Loading...
2005-08-23 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 23, 2005 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 23, 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, Dolan and M. McManus. Those Commissioners that were excused: Commissioners Miller, Betlej, and Hesse. Commissioners 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 July 26, 2005 Minutes Chair Lorberbaum asked that the following items from the June 281h minutes be corrected as follows: Page 11, third paragraph should read as follows: "Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant if there is any insufanee ensurance that the lighting will not rop duce �Athet4 a noticeable glare?" Page 13, under Further Discussion, should read as follows: "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 ° maker because the body can choose to put that in. Chair Lorberbaum said this is an indication of everyone's comfort level." CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS , TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2005 AS CORRECTED. 2 AYES 0 NAYS 2 ABSTENTIONS (Commissioners Dolan and M. McManus) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #05 -34 St. Paul's United Methodist Church 700 Wesley Lane Lot Split Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a lot split and shared a map showing the location of St. Paul's United Methodist Church. Mr. Grittman said the applicants are proposing to split the parcel and sell that piece for a single family lot. This application complies with the R -1 zoning ordinance requirements. Staff report suggests that a fence be constructed along the east side of the new boundary line to provide screening from the parking lot, which will be adjacent to the new single family home. All the requirements will be met by this request and Staff if recommending approval. Commissioner M. McManus asked about the fencing. Mr. Grittman said that because the parking lot will generate quite a bit of traffic, and headlights may become a potential issue, it is recommended that proper screening be required. Commissioner M. McManus asked about the height recommendations of the fence. Mr. Grittman said the recommendations are for a minimum of 3V2-ft. which would be enough to screen headlights. Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 Commissioner Dolan asked if Staff had the opportunity to review a letter, which was received from Lisa Albers regarding the easement. Mr. Grittman said he did review this document briefly and said he was not aware of any easement issues in this case. Commissioner Dolan asked if the City has the right to disapprove this application or attach conditions to any recommendations regarding a fence. Mr. Grittman said the City has the right to attach conditions, and can raise some questions regarding the subdivision as it relates to health and safety. Bill Gydesen, applicant on behalf of the church, is a member of the church's Board of Trustees, was available to answer questions. Commissioner M. McManus asked if Mr. Gydesen received a copy of Ms. Albers' letter. Mr. Gydesen said he had not and was given a copy for his review. Upon his review of this document, Mr. Gydesen said it seems Ms. Albers is asking why the church needs approval if it is zoned properly. Mr. Gydesen said Ms. Albers does not understand that this is one total parcel and there are zoning issues that need to be addressed with the lot split. Mr. Gydesen said the trees that were planted along her property will remain in tact. Mr. Gydesen said that any future homeowner for the proposed lot will have to work with the City to make sure any building will be in compliance. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there have been any times when the parking lot has been so full that there was a need for on- street parking or parking on the grass. Mr. Gydesen said he does not recall anyone having to ever park on the grass and there may have been one or two instances where there was a funeral and the church had to resort to on- street parking. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there are any known covenants or official agreements made between the church and the neighboring homeowners. Mr. Gydesen said he was not aware of any, and that the church had originally owned most of the land that are now the properties of most of the surrounding neighbors. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Hollister to research any possible covenants concerning these properties. Mr. Hollister said he will do some research for the City Council and at this time is not aware of any covenants /easement issues. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Ms. Lisa Albers, 692 Wesley Lane, is the owner of the property next to the church. Ms. Albers said that if this lot split is approved, it will be approved for all the right reasons to benefit the neighborhood, and that it would not be done to benefit the City in receiving financial gains. Ms. Albers said there are times when the parking lot is full and a lot of times, people will park on the street so they don't have to walk too far to the church. Ms. Albers expressed her concern for the trees, which are mostly on her property, as well as snow removal issues. Ms. Albers said it was her belief that the covenants in place did not allow for chain link fences, and said that there is a homeowner that currently has one. Ms. Albers said there are some strict covenants on all the homes in this area that address size and materials of the homes, and that the covenants mandated that homes were made of wood siding. Ms. Albers said she hopes that any new homeowner on this proposed site would be held to those same covenant standards so that her home value will be maintained. Ms. Albers said she has also been working with Pastor Morey with some issues. Chair Lorberbaum said Ms. Albers is talking about covenants and easements that people don't seem to be aware of Ms. Albers said about twelve years ago, the prior land commissioner for the City, verbally informed homeowners of these covenants, but there seemed to be no actual paper documents. Ms. Albers said that this land commissioner told her that this land (the parcel in question) was an easement and could never be built on as it was intended for the church to remain on this lot. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION OF A FENCE THAT WILL SHIELD THE PARKING LOT. Further Discussion Commissioner M. McManus asked about the issues concerning maintaining existing trees as there seems to be no covenant found to address this issue. Chair Lorberbaum said if someone is buying that lot, they would have to have reasonable use of the property to build that house and there could be some conditions about the trees that run along the boundary, and that would be the problem of that homeowner. Commissioner Dolan said that if there are covenants on record, the buyer would have to take subject to it and have to comply with it, and therefore, does not believe that the City needs to deal with it at this time. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -35 Kevin Manley 1205 Culligan Lane Critical Area Permit Mr. Grittman shared a map indicating the location of 1205 Culligan Lane, which is a single family parcel in the R -I zoning. This parcel is currently a vacant lot and is within the Critical Area of Mendota Heights. Mr. Grittman said the applicants are proposing to construct a single family home on this property. Mr. Grittman reviewed a survey of the lot and a drawing of where the home would be located. The location of the home meets all zoning requirements, but the applicant wishes to construct the home 2 -ft. higher than the required maximum height of 25 -ft. and a variance is needed to do so. Mr. Grittman said that the part of the application which addresses the critical area requirements are in compliance, but does not recommend a variance for the height as there are no hardships presented. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has indicated that the height issue pertains to the function of the interior design and it appears that there could be some modifications to this design that would meet the 25 -ft standard without the variance. Commissioner B. McManus asked what the purpose of the 25 -ft height requirement is, and referred to a previous application for a height variance which was denied. Mr. Grittman explained how the height is averaged and the purpose is to manage the amount of bulk to a structure. By using the guidelines of the ordinance, it is a fairness issue to all homeowners. Chair Lorberbaum referred to the previous case and said that was a totally different situation. Commissioner Dolan asked what the restrictions are on tree removal. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance prohibits clear- cutting in the Critical Area but does not require that prohibition in R -1 districts. Mr. Grittman said the Critical Area ordinance contains language about vegetation removal and protection of native species in the bluff impact zone. Commissioner Dolan asked how tall the other homes in the area are, and were these homes built before the 25 -ft. requirement came into effect. Mr. Grittman said he did not know. Commissioner M. McManus said the Planners Report contained some suggestions on minor modifications that the homeowner could use to meet the specifications, but in the Findings of Fact, there is some documentation that the interior room sizes could not be accommodated with these suggestions. Mr. Grittman said these documents were presented to give the Commission views from both sides of the potential recommendations made, and it may be that the Commission would find a hardship in the affects of the interior design. The Planner said the suggested modifications would make the interior of the home look different. Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 Mr. Kevin Manley, President of Manley Brothers Construction, located in Inver Grove Heights, is the applicant. Mr. Manley said this house is a transition house between an older neighborhood and a newer one. Mr. Manley said he is sure that the homes in the newer neighborhood are at a 27 -ft. height, and the older neighborhood is probably less than that. An 8 pitch roof is a requirement of their homes, and if the home goes to a lesser height, it would look like an older house versus a newer one. Commissioner B. McManus said during his tenure on the Commission, only one other developer has come before the Commission with a proposal for a home that was too high, and it is Commissioner B. McManus' opinion that a roof line at this current level is not going to intrude into the neighborhood, nor will a 2 -ft. lower roofline make the neighborhood look cheap. Mr. Manley disagreed and said that the lower roofline would have that effect. Commissioner B. McManus said a hardship needs to be presented that a roof line any lower than the requested 27 -ft. height will cause the homeowner to not have reasonable use of this lot. Mr. Manley asked why these rules have been around for 30 years, and are still in the books, but do not affect anything anymore. For example, would the neighbor across the street miss the sunrise if the proposed house is built 2 feet taller? The impact on the new homeowners would be that the design of their house would be an old design. Commissioner B. McManus said the architects should know the requirements of the cities they build in, and in this case, it seems that Mr. Manley's architect did not contact the City to inquire about any requirements. Mr. Manley said his organization was well aware of the requirements and came before the City to request the variance. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant if there were any alternative plans should the City deny the variance request. Mr. Manley said he is taking this process one step at a time. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the pictures of landscaping that was provided to the Commission. Mr. Manley said these pictures were a requirement of the City. Chair Lorberbaum said she appreciated that the applicant has obtained signatures from neighbors. Chair Lorberbaum said that whether or not she agrees with the requirements of the City, she has to adhere to these requirements when reviewing these cases, and explained the need for a hardship. Mr. Manley said a hardship could be presented if the newer homes to the west were measured. Chair Lorberbaum said the hardship needs to apply particularly to this case. Mr. Manley asked if the hardship could be to have a larger, current design of a home, and these are accepted practices. Mr. Manley said outdated policies should be gone. Commissioner Dolan said Mr. Manley's statements on policies being outdated are opinions and that other developers have not had any problems with the City's policies. Commissioner Dolan said he does not find a hardship with this case. Commissioner M. McManus said the Planner had made some recommendations on redesigning the porch area that would help the design and asked the applicant if that was a possibility. Mr. Manley said anything is possible, and would be willing to work with the City to accomplish these ideas. If the roof line was lowered, the interior ceiling height would be lower, and that the front porch really has nothing to do with the issues. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there were any possibilities of lowering the ground level to the front of the home. Mr. Manley said that could not be done. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Brian Krisko, 1297 Heritage Drive, is the homeowner, and said he just sold his current house to another family and is currently in transitional housing in a very small townhouse. Mr. Kristo has identified his hardship as if the design needs to be altered, they would have to remain in transitional housing for an additional 30 days. Commissioner B. McManus said this hardship has been created by the homeowner and the builder knew all along that there was a non- compliance issue. Mr. Kristo said that he was also aware of the need for a variance. A resident of 2111 Patricia Street approached the public hearing saying she knows nothing about this issue, but can only say that a hardship may be identified as areduced level of the roof could cause ice dam problems. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 4 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS PRESENTED. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION DUE TO LACK OF HARDSHIP. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said he looked around the neighborhood and cannot see that the added height of this roof would cause any problems for any neighbors or to the owners. Commissioner B. McManus said this is such a small increase, would it be a minimal, non - important variable amount? Commissioner M. McManus said she believes this home is between some type of boundary of older and newer development with differing roof heights. Commissioner M. McManus said there has not been a hardship identified, but there have been discussions and approvals of other applicants based on the facts that the applications have been consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, and based on this opinion, she will not be voting in favor of the motion. Chair Lorberbaum said she does not believe the increased height would be an issue, but based on the requirements of the City, she still needs to find a hardship she can support. 3 AYES 1 NAYS (Commissioner M. McManus) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -36 Gary Petrangelo 1040 Douglas Road Conditional Use Permit and Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for a proposed 8' x 8' storage shed on the property located at 1040 Douglas Road. Mr. Grittman said there was an existing 10' x 12' playhouse on the property located to the rear of the yard. The applicant is seeking a condition use permit as the combined square footage of both buildings would exceed the 144 -sq. ft. requirement. Both buildings will meet all other City requirements and Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit with the condition that the buildings will be consistent with the home in materials and/or color. Chair Lorberbaum asked the Planner if there is a limit to the number of accessory structures on a single family property. Mr. Grittman said the limit is three. Mr. Gary Petrangelo, 1040 Douglas Road, requested that the Commission's recommendation be made without any conditions in terms of the color of the structures as he is in the process of renovating the primary home and would like it is he did not have to repaint the accessory structures again after the home has been repainted. Mr. Petrangelo said the existing playhouse is a nice color and does not stand out. Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 Commissioner M. McManus said that the City likes to have consistency in color. Mr. Petrangelo said his wife likes to have variation in colors. Commissioner Dolan asked if the frame was already constructed. Mr. Petrangelo said it was; he was not aware that he needed a permit and stopped working on the structure as soon as he was told he needed to apply to the City. Commissioner Dolan said there would have to be some understanding of what the color will be. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant when he will finish the renovations on the home. Mr. Petrangelo said it will take about 3 years. Chair Lorberbaum said a previous applicant in a similar situation was instructed to paint the accessory structure the same color of the existing home and would have to repaint when the home is painted again. Mr. Petrangelo said he would be interested in painting the accessory structures' trim a color that will be coordinated with the home color. Mr. Petrangelo said there are existing play structures in residents' yards that are not the same color as the primary home. Mr. Petrangelo said he understands the ordinance in that the City does not wish to have properties with obnoxiously painted colors. Chair Lorberbaum said the playhouse on the applicant's property is beautiful. Chair Lorberbaum explained that the structures that are a different color were built without needing a conditional use permit and they had the opportunity to paint it any other color. Because the applicant in this case needs a conditional use permit because of the square footage requirement, the color regulations come into play. Mr. Petrangelo said he doesn't mind that it all has to match. Mr. Petrangelo said he has some existing screening from the neighbors directly next to him; these neighbors have no problem with the plans. Mr. Petrangelo said he did go to other neighbors and they have no concerns. Commissioner B. McManus said he visited the home and believes the present screening does a good job.. Mr. Petrangelo said he will also be placing some additional screening. 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 B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SCREENING WILL BE WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE NOW WITH PERHAPS SOME ADDITIONAL SMALLER PLANTS AROUND IT, AND THAT THE NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE COLOR OF THE PLAYHOUSE. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbaum said she stated the "perhaps" in her motion so that she is not requiring that the plants be planted, but that the applicant has offered it in good faith. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 PLANNING CASE #05 -37 Michael Harms 662 Sibley Memorial Highway Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed the variance request for a proposed driveway gate located at 662 Sibley Memorial Highway. Mr. Grittman said the proposed dual- swinging 12 -ft wide gate across the driveway would be supported by rock posts on either side. The posts would be 6 -ft in height, as well as the gate at each end, tapering down to 5 -ft. toward the center of the gates. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has indicated the need for this gate for safety reasons to keep his children from entering Sibley Memorial Highway. Mr. Grittman said there appears to be two options available under the current ordinance to construct a gate that 1) complies with the fence height standards by reducing the gate to 3 -ft. in height, or 2) locate the fence to meet the 30 -ft front setback. Being there has been no hardship identified, Staff does not recommend approval of the variance. Commissioner B. McManus said the Planner has indicated in his report that the 6 -11. high gate is to prevent a two -year old child from running away. Mr. Grittman said that was taken from a letter submitted from the applicant. Mr. Grittman said there is a block wall that runs along side of the driveway and the gate would be connected to this wall. Chair Lorberbaum said the wall is about 41/2-ft. Commissioner M. McManus said she believes there have been previous cases where a hardship was identified for safety issues relating to high volume of traffic, speed of traffic, etc. Mr. Grittman said there is a clause in the ordinance for corner lots that will use a conditional use permit and there is no requirement for hardships. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman to clarify this clause and report back to the Commission. Commissioner B. McManus said the applicant's property is a corner lot. Commissioner M. McManus said this fence /gate is not for privacy, but for safety. Upon further research of the code requirements, Mr. Grittman said the ordinance that was adopted to allow the greater than 3 -ft high fence only applies to rear or side yards (Section 12.1.13 6.B) and would not apply in this case. Mr. Mike Harms, 662 Sibley Memorial Highway, provided some photos of the driveway to give the Commissioners a better sense of the area and how the driveway is located. Mr. Harms said the gate could be significantly shielded from the highway and that the 40- mph posted on this highway is usually exceeded by drivers, causing a concern. Mr. Harms explained that the rock wall along the front of his property is a natural barrier of about 4V2-ft. and showed how high the wall is in relation to the current height of his 2 year old son. Mr. Harms said he does not feel that a 3 -ft. high gate would be sufficient to keep his son from potentially crawling over the gate. Mr. Harms said his hardship is 1) being located on a state highway, 2) the highway has an blind approach coming up the hill that does not give drivers adequate time to react at their higher speeds, and 3) the natural slope of the driveway coming down to the highway. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the gate will be electronically operated. Mr. Harms said it would not be, and that the gate will be open unless the family is in the yard. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there are ways the child could climb on top of the rock wall. Mr. Harms said he could not. Commissioner B. McManus asked what would stop the child from running onto Sylvandale. Mr. Harms said his main concern is the area along the driveway to the highway. Commissioner B. McManus said he is concerned with the child running onto Sylvandale at some point in time as there is no fencing along that area of the property. Chair Lorberbaum said she is concerned that a 3 -ft. barrier would not stop a child from coming down the steep slope of the driveway and fall over the top if he should crash into the gate. Chair Lorberbaum asked why the gate needs to be 6 -ft. Mr. Harms said he would prefer the 6 -ft. at the ends. Commissioner Dolan asked why the gate could not be a straight 5 -ft. across, and is this more of a style issue? Mr. Harms said he prefers the 6 -ft. on the ends for a safety issue and the design is currently available. Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 Commissioner M. McManus said she was present when the photos were taken and believes the photos do no justice to the degree of the slope, and believes there is a huge safety concern with this driveway. Commissioner M. McManus said in addition to the slope, there are great concerns regarding the highway speeds and the curves of the road that limit visibility, and she believes that a 3 -ft. fence is adequate. Mr. Harms said his neighbors have been supportive of this request. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Gail Lewellan, 656 Sibley Memorial Highway, said this property presents a unique circumstance in regards to safety, and there are numerous traffic mishaps along this roadway. Ms. Lewellan said she is the neighbor that sees this driveway the most and feels this design is very nice, and also feels that child safety is far more important than any aesthetic concerns. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE BASED ON THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT CONSTITUTES REASONABLE USE OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE HARDSHIP BEING THE EXTREME SAFETY CONCERNS OF THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE SAFETY FACTOR OF THE TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAY 13. Further Discussion Commissioner M. McManus said she has no preference on the height of the gate — whether it is 5 -ft or 6 -ft. Chair Lorberbaum said she seconded the motion with the understanding that there is a huge safety issue and probably no one will see that gate except for the immediate neighbors. Commissioner B. McManus said this variance will allow for the intended use of this property, and without this gate, the family will not be able to reasonably use their property because of these safety issues. Chair Lorberbaum said that in addition, the variance will be justified by the unique nature of the property. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -38 Margie Scherzer 1054 Overlook Road Variance Mr. Grittman shared a map of the property located at 1054 Overlook Road and reviewed the variance request to replace an existing driveway that is currently 34 -ft. in width at the property line. Mr. Grittman said the City ordinance requirement is for a 25 -ft. curb cut. In the Planner's Report, it states that there is an existing 34 -ft. wide curb cut. Mr. Grittman presented a drawing to show how the driveway can remain at the 34 -ft. width up to the property line, and then made narrower to meet the 25 -ft. curb cut, therefore showing that a variance is not recommended as the applicant can make reasonable use of this property. Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 Commissioner M. McManus said the configuration suggested by the Planner looks very odd and asked why the applicant can not replace the driveway in the current configuration as a pre- existing condition from 1972. Mr. Grittman said once the existing material is removed, all grandfathering rights have been lost. Commissioner M. McManus asked if that would be the case if the applicant repaired the driveway. Mr. Grittman said a repair would allow the driveway to stay in its original configuration but it is his understanding that the applicant wishes to construct a new driveway. Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to see this application as a strong repair project, and that it would improve the neighborhood. Mr. Grittman said code has a 50% threshold for determining when something is allowed to be repaired versus being totally replaced. Chair Lorberbaum said if the applicant was to repair 50% of the driveway now, and the other 50% later, they could keep the 34 -ft. curb cut. Chair Lorberbaum said this would be fixing up something that is in disrepair and would also be an improvement to safety. Mr. Grittman said in this case, the applicant would not need a variance, but would operate under their current non - conforming use rights. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance does not indicate any time limit on repair jobs such as this. Commissioner B. McManus said he sees nothing wrong with the curb and the curb cut, and asked if the applicant is asking to replace the curb cut or just replace their driveway up to the curb cut. Mr. Grittman said the apron portion will be replaced as well. Chair Lorberbaum asked if it would help to lessen the width of the driveway about 1' /z feet less on each side of the current 34 -ft. Mr. Grittman said a variance will still be needed to accommodate the 25 -ft. Mrs. Margie Scherzer, 1054 Overlook Road, provided some pictures of the driveway for the Commissioners' review. Mrs. Scherzer said when the home was originally built in 1972, the City cut the curb wrong, which she is now aware of Mrs. Scherzer said she had signatures from all the neighbors in support of this variance request. Mrs. Scherzer said that because of the disrepair of the driveway, sand from her property washes into the neighbor's driveway. Mrs. Scherzer said she wishes to keep the driveway the width that it currently is because of the sloping of the driveway causes slippery conditions in the winter. Also, there has been a lot of landscaping in the yard which will have to be changed. Commissioner Dolan asked if her irrigation system would have to be removed. Mrs. Scherzer said it would, and that would cause part of her yard to turn brown because she will no longer be able to water that particular portion. Mrs. Scherzer said she should be grandfathered in as the curb cut was fine when it was originally built. Mrs. Scherzer said the driveway is currently cemented, but would like to replace it with blacktop. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there is no agreement to repair the driveway significantly over time, and if a variance is needed, what is the hardship for this variance. Mrs. Scherzer said the slope of the driveway is very slippery and believes this is a hardship. Mrs. Scherzer said she drives a very large Lincoln Town Car, which she parks in the single stall, and will have difficulty in maneuvering in and out of the garage. Commissioner B. McManus asked about the option of overlaying the driveway. City Engineer McDermott said that would not be a good idea as cracks would surface from the disrepair underneath. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Luz Devoy, 1060 Overlook Road, said she is supportive of this variance request. 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 M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL THE VARIANCE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT PROPOSAL IS A REPAIR AND NOT A REPLACEMENT, AND THEREFORE A VARIANCE IS NOT REQUIRED. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus asked if this can be considered a repair and not a replacement. Mr. Grittman said the 50% threshold in the ordinance language would determine if this project would be a repair or a replacement and is confident that the Code Enforcement Officer would have some concerns about this. Commissioner M. McManus asked if this becomes a hardship on the neighborhood for a deteriorating driveway. Chair Lorberbaum said she does not think it is possible to call a hardship for something that hasn't already happened yet. Ms. McDermott said any replacement of the curb cut will help with drainage issues and improve the neighborhood. 3 AYES 1 NAYS (Commissioner B. McManus) MOTION CARRIED Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said he sees no compelling problem that is created by reducing the size of that curb cut. PLANNING CASE #05 -39 Francis Herman 1848 Twin Circle Drive Variance Mr. Grittman shared a map showing the location of the home and existing driveway. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for reconstruction of the existing driveway to allow the applicant to access a side - loaded garage. The extension of this driveway encroaches within 2V2-ft. of the north side lot line, and the reconstruction is to allow the applicant to maneuver his vehicle in and out of his garage. Without this variance, the applicant will have to drive over the grassy area in the attempt to enter and exit his garage and Staff recommends approval of this variance request. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there are any drainage issues. Ms. McDermott said she is not aware of any drainage issues. Mr. Francis Herman, 1848 Twin Circle Drive, said all the neighbors have been contacted. Commissioner B. McManus said there is a steep elevation between the edge of the driveway where it would encroach and the neighbor's property, and there could be some erosion issues if the proposed driveway is not installed to protect that area. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 10 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING ON THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST WHERE IF THE CASE THE APPLICANT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO GO OVER THE EDGE OF THE EXISTING BLACKTOP TO ENTER AND EXIT HIS GARAGE, THERE WILL BE INCREASED WEAR AND TEAR ON THE GROUNDCOVER , INCREASING THE POTENTIAL OF EROSION INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD. Friendly Amendment by Chair Lorberbaum: For the applicant to get full use of the garage, they will need this extension to allow backing up out of the garage. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -40 Resurrection Cemetery 2101 Lexington Avenue Wetlands Permit Mr. Grittman shared a map of Resurrection Cemetery, 2101 Lexington Avenue South, in which the applicant is seeking a wetlands permit that would accommodate the grading and filling of the area adjacent to the lakeshore on the west side of the Cemetery. The applicant has shown on the site plan the location of that fill. Mr. Grittman said that since the time of the notification, the applicant has reported some erosion issues and included some erosion control and silt fencing in the area. Mr. Grittman said application for a wetland permit is for the purpose of reviewing the potential impact of the wetland area, and the standards for considering wetland permits are to ensure that erosion measures are taken. It appears that this would be the case in this application, albeit after the fact and Staff is recommending approval of the wetlands permit. Commissioner M. McManus said this work has already been completed and this is a retroactive permit. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there were any fines charged to the applicant. Commissioner B. McManus said this was a work in progress and is not completed. Mr. Grittman said it is his understanding that the work in progress is to repair the area and acknowledged that the applicant was doing this work without seeking the required permits. Commissioner Dolan said since the work has already been done, will the two conditions for approval as stated in the Planners Report be removed. Mr. Grittman said these conditions should be kept in place and the City should have a record of what work actually involves and what is being permitted. Commissioner Dolan asked if what the City would be permitting. Mr. Grittman said the approval would permit what has already been done and it would be useful to have this information in the file. The approval would be for the restoration of the site to its existing condition, and imposing on -going erosion control measures. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there is any concern for how much fill is brought into the site. Mr. Grittman said it is not known how much fill is being brought in at this time, and the City has a threshold on how much is allowed. Mr. Grittman said this is one of the reasons that this application process should be recorded and kept on file. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there is any concern for what the applicant is doing as long as there is no degradation, and is there a concern on how large the monuments are that are being placed in that area, and on screening. Mr. Grittman said from a wetlands ordinance standpoint, there are no concerns as the purpose of the wetland ordinance is to ensure that the wetland is not being degraded. Commissioner B. McManus asked for the name of the lake. Mr. Grittman said it was Augusta Lake. 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 Commissioner B. McManus said he respectfully disagrees with the opinion of the Planner because he had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Mark Cronhome, Field Manager of Resurrection Cemetery, and during that discussion, Commissioner B. McManus observed a huge amount of dirt being hauled in. At that time, Mr. Cronhome pointed out to Commissioner B. McManus that the area in which he was standing was going to be increased in altitude of about 6 to 18 inches in height. Commissioner B. McManus said this is not going to be a huge project, and it is a project that is in progress. Commissioner B. McManus said this is a very steep bank and there has been some erosion into the wetlands; one of the reasons the applicant is trying to raise the area is to prevent heavy runoff all along that particular bank, which has occurred in the past, and continues to erode the cemetery away. Commissioner B. McManus said the applicant is trying to level the ground and steer the water off into one spillway, which will be constructed and maintained in such a way that there will not be a lot of erosion into the wetland. Commissioner B. McManus said the applicant has done a good job, even after the fact, putting in erosion control in that area, but there will be continued work, and some scrub trees will killed during this process. Chair Lorberbaum asked if a stop order has been placed on this project. Ms. McDermott said a stop order has not been placed on this project because the applicant needed to address the erosion issues immediately. Ms. McDermott said she was unaware of what Commissioner B. McManus just reported and the Engineering Staff did talk to the crew and was not made aware of any plans for any spillway or any raising of any elevation. Commissioner B. McManus said it seems that the applicants are doing the work very professionally and they are trying to do this to prevent any further erosion that was occurring naturally, but it has been going on long before they have notified the City. Mr. David Kemp, Operations Manager for Catholic Cemeteries, apologized for not knowing there was a need for a wetlands permit. Mr. Kemp said the work has pretty much been completed and explained how they have been trying to address these issues. Mr. Kemp said previous heavy rains have made it necessary to address these erosion issues, and explained the processes that they have being going through. Commissioner M. McManus asked the applicant if there is a plan and information regarding the vegetation that has been removed, and any replacement plans. Mr. Kemp said there has been about 200 to 225 yards of fill at this time. Mr. Kemp said the area in question will be holding very large monuments and it's very important to have proper support for them. Commissioner M. McManus said she has concerns about the replacement plans. Ms. McDermott said the wetlands have not actually been filled, and legally under the Wetlands Preservation Act, the applicant does not need a replacement plan, but it would be nice to know what kind of vegetation replacement the applicant is planning. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the total amount of fill will be. Ms. McDermott said the maximum allowed if 400 cubic yards. Mr. Kemp said there will be no where close to that amount planned. Chair Lorberbaum said she visited the site and felt it was a lovely area, and said she appreciates the great care that is being taken for this property. Chair Lorberbaum asked the Planner if there is any concern for the size of the monuments. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance allows this use and does not believe there are no restrictions in the ordinance that would address these issues. Mr. Kemp said limits are not given, but there are some standards that the Cemetery holds. Mr. Kemp said he has never seen anything higher than 25 -ft, and he is always concerned about how the monuments will have to be supported. Mr. Kemp said they review each monument request and work with the customer to make sure that the monuments and any other features (benches, walkways, etc.) can be appropriately accommodated. Mr. Grittman said the code allows monuments to be higher than 25 -ft. standard, but only an additional 50 %. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant if the monuments will be placed near the precipice, but will be held back about 20 yards. Mr. Kemp said that was correct, and that the additional ground they will have will be used solely for maintenance access to the monuments. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED 12 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT A PLAN BE RESUBMITTED THAT INCLUDES VEGETATION THAT IS BEING REMOVED OR REPLACED, AND THE AMOUNT OF FILL THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FINISH THE PROJECT. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -41 Dr. Matthew Sturmer Parkview Cat Clinic PA Lexington and Mendota Heights Road Zoming Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the inclusion of cat clinics within the B -1 zoning district as a condition use permit. The applicant currently operates his clinic in Lilydale and would like to move his office to a location in the town- office project along Lexington Avenue north of Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Grittman said the B -1 district allows for medical clinics and professional offices, but does not allow for veterinary clinics, which are generally allowed in the B -2 and B -3 districts by conditional use permit. Mr. Grittman said veterinary clinics have certain issues to them, most commonly related to noise, odor, and outdoor dog runs. Staff recommends approval of this amendment and conditional use permit as the impact of this use will be minimal on the site. Commissioner B. McManus said the proposed location is a brand new building and not in a residential area, but is interested in the language of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner B. McManus asked for a definition of "kenneling ". Mr. Grittman said it is presumed that some animals will need to remain overnight for post - surgery care and the Planner's interpretation of kenneling would allow for this type of overnight care; kenneling should not include services for people going out of town. Commissioner B. McManus said this terminology needs to be clarified in the ordinance. Chair Lorberbaum said an alternative term for long term stays would be "boarding ". Chair Lorberbaum referred to 2.C. in the proposed ordinance and asked who would be approving the systems. Mr. Grittman said he believes this would be approved by the City's Code Enforcement staff. Mr. Grittman said he believes the Code Enforcement will have to check with any veterinary clinic standards, and would apply these standards in their processes. Mr. Hollister said answers for these types of questions are to the extent that they fall within the City's jurisdiction and scope of expertise, that it would be the City's building inspectors that would review and approve that. If there are any state board that would have authority over them, the State would contact the City regarding these issues. Chair Lorberbaum said there would need to be clarification on the approval processes, and will seek some advice from the applicant regarding any veterinary standards. Commissioner Dolan said he has a concern on how the cat clinic concept will fit in the B -1 district, and is this a consistent use. Mr. Grittman said his interpretation of the cat clinic would exclude any noise issues, outdoor dog runs, and other events one may generally see in the veterinary clinics that relate to dogs. Mr. Grittman said the way the applicant has described his clinic seems to be compatible with this type of location and interior clinic design without having the noise and outdoor issues. Commissioner Dolan asked if the Planner believes this may open the door for other requests for other types of animals. Mr. Grittman said this type of ordinance would address these issues should someone would come in seeking permission for another animal clinic that had the outdoor issues or the noise issues, and would therefore, protect the City with this type of standard. 13 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 Commissioner M. McManus asked the Planner where this language was derived from. Mr. Grittman said the condition list was borrowed from the veterinary clinic guidelines in the B -2 and B -3 districts, taking some of the applicable language. Chair Lorberbaum asked the City Engineer if she was comfortable that her building inspectors can handle the approval process as talked about in this ordinance. Ms. McDermott said she would like to hear from the applicant to know what the system consists o£ Dr. Matthew Stunner, applicant, is a veterinarian whose office is currently located at 837 Sibley Memorial Highway in Lilydale. Dr. Stunner said he has held this practice for about 19 years. Dr. Stunner's residential address is 883 Douglas Road, Mendota Heights. Dr. Stunner said the concept of a cat clinic has evolved because veterinarian medicine has evolved, now having many specialties. Dr. Sturmer said there are about 500 cat clinics in the area that specialize in the treatment of cats, and about 800 nationwide. Dr. Stunner explained how his clinic differs from a general practice, for example the professionally decorated interior and the ambiance of a medical office. Dr. Stunner said the same procedures are done as in any other veterinarian clinic such as dentistry, surgery, chemotherapy for cancer patients, etc. Dr. Stunner said he is currently looking for more space in a first -class facility and feels his type of clinic is no different than a dentist or pediatric clinic versus the kennels with chain link fences. Commissioner B. McManus asked for clarification of Dr. Sturmer's title of Board Certified Cat Specialist. Dr. Stunner said he has 8 years of veterinary schooling, and has proceeded to be educated in specialized areas of surgery, radiology, internal medicine, taking certification exams upon completion of his schooling. Dr. Stunner said he is the only one in the State of Minnesota at this time. Dr. Stunner said he likes the size of his practice, and prefers to give one -on -one care as opposed to working with a larger entity such as the University of Minnesota. Dr. Stunner said he does work closely with the University of Minnesota for consultations. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant about setting and controlling standards. Dr. Stunner said there are no state mandates by the Board of Health or the Board of Veterinary Medicine on how to handle these issues (regarding 2C of proposed ordinance). Dr. Stunner said professionalism, hygiene and health are most important, and should an animal die, the body is held in a freezer until a scheduled pickup date (usually twice a week) where a cremation service such as the Veterinarian Hospital Association in South St. Paul, retrieves the animals very discretely through the back door and properly cremates the animals at their facility. Commissioner B. McManus asked about the kenneling/boarding of feline patients, and how long would a cat need to stay in the clinic overnight. Dr. Stunner explained how the clinic would be set up with treatment areas to accommodate cats that are receiving treatment, and the cats will stay there until they are stable enough to return home. Should the cat need 24 hour supervision, there are all -night clinics that the cat will be transferred to. Commissioner B. McManus asked how the City could set a measureable limit of time for a cat to stay at the clinic that would satisfy both the applicant and the City Council. Dr. Stunner said he is not OK with the 24- hour limit as stated in the proposed ordinance as a cat could come in on any given day, and it may be another 24 hours until the diagnosis is made, and then another 24 hours to the emergency clinic, and then comes back to the cat clinic for followup. A realistic time line would be about 5 days for a tremendously long stay — 2 nights may be the average. Dr. Stunner said he could work with a 5- day limit, but should he need to go beyond that limit for the care of a cat, which is not a common issue, he would like to have that flexibility. Commissioner B. McManus said a time consideration could contain some language such as "as long as the patient is under treatment ". Chair Lorberbaum said the ordinance could contain the verbage of "while they are under treatment" as opposed to 24 hours. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the definition of domestic cat clear. Dr. Stunner said that this definition is clear, which needs to be as he does, on occasion, get calls regarding bobcats and other wild cats. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant for help in defining 2.C. of the ordinance. Dr. Stunner said the "City Code Enforcement can come in and see how the process is handled, and also visit other veterinarian clinics to see how they handle this situation. If necessary, draft up the wordage that would give a standard. This is a simple procedure — everybody does it the same way." Commissioner Dolan suggested the wordage be "a system consistent with industry standards shall be provided" Chair Lorberbaum asked if there are any other suggestions to the ordinance that the Planner has established that the applicant is uncomfortable with. Dr. Stunner said he is uncomfortable with 2.A. — the first sentence is good, but the second sentence should be stricken as it does not apply to the building he is looking at. 14 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Grittman if he had any concerns with deletion of this sentence. Mr. Grittman said he was fine with this. 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 B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: • Change "kenneling" to "boarding" of such animals while they are under treatment. • Item 2.A — strike the second sentence. Item 2.0 - will now read "a system consistent with professional veterinary standards shall be provided for the storage and disposal of dead animals off the premises ". 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE CONDITION THAT THE BUILDING PLANS ARE IN PLACE AND ALL APPLICATIONS MEET ORDINANCE STANDARDS. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW — Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #05 -29 Paul Plum — CUP for accessory structure • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -30 David Olsen — Wetlands Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -31 Alicia McMonigal — Variance for driveway setback • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -32 Michael Coonan — Camper Parking Variance • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. 15 Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 2005 COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:30 PM. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary fa