Loading...
2006-03-28 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2006 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:30 pm. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners McManus, Lally, Povolny, Dolan, Harmes, and Hesse. City Staff present were City Engineer Sue McDermott and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Chair Lorberbaum introduced City Councilperson Ultan Duggan. Councilperson Duggan welcomed Commissioner Harm, Povolny and Lally to the Planning Commission. Councilperson spoke about the 50th Birthday Celebration of the City of Mendota Heights, which is scheduled for June 3rd, with the kickoff event beginning the evening of June 2"d. Councilperson asked the Commissioners to help with providing two volunteers each, as well as actively participating in this event. Councilperson explained the highlights and activities that will be presented. Chair Lorberbaum announced that Vice Chair Hesse will be overseeing the meeting at this time. Approval of February 28, 2006 Page 1, under introductions, bullet 3 shall read as follows: "Commissioner Joe Lally lives on Delaware Avenue, is married with two children. Commissioner Lally has lived in Mendota Heights since 2003, and rg ew up in St. Paul, also siree his youth Commissioner Lally attending St. Thomas Academy, and is a corporate attorney." Page 3, 14th paragraph, should read as follows: "Commissioner Hesse asked the applicant if he could share some history on the Cease and Desist order he received. Mr. Nelson said he cannot share the legal aspects but that the DNR go got involved and brought the County into the matter. Mr. Nelson needs to go back to the County showing he has a legal permit to continue the rest of the excavation and planting." Page 4, 2nd paragraph, should read as follows: "Mr. Jim Laslevin, 815 Hazel Court, is Mr. Nelson's neighbor. Mr. Laslevin said the school board was originally going to build a school on this property, but sold 80 acres to Mary Anderson. In the middle of this process, Mary Anderson went through bankruptcy and Pulte Homes picked it up. The site that Mr. Nelson has is the old farm site. The barn foundation is actually under Mr. Nelson's home foundation. Mr. Laslevin said he Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 watched as the developer bulldozed that area and fill in over the foundations. Mr. Laslevin said it appeared nobody cared about the fill at that time. The pond had lots of oaks and wheeping willows but are all dead now because the pond level is net higher than the original level. Mr. Laslevin explained how the pond was affecting his pond, and when heavy rains came, a lot of water ran down into the Friendly Hills neighborhood." Page 4, 4th par�ph, should read as follows: "Mr. Nelson said in 1996, the neighbors were a lot closer than they are today and he had secs secured the services of Blue Water Science to create an essay regarding the characteristics of the pond. The neighbors living around the divided the cost between them to pay for these services. Mr. Nelson gave that information to the City to keep." Page 4, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, should read as follows: "Commissioner McManus asked if the Commission is micro- managing the an issue whieh may not be ,.°Ainen4 and at best, Linen4 to leave those things in there beeattse it is a very steep hi14. Commissioner McManus said he would not understand why anyone would want to take them out of there, and does not see the need for the amendment." Page 5, 4th par�ph, should read as follows: "Chair Lorberbaum asked Staff about the timeframe of starting the project. Mr. Hollister said that generally speaking, the recipient has 6 months from the time they reeei�ved receive the permit until the date they actually commence construction. From this date, the recipient would have one year to complete the project, unless there is an extension granted. In the case of a wetlands permit, the applicant will have 90 days from the issue date to commence the work. Mr. Grittman said the Commission can make the recommendation that the work must commence by a certain day other than 90 days, and then it must be completed within 12 months, unless the Commission recommends otherwise. Chair Lorberbaum said if the date is set to commence no later than July 1St, the applicant should be pretty safe. Page 7, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, should read as follows: "Commissioner Dolan asked why the cost was different for the two processes. Mr. Grittman said the notification is wider so more properties are notified and there is an automatic public hearing with conditional use permits where with vafianees, the applicant needs to get adequate number of signatures and can therefore avoid notification requirements. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2006 AS CORRECTED. 7 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #06 -06 Phillip True 660 Brookside Lane Variance Mr. Grittman shared a map showing the location of 660 Brookside Lane, which contains a single family home. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow an addition to the home. The home currently has an attached 3 -car garage, and the application is proposing to add a portion to the east side of the home toward Laura Street, that would serve as a new garage and the existing garage being subdivided to allow a portion to be come living space. Mr. Grittman said the required setback is at least 30 -ft from the right -of -way line. The existing setback of the home is 30 -ft. The proposed expansion would be 14 -ft in depth, and as a result, the setback from the required right of way would be 16 -ft. Staff feels the applicant is already using the property in a reasonable fashion. Commissioner McManus asked for the requirements of corner lots. Mr. Grittman said the side yard and front yard setbacks are both 30 -ft. Commissioner McManus said Laura Street does not go through and is currently a dead end. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner McManus said the only traffic there is would be from the south and to the west, and Brookside also dead ends to the west. Commissioner McManus said there is ample room on both sides of the house, and there seems to be very little traffic. Commissioner McManus said it would seem there would be a minimal impact to the neighborhood, and in fact, may even make the neighborhood better. Commissioner McManus asked if precedence would be set if the Commission would make an exception, and can the Commission use their judgement on individual cases. Vice Chair Hesse said this is a common thought and the Commission does its best to accommodate as many requests as possible, however a hardship needs to be defined. If precedence is set, it may be difficult to maintain rules in the future. Commissioner Lally said he's not sure if the string rule applies, but if one looks at the four lots that abut Laura Street, they all have garages that are closer to the street than the garage at 660 Brookside. Commissioner Lally said that looking from the corner of 1St Avenue and Laura Street, 657 1St Avenue has a garage that is closer to Laura Street than what the proposed garage would be. Commissioner Lally asked what the front yard setback is from the right of way to the front of the house. Mr. Grittman said he would estimate it to be about 55 -ft. Commissioner Lally said the applicant could possibly build forward towards Brookside Lane as there is plenty of space. Commissioner Lally asked how the new addition would be laid out. Mr. Grittman said not all of the addition will be used as garage space, but some will be some living space as well. Commissioner Lally asked if the garages at 650 Brookside, 651 1St Ave., and 657 1" Ave. were pre- existing uses. Mr. Grittman said he does not know some of the history of those parcels. Commissioner Lally asked if the homeowner purchased this house without knowledge of this ordinance? Mr. Grittman said the applicant will have to answer this question. 3 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 Commissioner Povolny said part of the hardship is that the applicant in on a corner lot, and the setbacks from the property lines would be different. Mr. Grittman said that if this were not a corner lot, the applicant would have a 10 -ft. setback on that side of the house. Commissioner Povolny asked if this could be considered the hardship. Mr. Grittman said part of the hardship would need to show a unique condition of the property, and corner lots are not a unique condition. City standards require corner lots to have a larger setback from the corner. Commissioner Povolny said the homes across Laura have garages that are just a few feet from the property line. Commissioner Povolny asked what the distance is between the property line and right of way to the curb. Mr. Grittman said Laura Street is not built to city standards and there is a particularly wide boulevard under its current design. Mr. Grittman said there may be some street improvements in the future that will alter this boulevard. Commissioner Povolny asked if there would be an issue if the street is improved with curb and gutter. Mr. Grittman said that would decrease the amount of space between the curb line and the building. The applicant would not overhang the curb by parking in the driveway, but would be sitting on a portion of the right of way. Chair Lorberbaum asked where the addition would fall if the string line were used. Mr. Grittman explained how the home was laid out in respect to the string rule, and it shows that the addition will extend beyond the string line. Commissioner Harms said the property at 657 1" Ave. does come close to the road and she asked when this property was extended, as the map does not show the same layout as how the home is actually placed. Commissioner Harms asked if there were any history of this home. Commissioner Povolny said he believes this home was built before the street was there. Mr. Grittman said he believes the road was platted before the home was built, but never actually put in. Mr. Hollister said this is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Mendota Heights and it's possible that most of the homes in this area were built before current ordinances were put in place. Commissioner Harms said it probably is not a hardship to be built before the ordinance and then have the ordinance come in after the fact, although there is something in the unification of the neighborhood in keeping the lines running the same. Commissioner Harms spoke about consideration for new construction that should keep within the design of the neighborhood, and that it may be a good idea to give variance hardships some flexibility in this way. It is noted that Chair Lorberbaum left the meeting at this time. Commissioner Dolan said he agrees that the Commission struggles with how to define hardships. Case law does not necessarily require a finding of hardship if there is no other reasonable use of the property. Mr. Grittman said case law requires that one defines the reasonable use. Commissioner Dolan said that if what is being proposed is reasonable, and if it's consistent with the quality of the neighborhood and the applicant has not caused the problem in the first place, there has been a hardship found without concluding that there is no other reasonable use of the property. Commissioner Dolan said all the homes here are pretty uniform to the north and if an addition is sticking out, that would create more of a problem. 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 Phillip True, 660 Brookside Lane, said the new garage will actually be smaller than the current one in terms of square footage. Mr. True explained how the house would be laid out, adding on a new kitchen in the area of the garage /family great room. Mr. True said he could not build out toward the north as the kitchen will then be next to the bedrooms, which does not make a lot of sense. Mr. True said that on the other three sides of the house, he is already at the setbacks. In addition, Mr. True has an existing bedroom in the lower level of the home, and any addition in this area would take out an existing conforming window. Mr. True said his plan will allow his home to remain one level, which is the original design of the home. Mr. True said he wishes to keep to the one level home in the case his in -laws will be moving in some time in the future. Commissioner McManus asked Mr. True if he could work with a 12 -ft setback? Mr. True said he would be fine with that. Commissioner McManus said this would allow the applicant to build without having a vehicle overhang the right of way. Commissioner Povolny said he understands that a north option would not work, and have a negative effect on the floor plan of the house. There is a lot of space from the property line to the right of way. This is not a bad project and asked for more clarification on any future street expansions. Mr. True said from the edge of his driveway to the pavement is 60 -ft. Commissioner Povolny said the neighbors across the street are just a few feet from the street, and even if the street is improved, Mr. True will still be in conformance with the other homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Povolny said he believes this would justify the hardship. City Engineer McDermott said the standard street width is 32 -ft., and said the City is planning on improving the streets in this neighborhood next year. Ms. McDermott said she does not anticipate making this street 32 -ft. wide, but depending on what the neighbors want and with their short driveway, they may want on street parking, which means the street would need to be widened to 26 -ft to 28 -ft. Right now, the street is only 16 -ft to 18 -ft wide. Most likely, the widening would be moved toward Mr. True's house because the other garages are so close to the property line. Commissioner Povolny said there is more than adequate room for Mr. True to go through with his plans. Ms. McDermott said she agrees with Commissioner McManus that the applicant go with the 12 -ft. in order to keep the vehicles out of the right of way in case utilities need to be addressed. Vice Chair Hesse asked the applicant if he gave any thought to having a two -car garage instead of three. Mr.True referred to the drawing to explain how the kitchen will be laid out in the new addition, showing a two - car garage giving way to a galley style kitchen, which is not what he feels would not fit the nature of the home. Commissioner Harms said she does not totally understand why Mr. True would have to give up some of his space he is requesting if the neighbors already overhang the right of way. At this point, the neighbor's homes cannot be changed and perhaps it would be better to keep the homes lined up so any further obstructions can not be created. Mr. True said he would be ok with that. Vice Chair Hesse opened the public hearing. Ken True, the applicant's father, spoke on behalf of his son, saying that he is from Nebraska and is not familiar with the zoning laws in Mendota Heights. Mr. Ken True said he is a retired structural engineer and will be 5 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 working with his son on this project. Mr. Ken True said with the existing house, having a cathedral ceiling, any extension to the north for all practical purposes is impossible. There will be numerous challenges with this option. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Vice Chair Hesse asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO EXTEND THE CURRENT GARAGE 12 -FT. WHICH WOULD MANDATE THAT THERE BE NO PARKING PAST THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN WILL KEEP THE HOUSE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Commissioner McManus said he is basing his motion on the following: — topography of the land — adding on to the west is not reasonable — the loss of a existing bedroom on the north prohibits going into that direction — adding on to the northeast would come out across Brookside and face the house across the street to the north. By permitting the applicant this variance, the improvements to the house will keep the house within the character of the neighborhood Commissioner Harms asked for a friendly amendment to the motion that the extension be allowed further to meet the string rule of the neighboring homes, keeping uniformity to the neighborhood. Commissioner McManus said he would have no problem with the extension, but he does have a problem with the string rule because he does not know what the house across the street is. He does not believe it's an issue, but would accept the 14 -ft instead of 12 -ft. Commissioner Dolan is concerned about the street improvements and it may be preferable to keep with the 12 -ft. Ms. McDermott said it appears the street right of way is 60 -ft wide and depending on the design, Mr. True could later request a vacation of a 10 -ft strip by the City of this right of way. Commissioner Dolan said since it is not known what the design will be, perhaps it would be better to save a couple of feet just in case. Commissioner Povolny said a couple of feet in a small project is probably causing the applicant more inconvenience, and 14 -ft is not very much. Commissioner Dolan said the City is reluctant to grant variances in the first place, and when the applicant comes before the City and says he can live with 12 -ft, the City should not give him the 14 -ft. Commissioner Povolny said 12 -ft. will be tight. Commissioner Dolan said it may save the City some headaches. Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 Commissioner McManus said after having heard some further discussion, he would be more comfortable staying with the 12 -ft., which will most likely be more easily accepted by the City Council. Commissioner McManus said the applicant is very willing to go with the 12 -ft. Commissioner Harms withdrew her request for a friendly amendment. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #06 -07 ISD #197 — Henry Sibley High School Conditional Use Permit and Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for a conditional use permit and variances for replacement of an existing parking lot and accessory structure construction on the property. There is also some building additions included in this project, and it is understood that these building do not increase the capacity of the high school, but are for accessory uses. Mr. Grittman said one of the existing buildings will be removed, one will be restored and there are some other accessory buildings on the property. Because the ordinance allows for only 3 accessory buildings per property, a variance is needed to exceed that number. In this particular case, the actual square footage of the accessory building space is being reduced as a result of the removal of one of these buildings. The other portion of the project includes reconstruction of the parking lot to the north and also grading that is part of that. Code requires that more than 400 cubic yards of soil is being excavated, a conditional use is required. Mr. Grittman said that the standard used in RI district of no more than 3 accessory buildings that does not always apply well in the case of a large industrial sized property. Because of this, the City has considered reasonable use of these properties to include more than the limited 3 buildings. In this case, there is a total of six, and one will be removed. As a result, the variance will be for the 5 accessory buildings as proposed. Staff believes the variance is supported by the nature of the use and also is consistent with the City's practice in apply that reasonable use standards to these types of properties. The conditional use permit relates to grading and reconstruction of the parking lot on the north part of the property. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site map showing the location of the parking lot, and explained the circulation pattern. Staff feels all requirements have been met and recommends approval of the conditional use permit as requested. Staff made some additional conditions as explained in the Planners Report, which the applicant is in agreement with. Those conditions include: 1. The applicant shall revise plans to show an additional four (4) deciduous trees with the site. 2. The applicant shall provide detailed plans of all light fixtures within the site. 3. The grading, drainage, and erosion control plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 7 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 Mr. Aplikowski, Wold Architects, said Mr. Grittman did a great job of introducing this project and would add that the reconstruction of the accessory building is to improve the building as has dilapidated. Commissioner Povolny said this shed needs to be redone, and should have been done a long time ago. Commissioner Povolny said he has an issue with the circulation of the parking lot, and the radius on the corner. Mr. Aplikowski explained that this area is large and the transportation department is confident that these patterns will work just fine. Vice Chair Hesse opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Vice Chair Hesse asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARMS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Hesse closed the public hearing. VICE CHAIR HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARMS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #06 -08 United Properties 2520 Pilot Knob Road Variance Mr. Grittman showed a map depicting the location of 2520 Pilot Knob Road which is an industrial park. Mr. Grittman said there is an existing building on this parcel and the tenant is seeking a variance from our free- standing sign setback requirement which is equal to the building setback. In this case, the setback is 40 -ft from the street right of way. The applicant is proposing a sign right along Northland Drive and having a zero setback with the suggestion that setting the sign back any further would make it difficult to read from passing traffic. Mr. Grittman said this type of signage is quite consistent within this area. At the original time of the planning on this industrial park, the City utilized a PUD process to gain approval of 20 -ft. setback signs. As these signs come through individually, it's been the City's practices that suggest reasonable use of these properties and allow for reasonable identification of these properties. Staff recommends approval of these signs to be place at the 20 -ft. mark. Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 Commissioner McManus said there is a very steep hill from the road down to the parking area. There are also a line of trees that are very close to the right of way. Commissioner McManus asked if the Commissioners will be requiring the applicant to place this sign amongst the trees or will this give the applicant the opportunity to take down a bunch of beautiful trees. Mr. Grittman said this project may require changing the landscape to meet the 20 -ft setback. Mr. Grittman said it appears that even with the slope the sign would be visible and it is possible to build the sign a couple of feet higher to accommodate for the slope. Commissioner Lally asked how far from the driveway entrance for sign placement is required. Mr. Grittman said there are no ordinances for private driveways. Commissioner Lally asked if there will be any visibility problems with traffic. Mr. Grittman said if it's set back farther, there will be less of a visibility problem. The sign would be located down further from the drive, but there is some potential that it could be a concern from the east. Commissioner Lally asked if there are any ordinances concerning signage being perpendicular to the road. Mr. Grittman said there are not. Vice Chair Hesse asked if there are any other signs along the roadway that have been granted variances. Mr. Grittman said he is not aware of any. Commissioner Harms said she is concerned that the signage will be in a hollow, within trees, and would not be very visible. Commissioner Harms said she did not see any other signage along the roadway that they could align a new sign with. Mr. Grittman said the sign would be located closer to Pilot Knob Road. Commissioner Harms said there are signs across the street that look to be closer than the 20 -ft. Mr. Grittman said he would not doubt that there are other non - conforming signs in the area. Commissioner Dolan asked if there were any other monument signs that serve this development. Mr. Grittman said there are, but not along the frontage road. Chris Leaf, United Properties, reviewed some photos of similar signage to give the Commissioners an idea of what it would look like. Mr. Leaf said explained how the sign would be located and what it would look like. Mr. Leaf said this was a very open area, and the trees would not be affected. Commissioner McManus asked the applicant if he thought the 20 -ft setback would work. Mr. Leaf said the 20- ft. setback from the right of way would be fine. It would not, however, work being 20 -ft. from the property line, as that would put the sign in the parking lot. Mr. Grittman said the property line and the right of way line is the same. Mr. Grittman said a 20 -ft setback from the right of way would put the sign right back at the curb of the parking lot. The parking lot setback is 20 -ft. Mr. Leaf said he understands how that lays out. Commissioner McManus said the recommendation from the Planner wants the applicant to be back almost to the curb of the parking lot, which is below the hill about 10 -ft. Commissioner McManus said this location would put the sign behind the trees, and asked the applicant if there were any way the applicant could put the sign there and make the sign visible? Mr. Leaf said he could not, and there is no where along Northland Drive that the sign could be 9 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 placed without significantly elevating the sign, and that would incur substantial costs and cutting down of trees. Mr. Leaf shared a photo of what the property would look like with a sign superimposed to give everyone an idea of how it will look. Vice Chair Hesse said he was not in favor of taking out trees to place a sign, but believes the sign would serve vehicles coming from the east giving warning that the driveway is next. Vice Chair Hesse asked if there were anything to let the vehicles coming from the west. Mr. Leaf said there would be no signage to help those vehicles, but they may see the sign when they approach the driveway. Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Grittman if he knew of any signage that was approved to be placed on a property line. Mr. Grittman said he only knew of one sign that was placed 10 -ft away from the property line, due to topography and tree vegetation. Vice Chair Hesse opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Vice Chair Hesse asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Hesse closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HARMS MOVED, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BASED UPON FINDING THE HARDSHIP BEING THE TOPOGRAPHY AND VEGETATION PURPOSES, IN PUTTING THE PROPERTY TO REASONABLE USE UNDER THE ORDINANCE, AND THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BE MAINTAINED BY GRANTING THIS SIGNAGE AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Commissioner McManus said it is important that there is a visible sign in this area, that it's part of doing business. It is also important that trees are not removed, and it's the trees that give this site its desirability. Commissioner McManus said he does not see any traffic issues with this proposal. Mr. Grittman said with an 18 -ft boulevard, there should not be a visibility problem. PLANNING CASE #06 -05 Visitation School 10 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 2455 Visitation Drive Wetland Permit, Variance and Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman showed a map depicting the location of 2455 Visitation Drive, in which the applicant, Visitation School, is seeking approval of a variance, conditional use permit and wetland permit for an outdoor classroom construction and a floating dock in one of the wetlands. Mr. Grittman said location of the classroom is east of the school facility, adjacent to a pond. The variance is for the number of accessory buildings on the site. The proposed accessory structure is 135 square feet enclosure with some attached overhead structures. The application also includes a paved portion in that area. The conditional use permit is for modification of this parcel related to grading. The wetland permit is to protect from any erosion around the wetland area. Mr. Grittman shared a rendition of the building, which is relatively small. This space will be primarily used for environmental education puposes. The site plan does not identify the specific area of the floating dock and will need the applicant to clarify that. Mr. Grittman said the hardship for the variance appears to be clearly within the mission of an educational facility and the limitation on the number of accessory buildings in the R -1 zoning district, puts an unreasonable limitation on the use of the site as a school and Staff is recommending approval of the variance. Mr. Grittman said the conditional use permit and wetland permit is also recommended as it is believed that these are reasonable requests to put the property to use. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has not submitted a proposed landscaping or restoration plan in the case the wetland area is disturbed in connection with the construction of the classroom or dock. Commissioner Dolan expressed some concerns on the environmental impact and that the applicant has not provided much information addressing these impacts. Commissioner Dolan asked if the dock is to be removed during the winter. Mr. Grittman said he did not know. Commissioner Dolan asked if the ordinance impose any restrictions on docks regarding maintenance, removal, storage, etc. Mr. Grittman said there are no ordinances to that affect. Commissioner Harms asked for clarification on the map where the site is located. Vice Chair Hesse said he would like the applicant to provide some additional information regarding the erosion and re- vegetation plans. Staff is comfortable with recommendation of approval with the information presented tonight, and will review these plans with City Council next week. Commissioner Lally asked if the construction will require a silt fence. Mr. Grittman said there would be a silt fence installed. Commissioner McManus asked Mr. Grittman if he were satisfied that the building and dock will not cause damage to the water. Mr. Grittman said that Staff is satisfied with the building plans and that a plan can be produced for the dock, and that all will not negatively affect the wetlands. 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 Dawn Nichols, Head of School, introduced several others in the audience that are associated with the project. Those in attendance were Dick Davern, Director of Finance and Operations; Ann Fiedel, Upper School Science Teacher; Sandy Gertin, Volunteer; Phil Rickey, Volunteer; Tim Urkula, Landscape Architect; Jennifer Koenigsman, Nelco Architects. Ms. Fiedel gave an overview about the program to develop school yard gardens. Tim Urkula reviewed the landscape plan, and indicated where the dock will be located. Mr. Urkula said the dock will probably remain because it doesn't not seem to affect the quality of the water. This type of dock is also used by the Minneapolis Parks Board. Vice Chair Hesse opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Vice Chair Hesse asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Hesse closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL GARDEN AND THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE WETLANDS. Vice Chair Hesse asked for a friendly amendment that the applicant provide an erosion control plan and overall plans for the actual plantings to be done. Commissioner Lally accepted this friendly amendment. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW— Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #06 -04 Richard Nelson Wetland Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -02 City of Mendota Heights - • City Council referred to City Attorney with some modifications and will be sending back to the Planning Commission. 12 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2006 COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:00 PM. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 13