Loading...
2005-06-28 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 28, 2005 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:30 pm. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Dolan, and M. McManus. Chair Lorberbaum said Commissioners Betlej and Hesse will be coming in late. 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. Approval of Mav 24, 2005 Minutes The motion for approval of the minutes of April 26th — change the Nayes to reflect 0 Nays as follows: COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2005 AS AMENDED. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Page 3, second to last paragraph should read as follows: "Commissioner Dolan said the applicant has done a good job of providing a high quality product. Commissioner Dolan said there is a possibility that this site could remain an as industrial commercial zone, and that at some point in time, another developer could come in a put a fairly large scale industrial commercial use in this area." Page 4, under Further Discussion, 4th paragraph should read as follows: "Commissioner M. McManus said this amendment of all the proposed changes will increase the number of potential sites." Page 9, the motion for Case #05 -21 should be corrected as follows: "COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THIS MATERIALS TO BE USED AS WELL AS PROVIDING VERIFICATION THAT NO VEGETATION WILL BE .� 1 []/ �1�7II� :/_rll�iJ�►[�7II!_iK�f•c:(Vf 1 .ii_r = == l�f�L�1�f i.Y \C • lC�]:aIY lain COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2005 AS AMENDED. 3 AYES 0 NAYS 2 ABSTENTIONS (Chair Lorberbaum and Commissioner B. McManus) MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Dolan asked why there was an attachment to the minutes — that being a memo regarding Building Activity Report for May 2005. Mr. Hollister there was no particular reason for attaching this information. Chair Lorberbaum said it was a great idea to see the maps attached to the notifications. Mr. Hollister said Linda Shipton attached this information for the Commissioners' information. Chair Lorberbaum said it was nice to have this information and thanked Linda for giving this information to the Commissioners. Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #05 -23 Debra Davison 1301 Delaware Avenue CUP for Detached Garage Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a condition use permit for a detached garage at 1301 Delaware Avenue. There is an existing single - family home on the property with an existing detached garage. The applicant wishes to remove the existing garage and replace with a new 24 sq. ft. by 24 sq. ft. garage which would access Staples Avenue. Mr. Grittman said the garage is currently being served by a shared driveway which provides access to the neighbor's property as well. Mr. Grittman said CUP's are required for detached garages to insure that the construction is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and reasonable use of the property. In this case, detached garages are a common condition in this neighborhood. The applicant wishes to access Staples Avenue because of safety conditions. Mr. Grittman said the garage will match the existing home in building material and color, and there will be some removal of the existing driveway currently leading to the existing garage. Chair Lorberbaum referred to the map and asked about the removal of the existing driveway. Mr. Grittman explained how the removal would be affected and that there still needs to be a driveway there to allow the neighbors to access their property, and that this driveway straddles the property line between the homes. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant could make the driveway more narrow to allow for some grassy area to be placed along side the home. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there needs to be any type of easement to allow the neighbor to access through that part of the property. Mr. Grittman said this has been grandfathered in from a zoning standpoint but the right to use it will be an issue between the two neighbors. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there were any issues regarding the proposed garage facing Staples Avenue, and believes this proposal is an excellent idea as Staples Avenue is a safer option. Mr. Grittman said there are no issues. Commissioner Dolan asked why there is a concern about the portion of the driveway to be removed. Mr. Grittman said some portion of the driveway will be of no use to the neighbor, and by removing this portion, the percentage of impervious surface will be reduced. Troy Davison, 1301 Delaware Avenue, and his wife Debra are the applicants and currently reside at 1301 Delaware Avenue. Mr. Davison said he has a copy of the easement which states that he needs to leave 3 -ft. of his land to allow access for his neighbor, and they will do so, removing the rest to plant some type of vegetation in that area. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant how much time is needed to remove the existing pad. Mr. Davison said that 6 months would be a reasonable timeframe. Mr. Davison said there is also an existing shed behind the garage that will be removed as well. Commissioner Miller said the project looks good and appreciates that the applicant is taking care of the trees. Chair Lorberbaum said she is glad the shed will be removed, and explained the application process timing to the applicants. It is noted that Commissioner Hesse has joined the group. Chair Lorberbaum thanked him for leading the May meeting. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Robert Blockwood, 2 Hingham Circle, said he is in favor of the applicant's proposal. He said the curb cut is already there, and he has a concern of the shed behind the existing garage. Chair Lorberbaum said the removal of the shed can be a condition of the approval and that the applicant has indicated that the shed would be removed. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP FOR DETACHED GARAGE AS PRESENTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) The garage meet applicable 10 -ft side and rear yard setback requirements. 2) The garage match the principal building in color. 3) The existing garage slab and driveway apron be removed where practical and re- established in turf within six months of CUP issuance. The applicant shall submit a restoration plan which will be subject to staff review and approval. 4) The shed be removed within six months of CUP issuance. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -24 Andrea Crosby 2276 Apache Street CUP for Fence Mr. Grittman shared a map indicated the location of 2276 Apache Street and reviewed the application for a conditional use permit for a fence of more than 36" in height within the first 30 -ft. of setback adjacent to Pontiac Place. The proposed fence is to be 42" in height by 3'/2" feet. The applicant's purpose for 42" is based on the desire to match an existing portion of the yard, and have proposed a silver chain link fence. Mr. Grittman said the silver color is recommended as it would match the existing fence. Commissioner B. McManus said the higher fence in the back appears to belong to the neighbor. Mr. Grittman said the fences in that area appear to be running all over the property lines and it's unclear as to which fence belongs to whom. Brad and Andrea Crosby, the applicants, currently reside at 2276 Apache Street. Mrs. Crosby said the wood posts are for a separate wood fence that is in the process of being constructed around a small area of the back yard, creating an enclosed courtyard that the applicants would like to have for privacy. Mrs. Crosby said the permit for this particular wood fence has been previously approved by the City and is separate from the proposed CUP in this case. Mrs. Crosby shared computer generated photos on how the chain link fence would look at both 32" and 42" in height. Mrs. Crosby said the existing 6 -ft. chain link fence along the back of the yard belongs to the neighbor, and there will be a space between that fence and the one the applicant wishes to install. Mrs. Crosby said the area between the two fences will be about 2 feet, and will have rock and landscaping sheeting in that area to prevent weeds. Mrs. Crosby said the proposed chain link fence will then connect to the wood fence to totally enclose their property. Mrs. Crosby explained that they currently have a 42" chain link fence along the side of their property and wish to continue that fence across the back of the property to connect to the wood fence. Mr. Grittman said he the condition use permit only affects the 30 -ft setback extension on the north -south portion of Pontiac Place and is comfortable with Staff's analysis of this proposal. Mr. Grittman said he is comfortable with the continuation of the 42" chain link fence to be consistent with the existing fencing along Pontiac Place, and also with the variation in the height of the neighbor's fence and the wood fence. Mr. Grittman noted that there is a change in elevation between the two properties, where the neighboring property is lower than the applicant's. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. It is noted that Commissioner Betlej has joined the group at this time. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP FOR FENCE AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FENCE SETBACK FROM PONTIAC PLACE BE SPECIFIED AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING FENCE. AYES NAYS ABSTENTION (Commissioner Bedej) MOTION CARRIED Commissioner M. McManus said she has seen where chain link fences can now be spray painted in a khaki color and would offer an aesthetically pleasing alternative to the silver or black chain link fencing. Commissioner B. McManus said he believes painting the fence a green color would be better for the summer and painting it white would be better for the winter. Chair Lorberbaum announced that the City Council will be holding a special meeting on Wednesday, June 29th at 5:30 pm in the Council Chambers to review the Opus project at the Ecolab site. PLANNING CASE #05 -25 Cori Johnson 1732 Vicki Lane CUP for Fence Mr.Grittman shared a map showing the location of 1732 Vicki Lane, and reviewed the request for a conditional use permit for a chain link fence greater than 36" in height which would be placed along the side yard of the property, located on Douglas Road. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is proposing a black vinyl coated chain link fence and would like to attach to the neighbor's existing fence. All material and height would match the existing 5 -ft. fence. Mr. Grittman explained how a partial piece of the proposed fence would cross the neighbor's property line in order to connect with the existing fence. Mr. Grittman referred to a letter that was handed out at the meeting from Mr. Tom Kreager, 1731 Victoria Road, giving his permission to Cori Johnson to place a 5 -ft. high fence from the property corner at the southwest corner of his property, to the existing corner of his 5 -ft. high fence, approximately 10 -ft east of the property corner, and acknowledging this portion of the fence being on his property. Commissioner Dolan asked what would happen should Mr. Kreager sell his property, and would the new owner be in agreement with this fence placement. Mr. Grittman said that because the fence would be on the Kreager property, Mr. Kreager would actually own the fence, and any future owner would have the option to change this fencing. Commissioner Dolan asked if an easement agreement may be needed. Mr. Al Janzen, Janzen Builders, was present on behalf of Cori Johnson, the applicant. Mr. Janzen said should a new property owner come, that property owner had the right to move that part of the fencing. Mr. Janzen said easements are primarily used for public right of way, and does not believe that it would be legal to use for private property. Commissioner Miller asked how far away from the curb would the fence be placed. Mr. Janzen said the current property line is 20 -ft. off the curb and the fence would be placed on the property line. 4 Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 Mr. Janzen explained how there will be additional shrubbery screening along the outside of the fence along the road. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP FOR A BLACK VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK FENCE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING FENCE, WITH THE CONDITION THAT NATURAL SCREENING BE PLACED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -26 Todd Polifka / Jason Hinchliff 1155 Dodd Road Variance to Front Yard Setback for Porch Mr. Grittman shared a map showing the location of 1155 Dodd Road, and reviewed the application for a variance to the front yard setback to construct a porch on the front of the existing home. Mr. Grittman said the proposed porch calls for 6 feet in depth, and subject to the primary setback defined by the string rule. The proposed open -area porch would encroach approximately 3 -ft into the front setback as defined by the string rule. Until recently, the string rule would not have been applied, and the porch would have been allowed within the 30 -ft. setback. Because there has been a new home built alongside the existing home, the string rule will apply in this case. If the string rule is applied, the applicant's porch could only be 3 -ft. wide. Mr. Grittman said porches have been allowed as a protectant to the front of the home, or entryway, with a roof constructed over the porch. Mr. Grittman said that given the recent construction of the adjacent home and the open -ness of the proposed porch, Staff recommends approval of the variance with this hardship justification. Commissioner M. McManus said there seems there could be more room allowed to give the applicant more flexibility given the hardship of the lot and the new construction. Commissioner M. McManus said that with the given conditions as stated in the applicant's letter, it would seem to make sense to allow the applicant to add more space to the porch. Mr. Grittman said 6 -ft. would be functional for a porch. Commissioner M. McManus said she would be willing to grant up to 10 -ft. Commissioner Betlej said this porch would be consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner B. McManus said he would agree that the additional footage of the porch would be acceptable and the existing home seriously needs remodeling, and gave credit to the homeowners for all their work on remodeling this home. Jason Hinchliff, 1155 Dodd Road, said he would like to have the porch 8 feet in depth, and would be perfect for this home. Mr. Hinchliff said he has lived in this home for the past three years, and has been working on the remodeling of the inside of the home. Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 Chair Lorberbaum said the City, as well as the neighbors, appreciate the improvements being made. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN OPEN FRONT PORCH UP TO 10 -FT. IN DEPTH, WITH THE FINDING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL GREATLY ENHANCE THE LOOK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Further Discussion Commissioner Betlej said it is important to encourage people with this type of activity particularly in the older areas of the community. Chair Lorberbaum said that the porch would have fit well in to the setbacks until the adjacent home was constructed. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -27 Patrick Hickey 2303 Swan Drive Wetland Permit and Variance for Side Yard Setback Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for a wetland permit in which the applicant seeks to construct a building expansion to the side of his property adjacent to an unimproved city street right of way. Mr. Grittman said that a portion of Cheri Lane that is unbuilt and dedicated, extending along the north side of the applicant's property. The applicant has been before the Planning Commission previously to seek a variance to allow for this expansion to the existing house towards Cheri Lane, which was tabled. Mr. Grittman said the details of the expansion have not been finalized with the applicant, and there are no building plans to date. Mr. Grittman said it appears that construction within this area would require a wetland permit. It is the opinion of the Planner that the applicant has the ability to expand on this property without the variance and feels there is no hardship identified to justify the variance. Mr. Grittman said it is his understanding that the City is contemplating vacating this right of way of Cheri Lane, and there are some storm sewers in that area, there must be some easements made for utility and drainage maintenance. The applicant is also discussing the possibility of negotiating with the property owner to the north to ensure that they would split the vacated right of way equally. As a result, the applicant's property line would be located in the middle of what is currently Cheri Lane, and an addition could be built in this area up to the area that the City retains for the easement, not needing a variance. Mr. Grittman said it is his belief that the wetland permit is appropriate and recommended some additional planting buffer be placed to filter storm water from the area before it enters the ditch. Staff is recommending approval of the wetlands permit, but because the applicant has other options for the construction of an addition to the home, it is recommended that the variance be denied. Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 Mr. Hollister said the applicant is not present at this time, but will be coming. Chair Lorberbaum said the meeting is running early, and must wait until the appropriate hearing time set for this case. In the meantime, Chair Lorberbaum asked for the Verbal Review. VERBAL REVIEW — Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #05 -08 Opus • City Council did not come to a consensus and will be holding a special meeting on June 29th to look at a redesign and subdivision plans. Chair Lorberbaum said the City Council could then make a ruling at the special meeting. Ms. McDermott that that was correct. • Commissioner Dolan asked if the new design will be a scaled down version of the original proposal. Ms. McDermott said they have proposed one condominium building, with 4 stories, and made of concrete construction. This building will be similar to the original design but on a smaller scale, and there will be only one building instead of two. Opus has also reduced the total number of units 110. Where the second building was in the southwest corner of the site, there are now townhomes planned to be located in that area. • Commissioner Betlej asked if Opus is coming in with a new set of plans, then there would be a split decision, will it come back to the Planning Commission. Ms. McDermott said it depends on what happens at the special meeting. • Mr. Grittman said the ordinance talks about any significant changes in the plans would bring it back, but the City Council would have to make the finding that the changes are significant enough to require them to come back to the Planning Commission. • Chair Lorberbaum said it would be appropriate for the Planning Commissioners to request that this case come back to the Planning Commission for further review and discussion. Chair Lorberbaum said she believes that Opus has a timing issue with their agreement with Ecolab. Ms. McDermott said the purchase agreement expires on June 30th PLANNING CASE #05 -13 Rick Fretschel — Zoning ordinance amendment for electronic sign • City Council denied this ordinance amendment due to the fact they were afraid they would have to allow this type of signage at other locations. PLANNING CASE #03 -04 City of Mendota Heights — Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No. 401 (Title 12), Property Maintenance Ordinance. • This has not bee discussed yet at the City Council level and is scheduled for discussion at the July 5th meeting. Ms. McDermott said there are no timing issues related to this case. PLANNING CASE #05 -19 Patrick Hickey — Setback variance for house addition • City Council denied and directed Mr. Hickey to request the vacation of the street. The City Council will be hearing this request at their July 5th meeting. • Commissioner Dolan said there is still a variance for this case before them this evening. Chair Lorberbaum said that was correct, and if the Planning Commission wants to table this discussion until after the vacation is complete, that would be an option. • Commissioner Dolan asked by the variance request was denied by the City Council. Mr. Hollister said the variance request was not denied, but the City Council decided to take no action on this because they wanted to explore the vacation option which is the other way to enable the expansion. • Ms. McDermott said she believes Mr. Hickey would like to be granted approval for his wetlands permit this evening. PLANNING CASE #05 -20 William Dumond — Wetlands permit for shed • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -21 Streeter Associates for John Nobrega - Wetlands permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 PLANNING CASE #05 -22 Nicholas and Julie Smith — Fence CUP • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Chair Lorberbaum thanked Ms. McDermott for the Verbal Review. Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to table the Hickey Case #05 -27 at this time to allow to move on to the next case as Mr. Hickey was not yet in attendance. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM TO TABLE DISCUSSION ON CASE #05- 27. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Mr. Grittman asked to comment further on the previous discussion of the Opus case and said he has further reviewed the ordinance with the finding that the ordinance requires that if the final development plan is not in substantial conformity with the preliminary development plan, and the applicant wishes to proceed, then the applicant is required to come back before the Planning Commission with a new preliminary development plan. The City Council has the discretion to consider substantial changes in the preliminary development plan and the applicant then, if they proceed to City Council, must have the final plan not show any substantial changes. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Planning Commission has reviewed the preliminary plan or the final plan. Mr. Grittman said the Commission reviewed the preliminary development plan. Chair Lorberbaum asked why the final plan was not presented. Mr. Grittman said there are three stages: concept plan, preliminary development plan, and the final development plan. The concept plan and the preliminary plan goes before the Planning Commission. The final development plan goes directly to the City Council. PLANNING CASE #05 -28 St. Paul's United Methodist Church 700 Wesley Lane Variance for Sign Size in R -1 District Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for a variance to sign size in the R -1 zoning district. The applicant, St. Paul's United Methodist Church, wishes to construct an identification sign located on Dodd Road. The proposed sign structure would be 11 -ft in height and approximately 40 sq. ft. in area, and would be located 1 -ft to 3 -ft from the property line along Dodd Road. The applicant is also proposing to install a directional sign to guide parking lot and drop off locations, as well as a symbol to be added to the existing cross on the wall of the church building. The applicant suggests the following hardships: ➢ The original right of way of Dodd Road is extraordinarily wide and as a result making the sign difficult to see from the roadway. With a typical 30 -ft setback and standard road right of way, a sign might be expected to be approximately 40 to 50 feet from traffic. ➢ A sign of 12 sq. ft. would not attract the attention of those driving along Dodd Road. The applicant has proposed a structure which would be larger to attract attention and have designed the sign to keep the lettering portion of the sign below the 12 sq. ft. standard. The sign would also be illuminated by ground- mounted floodlights. Mr. Grittman said the flame symbol which is proposed on the church wall building next to the cross is allowable without a variance, and is allowed to have floodlights. This type of placement is exempt from the city's signage requirements. The zoning ordinance allows the following: "Symbols, ... on non - residential building may be illuminated by floodlights, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right of way or adjacent residential district ". Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 Mr. Grittman said Staff recommends approval of the variances for both size and setback, based on the design of the road and the restrictions of the sign ordinance which greatly reduces the ability to identify the church building from its primary exposure along Dodd Road. The design of the sign maintains conformance with the 12 sq. ft. size when looking strictly at the lettering area only. Commissioner M. Manus asked if there are floodlights attached to this request. Mr. Grittman said they are proposing ground - mounted floodlights to illuminate the sign and the flame on the wall. Commissioner M. McManus said the directional signs are not part of this request. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the City encourages floodlights, or internal illumination, especially because this is in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Grittman said that ordinance speaks to avoiding glare but is unsure about the actual language regarding floodlights. Mr. Grittman said it appears that this type of lighting meets the ordinance requirements. Chair Lorberbaum said she sees nothing in the proposal regarding the time of lighting operations. Mr. Grittman said that could be placed as a condition to the variance. Chair Lorberbaum said she was concerned that precedence is not set by the size of the lettering. Mr. Grittman said the lettering is still within the rules. Chair Lorberbaum asked if this application is complete as there were some indications that parts were missing. Mr. Hollister said additional materials have been submitted and the application is therefore complete. Commissioner Betlej asked about the interchangeable signage information and where would that be located. Mr. Grittman said he did not have that information. Commissioner B. McManus said the existing sign needs upgrading as it's very hard to see. Beda Lewis, 10747 Cedar Heights Trail, Hastings, Minnesota, spoke on behalf of the church. Mrs. Lewis has been a long time member of the church and is currently chairing the church's sign committee. Mrs. Lewis said the sign is currently deteriorating and the church feels a sign of significant size and lettering is needed to be visible to people driving either direction on Dodd Road. Rev. Janet Morey, Pastor of St. Paul United Methodist Church, said the church is working with Pyramid Signs to design a sign which the church members feel would reflect some of who they are and be visible so people can find them. Rev. Morey said the church members feel this signage is aesthetically pleasing and reflects the lines of the building well. The larger size of the lettering is important to deter people from slowing down to try to read it, causing safety concerns. Rev. Morey said that the flame and cross is a globally recognized symbol for the United Methodist Church. The directional signs would be by the first driveway when one turns on Wesley Lane. Kirk VanBlaircome, Pyramid Signs, resides at 801 Livingston Avenue, St. Paul, is working with the church on the design of the signage. Mr. VanBlaircome said a lot of thought and planning has gone into this design and answered questions. Commissioner M. McManus asked how many directional signs were on the plans. Mr. VanBlaircome said there is only one being planned at this time and explained how the directional sign will help direct people. Commissioner M. McManus asked what the considerations were in asking for the variance in the size because it is considerably larger than others. Mr. VanBlaircome said the distance from the road is a significant factor. The church committee decided that the minimum height of the lettering is 8" on the church name, to be very prominent for people to read from the street. Commissioner Dolan asked if floodlights will be used to light up this sign. Mr. VanBlaircome said there will be very strategically placed ground lighting that will shine up to the surface of the sign. Mr. VanBlaircome said there is a great deal of sensitivity to residential neighborhoods and internally lighted signs typically can be unsightly. Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 Commissioner Dolan asked if the flame on the building going to be lit. Mr. VanBlaircome said the cross currently has interior lighting, in which the church has discussed the possibility of not using that type of lighting because of maintenance problems. Mr. VanBlaircome said the church is set back from the road far enough that the ground lighting onto that wall will be a better idea and not interfere with neighbors. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman to look at Ordinance 12.1.J.5 which states in "G. Prohibited Signs: Unless a sign is specifically permitted under this chapter, the sign is prohibited. By way of example and not by way of limitation, the following signs are specifically prohibited;" Item #3 "In all districts, illuminated signs or devices giving off an intermittent, steady or rotating beam consisting of a collection or concentration of rays or lights." Chair Lorberbaum said it sounds like the City is prohibiting ground lighting based on this ordinance, and most of the lighting for signs in Mendota Heights are similar to what the City has with internal lighting which would be called tastefully rather than a glaring light. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there is any reason the church can not have the signs illuminated instead of using ground lighting. Mr. VanBlaircome said he would have to consult with the church group before responding to that. To his knowledge, it could be constructed that way, but it does change the plans they have decided on. Chair Lorberbaum said the church could still have a sign with the height and lettering, but just have it illuminated, as well as the signage on the wall. If the trees are in the way, they will still be there whether the signage is illuminated internally or by ground lighting, which would not change the view. Mr. Grittman said he believes the clause Chair Lorberbaum referred to is not to be interpreted to include flood lights, but only lights that are directed at the public. Chair Lorberbuam said the ordinance says a "steady light" which would be a ground light. Mr. Grittman said the sign is not giving out the light. Chair Lorberbaum said the ordinance says "any device ". Mr. Grittman said the City has approved several other sign packages that include lights illuminated signs, either by overhead lights or ground lights. Mr. Grittman believes the City has interpreted this clause to address the source of the light be invisible. Chair Lorberbaum said she is uncomfortable at this point because this clause says to her that ground lighting cannot be done. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. VanBlaircome if he has a recommendation on the timing of the lighting to be on. Mr. VanBlaircome said the church members can better answer that question. Rev. Morey said the current signage is on a timer in which the lights come on at dusk and are off by 11:00 am. Rev. Morey said the same rules can apply to new signage. Commissioner Betlej asked for clarification on the location of the directional signs. Mr. VanBlairecome shared that information on the map, and also said the interchangeable time panels are not going to be done as the church members decided they did not want them. Commissioner B. McManus asked about the plastic and decorative glass on the sign. Mr. VanBlaircome said he added this artistic touch to have the sign better flow with the architectural design of the church. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Grittman if there are any limits to the size of the directional signs. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance does not talk about directional signage. Commissioner B. McManus said he can micromanage the design of the big sign, but can't ask questions regarding the directional signs that would be allowed to be designed in any fashion. Commissioner Betlej said this has been a weakness that the Commission has previously discussed. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant if there is any insurance that the lighting will not without a noticeable glare? Mr. VanBlaircome said great care will be taken in selecting the right fixture, in a lot of cases, the fixtures that are used are too large for the base. Commissioner B. McManus asked how the design for the directional signage was determined. Mr. VanBlaircome said it was designed to keep consistent with the larger, main sign. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Hollister if St. Peter's Church went with a vertical sign that was well within the ordinance requirements. Mr. Hollister said St. Peter's Church had a sign that included a cross, and believes this sign needed a variance which was granted. Mr. 10 Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 Hollister said he wanted to point out the there are ground lighted signs all over town, and in fact, the flag pole at City Hall has ground lighting. Mr. Hollister said he agrees with Mr. Grittman's interpretation and historical recollection. The clause that talks about how a sign shall not consist of a collection of beams steady, rotating, or otherwise, has never been interpreted to prohibit ground lighting for signs. Mr. Hollister said there has always been a concern about spillage on other properties, or glare for the neighbors. Chair Lorberbaum said it is in the section about signs, and prohibited signs, and what it consists of Mr. Hollister said he believes that this clause is aiming at is casinos or sometimes, car dealerships which like to use spotlights that shine in the sky and rotate to attract attention to their place of business. Mr. Hollister said he believes this interpretation is the primary apparatus that this clause is intended to prohibit. Mr.Grittman referred to 12.1.J.4 ... "Signs In R Districts: Within the R districts, the following signs are permitted: "Symbols, statues, sculptures and integrated architectural features on nonresidential buildings may be illuminated by floodlights, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right of way or adjacent residential district." Mr.Grittman referred to 12.1.J.5 ... "Any sign over one square foot shall be set back at least ten feet (10) from any property line. No sign shall exceed ten feet (10') in height above the average grade level. Signs may be illuminated, but such lighting shall be diffused or indirect and not illuminated beyond any lot line." Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Kevin Kalstad, 715 Wesley Lane, stated his concerns about the petition process. Chair Lorberbaum explained how that process is handled. Mr. Kalstad said he was concerned that residents don't always know what is going on, and some don't even sign the petition. Chair Lorberbaum said there are many reasons that people don't become actively involved. Mr. Kalstad said the church was there long before most of the houses, and have always been a good neighbor. Mr. Kalstad commented on the use of the church property after hours, in that the property could be a potential "hang out" site for kids due to high visibility. Mr. Kalstad asked why the church is always lit up even when there is no one there. Chair Lorberbaum said that families also use the parking lot for activities such as teaching their children to ride bicycles, and that there are always pros and cons in these situations. Chair Lorberbaum thanked Mr. Karlstad for his comments. Phil Lindsay, 721 Wesley Lane, said he would like to see internally lighted sign, and a smaller sign. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR BOTH THE SIZE AND SETBACK BASED ON THE HARDSHIP BEING THE SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE FROM THE ROAD THAN A NORMAL LOT LINE. Commissioner Dolan seconds this motion by adding a friendly amendment that there be placed some restrictions on the time of operations to be from dusk to 11:00 pm. Commissioner Hesse accepted the friendly amendment. Further Discussion 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to see the sign smaller and lit internally, although she understands the need for it to be larger to be more visible. Chair Lorberbaum asked if someone would like to make a motion to determine if the motion on the floor should be broken into two parts — one for the size and one for the lighting. Commissioner Hesse said he wishes that the motion on the floor be kept as one motion. Commissioner B. McManus said the church fulfills a need for the community and people need to know it's there, and it's a very tough call. Commissioner B. McManus said he believes the size of the sign is bordering on being obtrusive, and is torn on these issues of size and lighting. Commissioner Betlej said the City has seen similar signs of large size with a base being 4 -ft high and therefore that was not counted in the size of the sign, and that the differences in designs can be a major factor. Chair Lorberbaum said she believes the Commission is very supportive but there should be some way to come up with a compromise that more comfortable for the City and the neighbors. At this point, there is only one design and the Commission needs to make a decision based on what has been presented. Commissioner B. McManus said law officers will probably say they would prefer more lighting for security reasons, so there are both negatives and positives to the lighting issue. Commissioner Miller said there are plenty of 8 -ft wide by 5 -ft tall monument signs that are approximately the same square footage that are horizontal in fashion that seem to block more visibility to the roads and people turning. Commissioner Miller said when the applicants have asked the neighbors to sign the variance request petition, it states on that form that the signee has reviewed the plans and this is the intent of the signature page, that the neighbors sign knowing about the project. Commissioner M. McManus said she agrees with the hardship definition that the property is a large piece and if the project were to meet the setback requirements it would be a significant distance from the road that would create a safety concern as opposed to having a sign that would be more visible and the idea of having the illumination with the timing factor and being directed on the surface and not on the side would be appropriate. Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to make an amendment to the motion on the floor to break it into two parts, and asked for a second to her amendment. Commissioner Betlej said the maker of the motion would have to do that, otherwise there is a motion on the floor that has been seconded that needs to be voted on. Chair Lorberbaum said the group can vote on the amendment if the maker of the motion does not accept the amendmentfirst; the amendment gets voted on up or down, and then the parent amendment gets voted up. Chair Lorberbaum asked if Commissioner B. McManus second the breaking of this motion into two: one being size and lighting and the other one being location. Commissioner B. McManus said he would second that motion and it will be a very interesting vote. Chair Lorberbaum asked Commissioner Hesse if he will accept this amendment. Commissioner Hesse said it is his intention to keep the vote specifically what was presented in the fashion it was presented, and will not accept the amendment. CHAIR LORBERBA UM, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO AMEND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY SPLITTING IT INTO TWO PARTS; ONE BEING THE LOCATION, AND THE OTHER BEING THE SIZE AND THE ILL UMINATION. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus questioned the parliamentarian procedures during this vote. Chair Lorberbaum said she is sure this is legal in that if the maker of the motion on the floor accepts he is fine, and if he doesn't, good luck as a maker because the body can choose to put that in. Chair Lorberbaum said this is an indication of everyone's comfort level. AYES 12 Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 NAYS (Commissioners Miller, Betlej, Dolan, Hesse, M. McManus) MOTION FAILED Chair Lorberbaum called for the motion on the floor. AYES NAYS (Chair Lorberbaum) MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to take Case #05 -27 off the table. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO TAKE CASE NUMBER 05 -27 OFF THE TABLE. Chair Lorberbaum said the maker of the motion to take it off the table was one of the people who voted to table the motion. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum said Case #05 -27 was now in front of the Commission again and asked the Planner to come back to answer questions. Commissioner Betlej said a comment was made earlier about the impact to the wetland, particularly to the drainage easement to the north of this property, and if there was a construction all the way up to the existing property line, would that be impacted by either the wetland itself or the drainage way that exists within the current right of way. Mr. Grittman said it could be and that was the intent of Staff's recommendation that some natural plantings be added between the construction area and the wetland to serve as a wetland buffer for stormwater flow. Commissioner Betlej asked if a motion could be made that is subject to the vacation of right of way granting. Mr. Grittman said that could be done. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there was a determination currently as to whether or not the ditch is in the wetland or not, and the type acreage details on is required for the wetland one, and is this information identified. Ms. McDermott said the wetland delineation has been approved. Commissioner Dolan said the applicant is negotiating with the adjacent property owner, and it is his understanding that the property goes half and half to each adjoining property owner. Mr. Grittman said it was his understanding that the land would revert to the parcel that gave it up, and in this case, the assumption is that the north half of the Cheri Lane right of way would accrue to the north property owner. Mr. Grittman said that if all of Cheri Lane goes to the north property, the new property lines would change the setbacks to 10 -ft, giving more buildable area, and the applicant would not need a variance. Commissioner Hesse said he wonders what the chances are that this area will be vacated. Ms. McDermott said that initially, Mr. Hickey approached the City asking for Cheri Lane to be vacated, and was encouraged by Staff to apply for a variance first. When Mr. Hickey appeared before the City Council, he was asked to apply, instead, for a vacation. Commissioner Hesse said that would increase the chances of vacation. Commissioner Betlej said that if Cheri Lane is vacated, there is no need for a variance. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission does not know if the applicant will need a variance, but only guessing he would, and since there are no building plans available, the Commission cannot say yes or no. 13 Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 Commissioner M. McManus said she hopes the applicant understands what is going on, because it's confusing in that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve a wetlands permit, possibly on an addition where it is not known whether a variance is needed or not, so no matter what happens, a wetlands permit is required and there is questions on whether or not a variance is approved, or not approved, and there are no building plans to based any determination on. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission can approve a wetlands permit to make sure any future construction will not encroach in that wetland area up to a certain point, and separate this from the variance request. Another option is to table the variance. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the applicant does not choose to build the addition on the north side of the property, does that change any consideration for a wetlands permit? Mr. Grittman said the property would still be within the buffer zone and there is quite a bit of difference between the leading edge of the wetland and the construction area the applicant has indicated. Commissioner B. McManus said if the applicant decides to put an addition on the west side, does this require a wetland permit. Mr. Grittman said it would. Commissioner Betlej asked if the applicant has ever defined this building how he would like to have a wetlands permit approved to? Mr. Grittman said he has not. Chair Lorberbaum said this is a complete application even thought it is not known where the applicant wishes to build. Mr. Grittman said the application indicates the proposed building and the applicant has indicated some short- comings of his application but Staff considers it complete for review. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission can determine if this application is in fact complete, and if it is not, the applicant must bring it back in a month with more information. If the applicant can't do that, the Commission can deny the application due to lack of information. Patrick Hickey, 2303 Swan Drive, said he appreciated the time the City has spent on this case. Mr. Hickey said if it's a wetland deviation he needs, that's what he is applying for right now and will follow the recommendations of the City Council going forward, vacation the street, or what ever is necessary. Mr. Hickey said this is not a case where there is impact on neighbors, and in essence, it's adding to the neighborhood. The wetland deviation is a storm ditch from the street, and has nothing to do with the lake. Mr. Hickey said he will put in the necessary greenery or anything else around it to satisfy the Commission and the Council. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Hickey is he is withdrawing his request for the variance. Mr. Hickey said he would withdraw the variance request on the recommendation of the City Council, and going for the vacation which is what he started for originally. Chair Lorberbaum asked if Mr. Hickey's verbal statement of withdraw suffices, or is a written withdrawal need to be done. Mr. Hickey said he already has the request in writing requesting the vacation of the street. Mr. Grittman said it's useful to have the withdrawal in writing, but it's ok to go with the verbal at this time and it will go to the City Council. Mr. Hickey was instructed to make sure his withdrawal is submitted in writing to the City Council. Commissioner B. McManus said the Commission can just ignore the request for the variance, and move on. Chair Lorberbaum said they can take Mr. Hickey's word for it and followup with the City. Mr. Hickey will call the City to make sure all the paperwork is completed. Commissioner Betlej said there needs to be some action taken at this meeting because if the request is not acted on, and the timeframe has expired, the variance could be deemed approved. Commissioner B. McManus suggested that the Commission recommend denial of the request for variance. Chair Lorberbaum said it's important to make sure all the actions taken are legal. 14 Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 Mr. Hollister said a letter was sent to the applicant extending the 60 -day review period for the variance request and there is plenty of time on the variance request. Mr. Hollister said he does not believe there has been any formal letter of withdrawal received from the applicant, and the reason the time period was extended was because at that time, there was no guarantee that Mr. Hickey's neighbor would be cooperative in transferring the vacated right of way to him. Mr. Hollister said he had the understanding that the property was actually being sold. Mr. Hickey said that property is being sold on June 30th. The current neighbor has granted all the requests from Mr. Hickey. The new neighbor has agreed to vacate the street with Mr. Hickey and that the neighbor and Mr. Hickey will work out what needs to be done. Commissioner Betlej asked if a wetlands permit is granted that would allow the applicant to encroach into the wetlands up to 30 -ft, which would be a 70 -ft. barrier, would that be acceptable? Mr. Hickey said it would be. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLAND PERMIT THAT WOULD ALLOW A 40 -FT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE 100 -FT. SETBACK FROM THE DELINEATED WETLAND THAT WOULD PROVIDE A 60 -FT DISTANCE FROM A POSSIBLE BUILDING SITE. Further Discussion Upon further calculations from the City Engineer, Commissioner Betlej has withdrawn his motion and made the following motion, and was so noted by Chair Lorberbaum, the seconder of the motion. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLAND PERMIT THAT WOULD ALLOW A 60 -FT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE 100 -FT. SETBACK SUBJECT TO A NATURAL PLANTING BUFFER BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE ADDITION AND THE WETLAND, AND APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL MECHANISMS SUCH AS A SILT FENCE WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED 15 Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2005 COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:30 PM. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 16