Loading...
2010-09-28 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes September 28, 2010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 The regular meet ng of the Mendota Heights Plane ng Commission was held on Tuesday, September 28, 2010, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Povolny, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Norton, and Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioner McManus. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval of July 27, 2010, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2010, AS PRESENTED, AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #10-27 Thomas Ademite 804 Park Place Drive Conditional Use Permit for a fence around a pool Planner Steve Grittman presented the application of Thomas Ademite requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a fence surrounding a swimming pool at 804 Park Place Drive. The property is on the southwest comer of Park Place Drive and Wachtler Avenue and is zoned R-1, one family residential. He explained the propose of the CUP is to ensure the proposed fence will not interfere with the character of the neighborhood or with the general public's health, safety, or welfare. While a three-foot high fence is permitted without approval of a CUP, the city established the CUP process to accommodate requests where property owners have corner lots adjacent to busier roadways and who prefer taller fences to allow for added privacy and security. Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the proposed fence within the side and rear yard setback of 804 Park Place Drive based on the rationale that the ordinance was written to accommodate this type of request and the proposed fence is consistent with others that have been previously approved by the city. Commissioner Field noted with this application, the pool is planned but not yet installed so both are being presented, the pool and the fence. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct. Chair Povolny noted the applicant is not in attendance. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek stated the Commission can still consider the application or postpone it until the applicant is in attendance to answer questions. Chair Povolny asked the Commission if anyone has questions. No one responded with a question. Chair Povolny opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Povolny asked for a motion to close the public hearing. CHAIR POVOLNY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2010 AYES NAYS COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE A FENCE PERMIT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE FENCE; AND 2. THE FENCE SHALL MEET THE REGULATIONS ESTABISHED IN SECTION 12-1D-6, INCLUDING THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT MAXIMUM AND THE 30% OPEN DESIGN REQUIREMENT. AYES NAYS Chair Povolny advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 5, 201 Q meeting. Commissioner Field stated he would like the applicant to always be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting and asked staff to assure it is scheduled on a date the applicant can attend. Or, that the applicant be informed that their application will be laid over until they can attend the meeting. Mr. Grittman stated staff does advise the applicant to attend the meeting. Commissioner Viksnins agreed that the applicant should be in attendance; however, in this case the Commission had no questions on the application. PLANNING CASE #10-28 Karry and Lisa no 1836 Rolling Green Curve Wetlands Permit for pool and fence Planner Grittman presented the application of Karry Knoll requesting approval of a wetlands permit to install an in - ground pool and fence at 1836 Rolling Green Curve. The project involves installing an in -ground pool, concrete apron, fence along the rear yard of the property, and removal of two maple trees in the southwest and southeast corners of the property. The property is zoned R-1, one family residential, and a wetland is located directly to the south of the subject home. Mr. Grittman displayed a site plan to identify the area of the pool, deck, and fence. He advised the improvements are all within 100 feet of a wetland and the zoning ordinance requires a wetlands permit for any work within that buffer zone to assure the improvements do not degrade the water quality or biological function of the wetland. He noted the improvement will encroach within 20 feet of the wetland edge and while it does not violate a specific setback requirement, staff has encouraged the applicant to shift the improvements four to five feet closer to the home, to the north, to retain as much green space and buffer along the wetland as possible. Staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit for the installation of the in -ground pool, concrete area, fence, and landscaping work subject to the five conditions detailed in the staff report that includes moving the fence at least five feet to the north of its proposed location, increasing the setback between the impervious surface and wetland to add additional buffering between the improved area and wetland, which will help filter runoff into the wetland. Commissioner Field asked if the warranty deed was included to identify the applicant's property. Mr. Grittman stated he is unsure why some of the information was included with the application and it was not in response to staff questions. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2010 Commissioner Viksnins asked how strong a suggestion can be made to move the improvements five feet. Mr. Grittman stated staff was not familiar enough with existing conditions to make it a requirement for approval but wanted to raise the option for consideration and discussion. Commissioner Viksnins asked what can be done if the applicant does not agree to move the improvements away from the wetland and if it could be a basis for denial. Mr. Grittman stated staff would not feel comfortable citing it as a basis for denial since it technically meets the wetland code. Chair Povolny stated he has a pool and was told by the city that the pool had to be ten feet from any footing, including deck footings and steps if they have footings. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello stated that is part of the International Building Code and a requirement of the building permit. Commissioner Field asked if it could not be approved for a building permit if the improvements were within ten feet of a footing. Mr. Mazzitello stated that would be correct and he will confirm the matter with the Building Official, Mr. Grittman stated that may be why the applicant has proposed this location for the pool. Commissioner Field stated there appears to be a handwritten note on the plan diagram to change a dimension from three feet to five feet. Mr. Grittman agreed that appears to be the case. Commissioner Field noted that would be the corner closet to the wetland so the only way the applicant could construct the pool five feet farther from the wetland would be to reduce the distance from the edge of the pool and edge of the steps to the deck. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative. Karry Knoll, 1836 Rolling Green Curve, applicant, stated his understanding the pool had to be ten feet from the house. He stated if it is moved more than five feet, he was concerned someone could fall into the pool from the deck. He stated he would agree with several feet because it would be less concrete and a lower cost. Commissioner Norton stated if the distance from the wetland is adjusted by five feet, it would dramatically reduce the size of the patio and may be too small to hold furniture. Mr. Knoll stated they already have an existing patio and could agree to an adjustment of several feet, but not too far. Commissioner Field asked if the measurement on the diagram is three feet or five feet and which dimension the setback calculation is based on. Mr. Guttman stated it appeared to staff that the five-foot deck width between the pool and fence was calculated into the overall setback. Chair Povolny stated his preference for five feet, rather than to reduce it to three feet, to assure safety and adequate access should two people pass each other on the deck area. Mr. Knoll agreed and explained the concrete apron is not intended to be a big area because it is next to the wetlands, which is sometimes foul smelling. Chair Povolny opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Povolny asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Commissioner Norton stated he would support a motion for approval that excluded the condition to move the pool five feet based on the rationale that it would violate the International Building Code. COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2010 1. ADDITIONAL NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE PLANTED BETWEEN THE POOL AND WETLAND AREA; 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT; 3. ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER; AND 4. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE PROPER BUILDING AND FENCE PERMITS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OR CONSTRUCTION WORK, AYES NAYS Chair Povolny advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 5, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10-29 Jane Freeman 1166 Kingsley Court Critical Area Permit for a fence Mr. Sedlacek advised that the applicant had indicated she was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Planner Grittman presented the application of Jane Freeman for approval of a critical area permit in order to install a fence along the south property line within the common area of the Kingsley Estates Townhomes. The property is located at 1166 Kingsley Court, zoned R-1, one family residential, and within the Mississippi River corridor. Mr. Grittman displayed a site plan to describe the subject property and location of the proposed fence directly south of the applicant's unit. The wooden privacy fence would provide screening between the applicant's unit and the adjacent single family home to the south. Mr. Grittman advised that this area is governed by the Critical Area Ordinance so a critical area permit is required to assure the sensitive bluff regions of the Mississippi River corridor are protected and building materials are natural and blend with the environment. In this case, the applicant is proposing a wood fence which meets the requirements of code and is not within the bluff setbacks. Staff recommends approval of the critical area permit to construct a 6-foot high, 48-foot long fence as no landscaping, paving, soil loss, change in grades, or altering of slopes is planned. Thus, the project should not have a negative impact on the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi critical areas. Commissioner Field asked who is the applicant, the Homeowner's Association or Ms. Freeman, Mr. Sedlacek clarified that the applicant is Jane Freeman and the signature of owner is by Mr. Murphy, the Kingsley Estates Association Manager. Chair Povolny opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Povolny asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE A FENCE PERMIT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE FENCE;AND 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2010 2. THE FENCE SHALL MEET THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION U-1D-65 INCLUDING THE 30 % OPEN DESIGN REQUIREMENT. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Povolny advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 5, 2010, meeting. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #10-12 Troy Troje Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10-18 Elizabeth Tetzlaff Conditional Use Permit Applicant withdrew the variance and CUP request. PLANNING CASE #10-20 Stephen and Jana Patrick Lot Split • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission, PLANNING CASE #10-23 Stephen and Sherry Kampa Wetlands Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10-24 Rob and Stacy Hermann Conditional Use Permit • Applicant withdrew variance request and CUP approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10-25 Paul Plumb Lot Split Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10-26 Peter Opitz Wetlands Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Field asked whether the city will undertake review of its Zoning Code to address the recent Supreme on ruling relating to variances. Commissioner Hennes stated if the Council is not inclined Co consider variance requests, it may be beneficial to hold a joint meeting with the Council, after the new Council is seated in 201 I, to discuss the matter. Mr. Grittman stated that question can be addressed with the Council. Commissioner Field stated that variances for garage setbacks for post World War 11 have been considered because they lend themselves to the narrow size of those lots and perhaps a CUP consideration would be appropriate in those cases. Mr. Grittman stated those lots probably comply with the more rigorous review required by the Supreme Court based on reasonable use. Commissioner Field stated suggested past cases be reviewed and a determination made on what is good policy. Mr. Grittman stated staff can prepare a summary of variance applications that have been reviewed. Mr. Sedlacek advised that the League will be lobbying for new legislation, perhaps to find a middle ground between how variances have been considered and the new Supreme Court ruling. Commissioner Field stated since Chair Lally has resigned, the Commission should consider its organizational structure at the next meeting to identify a Vice Chair. Chair Povolny concurred and asked staff to schedule that on the next agenda. Chair Povolny thanked Joe Lally for his years of service to Mendota Heights and stated he will be missed. The Commissioners concurred. Planning Coniniission Minutes September 28, 2010 Mr. Sedlacek advised that Commission appointments will be available for Chair Lally term and Commissioner McManus who has termed out. He stated those two openings will be advertised and encouraged interested residents to make application. Adiourn COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:43 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary