Loading...
2011-04-26 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 26, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Vice -Chair Field, Commissioners Magnuson, Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent and excused: Chair Norton and Commissioner Hennes. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval ofAgenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of March 22, 2011, Minutes The commission requested a correction on Page 8, sixth paragraph, to indicate: "Caio Cella, Division Manager with Linder's Flower Marts, stated he had nothing to add to staff's presentation." COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2011, AS CORRECTED. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Viksnins) Hearings PLANNING CASE #11 -04 (continued) Edward Trost from Schad -Tracy Signs for Mendakota Country Club 2075 Mendakota Drive Conditional Use Permit for a Monument Sign Vice -Chair Field noted the commission, at its March meeting, had recommended approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow for a residential property to have more than one monument sign, given a prescribed set of conditions could be met. The commission had also voted to table the request by Mendakota Country Club for a conditional use permit (CUP). Planner Stephen Grittman stated the applicants have submitted revised drawings for the proposed sign and the city has adopted an ordinance amendment to accommodate a second freestanding sign in residential districts for nonresidential use and in this case, a golf course with a CUP. He explained the ordinance amendment and application for a sign with a message area of just under 100 square feet. A photo illustration was displayed of the proposed sign as viewed from the intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110. He advised that the proposed sign meets the requirements adopted as part of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Viksnins asked about the size of the sign in the original application. Mr. Grittman stated it was about 200 square feet and now been reduced in height and width. Vice -Chair Field asked if it will be backlit. Mr. Grittman advised the letters will stand out from the sign with lighting behind to create a glow around each letter. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 Steve Watson, general manager of the Mendakota Country Club, and Edward Trost, Schad -Tracy Signs representing the applicant, introduced themselves. Mr. Watson stated the illustration depicts a winter season and during the summer there will be multiple flower gardens surrounding the sign. He added that the backlight will be white in color. Commissioner Noonan asked if the sign will be in the middle of the flower bed or at the edge. Mr. Watson stated it will be surrounded by flowers. Commissioner Roston noted the disclaimer on the sign picture indicating the colors were for illustration purposes only. Mr. Watson assured the commission that the sign will be consistent with the drawing and constructed of neutral colored materials. It was noted that a sign permit is required. 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 ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Vice -Chair Field asked if hours were established for when the sign would be lit. Mr. Watson noted it was discussed at the meeting. Vice -Chair field suggested the time be addressed in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Viksnins asked if there would be conditions of approval. Mr. Grittman stated the sign will have to comply with the terms of the ordinance relating to hours of display and use of neutral colors or colors complementary with the main sign. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the initial staff report contained recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Grittman stated the initial staff report dealt more with the ordinance amendment than details of the sign proposal. Commissioner Viksnins stated he would like to know the conditions under consideration. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek read the conditions approved in the ordinance amendment: the parcel of the sign must be no less than 40 acres in size; parcel of sign must have frontage on at least two public roadways; no more than one sign is allowed facing any one public roadway; the sign shall not exceed 100 sq. ft. in area or 9 feet in height from the average natural grade; sign may be illuminated providing the direct source of light is not visible from a public right -of -way or adjacent properties; sign may not be constructed as internally lit cabinet, shall be constructed in a monument style fashion including a base of natural stone, brick, or other masonry material; sign shall be landscaped with materials subject to the plans submitted with the CUP application; and lighting shall be limited from dusk to midnight. Vice -Chair Field noted the ordinance requires a landscaping plan to accompany the CUP. Mr. Grittman stated a landscape plan would typically identify, in site plan version, where plantings will occur. Vice -Chair Field noted the applicant has testified the sign will be placed in a bed of flowers. Commissioner Roston stated the hours of lighting are contained in the ordinance as being from dusk to midnight. Mr. Grittman noted this sign has heavy exposure to a high traffic highway and industrial area so the lighting will not impact a residential area. Mr. Grittman presented six findings of fact for the CUP as contained in the staff report. Following review, the commission indicated its concurrence with the findings. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AS REQUESTED BASED ON 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 THE SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE INCLUDING: 1. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SIGN PLAN BE APPROVED BY CITY STAFF. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Vice -Chair Fields advised the city council would consider this application at its May 3, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -08 Norbert and Sandra Krebsbach 1230 Culligan Lane Critical Area Permit for a deck Planner Stephen Grittman presented the application of Norbert Krebsbach for a critical area permit in order to construct a deck addition of eight feet in width and six feet in depth to the rear of an existing single family home. The proposed deck would be located off the lower level which walks out to the southwest, facing a natural area that is not visible from the public right -of -way, nor does it face the river. He displayed a map of the subject site, noting it is zoned R -1 and within the critical area. A separate critical area permit is required for any construction within that area. He then displayed a site plan, described the topography and point of access to Culligan Lane, and location of the proposed small deck. Mr. Grittman stated the critical area ordinance restricts new construction on slopes of greater than 18 %. In this case, the applicant's property is heavily sloped with an average slope from east to west of approximately 24 %. He described the ordinance provisions to allow construction under certain conditions. In staff's view, this application is in compliance with terms of the critical area ordinance provision to allow this construction. Staff finds the proposed deck would not impact to the critical area, is not viewable from the road or river, and comports to critical area requirements. The deck does not extend farther into the lot than the existing deck above and it is understood this will be a wood deck and provide drainage through the deck so it will not impact impervious surface calculations. Staff believed the request was consistent with the terms and requirements of the critical area ordinance and recommends approval subject to several conditions. Commissioner Roston requested clarification of Section 12 -3 -1413.2 relating to the requirement for a CUP if on slopes greater than 18% but less than 40 %. Mr. Grittman explained there are several clauses in the ordinance and staff had this same discussion. Staff found the ordinance is written so existing homes built on lots with average grades greater than 18% but less than 40% prior to 2003 needed a critical area permit but not a CUP. The critical area rules were modified again in 2006, undeveloped lots require no building on slopes beyond 18% and new construction would allow no building on slopes beyond 18 %. Commissioner Roston noted the critical area ordinance conditions would then not apply. Mr. Grittman stated staff reviewed the language and assumed that if all ordinances were to apply, pre -2003 construction fell into the clause that required a critical area permit. Mr. Grittman explained the 18% rule came in effect in 2003 and written so existing lots were exempt to the provision if certain conditions were met to not face the river or be viewable to the public. Then, in 2006, there was another update relating to accessory or incidental structures on developed lots by CUP. A deck is not considered an accessory structure but, rather, an expansion of an existing structure, and consistent with the intent of 12.3.7A, since this is a pre -2003 structure and a deck expansion. Commissioner Roston stated if pre -2003, a structure would never require a CUP to build in the critical area. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct if the application involves an existing home. Commissioner Noonan asked about the proposed conditions and logic of Condition 2 relating to the deck allowing water to transmit through and asked what type of retention plans are being requested from the applicant. Given the Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 nature of the structure, he felt it was illogical to require a drainage plan. Commissioner Noonan also asked about requiring development, drainage and grading plans to be reviewed by the city engineer. Mr. Grittman stated the applicant's plans are subject to approval by the city engineer. Since the plans are for a simple structure, they may be adequate for the city engineer's review due to minimal impact. If that is not the case, the city engineer would have the ability to request more detailed plans. Commissioner Noonan stated assuming this is a fairly simple structure he hopes there will not be extraordinary requests made of the applicant to prepare elaborate drainage and grading plans. Mr. Grittman stated those onerous plans are not required if the construction is not extensive or complicated. However, this language allows the city engineer the ability to request the plans if found to be needed. Commissioner Noonan asked if there are assurances that if it is a simple construction those onerous requirements will not be placed as suggested in Condition 2. Mr. Grittman stated the city will follow past practice and if cursory staff review is acceptable, that is the review given. Commissioner Magnuson stated the way it is written strongly implies that the applicant will have to submit stormwater retention plans and drainage and grading plans because all are required to be reviewed. She supported language that covered a contingency if something unexpected should occur but was concerned about adopting findings that required the plans to be submitted for approval since they are probably not needed for this application. Commissioner Noonan stated his concurrence and explained the applicant needs to understand what is being expected of him so he submits appropriate plans without spending considerable money producing plans such as this. Commissioner Viksnins suggested: "Any storm water retention plans and grading plans shall be approved by the city engineer, if the city engineer determines such plans are necessary." Vice -Chair Field suggested this be further discussed when a motion is considered. Commissioner Roston pointed out that the draft findings of fact include no reference to these plan requirements. The commission discussed the draft findings of fact and draft conditions under consideration. Norbert Krebsbach, applicant, stated they built the house 21 years ago as a rambler walkout. Last year, the insurance company indicated it would not renew the policy unless he addressed the back deck, built steps, or closed off the door. Mr. Krebsbach indicated they felt the best option was a six foot by eight foot deck/landing, which will not impact the back yard or drainage. With regard to the grade, he estimated the back yard is 16 -20% but not greater than that. 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 NAYS COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. DEVELOPMENT IS NOT TO INCREASE THE RATE OF RUNOFF. THE APPLICANTS SHOULD VERIFY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DECK TO DEMONSTRATE THE DECK PERMITS RAINWATER TO FLOW THROUGH TO THE EXISTING GROUND; AND 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 2. APPLICANTS SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE AND GRADING INFORMATION IF REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. Commissioner Noonan explained he proposed revised conditions so submission of additional plans is a discretionary request if staff deemed it to be necessary, rather than making it mandatory. Commissioner Viksnins asked if staff supported the revised language. Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello recommended the following language be considered: "All construction activities must follow the Land Disturbance Guidance document." He stated this document was created to conform with the city's storm water management ordinance and this condition would address Commissioner Noonan's issue as well as the applicant's intent. Commissioner Noonan asked what the applicant would be expected to do in terms of meeting the Land Disturbance Guidance. Mr. Mazzitello stated the only limitation is how long the holes for the footings can be opened. The applicant would not be required to provide a storm water retention plan because the area of disturbance is not big enough nor post - construction storm water treatment because no pervious surface was being added. Commissioner Noonan asked if that information will be made known to the applicant or contractor when the building permit is issued. Mr. Mazzitello answered in the affirmative. COMMISSIONERS NOONAN AND MAGNUSON AGREED TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: 1. DEVELOPMENT IS NOT TO INCREASE THE RATE OF RUNOFF. THE APPLICANTS SHOULD VERIFY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DECK TO DEMONSTRATE THE DECK PERMITS RAINWATER TO FLOW THROUGH TO THE EXISTING GROUND; AND 2. APPLICANTS SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AND ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT AYES NAYS Vice -Chair Field advised the city council would consider this application at its May 3, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -09 Karry and Lisa Knoll 1836 Rolling Green Curve Wetlands Permit for landscaping Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Karry Knoll for an amendment to a previously approved wetlands permit to add a boulder retaining wall within the 100 foot wetland buffer zone at 1836 Rolling Green Curve. He displayed a site plan of the subject site, noting it is zoned R -1, and a wetlands permit is required for disturbances within 100 feet of a wetland. He explained the original project involved installing an in- ground pool, concrete apron and fence in the rear yard of the property. However, following construction of a portion of the project, the applicant found he would not be able to comply with the maximum slope allowance of 3:1 for the grade from swimming pool deck to edge of wetland. As such, the applicant is requesting to amend the wetlands permit to install a boulder retaining wall immediately adjacent to the pool deck. The boulders will consume approximately 3 -4 horizontal feet of the remaining 15 feet between pool deck and wetland, leaving 11 to 12 feet of ground. Mr. Grittman advised that the use of natural materials is an acceptable alternative in the wetlands area. An original condition was to focus on natural landscaping in that space, which is a common requirement for treatment at the edge of wetlands to allow water to filter before reaching the wetland. Staff recommends the general agreement be reinforced as a condition in this amendment. Staff found the request was consistent with the wetland ordinance and recommends approval with the three conditions as detailed in the staff report. 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 Karry Knoll, applicant, stated he wanted to follow the correct process and assure there is adequate grade for the fence so he asked the city to look at it. He stated he also wants to use correct natural plantings that are not invasive. Commissioner Viksnins stated the commission appreciates the applicant's attention to detail. Commissioner Magnuson asked the applicant if he was open to types of vegetation that would be appropriate. Mr. Knoll answered in the affirmative. 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 NAYS COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ADDITIONAL NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE PLANTED BETWEEN THE BOULDER WALL AND WETLAND AREA; 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT; AND 3. ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. Commissioner Noonan noted the third condition is a "catch all" and asked why it was included given what the city knows about the project and since the pool and deck were already installed. Mr. Mazzitello explained the amendment to the wetlands permit requires an amendment to the building permit and staff has not yet seen plans for the retaining wall or buffer area. AYES NAYS Vice -Chair Fields advised the city council would consider this application at its May 3, 2011, meeting. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11 -04 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Amendment • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -05 Paul and Anne Welle Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -06 City of Mendota Heights Wetlands Permit/Wagon Wheel Trail • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -07 Linder's Garden Center Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Sedlacek announced the annual spring cleanup event that will occur at Mendakota Park from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on May 7, 2011. In addition, American Bank will host a shred event the same day from 9 a.m. to noon. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:58 P.M. 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary