than three new buildable lots. Commissioner Roston suggested the commission not address this issue this evening. Commissioner Noonan agreed stating these conditions deal with the future consideration of a subdivision. City Attorney Diehm indicated the city has the right to place conditions on the variance approval. Then, when the subdivision then comes before the city, these factors can be considered. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Vice-Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 1, 2012, meeting. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 9 Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012-08 Tim Aune Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Cul-De-Sac Length • After direction from the Planning Commission, this case was withdrawn by the applicant. PLANNING CASE #2012-09 Barry Sommervold Wetlands Permit for Pool Construction • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:51 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary