Loading...
2008-09-23 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes September 23, 2008 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23, 2008 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lally, Commissioners McManus, Norton, Povolny, Viksnins, and Hennes. Those absent: Commissioners Norton and Field. Those present were Public Works Director John Mazzitello, Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, and Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Rebecca Shaffer. ADDroval of Au gust 26. 2008 Commissioner Hennes moved, seconded by Commissioner Povolny, to approve the minutes of August 26, 2008 of the Planning Commission meeting. AYES 6 NAYES 0 Hearinks PLANNING CASE #08 -26 Mary Ellen Kappas 683 Apache Lane Wetlands Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 683 Apache Lane, which is a single family home, zoned R -1 single family residential, and also guided that way in the comprehensive plan. The applicant is proposing to construct a fence that would be within the 100 -ft. buffer zone adjacent to a wetland. Mr. Grittman said the lot is actually separated from the wetland property and there is a deck on the rear portion of the property. Mr. Grittman said there are two sections of white vinyl fence between the home / deck and the property line and there is a chain link section along the west boundary line. Mr. Grittman said there is very minimal impact to the wetland and Staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit as presented. Chair Lally asked if the fence is consistent with the fence requirements of the city. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Ms. Mary Ellen Kappas, 683 Apache Lane, said they currently have an invisible fence for their dogs which does not contain the dogs well enough and the fence is for their containment. Commissioner McManus asked if this will result in a dog proof fence all the way around the yard. Ms. Kappas said it would not and they will still maintain the invisible fence along the back side of the property, and they have since obtained two new dogs and the invisible fence will not contain them. Ms. Kappas said the power of the invisible fence along the side yards, has to be turned us so that that the dogs are afraid to come off the deck. The neighbors already have a fence and by enclosing the east side of the yard, the proposal will allow the applicant to keep the power turned up for the invisible fencing in the backyard, allowing the dogs to come off the deck. Ms. Kappas said the only fence between the yard and the wetlands will be the existing rustic wood fence. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, he asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner McManus moved, seconded by Commissioner Norton, to approve close the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2008 AYES NAYES Commissioner McManus moved, seconded by Commissioner Hennes, to recommend approval of the Wetlands Permit as presented in the Planners Report. AYES NAYES PLANNING CASE #08 -27 Mark Goblish 694 Ocala Lane Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed the map showing the location of 694 Ocala Lane. This property is a single family parcel in an R -1 single family zone, guided that way in the comprehensive plan as well. The parcel is occupied by a single family home and the applicant is seeking approval of a variance to build an open- covered storage area. Mr. Grittman said the cover roof has already been constructed and encroaches to about a foot from the property line edge. The storage area is in the side yard, and the issue here is that the roof construction encroaches into that space. Normally, any encroached structure is required to meet a 10 -11 setback and the code allows for a 2 -ft overhang into that space. In this case, the setback violation is quite a bit more extensive than that. Mr. Grittman said there is an approximate 7 to 8 -11 encroachment here and the applicant has provided a planned view and elevation sketch of the issue as well. The applicant has identified the hardship as this is a convenient area for storage for them and the property makes it difficult to access any other storage area from the garage or from the driveway. Staff said they have a concern that this is not an adequate reason to support the variance as there is other areas of the property that can support storage that would meet the setbacks so if there was an addition that was constructed to the rear or a covered encroachment into the rear yard that would meet the setback requirements and would be allowed without a variance. It is also possible that a separate detached shed could be constructed as allowed by the city code. There is also ample space on other areas of the property that would allow for storage areas. Mr. Grittman said Staff does not believe there is a hardship that would support the variance and recommends denial of the request for a variance. Commissioner Hennes said he looked at the property and asked if the fence that is located there now is within code. Mr. Grittman said it is his understanding that it is and is not aware of any violation. Commissioner Hennes asked if there is a setback requirement for a fence along the property line. Mr. Grittman said a fence is allowed to be constructed right up to the property line as long as it is all on the applicant's property or if there is an agreement with the neighbor it can be constructed on the property line. Commissioner Hennes said the applicant could remove the structure and keep the fence. Mr. Grittman said that is correct. Commissioner Viksnins said he did not get a chance to view the property and asked if the land is level. Mr. Grittman said it is so. Commissioner Viksnins said there does not seem to be any topography issues then. Mr. Grittman said the area has some slight variations for drainage but there are no significant topography issues. Commissioner Viksnins asked where the planner would suggest alternative locations for the storage area. Mr. Grittman said a lot of the rear yard would be eligible for some kind of structure. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the existing structure could be removed and placed somewhere else. Mr. Grittman said this could be done. Chair Lally said he did not into the back yard and asked if the portion that was identified as an alternative would be at the back of the garage. Mr. Grittman said he does not know. Chair Lally asked if another alternative would be at the side of the house. Mr. Grittman said there is room there and would meet the 10 -11 setback. Mr. Mark Goblisch, 6694 Ocala Lane, said one of the main items that are stored in this area is a small recreational boat, and to construct a storage area anywhere else would not make the boat accessible, and any other storage area would be visible by the neighbors. Mr. Goblisch said the site he chose is the best for convenience, availability of space, and usability of space. Mr. Goblisch said his neighbors have stated they like this plan and it looks better than it did. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2008 Mr. Goblisch said at the time of the application he had signatures from two neighbors, since that time he has acquired additional signatures and submitted them to Staff. Commissioner Hennes asked when the roof was constructed. Mr. Goblisch said he does not remember the exact date. Commissioner Hennes said it is his understanding that the fence was there when Mr. Goblisch purchased the home. Commissioner Hennes asked if the applicant used the area for storage and then constructed the roof this summer. Mr. Goblisch said it was this summer. Commissioner Hennes asked the applicant if he knew there was a need for a variance. Mr. Goblisch said he did not. Commissioner Viksnins asked the applicant how he became aware that a variance was needed. Mr. Goblisch said he received a letter from Paul Berg who noticed the structure and informed Mr. Goblisch that a variance and /or a demolition permit were needed. Commissioner Viksnins asked the applicant what the uniqueness of the property is that creates a hardship. Mr. Goblisch said it depends on one's definition of a hardship and he believes this may not be a true hardship but from a common sense standpoint, the availability of space and using the space to the greatest potential, he believes this location was the most opportune spot to put it. Commissioner Viksnins said many of the commissioners wish to be accommodating but are constrained somewhat by the standard that they need to follow, and a hardship is needed. Commissioner Viksnins said he finds it hard to identify what that hardship would be. Mr. Goblisch said the hardship would be that there is no other space to put a boat on the property with this type of structure that is feasible. Chair Lally asked if it is possible to get the boat through the space between the house and the fence. Mr. Goblisch said that was not possible as there are four 40 -ft pine trees that begin at the back of the garage. Mr. Goblisch said these trees can be removed to access the back yard. Chair Lally said some of the reasons for setbacks are for safety reasons so emergency vehicles can access the rear of the homes, and others are the kind for uniformity of the neighborhood. The measurement is from the property line to the structure and he appreciates that the neighbor to the west has 25 -ft between his house and the common property line. Commissioner McManus said while it may not be the practical solution, the very large trampoline that is in the back yard can be moved to another location and there is a significantly impressive jungle gym back there that could also be moved to another location. There is also an artificial surface for golf practice in the yard as well. Commissioner McManus asked what prevents the applicant from moving some of those things around in such a way as to be able to provide a suitable solution for the applicant and meets the standards. Mr. Goblisch asked Commissioner McManus where he would propose these things go. Commissioner McManus said he would not propose any place as he would have somebody smarter than he try to figure this out. Commissioner McManus said it is not convenience or aesthetics, but the applicant needs to prove that this house is not useful to be lived in unless there is an exception made. Mr. Goblisch said he cannot make the case that the house is not livable without this variance. Mr. Grittman said that the process should be on what the applicant proposes is a reasonable use of the property and therefore the variance is necessary to accommodate that reasonable use. Mr. Grittman said sometimes these things swing on whether there is some physical hardship that prevents total use of the property or whether in a particular case the use that is being proposed is a reasonable one and cannot be accommodated in any other fashion. Commissioner McManus said he believes there are some reasonable fashions that could meet the applicant's need and suggested the applicant get the best help he can get to figure out how to do this; and if necessary come back to the city and prove that this really is a hardship. Mr. Goblisch said if he had room in the front yard to comply with different regulations and rules it still would not be practical or reasonable to park a boat or other storage items in the middle of his front yard. Mr. Goblisch said he has looked at this with a reasonable and common sense approach and utilizing space that is otherwise not used for anything, and can be best used for this and the rest of the space be better used for other practical reasons. The putting area is also used to place an inflatable swimming pool there in the summer time. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, he asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2008 Commissioner Norton moved, seconded by Commissioner Viksnins, to approve close the public hearing. AYES 6 NAYES 0 Commissioner Norton moved, seconded by Commissioner Viksnins, to recommend denial of the variance request in accordance with the variance language that there is no hardship identified. Further Discussion Commissioner Hennes asked if someone moves into an area, is there any way for the city to share information with the homeowners so they don't do something like this? Mr. Sedlacek said the City can look into putting together some Welcome Packets for new or prospective residents. One of the things that attract people to the city is the spaciousness of the lots and Staff would not usually think to tell people not to build in the setbacks proactively. Commissioner Hennes said he believes in this case, the applicant has a perfectly reasonable use but is not sure it could not be accommodated elsewhere on the property. Chair Lally said when variances are granted for things such as extra garages and such, it causes the uniformity of the neighborhood to be changed. Chair Lally said this request seems reasonable but at the same time, if there is an alternative to put it somewhere that satisfies the need for both the city and the applicant, measures should be taken to do so. Commissioner McManus said it is obvious that the applicant has tried to do his best but feels constrained by the rules of the city, feeling comfortable with the proposal but having to go by the rules. AYES 6 NAYES 0 Verbal Review Planning Case No. 08 -24 Keith Ostrosky Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Case No. 08 -25 Mendota Heights Lodging Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary / Final Plat • Council had some questions on the zoning ordinance language and requested this be tabled. The applicant requested more time to make sure they had everything prepared and will come before Council on Oct. 7th. The Council asked Staff to clarify the stipulation of no cooking allowed in motels in the City as well as tighter language on signage and bathrooms. Commissioner Hennes moved, seconded by Commissioner Norton, to adjourn the meeting 8:36 pm Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Shaffer, Recording Secretary