Loading...
2006-08-22 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting August 22, 2006 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 22, 2006 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 22, 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, and Dolan. Those excused: Commissioners Hesse and Harms. Also present were Mendota Heights City Engineer Sue McDermott and Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Approval of July 27, 2006Minutes Page 1, first paragraph under Case #06 -21 should be corrected as follows: "Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 741 Knollwood Court in which the application is for a Critical Area Permit. The property was subject to soil failure in the rear portion of the lot. Mr. Grittman noted that the neighbor's property was affected by the failure as well. The application is supported by extension by the way of geographical report from the applicant's consultant. This information has also been reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Grittman said it is in the interest of the Critical Area to repair this slope in a way to prevent any future erosion." Page 3, 11th paragraph, should be struck out in its entirety: "Gemmissiefter- Dolan said that he feels there is a proposal before the Genffnissien that addresses an issue and it seems it wetild be better- to allow that go fafwar-d rather- than te wait and hope for- a settlement." Page 4, 5th paragraph, should read as follows: "Commissioner Lally asked Mr. Stefanowitz what remedial measures were taken by his clients since the failure. Mr. Stefanowitz said his clients would better answer this question, but there were some tarps placed in the general area of the pipes for a temporary fix. Other than that, there have been no active efforts to fix the slope until a total repair can be done. Commissioner Lally asked for the name of the Kravitz's engineer. Mr. Stefanowitz said it was jim Oveft uae ft em SCS Jim Overtoom, STS Consultants. Commissioner Lally asked if Mr. Overton has produced any reports or proposals for the Kravitz's property. Mr. Stefanowitz said he has not, but does have a design made for the property, and there have been no proposals /applications made by the Kravitz's yet." COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2006 AS CORRECTED. 5 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 2006 HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #06 -26 Jacqueline J. Peterson 871 Cheri Lane Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 871 Cheri Lane, in which the application is for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of detached garage. The existing detached garage will be torn down, and replaced with a new, slightly larger garage. Mr. Grittman said there are a number of other detached garages in the area. Staff recommends approval of this application as proposed. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there is a concern that this is a detached garage and not an attached one. Mr. Grittman said that as long as the garage meets all the setback regulations and conditions of the CUP, the application is not required to construct an attached garage. Jacqueline J. Peterson, 871 Cheri Lane, said the new garage will be slightly smaller and set back a little farther from the house. The new garage will be 10 -ft from the property line. Commissioner McManus asked if the color and materials will match the existing home. Ms. Peterson said it would. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE ENGINEERS REPORT, THOSE BEING THAT THE GARAGE MEET THE APPLICABLE 10 -FT SIDE/REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND THAT THE GARAGE MATCH THE PRINCIPLE BUILDING IN COLOR AND SIDING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #06 -27 Marco Scibora 647 Sibley Memorial Highway Conditional Use Permit and Critical Area Permit Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 2006 Mr. Grittman reviewed the map showing the location of 647 Sibley Memorial Highway, a single - family parcel along the northwest side of the roadway. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the construction of a 6 -ft tall wrought iron fence along the entire front yard and also to enclose the rear yard within the critical area. The Critical Area Permit is required for any construction with the critical area. The Critical Area requires that any structure should maintain at least a 40 -ft. setback from the edge of the bluff, and the applicant wishes to construct the fence along the bluff line. The City's practice has been to routinely allow parcels that are on corner lots or have double frontage exposed to streets, higher fences to allow for privacy or safety. The parcel in this case does not have more than a single frontage and the applicant is proposing to close the front yard with this taller fence. Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit as they feel the fence will not have adverse or negatives effects on the neighborhood with the contingency that the applicant maintains a 40 -ft setback from the bluff. Staff does not recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the height of the fence as the fence can be constructed with a minimal amount of intrusion into the front yard space. Commissioner McManus asked if the applicant would move back to the 30 -ft setback, would a six foot fence be allowed. Mr. Grittman said a CUP would not be needed and a fence could be built. A fence could be built in the location the applicant is proposing, but no higher than the 3 -ft. Commissioner McManus said he does not see any plans for a gate across the driveway. Mr. Grittman said to his knowledge, there is no gate in the plans. Commissioner Povolny expressed his safety concerns for fencing along the bluff line. Mr. Grittman said it was a very steep hill. Chair Lorberbaum said shrubbery can be placed instead of a fence, and would minimize the safety concerns. Chair Lorberbaum asked if a more permanent wall -type structure be better than putting in fence posts. Mr. Grittman said it would be more visible than a metal fence, but the rules were set up in such a way to be very explicit about the preference for natural materials, giving a more natural intrusion and not as visible as a fence. Chair Lorberbaum asked where the aesthetics come into play with the safety issues. Mr. Grittman said the City's application of a CUP to allow the intrusion into the setbacks adjacent to streets have been more related to safety and security than it has been to aesthetics. Commissioner Dolan asked if there are any other fences along the bluff line. Mr. Grittman said he is not aware of any. Commissioner Dolan asked if there are any other fences along the right of way. Mr. Grittman said there is one just a few houses down, but is technically located n Lilydale. Commissioner McManus said he believes that if the applicant places a 3 -ft high fence along the property line as the applicant proposes, it may likely be in the ditch and the fence could not been seen much. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance measures fences from the base of the post. Chair Lorberbaum asked if a new public notice would need to be issued if a variance is requested for the higher fence. Mr. Grittman said there would have to be a separate hearing for that. Marco Scibora, 647 Memorial Highway, referred to a picture that was provided in the Commissioners' packets depicting a white fence. Mr. Scibora said the fence would be black. Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 2006 Mr. Scibora provided some photos of his property and explained how the fence would be placed along the front yard. Mr. Scibora said he wishes to align the fence with the existing stone posts on either side of the driveway. These posts are located 1 -ft. from the property line. Mr. Scibora pointed out there are also two trees located 18- ft. from the property line that he wishes to keep inside the fence, and if the fence is moved back, the trees will look very odd outside the fence, dividing the front yard into two sections. Mr. Scibora said that his plan would improve the landscaping of the property. The safety issues in the back are to address the steep ravine. If he places the fence within the setback, he would have a very narrow piece of back yard in which to utilize. Mr. Scibora said a 3 -ft. fence would not provide adequate safety for children and pets. Mr. Scibora said that his fence as proposed would have no negative effects to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Scibora also spoke of his concern of wild animals, i.e., coyotes. Mr. Scibora said fencing made of stone and rock would bring a greater negative impact on the drainage and erosion issues. Mr. Scibora said that with his plan, the total usable area would be 27,000 sq. ft. If he complies with the City Standards, his total usable area would be 22,000 sq. ft., and the total usable yard space would be 12,000 sq. ft. Commissioner McManus asked the applicant what the purpose of the fence is. Mr. Scibora said the fence was to address safety concerns. Commissioner McManus asked if there would be a gate. Mr. Scibora said there will be a gate, and understands that the gate is a separate issue needing further publication. There are also gates located on the side fencing accessing both neighbors' properties. Commissioner McManus asked the applicant if he took into consideration the visibility aspect from the traffic on the roadway. Mr. Scibora said he does believe there will be a problem with that. Commissioner McManus asked if the applicant lived at this address. Mr. Scibora said he used to, but doesn't anymore as they have moved out in order to begin remodeling of the home. His son is currently living there, and Mr. Scibora said he and his wife will move back again. Mr. Scibora asked the Commission what negative effect(s) they feel this plan has. Commissioner McManus said the City has rules and regulations that the Planning Commission is required to enforce. Commissioner Lally spoke of the value of the land included on the slope, and that this area should be preserved, thereby not allowing for further encroachment. Commissioner Lally asked about the alternative of planting shrubs and trees instead of fencing. Mr. Scibora said shrubbery and trees will not prevent children and pets from getting around them, as well as preventing outside visitors (animals) from entering the property. Commissioner Povolny said he liked the concept as the fence along the back will provide safety and would not like to have such a steep hill and have the potential of injury. The trees and shrubs are a good idea, but kids run behind trees. Mr. Scibora said there is an existing stone walk from the deck that is very close to the hillside, and at one time, Mr. Scibora had lost his balance and almost fell down the hill. Commissioner Povolny said he is unsure of how the front of the house should be handled as the fence placed back from the street may look odd, but it would not be in compliance. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant presents a very compelling argument regarding the rear of the property, however the people that put together the Critical Area ordinances have thought about these issues, and have provided adequate rules that homeowners needs to adhere to. The only way the fence can be installed as 4 Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 2006 proposed is to have a variance, which would mean the meeting will need to be tabled and public notices must be sent out. Chair Lorberbaum said she agrees that a 3 -ft fence in the location along the front year would look odd, but a variance would also be needed for a 5 -ft fence, and maybe there could be a compromise between the 30 -ft setback and the property line that could be worked out prior to the next meeting. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Burt Anderson, 643 Sibley Memorial Highway, is the neighbor two houses down from the applicant. Mr. Anderson said this type of fencing would be incompatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Anderson said he raised a family around this bluff and at no time did any real harm come to a child, and no animal problems have occurred. Mr. Anderson said this area is a river corridor and nobody buys property there without understanding the values of the ordinances. Mr. Anderson said this property, at one time, had hedging along the front of the property, and the monuments are nothing but elaborate structures were there were lights at the end of the driveway. Mendota Heights is an open city, where there has never been much fencing in the area; only in special areas to address traffic issues. Mr. Anderson said the proposed fencing is more for aesthetics and not suitable for safety of children and pets. Mr. Anderson said this house has been turned in to a beautiful English Tudor style home and this type of fencing would indeed enhance this type of structure; but fencing on this corridor area is not appropriate and is not compatible with the use of the area. Tom Sullivan, 641 Sibley Memorial Highway, said he would be in favor of the 40 -ft. setback for the back of the house. Mr. Sullivan said that if the homeowner is concerned about safety, maybe he should not live there; and that Highway 13 is definitely a safety hazard for children and he may see only one coyote per year. Mr. Sullivan said all the residents in the area have had to live with this standard and doesn't see a need to change it. Seeing no one else come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT BASED ON THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE PLANNER. Further Discussion Mr. Grittman said he wanted to make sure it was clear that the recommendation was on the Critical Area Permit approval but with the change to the plan requiring a 40 -ft setback. It would require the Critical Area Permit to construct any fence. By denying the Critical Area Permit, the applicant would not be able to construct a fence at all. Chair Lorberbaum asked Commissioner Lally if his motion is based on no fence at all. Commissioner Lally said he is saying no to the proposal, which doesn't prevent the applicant from coming back with a different proposal. Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 2006 Commissioner McManus said this is an interesting case as the Commission has already agreed among themselves that property bordering on that highway is busy and it would be appropriate to place fencing along that roadway to protect children from running into the roadway. Looking at the back of the home, he doesn't know if he could stop from falling down that steep slope if not careful. There is a safety issue and the property owner has the right to ask the City to approve for fencing based on safety. Commissioner McManus said that there also seems to be a safety issue with the front fence where a higher fence would be appropriate, but to approve the fencing along the roadway as proposed based on connecting to the monuments at the end of the driveway is not the concern of the City. Commissioner Povolny asked if a fence would be that noticeable from the bottom of the hill to value the quality of life. Would one see that much of a difference to see a fence as opposed to a stone wall? Chair Lorberbaum said in finding a possible hardship for a variance, this issue is of the applicant's making. The applicant is choosing to put a fence there, he is choosing a black wrought -iron for safety rather than a natural stone fence for safety. The applicant has options for safety. Chair Lorberbaum said she has difficulty with the applicant making a choice while overlooking the ordinance. The rules are in place for a reason, and there are ways for the applicant to meet his concerns, but choosing not to. Chair Lorberbaum said if the Commission denies this proposal, the applicant will go onto the City Council and the City Council will have to make the decision to table, accept, or deny. Commissioner Lally requested to make a friendly amendment to recommend that the City Council waive any additional application fees should the applicant need to come back with revised plan. Commissioner Dolan accepted the friendly amendment. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #06 -28 Gary Kravitz / Anna Schorer 739 Knollwood Court Critical Area Permit Mr. Grittman shared the map showing the location of 739 Knollwood Court, and reviewed the application in which the applicant is seeking a critical area permit to allow for the reconstruction of a slope on the northeast side of the property. This reconstruction is to correct previous slope failure. Mr. Grittman said the City Council recently approved the reconstruction of the neighboring property, which had the same problems, and the same methods to reconstruct the Kravitz's yard will be used. Mr. Grittman said Staff is recommending approval of this permit as presented. Staff also suggests that a landscape plan depicting the natural grass replacement be submitted to the City Council. The applicants have indicated that they would like to work with the neighbors in scheduling and constructing the improvements. The applicants have also indicated that it will be a more effective and stable process to work both properties at the same time, and any coordination of efforts are to be taken by the property owners only. Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 2006 Commissioner Dolan asked if the City Council made any recommendations on the access, or did they require the property owners to work this out on their own. Ms. McDermott said the property owners were instructed to work this out. Commissioner Dolan asked if the design is the same as what the Planning Commission reviewed last month. Mr. Grittman said it was. Commissioner Dolan asked if the Pipers have started their work. Ms. McDermott said they have started the work on August 21St Chair Lorberbaum asked if this solution able to go forward independently of the neighbor's solution? Chair Lorberbaum said that a combined effort would obviously be the best solution. Mr. Grittman said the consultants felt it would be preferable to combine. Chair Lorberbaum asked if any fill was being brought in. Ms. McDermott said the adjacent property was below the threshold for required fill. Commissioner Lally asked about the pipe. Mr. Grittman said the applicant will be fixing the pipe. Dr. Kravitz, 739 Knollwood Court, said they will be bringing in equipment without having to access the Piper's property. Dr. Kravitz said he is in the final stages of competitive bidding for a contractor. Jim Overtoom, the engineer for the Kravitz's, said the only fill material will be within the basket structures as presented on the plans, most likely will be less than the threshold. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LALLY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYES MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER LALLY MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS PROPOSED BASED ON THE APPLICATION MEETS THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND SUBJECT TO THE NINE CONDITIONS IN THE PLANNER'S REPORT, ADDING THE CONDITION "J" THAT A DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR VEGETATION RESTORATION BE SUBMITTED. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 2006 VERBAL REVIEW— Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #06 -21 Susan and Jeff Piper Critical Area Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #06 -22 Linda Byrne • City Council approved. PLANNING CASE #06 -23 Sherwin Sieden • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #06 -24 Steven Weintraut 0 City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #06 -25 United Properties Investment LLC • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Other Business Variance Ms. McDermott gave an update on the hiring process of Mr. Hollister's position. Conditional Use Permit Wetlands Permit Minor PUD Amendment And Sign Setback Variance COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:15 PM. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 8