Loading...
2005-09-27 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 27, 2005 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 27, 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 and Hesse. Those Commissioners that were excused: Commissioners Betlej, Dolan and M. McManus. 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. Annroval of Au Qust 23. 2005 Min u tes Page 4, sixth paragraph should read as follows: "Chair Lorberbaum said she appreciated that the applicant has obtained retaine 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." Page 7. eighth nara2ranh should read as follows: "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 4Y2-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 blink 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." Page 7, eleventh paragraph should read as follows: "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 _ agate can. Chair Lorberbaum asked why the gate needs to be 6 -ft. Mr. Harms said he would prefer the 6 -ft. at the ends." Page 12, eighth paragraph should read as follows: "Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant if the monuments will be placed near not ove 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." COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 2005 AS CORRECTED. 2 AYES 0 NAYS 2 ABSTENTIONS (Commissioners Miller and Hesse) MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #05 -42 Joseph Schuster 1900 Wachtler Avenue Request for Preliminary Plat for a Simple Subdivision Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a subdivision of an existing single family parcel located at 1900 Wachtler Avenue and is zoned R -1. The applicant is seeking to divide this parcel into three single family lots. The three lots range from 16,000 to over 22,000 sq. ft. The Planner's assumption is that the lots would all be accessed from Wachtler. All three properties exceed the minimum R -1 standards in width and area. It also appears that the string rule comes into play for these lots in relation to the front yard setbacks and given the surrounding homes, there is adequate buildable areas for all three lots. Planning staff is recommending approval based on the finding that the lots exceed the requirements. Commissioner Hesse asked if the map shows the location of existing houses. Mr. Grittman said it does. Commissioner Hesse said it appeared that one of the lots had a hill with a 10% grade. Mr. Grittman said there would need to be some grading to construct a home on that lot and it appears to have enough elevation to construct a driveway from the street into the home location at a reasonable grade. Chair Lorberbaum said letters have been received from Patrick and Julian McMillan, Robert and Maureen Vince, and John White. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission has also received some new information. Mr. Grittman said he has not had the opportunity to access this new information and will do so at this time. Chair Lorberbaum asked if this applicant had previously applied for a subdivision of this property. Mr. Hollister said he believes that they did apply to subdivide this property previously some time before 1989/1990 and was denied by the City. Mr. Hollister said he does not know the reason it was not denied. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Hollister to provide that information to the City Council before this case appears before them. Commissioner B. McManus said he would be open to tabling this case as it is an important issue and is very dependent upon the opinion of the Planner upon the review of the new information provided. Betty Schuster, 1900 Wachtler Avenue, said one lot would be 21,497 sq. ft. and 158 ft. frontage. Where the home is, the lot would be 22, 773 sq. ft. with 151 ft. frontage. The lot they would like to build on is 16,475 sq. ft. with 110 frontage. Mrs. Schuster said there will be two connection charges on these lots of $14,015 each. There will be two Park and Recreation Fees of $2,700 each, all which she is willing to pay. In addition, she will also provide to Mendota Heights, the required drainage and utility easements that would be along each lot. Mrs. Schuster said her and her husband, Joseph, has lived on this property for thirty years, and have upgraded it to the park -like appearance it is today; a lot of brush has been eliminated. Mrs. Schuster said they have planted 90% of the trees on the property. The trees have been strategically placed in areas to allow for future home building. In 1992, an extensive remodeling was done to the home, which increased the value of the lot and home, as well as the values of surrounding neighbors. Mrs. Schuster said it takes many hours to maintain this property as it is mostly grass, and she does not have the energy to maintain the property as she used to. Mrs. Schuster said these lots were legal as they were in 1978. Mr. Paul Schuster, son of the applicant, was available to answer questions on behalf of his parents. Mr. Schuster resides at 11572 Landing Road, Eden Prairie, MN. Mr. Schuster said his parent have taken great care of this property and has tried to split it up years ago. Mr. Schuster said he did some research through some paperwork that his parent had and it seems that the reason the previous request was denied was because the construction of the single family residents in the most northern part of the proposed subdivided lots would be in violation of setback requirements of the city's zoning ordinance. In 1984, the existing house was facing Hilltop Road. Mr. Schuster said the letter that was received from the City Planning Commission stated that these parcels will meet the city requirements for R -1 residential zoning with no need for setback variances. Mr. Schuster said the main difference now is that the home is now facing Wachtler. At that time, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision but the City Council denied it. Mr. Schuster said he understands that the plan will need to be revised to comply with setback rules and will provide such plans, and Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 has a list of all the other requirements the applicant will need to meet. Mr. Schuster said the portion of land questioned by Commissioner Hesse is sloped going toward Hilltop Road, but the majority of the slope is a few feet from the street and does not seem it would create any problems. Mr. Schuster asked for further guidance from the City if this request is approved, to ensure they are following the right procedures. Chair Lorberbaum asked the Planner if he has enough information at this point to make an assessment on his recommendation. Mr. Grittman said he did review the information and feels confident that the recommendation for approval still stands. The only thing that applicant needs to do is to submit a revised plat drawing showing the actual setback requirements according to the string rule. Chair Lorberbaum asked if these three lots are conforming, on what basis could this request be denied. Mr. Grittman said it was his understanding that the City Attorney would feel these are all legally conforming lots and there would be no indication that there would be any strong basis to deny. Mrs. Schuster said the existing home was originally accessed from Hilltop Road, but since the remodeling, the access of the home now faces Wachtler Avenue. Mrs. Schuster said new homes built on these lots would not affect any of the trees to her knowledge, but it is not known what kind of homes would be built and cannot answer that question, and that a lot of the evergreens can be relocated. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant if the motivation for this subdivision is due to the Schusters' advancing age and the related difficulty in maintaining the property. Mrs. Schuster said they are getting older and most of the work is done by her as her husband has been ill. She said these duties are time consuming and it's hard to take care of it now. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Robert and Maureen Vince, 782 Hilltop Road, lives adjacent to the Schuster's property. Mr. Vince read the letter he had submitted, dated September 27, 2005, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Vince said the applicant has stated she is getting older and cannot continue to maintain the property. Mr. Vince said he will offer to pay for the lawn to be maintained for her as long as she is living there and the property is not subdivided. Mrs. Vince said if the property is chopped up, it will no longer be park -like and the neighbors will no longer have the same kind of atmosphere. Mrs. Greta Swanson, 784 Hilltop Road, lives directly north of the Schuster property, read a quote taken from the City's Mission Statement, and talked about spacious residential spaces and preserving the nature and character of the city. John Van Bogart, 1920 Wachtler, is the neighbor to the south and said he does not have any problem with the proposed subdivision as long as the homes are built within the zoning regulations. If this subdivision is approved, there should be some covenants on this land to enforce certain agreed -to restrictions. There are existing homes in this neighborhood that are situated closer together than those along Hilltop Road and Wachtler. This is not a precedent that this lot be divided, and is not sure that 790 Ridge Place and 800 Ridge Place were at one time one lot. There are now two nice homes on those lots. The lot at 928 Hilltop Road was once one lot and was since subdivided into two (928 Hilltop and 1850 Valley Curve Road). There has already been precedence set by these subdivisions and Mr. Van Bogart said he has not seen the property values of any homes in this neighborhood decline because of these subdivisions. He said he would like the opportunity to purchase the parcel to the south so a new home would not distract from his view, and has had conversations with the applicants regarding this desire. Mr. Van Bogart supports the proposal and believes if others do not like the proposal, they also have an opportunity to purchase these lots to keep them in their natural state. Mike Williams, 828 Hilltop Road, said Mr. Van Bogart was referring to his home (928 Hilltop is actually 828). Mr. Williams thanked Mrs. Schuster for the park -like appearance, which was one of the factors he considered when moving into this neighborhood about two years ago. Mr. Williams said he was concerned what this subdivision will do to the value of his home. John White, 1897 Wachtler Avenue, is the neighbor how lives directly across the street from the Schusters. Mr. White said Mrs. Schuster has done a wonderful job with her park -like atmosphere. Mr. White said he lived at this address for 19 years and stated that a few years after he moved in, he had a conversation with Mr. Schuster, who had asked politely if there were any concerns with a subdivision to the property. Mr. White told Mr. Schuster that one of the reasons he moved here was for the park -like atmosphere. Mr. White said Mr. Schuster has not spoken to him since then. Mr. White explained his concerns with City Center and Market Place, and crossing Dodd Road in that area. Mr. White commented on the increased traffic and children in that area. Mr. White talked about the Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 covenants that have been placed on Somerset Hills. Mr. White said he had the original subdivision plat map and asked for clarification on lot numbers. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman to obtain a copy of this map from Mr. White. Brenda Schmidt, 780 Hilltop Court, said if these lots meet the city's standards, there is no reason this should be opposed. Mrs. Schmitt said a neighborhood is not built on houses, but built on people that live in those homes. Mrs. Schmitt said Mrs. Schuster is an extremely good neighbor, takes good care of her yard, and is always friendly with others. Mrs. Schmitt said there are people in the neighborhood who don't talk or wave to each other. Beth Bayless, 821 Hilltop Road, said she lived in the neighborhood for about 30 years and all the people are friendly, thoughtful and caring. Mrs. Damuth said she is a widow and will stay in this neighborhood as long as she can. Mrs. Damuth said Mrs. Schuster keeps her property very nice and does all the work herself because her husband is ill and can't help out, and that the Schusters want to stay in the neighborhood but not have all that work to do. Mrs. Damuth said change is always difficult, but doesn't see it ruining the neighborhood. Mrs. Damuth said it would be selfish to say this land should be kept as it is just so the neighbors can enjoy it. Debra Wiessner, 779 Hilltop Court, said she lived in this city for years and feels fortunate to be living in this neighborhood. Ms. Wheater said this is an established neighborhood and residents enjoy large lots and the feel of being in the country. Ms. Wheater said her fear is that people will be chopping up their neighborhoods and moving out, leaving those behind who appreciate the larger lots with these changes that are not for the better. Ms. Wheater asked the Planning Commission to reconsider the lot sizes in this neighborhood. Robert Vince, 782 Hilltop Road, reviewed a map of the properties in the Somerset neighborhood and said a lot of those properties can also be split, and one of the neighbors that have recently spoken during this public hearing in favor of the Schuster's proposed project is also talking about splitting their property so they can move next year. Mr. Vince said it's not fair that these people split their property, make money, move out and leave the other residents with a less desirable neighborhood. Mrs. Schuster said she has given no indication that she will be leaving the neighborhood. Chair Lorberbaum asked Commissioner B. McManus if he still wishes to table this hearing. Commissioner B. McManus said he was comfortable with all the recommendations from the Planner and does not wish to table 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 HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION& MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AS PROPOSED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat showing the location of structures and setback lines for the adjacent property to the south, subject to City Staff approval. 2. The applicant shall submit topography /grading plans and utility plans, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 3. Park and trail dedication requirements shall be satisfied as a cash fee in lieu of land. 4. The applicant is required to enter into a development agreement with the City and pay all applicable fees and securities upon approval of a final plat. The development contract is subject to review and approval of City Attorney. Further Discussion 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 Commissioner B. McManus asked if the plat map presented defines what Somerset Hills is. Chair Lorberbaum explained the boundaries of this subdivision. Mr. Grittman said the map presented is merely for the purposes of the contacts in the general area. Commissioner B. McManus asked if anyone could clarify to him what Somerset Hills is, and if within a block or two of the lot in question, one was to consider the homes and lots there, they would find a significant number of smaller lots in that neighborhood. If you count only the immediate block then there are none. Do you call one block a neighborhood? Commissioner B. McManus said he is noting mixed response from the neighborhood, and does not feel this subdivision will change the character of the neighborhood as there are smaller lots in this neighborhood. Commissioner Miller said there is a good mix of lots in the area and appreciates all the comments made from the residents. Commissioner Miller reminded the audience that the Planning Commission is not a legal body, but only a recommending body to the City Council, and the job of the Planning Commission is to interpret the ordinances and zoning rules. Chair Lorberbaum said change is difficult, and told Mrs. Schuster that if this subdivision is granted, this meeting will serve as a great commercial, with respect to the neighborhood, to help her sell the land due to all the wonderful comments regarding the property, attesting to the desirability of the property. Chair Lorberbaum said she also has heard a legal opinion from the City that there is no reason to deny unless there is a variance involved. Chair Lorberbaum said she also thinks there is also a fudge -room if it can be shown that the property values are at risk. Chair Lorberbaum said a decision needs to be made that is the right decision independent on the applicant's age, because the City needs to look at long -term planning. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -43 Troy Buege 600 Valley Lane Conditional Use Permit and Variance Mr. Grittman shared a map indicating the location of 600 Valley Lane which is a single family parcel in the R -1 zoning. The applicant is seeking to construct a detached garage to replace a previously removed detached garage in the rear of the property. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the driveway and garage to encroach into the sideyard setback. The applicant is proposing to use the existing foundation of the previous garage, but intends to expand the foundation 4 ft. to the west. The required setback is 10 ft and the proposed setback is 2'9 ". The Planner has identified a hardship with the finding that in order to comply with the zoning regulations, there is no reasonable alternative available to meet the current regulations of the zoning ordinance and recommends approval of the condition use permit and variance. Mr. Craig Baumann, Steigauf & Baumann PA, Woodbury, Minnesota, is representing Mr. Troy Buege, the applicant, who resides at 600 Valley Lane. Mr. Buege was also in attendance. Mr. Baumann said the original garage was damaged by a storm earlier this year and shifted approximately 6 inches. Mr. Buege felt this was dangerous and was torn down. Mr. Baumann said the proposed garage will be about 3 ft. wider but is in the same location and footprint. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE AS PRESENTED. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -44 David Olsen 2540 Arbor Court Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for a conditional use permit to allow construction of an attached garage in excess of the allowed 1,200 sq. ft. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is proposing to build a new home on this site and was recently reviewed for a wetland permit. When the Building Official was reviewing the building permit, it was discovered that the proposed garage was slightly larger than the 1,200 sq. ft. threshold. Mr. Grittman said construction has commenced with the assumption that they would carve a piece of the garage out as storage area and not a part of the garage if the conditional use permit is not granted. Mr. Grittman said it is important that the access to this storage space (hereby being known as the "bonus room ") be accessed from the interior of the house so it can be considered living space. Mr. Grittman said this case appears to meet all the requirements and recommends approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Hesse asked for more clarification on how the bonus room will be constructed. Mr. Grittman said the room will be built into the gables of the garage, and indicated how the access points will be laid out. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the access is only through the house. Mr. Grittman said there can be other accesses into the garage, but there needs to be at least one access into the home. David Olsen, 2540 Arbor Court, said the access to the bonus room is only through the house, and the access from the garage goes into the basement. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the stairways. Mr. Olsen explained how the layout will be. Mr. Grittman said those conditions were fine. Commissioner B. McManus asked what the use of the room will be for. Mr. Olsen said this area will serve as bedrooms, with 8 -ft. ceilings, for his two children, as well at a computer room. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS ACCESS TO THE GARAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -45 Paul Haggerty 645 Sibley Memorial Highway Critical Area Permit Mr. Grittman said the applicant has withdrawn his request based on information related to the fact that he would not be able to construct a portion of the fence he wishes to as it encroaches into the bluffline setback of the Critical Area. PLANNING CASE #05 -46 Maureen Haggerty 790 Ridge Place Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman shared a map of the property located at 790 Ridge Place in which the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a fence within the street setback area of more than 3 ft. in height as well as a wetland permit for construction of that fence in the wetland buffer area. The applicant is also requesting that the City vacate an easement located in the southern portion of the lot in order to construct the fence in that location. The applicant is proposing three different styles of fencing: a 5'6" cedar fence along the eastern portion of the lot, consisting of 4 ft. fence with mission style pickets 1'6" from the top. The second section of fencing along the western portion will consist of 4 ft cedar posts and rail fence with black vinyl coated chain link. The fence along the rear of the property will be black vinyl coated chain link. Mr. Grittman said the proposal appears to meet all the necessary requirements and Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Hesse asked if consideration for the vacation would only be for the City Council, and not the Planning Commission. Mr. Grittman said that was strictly a City Council issue and has to be a separate hearing before the City Council. Maureen Haggerty and Greg Martin, 790 Ridge Place, were present to answer questions. Ms. Haggerty explained how the different styles of fencing was used for privacy purposes for the neighbors, as well as keeping other areas unobtrusive to allow neighbors to view the wooded area. Ms. Haggerty said they want to fence in the lot as they have three dogs and heard there were coyotes in the neighborhood. Ms. Haggerty is a professional dog trainer and she does not condone the use of electronic fences. Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 Ms. Haggerty said they are not seeking a vacation as Staff indicated. Mr. Grittman said he reviewed the request further after the report was made and found that this is true, but that the applicant may need permission to construct the fence along that area, and if a time comes where the City needs to use that easement, the applicant is willing to move the fence. Commissioner B. McManus asked about the steepness of the slope in the rear of the yard and if the fence will be sufficient in protecting the dogs. Commissioner Miller asked if the fence will be high enough. Ms. Haggerty said the fence height is sufficient. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Jennings (neighbors) were okay with the fence. Ms. Haggerty said they were. Chair Lorberbaum asked f everything contained within the fence is being maintained by the applicant. Ms. Haggerty said that was true. Ms. Haggerty said they would not be removing any trees as well. 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 HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLAND PERMIT AS PRESENTED, NOTING THERE WILL BE NO REQUEST FOR VACATION OF PROPERTY. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -47 Alice Baier 741 Mohican Court Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman shared a map showing the location of 741 Mohican Court which contains a single family home in an R -1 district. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to construct a fence that would exceed the 3 ft. high standard within a 30 ft. setback of a public street. The applicant is seeking to construct a 6 ft. cedar fence that would enclose the rear yard. Mr. Grittman said the application meets all the codes and standards and recommends approval. Chair Lorberbaum asked for clarification from the planner as to why he identified the house as on a busy street because it is close to a dead end. Mr. Grittman said that fence would be to provide for privacy adjacent to the public roadway and this is a corner lot. Alice Baier, 741 Mohican Court, explained that her back yard is right next to the park and wishes to build the fence to keep park users out of her yard for security and protection of property purposes. Ms. Baier said she has, at times, received damage from BB guns and golf balls, as well as people letting their dogs run into her yard to relieve themselves. Ms. Baier said the fence would be of a natural finish. 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 September 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -48 Rod Cina 1281 Delaware Avenue Variance Mr. Grittman shared a map showing the location of 1281 Delaware Avenue; the applicant is seeking a variance from the side yard setback to construct an attached garage. The applicant currently has a detached garage which is in disrepair and wishes to remove this building. Planning staff recommends approval of the variance with the hardship being topographic conditions that exist within the site as well as the fact the garage will no further encroach into the side yard setback than that of the existing home. Rod and Kim Cina, 1281 Delaware Avenue, shared pictures of what the existing garage looks like. Mr. Cina said he is teacher at St. Josephs and recently moved into this home, with the intent of starting a family. Mr. Cina explained how the existing garage serves no purpose but for storage. Commissioner B. McManus said it seems to him that the applicants will be greatly improving this property by doing this work. Commissioner Miller asked about any additional improvements to the existing home. Mrs. Kim explained how she wants to re -paint the home. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the breezeway. Mrs. Cina explained how they have only have a smaller' /4 bathroom with only a tub, and wish to include a new bathroom in the breezeway to accommodate a growing family as well as house guests, providing a shower. Mrs. Cina said this house was built in 1922 and there is a need for additional closet space. 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 HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OF THE SITE AS PRESENTED. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -49 Tim Dyrhaug 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway Critical Area Permit and Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for a critical area permit and variance to accommodate a 6 ft. gate over the driveway entrance to the property. Mr. Grittman said the gate would be 6 ft in height and has already been installed after the fact. The applicant installed this fence for security reasons as they cannot see the entrance of the driveway from their home. The applicant states that they have had unwelcome guests in their driveway, bringing damage and littering on to their property. Mr. Grittman said a critical area permit is also necessary as the fence lies within the critical area. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is suggesting a hardship being the reasonable use of the property is compromised with not being able to control this area of their property. Mr. Grittman said the gate allows enough room for a vehicle to pull off the roadway to wait for the gates to be opened. Planning staff recommends approval of this variance with the finding that this will allow the applicant adequate access to his existing attached garage and would alleviate safety concerns for the applicant due to their location along a busy road. Mr. Timothy Dyrhaug, Keller Residential Inc., 1429 Marshall Avenue, St. Paul, MN, is the representative for the applicant. Mrs. Joyce Landreville, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway, is the applicant. Mr. Dyrhaug said a 3 ft. gate is not sufficient enough where the gate is positioned on the property, that being 100 ft. off Sibley Memorial Highway. Mr. Dyrhaug said a larger gate would let people know this is a private drive. Mr. Dyrhaug said over the years, the applicant has experienced bar traffic pulling into their driveway depositing beer bottles, beer cans, etc. and loitering on the property. Mrs. Landreville said her husband travels frequently and she fears for her safety with these types of activities occurring. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there is just a gate or is there fencing on either side of the gate. Mr. Dyrhaug said there is only a gate. Commissioner B. McManus expressed his disapproval of applicants coming before the City after the fact. 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 MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. 10 Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS PRESENTED. THE HARDSHIP HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS SAFETY CONCERNS. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum informed the applicant that there will be additional fines imposed because the work was completed before the permits were issued. PLANNING CASE #05 -50 Lawrence Fryklund 1240 Dodd Road Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed the map showing the location of 1240 Dodd Road, which is a single family parcel in the R -1 zoning district. There is a single family home on the property with an existing garage and driveway. The applicant is seeking a 2 ft. variance to replace and expand a driveway as it has deteriorated. Mr. Grittman reviewed the drawing of the existing driveway and proposed driveway. The existing driveway is currently non- conforming. The proposed driveway would require a variance to encroach into the setback. Mr. Grittman said there are conditions that exist to approve the variance due to the appropriate access to the garage properly if the 5 ft. setback is met. However, the 5 ft. setback can be met and the driveway can be made more narrow or expanded to the interior portion of the property. Planning staff recommends approval of the variance to the extent that the 3 ft. setback be met for the first 25 ft. to accommodate parking and access to the garage and meeting the 5 ft. setback of the length to the roadway. Commissioner B. McManus said it is extremely important that the applicant constructs the turnaround spot for safety reasons. Commissioner Miller asked if the turnaround was positioned correctly in relation to setbacks. Mr. Grittman said the turnaround must be on the property and is at legal location. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman if he would have any objection if the side toward the inner portion of the property would be able to come out straight and not curve in. Mr. Grittman said that would be fine. Mr. Lawrence Fryklund, 1240 Dodd Road, explained that his family grew from 2 cars to 4 cars now with children now driving. He explained safety concerns of entering and exiting the driveway onto Dodd Road and the need to shuffle cars to fit this narrow driveway. Mr. Fryklund said his neighbors at 1230 Dodd Road are most affected as the applicant had a dirt apron between the driveways that needed to park on. There are now new neighbors at 1230 Dodd Road which have asked Mr. Fryklund not to park on the dirt as it causes erosion problems. The applicant's family now has to park some of the cars along Dodd Road. Mr. Fryklund said his hardship relates to safety concerns, especially in wintertime as Dodd Road is a snow emergency route. Mr. Fryklund said the expansion to the south still will not accommodate a full two - vehicle width, in addition to having a large tree in the way. Mr. Fryklund said most of the driveways in this area are a full double width and his neighbors are in support of this project. Commissioner B. McManus asked why the applicant could not put the extra two feet to the south side. Mr. Fryklund said the tree would be in the way and he does not want to take the tree down. Mr. Fryklund said that in 1964, the City Council allowed the property line to be placed where it is, and that the former owner of 1240 Dodd Road owned both 1230 Dodd Road and 1240 Dodd Road, which was one parcel at that time, and then there was a subdivision. The former owner then built the second home for his mother, and it seems there was no thought taken at that time. Mr. Fryklund said he believes the property line runs through his garage. 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 Commissioner B. McManus asked if the proposed driveway will run across the neighbor's property line. Mr. Fryklund said he knows for a fact as there has been a survey done. Mr. Fryklund says his biggest issue is that his family has a lot of movement with the cars in the family, trying to park and juggle them around. Mr. Fryklund said a double wide driveway is standard around the neighborhood. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant could be well served by either parking cars in the turnaround, or widening the driveway. Mr. Grittman said he believes that it would be a better choice to widen the driveway and leaving the turnaround open for circulation. 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 HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED, ALLOWING FOR A 16 -FT. WIDTH DRIVEWAY, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER DRIVEWAYS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbaum said she can see problems with possibly hitting the tree if the driveway is moved to the south, and that she appreciates that the tree will not be removed. Commissioner B. McManus said he believes a variance is not necessary because the applicant could rearrange the driveway in other ways to meet the setback requirements. 3 AYES 1 NAYS (Commissioner B. McManus) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -51 Mike Doyle 2156 Dodd Road Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed the map showing the location of 2156 Dodd Road, which has been in the community for quite some time and said the applicant is seeking a permit to add a new use to the property, that being a coffee shop in addition to the office uses that occur on the property now. The proposed plan shows the new building and the parking plan along Dodd Road, a total of 13 spaces that meet the zoning requirements numerically. The applicant is seeking a variance for the location of those spaces. The zoning ordinance requires that parking spaces be at least 20 ft. from the right of way line and also requires that parking spaces do no back out directly onto the roadway. 12 Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 Mr. Grittman said the applicant has indicated that this is a historical use of the property in terms of the parking arrangement and are hoping the arrangement is grandfathered in or is adequate to persuade the City that the variance is appropriate. The coffee shop is an allowable use, but given the amount of traffic on Dodd Road, the parking situation may cause a safety problem during the peak hours. Mr. Grittman said there is room on the property to park away from the roadways in the back of the building, and may require different variances to gain access to those properties and recommend the parking spaces be located in that area to avoid the safety issues. Planning staff does not recommend the variance as it does not appear that the non - conforming use section applies where there is a change of the use of the property. Planning staff recommends the applicant should design a site plan that makes use of parking that meets the ordinance setback regulations and avoids backing of vehicles into the street. Mike Doyle, 2156 Dodd Road, is the applicant and resides at 300 Sherwood Court. Upon further discussion and questions with Mr. Doyle, the Commission has found that there is not enough information to make a recommendation and discussed tabling this case. To further obtain more information, Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing to hear from any residents that were in attendance. Alan Olson, 2153 Fox Place, lives behind the north building and doesn't want to have parking in the rear of the property. Chair Lorberbaum asked if fencing would help. Mr. Olson said he would be okay with that. Dennis McCortle, 2159 Fox Place, said he has not seen a plan, and does not know exactly what is going on. Mr. McCortle said he would like to see a more detailed plan. Judy McCortle, 2159 Fox Place, said she and her husband have lived in their home for about 37 years. Ms. McCortle said prior to purchasing their home, there was a lawsuit that was between the former owner of their home and the people that lived in the Olson home at 2153 Fox Place. The lawsuit was in regards to erosion of dirt and water coming into the homes from the property at 2156 Dodd Road. As a result, a retaining wall was installed which is now in bad shape. Mrs. McCortle said she has a concern about any future water problems if parking in placed in the rear of the business. At present time, rainwater will flow over this retaining wall into the resident's lawns. Chair Lorberbaum continued asking questions of the applicant about lighting and hours of operation. The applicant did not have precise answers, but does not anticipate employees would park in the rear after dusk. Chair Lorberbaum said there is a need for more detailed design information and asked Mr. Doyle if he was okay with all the suggestions that the Planning Commission has made during this discussion. Mr. Doyle said he is in a general sense, but the parking in the rear is already there with Class 5 and there will be no paving. Mr. Doyle said he is sensitive to the neighbors' concerns but is not proposing to pave parking lot in the back. Mr. Doyle said there is also some lighting around the property. Chair Lorberbaum said the City will want to make sure there is adequate lighting. City Engineer Sue McDermott explained that Class 5 is a gravel surface that is used on roadbeds which is placed underneath the blacktop. Ms. McDermott said the ordinance requires parking on paved surfaces. Commissioner B. McManus said he is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the fact that the Planning Commission is helping the applicant design the parking lot and would like to see a more settled concept brought to the Planning Commission before he is comfortable making a decision. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO TABLE THIS CASE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT HOW THE PARKING WILL BE HANDLED AND HOW THE OPERATION WILL BE SET UP, THUS BRINGING BACK A MORE DETAILED PLAN DRAWN TO SCALE, WHICH INCLUDES LIGHTING, PARKING, LANDSCAPING, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, FENCING. Further Discussion 13 Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 Mr. Doyle said his stuff is all existing and even some of the parking lot is existing. Mr. Doyle said he is not making a new parking lot so he doesn't know whether to pave it or not. Mr. Doyle said he understands some of the issues but he already has an existing commercial space, and understands the concerns of the neighbors, but these are minor alterations. Chair Lorberbaum said the City needs to understand what the plan is and need a clear plan to review. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -52 St. Peters Church 1405 Sibley Memorial Highway Preliminary and Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Critical Area Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed the map showing the location of 1405 Sibley Memorial Highway. Mr. Grittman said the applicants are seeking a number of application approvals. • Preliminary and Final Plat - to combine a parcel that has been used as the parsonage (known as the Cave House) with the parcel that the church sits on. • Conditional Use Permit — required to permit the church- related use within a residential district. Mr. Grittman said the existing structure (Cave House) is proposed to be changed into a storage facility. This remodeling is just some minor interior improvements and the building's footprint will not be altered. Mr. Grittman said there is a concern that the Cave House is not easily accessible for emergency response vehicles, and the building is not fit for human habitat. • Variance - to allow for a storage facility in excess of the permitted 225 sq. ft. for an accessory storage building in the R -1 District. • Critical Area Permit — to regulate the project because it is in the Critical Area. Commissioner Hesse said the map does not depict the boundaries of the property. Mr. Grittman said the applicant will be able to give that information. Chair Lorberbaum said there needs to be a more detailed site map to show this type of information so that everyone knows and understands where the property is and what it holds. Chair Lorberbaum said she does not know where the house is, and drove around the church to the extent the fences would not allow her to go further, and she could not find the house. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commissioners could vote to table if they feel the information provided in not sufficient. Commissioner Hesse said there needs to be a more detailed site plan for review showing the exact location of the Cave House. Chair Lorberbaum asked if this was an incomplete application without having this information and should it be tabled until all the information is presented. Chair Lorberbaum said the plans say the location of the church is in Mendota, and not Mendota Heights. Chair Lorberbaum said the church property is definitely in Mendota Heights, but because there is no site plan showing the parcel where the Cave House sits, it's questionable whether that parcel is in Mendota or Mendota Heights. Commissioner B. McManus said that without drawings of where this is located, the Planning Commission cannot take action. Mr. Chuck Hall, representative of the church, said this parcel has been in question and a survey was being prepared. He is also trying to find trace the title of the property that holds the Cave House and is trying to find more history on the church's property. There is some question about an easement along the railroad tracks that cannot be answered and that is holding up the survey. The church is trying to get this building remodeled and up to code before the weather turns cold. Mr. Hall said the property title search is showing that this parcel was once owned by the U. S Army. 14 Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 Mr. Hollister said that the parcel in question is within the boundaries of Mendota Heights. Mr. Hollister indicate on a map where the city's boundaries are in relation to St. Peters Church. Mr. Grittman said he agrees with Mr. Hollister's findings. Chair Lorberbaum said that information makes it more comfortable in analyzing this case. Chair Lorberbaum asked if any silt fencing will be done to comply with the Critical Area requirements. Mr. Hall said there will be no excavation done. 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 HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing for the Critical Area Permit request only. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS PRESENTED AND TABLE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT OCCUPANCY WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL THE TABLED ITEMS HAVE BEEN APPROVED. 3 AYES 1 NAYS (Commissioner Miller) MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Miller said he is not voting in favor of this motion because although he feels comfortable about the project, he would rather have it all done together. Chair Lorberbaum said by this motion, the Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council make the final determination as to the initial tabling PLANNING CASE #05 -53 Mendakota Animal Hospital 1938 Dodd Road Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed the map showing the Mendakota Animal Hospital located at 1938 Dodd Road. The applicants are seeking a variance to the side setback requirements for the construction of a free - standing sign identifying the animal hospital. The building is surrounded by The Village center, but not part of that planned development. Mr. Grittman said because of the nature of the project, with the bank located to the south and some of the other activities around this building, has raised some issues by the animal hospital related to visibility of their site and they would like to reconstruct their sign identification along Dodd Road. The dimensions of the sign meet and are well within all zoning requirements. The issue for the applicant is the location of sign on the site. The sign will be in the same location, but closer to the roadway. Planning staff recommends approval of the variance with the finding that visibility is obscured for this site, resulting in a potential danger to traffic along Dodd Road. The PUD zoning in the area promotes flexibility and the sign location would be consistent with the flexibility granted to other businesses in the district. 15 Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 Ernest Hinson, 1938 Dodd Road, said the reason behind the reconstruction of the sign is because of the existing sign is becoming weather- beaten and frail. Dr. Hanson said he would have been fine with keeping the sign for a few more years, but because of the construction of the bank, the sign is now barely visible. The construction of the bank has altered the animal hospital's access and visibility. Dr. Hinson said more than 50% of his business comes from that sign, as the bulk of his clients live in this area. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the new sign will be congruent with the other signs in the development. Mr. Hinson said it is. Commissioner B. McManus said it appears the sign will be on brick pillars. This is a state highway and will the State be unhappy with building concrete and brick piers within one foot of their right of way for snow removal and safety purposes. Ms. McDermott said the sign will be located outside the state right of way so the State will have no jurisdiction over private property. Commissioner B. McManus asked Staff if it is wise to have concrete and brick structures within one foot of the highway in case someone runs into it and gets hurt. Mr. Grittman said the width of the right of way is the intent to accommodate things like snow storage and water runoff. Commissioner B. McManus asked about the unused supports that held a sign at one time on the northwest corner of the building. Dr. Hinson said that used to be a sign from the former tenant and those supports will be removed. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the sign will be lit up. Dr. Hinson said there will be ground lighting shining up on the sign, similar to the signage for the senior housing. Chair Lorberbaum asked for the hours of the lighting. Dr. Hinson said the lighting will be turned off by 7:00 pm. 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 HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED, WITH THE CONDITION THAT LIGHTING OF THE SIGNAGE CEASE NO LATER THAN 9:00 PM. Friendly Amendment by Chair Lorberbaum: ALSO THAT THE LIGHTING INTENSITY WILL MATCH THAT OF THE SENIOR HOUSING SIGNAGE. Friendly amendment was accepted by Commissioner Hesse. Friendly Amendment by Commissioner B. McManus: ALSO THAT THE LIGHTING NOT CAUSE GLARE TO PASSING MOTORISTS. Friendly amendment was accepted by Commissioner Hesse. Further Discussion Commissioner Miller asked why the timing of lighting is being discussed when there has been no plans submitted, thus making this an incomplete application. Chair Lorberbaum said Commissioner Miller could move to table the case if he wishes. Dr. Hinson said the rest of the landscaping will probably be done later as he was advised to wait until the most of the development is done. Chair Lorberbaum asked Staff to find out when the Village will be close to completion. Mr. Hollister said there is some discussion about running a trail from Highway 110 potentially up to Marie Avenue, and believes there is a two -year time frame. Mr. Hollister said that regarding the landscaping that Dr. Hinson is referring to, it would be wise not to 16 Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 install that until after the trail goes in because the construction of that trail will disrupt any improvements along that line. A time line would be two years, or three at maximum. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Planning Commission should be concerned about the trail and the signs that are posted. Mr. Hollister said the trail will be located entirely upon state right of way and the sign will not intersect with the trail. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -54 City of Mendota Heights Kingley Court — Wetlands Permit and Critical Area Permit for Sanitary Sewer Protection Project. Mr. Grittman reviewed the map showing the location of a proposed wetlands permit and critical area permit. The City of Mendota Heights is the applicant and is requesting approval of the permits so they can construct storm sewer through an area that is eroding and threatening the integrity of the sanitary sewer that is already in place. Planning staff is recommending approval of these permits as this project will reduce erosion and is fully consistent with the intent of the wetland ordinance and the critical area ordinance. Commissioner Miller asked if the pipe will be going through an easement or residential properties? Ms. McDermott said there is an easement where the sanitary sewer runs and will need an additional easement for the storm sewer pipe and have been trying to contact the affected property owner. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the project has already been started. Ms. McDermott said it has not. 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 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 WETLAND PERMIT AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS PRESENTED. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW — Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #05 -34 St. Paul's United Methodist Church — Lot Split • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. 17 Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 PLANNING CASE #05 -35 Kevin Manley — Critical Area Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -36 Gary Petrangelo — Conditional Use Permit and Variance • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -37 Michael Harms — Variance • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -38 Margie Scherzer — Variance • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -39 Francis Herman - Variance • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -40 Resurrection Cemetery — Wetlands Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -41 Dr. Matthew Stunner — Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:00 MIDNIGHT. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 18 Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2005 19