Loading...
2005-11-22 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2005 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 22, 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, Betlej, Dolan, Hesse 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. Chair Lorberbaum thanked Commissioner Betlej for chairing the October meeting. Approval of October 25, 2005 Page 5, third paragraph from bottom: "Vice Chair Betlej asked if there are any current wetland issues with the existing parking lot. Mr. Aplikowski said the parking lot currently surface tfains drains into adjacent peepet4ies land, and knows of no reported issues. Page 6 The motion to close the public hearing pertaining to Planning Case #05 -57 Wold Architects / ISD #197, 1979 summit Lane for a conditional use permit is to be located after the comment from neighbor, Ms. Vivian Kuntz, 1004 Stratford Road. Page 2 The motion for Case #05 -52 should read as follows: "VICE CHAIR BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR , CASE 05 -52: ST. PETERS CHURCH, UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER 22, 2005. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED" COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2005 AS AMENDED. AYES NAYS ABSTENTIONS (Chair Lorberbaum) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #05 -58 Ronald Buelow 1666 Mayfield Heights Rd. Critical Area Permit Mr. Grittman shared a map indicating the location of 1666 Mayfield Heights Road, in which the applicant is seeking a critical area permit to allow for the construction of a deck on the existing structure. Mr. Grittman said the deck meets all zoning setbacks and due Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 to the nature of construction, there will be very little impact to the impervious surface and existing nature of the property, nor will it affect any critical area buffer zones. Planning staff recommends approval of this deck. Commissioner Dolan said the Findings of Fact document should be changed: Item #1 should read as follows: "The proposed deck does not affect the bluff line of the Mississippi River Critical Area." Commissioner Dolan said the Planners Report says that there will be no roof or covering, and asked Mr. Grittman if there would be roofing or covering, would that change the analysis of the Planner. Mr. Grittman said a roof or covering would actually be part of the principal structure, and would be increasing the impervious surface, however does not know whether that would affect the findings. Mr. Ron Buelow, 1125 Sibley Memorial Highway, is the applicant and was available for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Miller asked how much of the construction was already in progress. Mr. Buelow said he applied for a building permit for a considerable amount of work inside and outside, and then upon learning that this construction was within the Critical Area, he put a hold on any further activity and proceeded with the application process. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS PRESENTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THIS WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE, REGULATIONS OR OBJECTIVES. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -59 Jeromy D. Shultz 689 Evergreen Knolls Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a fence on the residential lot located at 689 Evergreen Knolls. The proposed fence is a 6 -ft. high aluminum fence, which is similar in design to a wrought iron fence. The portion of the fence along the interior lot lines is proposed to be constructed of black vinyl coated chain link fence. The 6 -ft. high aluminum fencing would be placed along Dodd Road. Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit as the fence is consistent with others that have been approved in the City. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the aluminum fencing would be black. Mr. Grittman said that black is depicted in the photo that the applicant has provided. Chair Lorberbaum asked why the Planner did not make recommendations for additional screening. Mr. Grittman said the proposed fence was decorative enough that additional screening would not be necessary. Chair Lorberbaum said it was a beautiful fence and sees the necessity of the fencing along Dodd Road as the applicants have a small child. Chair Lorberbaum asked why the fence needs to be 6 -ft. Mr. Grittman said the code allows for the excess height and the Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 applicant may be seeking the highest fence allowed. Mr. Grittman said in other cases, applicants will say that the higher fence is needed to keep children from climbing the fences. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the fence would be running on the inside of the trees. Mr. Grittman said the applicant would have to answer that question. Mr. Jeromy Shultz, 689 Evergreen Knolls, said he was proposing a 6 -ft. fence along Dodd Road, but the chain link fence along the interior lot lines would only be 4 -ft. high. Mr. Shultz said he wanted the 6 -ft. along Dodd Road for safety reasons. Mr. Shultz said the trees would be running outside of the fencing, with pine trees almost totally screening the fencing. Commissioner Betlej asked the applicant why he needed a 6 -ft fence. Mr. Shultz said he wanted the 6 -ft. fence because he was planning on getting a large dog. Commissioner Betlej asked how he would then deal with the dog jumping the 4 -ft fence around the rest of the property. Mr. Shultz said he just preferred the 6 -ft. fence. Commissioner Miller asked if there were any issues with the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Shultz said they did 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 BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE FENCE MEETS ALL CITY STANDARDS. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -60 Jim Losleben 815 Hazel Court Wetland Permit Mr. Grittman shared a map indicating the location of 815 Hazel Court, in which the applicant is seeking a wetlands permit to landscape the rear yard of the property. Mr. Grittman said there is an existing pond to the rear of the yard and the applicant is proposing to re- landscape an area around the pond and behind the house. Mr. Grittman reviewed the landscaping plan. Mr. Grittman said the proposed landscaping appears to be well adapted to the site and the materials are all commonly available materials, which will help in the erosion control of the property. Mr. Grittman said it is encouraged that a naturalized buffer adjacent to the wetlands be placed to provide natural filtering of water. Commissioner Miller asked what the current buffer consists o£ Mr. Grittman said it currently is lawn, and feels this project will present the opportunity to place additional filtering plants in this area. Commissioner Dolan asked if there are any concerns with the pool being close to the pond. Mr. Grittman said it is allowed and there are no particular setbacks to address this. Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 Commissioner M. McManus asked what the Planner would recommend for a filtering distance in terms of width of buffer. Mr. Grittman said more than 3 -ft would be suggested. City Staff also recommends to the applicants to work with local soil and water people to get help with locating the edge of the wetland as well as getting recommendations on what types of plants to use. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, shared his plans with the Commission and said the pathway was actually going to be a Class 5 rock, whereas the application states the pathway will be made of concrete. Mr. Losleben explained how he would be addressing the erosion concerns with terracing. Commissioner B. McManus asked how close the renovations will be to the water. Mr. Losleben said the buffer will be approximately 12 to 15 feet, which will remain natural as it now is. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the applicant will be adding any wild plants in the buffer area. Mr. Losleben said he will not be adding anything to that area. Commissioner B. McManus said it appears that that applicant will be doing no damage to the pond and will actually improve erosion concerns. Commissioner Miller asked when this landscaping will begin. Mr. Losleben said as long as the ground doesn't freeze, he can still get some of the work done this year. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant to explain some of the plants that will be placed in the yard and asked that the applicant provide a more detailed plan when presenting to the City Council. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLAND PERMIT AS PRESENTED. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -61 Peter F. Jackson 589 Emerson Avenue West Variance Mr. Grittman shared a map indicating the location of 589 Emerson Avenue West, in which the applicant is seeking a variance to allow for the construction of an addition to the front portion of the existing structure, which will extend into the setback area along Somerset Road. (Note: Somerset Road is a side street that serves as the front to this structure. It is also noted that this property is bordered on three sides of the property by city streets.) The proposed addition will provide additional kitchen space and alleviate some drainage problems. Mr. Grittman said additional information was submitted stating some concerns relating to the entry area, as well as providing pictures showing water damage of this area. Mr. Grittman said the original report suggests that the lot has adequate area to allow for additions without the need of a variance, and still stands by that finding; however the City has in some cases considered damage to structures because of weather protection. As 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 a result, the proposed new addition that would provide a new entryway seems to be a reasonable fix for that problem but the Planner is still not clear whether the expansion of the kitchen area is necessary to accomplish this result. The drainage issue and the deterioration of the home is certainly a condition where a variance could be considered to allow for construction to fix that, and will look to the applicant for further explanation of this application. Commissioner M. McManus said there does not seem to be any other way for the applicant to correct this problem by building on any other area of the home, and therefore a hardship could be the damage to the house. Mr. Grittman said if a variance is necessary to allow construction that is necessary to fix a drainage problem or damage to the structure giving reasonable use of this property as a single family home, then it's a reasonable use to have a home that is not being deteriorated by weather. The question is if the proposed addition is necessary to accomplish this remedy. Commissioner Hesse said that few houses in the city have three streets around the property and this is a very interesting situation. Commissioner Hesse asked Mr. Grittman if he would be on the opinion that this particular property is held to a 30 -ft setback on all three sides being somewhat of a hardship in terms of putting it to a reasonable use compared to other homes in the city. And in terms of wanting to extend a particular room, it would seem an extra requirement placed on this lot because of the three frontages versus a typical home. Mr. Grittman said the concern is that there are probably a number of homes in the city that have their kitchens located on the side of the property right up against the setback and the expansion of kitchens is something everyone wanted to do; there is room on this parcel to do other building construction, maybe not necessarily a kitchen. The lot is relatively large even with the three extraordinary setbacks. Commissioner Hesse said he thinks this particular case offers somewhat of a unique situation where there are three frontages. Commissioner Dolan asked the Planner to describe the additional encroachment of 7.2- ft. and asked if the existing bay window encroaches into the setback. Mr. Grittman said it is assumed that the window is 2 -ft. out from the wall line. Chair Lorberbaum said there have been curbs recently installed in that area, and asked if there have been any taking of property at that time. City Engineer Sue McDermott said there has not been any property taken. Commissioner Betlej asked what the difference was between the right of way line and the edge of Somerset Road. Ms. McDermott said it would typically be 15 ft. Commissioner Betlej said there would be no issues with cars backing out of garage or site distance. Mr. Grittman said it would be unlikely. Commissioner Betlej asked if the Planner had been given any indication of the proposed roof line as it appears the same conditions would be present Mr. Grittman said he does not have any drawings depicting new rooflines. Beth and Peter Jackson, 589 Emerson Avenue West, shared pictures of the ice melting / water damage to their home. Mrs. Jackson said they did not start this project looking to expand the kitchen, but only to address the extreme deterioration of their home. They will need to reside that portion and explained how the proposed addition will provide a roofline to accommodate the volume of snow and water. Mrs. Jackson said they are forced to replace windows and siding, and when looking at the back entryway to determine how to correct this problem in the future, the Jacksons consulted with a couple of different architects to evaluate what their options are. Mrs. Jackson said they will be going with a copper roof which will improve the situation, but will not fix the water problem because of the pitch of the different roofs and the valleys that are formed. If they move the entryway door out to the edge of the existing kitchen, the roofline will still not be able to handle the volume and they will actually have a more shallow pitch and a longer valley in the area. The proposal is to move the doorway out, put on the metal roof, place larger gutters and provide more roof area to handle the volume of water per space. The proposed roof will have a similar pitch but will not have a valley. Mrs. Jackson said there was an error in the original proposal where it stated the applicant was seeking 7.2 -ft. and they are only seeking 5 -ft., and by pushing the wall out an additional 5 -ft., there will be sufficient volume and allows the applicant to get rid of the extra valley. Commissioner M. McManus asked the applicant if a variance was needed for the prior remodeling. Mrs. Jackson said they are not the original owner and it is her understanding that there was a variance granted for the previous remodel. Chair Lorberbaum said this seems like the problem is not of the current applicant's making. Mrs. Jackson said that was correct. Commissioner Betlej asked if the proposed overhang over the door would create the same situation that there is now. Mrs. Jackson showed how the proposed roofline would line up with the garage. Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 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 B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AS PRESENTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THIS IS AN ADDITION OF ABOUT 5.2 FEET BEYOND THE EXISTING LINE AND THE HARDSHIP HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO CORRECT A DRAINAGE PROBLEM NOTOF THEIR MAKING AND THEY HAVE LOOKED AT A VARIETY OF OTHER SOLUTIONS AND GUTTERS ALONE WILL NOT DO IT, NOR WILL GRADING, AND THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT NEEDS THE ROOFLINE AS PROPOSED TO EXTEND OUT TO GET PROTECTION FOR THEIR HOME. Friendly Amendment: Commissioner B. McManus said he seconds this motion with the provision that this is not a front yard, but that the applicants call it their back yard. Chair Lorberbaum accepts this friendly amendment with the understanding that the Planner is saying that the front yard setback means "setback from the street ". Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus noted that the applicant should be commended to taking a home that is starting to show serious water damage and working hard to correct this situation. Commissioner Betlej said this is particularly important because it is in an older neighborhood. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -62 Daniel Nelson 919 Delaware Avenue Variance Mr. Grittman shared a map indicating the location of 919 Delaware Avenue, in which the applicant is seeking a variance to allow for the construction two small additions on the existing structure. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan showing the existing home and the proposed additions. Mr. Grittman said these additions will provide additional interior space to a very small home, located on a very small parcel. Planning staff recommends approval of the variance with a hardship identified as the narrow nature of the lot. The current structure is modest in size and the proposed expansions do not greatly expand the building footprint, nor will the additions further protrude upon established non - conforming yards. Mr. Daniel Nelson, 919 Delaware Avenue, expressed his appreciation of Staff and said the process was very enjoyable. Mr. Nelson reviewed the floor plan and explained how the needed space would be laid out. Mr. Nelson said he would identify a hardship in that the existing home only has one bathroom upstairs, and would like to add an additional one. Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 Commissioner M. McManus said she appreciated the applicant's letter stating how much they loved their home, and the community, and feels the hardship for the variance are conditions not of the applicant's making. Mr. Nelson said he lived here for 46 years and likes the 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. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HEESE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE TWO SIDEYARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS PRESENTED WITH THE REASONING THAT THE HARDSHIP IS THE UNDERSIZED LOT, WHICH IS A COMMON CONDITION IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT THE CITY HAS APPROVED OTHER SIMILAR REQUESTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, ALSO NOTING THAT IT DOES NOT INCREASE THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SETBACK AS CURRENTLY EXISTS, AND THAT THE CITY ENCOURAGES SUCH IMPROVEMENTS OF HOMES IN THESE AREAS OF THE CITY. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -63 Darrell Guessford 1319 Delaware Avenue Variance Mr. Grittman shared a map indicating the location of 1319 Delaware Avenue, in which the applicant is seeking a variance to allow the expansion of the existing structure into the front yard setback. The setback in this case is regulated by the string rule. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is seeking to extend forward into that line with a 12'x22'addition. The purpose of the addition is to provide additional living space. Planning Staff recommends denial of the variance request with the finding that the applicant can meet the required setbacks as there appears to be ample conforming space to the rear of the property. Mr. Grittman noted there is a slight slope to the rear property. Commissioner Dolan referred to the Planner's Findings of Fact Item #1, which states "The Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance states that whenever buildings have been constructed on one side of the street between two intersections, no building shall be erected to extend so as to project beyond a line drawn between the forward most portion of the nearest building on either side ". Commissioner Dolan asked if this applies in this case. Mr. Grittman said the way the ordinance is set up, there are a couple of clauses that apply, and in this particular case, this case relates to a lot between two intersections. Commissioner Betlej asked if there are any other incidences along Delaware Avenue where the home encroaches far into setbacks. Mr. Grittman said he did not research any further than the nearby neighborhood. Commissioner B. McManus said this is the very edge of Mendota Heights, and across the street is West St. Paul. There are a number of varieties of setbacks on the West St. Paul side and on the Mendota Heights side, if one looks at a few blocks in either direction, there are also a variety of setbacks. Mr. Grittman said the way the ordinance is set up, the City is called to look for a unique condition and if it is the opinion of the City that it is common to grant variances to this area, then there may be justification in this variance request. Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 Commissioner B. McManus said the applicant is trying to improve their home, making it more inhabitable, and by that, they are improving the neighborhood and the City. Darrell Guessford and Yeen Chong, applicants, live at 1319 Delaware Avenue. Mr. Guessford reviewed a hand drawn floor plan showing where the existing rooms of the home are located, and how they would like to create a new living room. The original home was a one - bedroom, with a small porch. The previous owner added to the home in 1982 creating two bedrooms and a bathroom to the rear of the home, and converted the porch into a living room. Mr. Guessford said he has the support of all his surrounding neighbors. Commissioner M. McManus said why the applicant could not add on to any other part of the house. Mr. Guessford said he wants to have a larger living room for entertaining and gaining an extra bedroom. Ms. Chong said she would like to have more living space to give her and her family more "breathing room ", and to give her and her husband their own bedroom. Commissioner McManus asked Mr. Grittman if the City has considered the character of the surrounding communities when cases involve the boundaries of those surrounding communities. Mr. Grittman said the Planning Commission has previously used the character of the neighborhood as a consideration, but is not sure of any boundary issues with other communities. Commissioner Hesse asked what is along the back of the existing home. Mr. Guessford explained there is a bedroom and a bathroom, with a deck. The garage is separate. Commissioner Hesse said the lots along Delaware Avenue in this area are very long and narrow, which restricts conditions to homes, leaving very little options. Commissioner Hesse said the neighborhood has a hardship just from that standpoint, and is a neighborhood -wide issue. Commissioner Betlej said this lot is approximately 75' which is not a legal lot when compared to today's standards. Mr. Guessford said the width of the lot is about 75' x 100' but doesn't have the exact measurements. Commissioner Dolan said there appears that the applicant did not get signatures from the two property owners to the south. Ms. Chong said they were both out of town. Chair Lorberbaum said a possibility hardship would be the narrow lot. 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 BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BASED WITH THE REASONINGS AS FOLLOWS: THE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH AUTOMATICALLY VIOLATES THE STRING RULE, SO WHAT DAMAGE WOULD BE DONE BY ALLOWING SOMEONE TO IMPROVE THEIR HOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS NEXT DOOR. ALSO, THIS HOME IS ON THE BORDER AND THE ACROSS THE STREET AND SIX BLOCKS IN EITHER DIRECTION, THERE ARE A VARIETY OF SETBACKS. THEREFORE, THE HARDSHIP WOULD BE IDENTIFIED AS BEING THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOT, THE 6 -FT. SLOPE IN THE REAR, AND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH CONTAINS HOMES WITH VARIOUS SETBACKS. THERE ARE TIMES THE CITY NEEDS TO MAKE SENSIBLE DECISIONS BY INTERPRETING THE RULES AS FAVORABLY AS POSSIBLE, AND FEELS THAT EXTENDING THE HOME TO THE FRONT WILL HAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -64 Mike and Kathy Doyle 2150 Dodd Road Variance Mr. Grittman shared a site plan for the 2150 Dodd Road property, and said this is a parcel the Planning Commission has reviewed in the past several months. The applicant had previously requested a variance to allow parking to encroach into the front yard, but the applicant was able to design a site plan that avoids that variance and proceeded with construction of their property. The applicant is now seeking a variance to allow for a front yard setback encroachment for a proposed sign. The proposed sign location would be approximately 10 -ft setback from Dodd Road. The zoning ordinance requires a setback for signage to be 30 -ft. The applicant suggests that if the sign were to be located in a location that would meet the 30 -ft setback, the sign would have a number of visibility issues related to traffic coming from both directions, particularly due to the location of the parking lot and the existing building. The visibility for the sign is an issue for a commercial business, and can also be a safety concern. If signs are not visible, there could be quick stopping traffic in front of businesses. In this particular case, the applicant proposes a relatively small sign in comparison to what the ordinance would allow. The sign is 6 -ft in height, for a total of 10 sq. ft. in area. It is the Planner's opinion that the visibility would be an issue in this case and a safety issue, and therefore recommends approval of the variance with the hardship that there would not be a reasonable view if the sign was to be located 30 -ft. from the street. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the sign will be lit. Mr. Grittman said the plan does not show lighting and will have to ask the applicant. Commissioner B. McManus asked if it will be one of those translucent signs. Mr. Grittman said it does not appear to be. Commissioner Betlej asked if signage could be placed on the buildings. Mr. Grittman said they do have some signage on the buildings, but it's relatively small in size and he believes the applicant is concerned that visibility would be an issue. Commissioner Betlej asked if the City Council had any concerns with the parking. Mr. Grittman said the Council reviewed and felt the proposed parking meets the setback requirements, so there are no issues with any potential parking in front of the building. Commissioner Betlej asked if the letter received covers dismissing all previous planning requests. Mr. Hollister said that was correct, and that the only application before the Planning Commission now is that of the signage request. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the sign could be placed on the other side of the ramp to provide better access in and out of the parking lot. Mr. Grittman said this would also provide better access to handicap parking. Mr. Mike Doyle, 2150 Dodd Road, was available to answer questions. Commissioner B. McManus asked why the sign is not proposed to be placed further north of the site where it could be seen better. Mr. Doyle said the sign was drawn to be in that particular location because of the ramp incline and the existing wall that the sign will be placed on. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the sign will be lit. Mr. Doyle said there will be some lighting either on the top or bottom of the side shining directly onto the sign. The lighting will be attached directly on the sign. Commissioner Miller asked what the sign will be made o£ Mr. Doyle said it will be made of wrought iron and metal. Commissioner Miller asked if there was a variance required for the ramp extending into the 30 -ft setback. Mr. Hollister said the setback only applies to parking spaces, and does not apply to ramps and loading spaces for handicap accessible vehicles. Commissioner Miller asked who will enforce the parking regulations regarding to the 30 -ft space to the rear. Mr. Doyle said he is only concerned with the parking for the coffee shop at this time. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the parking spaces will be lined. Mr. Doyle said they will be, except for the parking spaces in the front. Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 Chair Lorberbaum asked for further clarification on how the sign will be mounted and asked the applicant if he would consider placing the sign on the other side of the ramp. Mr. Doyle said it would be an aesthetic issue as well as visibility and would not want to move it. Commissioner Dolan asked if there were any other signage on the site. Mr. Doyle said only on the front of the north building. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there would be any need to place a sign for the back building at any future date. Mr. Doyle said there could be. Chair Lorberbaum asked if it would be a good idea to construct a sign that would give the opportunity to add information to it should the need arise. Mr. Doyle said that would be a possibility, however there is a sign on the property that would be used for this building, but would deal with that issue at another time. Chair Lorberbaum said if the applicant wants to change the sign in size at a later date, and the sign needed a variance, would it be grandfathererd in? Mr. Grittman said the only thing that would be grandfathered in is the existing sign. Mr. Doyle said he would just apply for a larger sign at this time. Commissioner Hesse said the applicant could come back for another sign variance if he wanted to. Mr. Doyle said he would anticipate coming back at a later time if he needs to change it. Commissioner Betlej asked if the Planner had calculated the size of the proposed sign. Mr. Grittman said he did not have the exact calculations at that time, but the sign is significantly less than the maximum requirement. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the timing of the lighting will be. Mr. Doyle said he would be comfortable with 6:00 am to 8:00 or 9:00 pm, and an anticipated opening of December, 2005. The coffee house will also be serving a limited lunch menu. 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 M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE SITE FOR THE SIGN BASED UPON THE HARDSHIP THAT GIVEN THE LOCATION PLACING THE SIGN FURTHER BACK COULD CAUSE TRAFFIC ISSUES RESULTING FROM CARS MAKING QUICK STOPS ONCE THEY SEE THE SIGN IN THAT LOCATION; THE SIGN IN THE PROPOSED LOCATION WOULD BE A BENEFIT FOR VEHICULAR SAFETY. Friendly Amendment: Chair Lorberbaum asked that the lamination of the sign meets all city ordinances and the hours of lighting be from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm, 7 days a week. This friendly amendment was accepted by Commissioner Dolan. AYES NAYS (Commissioner Miller) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -65 Lloyds Barbeque Company 1455 Mendota Heights Road Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman shared a map indicating the location of 1455 Mendota Heights Road, which is an area within an industrial park, zoned industrial, and is occupied by a current industrial building. The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit that would allow for the construction of an accessory building on the north side of the existing building. The accessory building will be used as a pre- 10 Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 treatment building used for handling industrial waste before it enters into the sewer system. The building will occupy a small portion of the parking lot. The applicants have also provided building elevations for review, showing the buildings to be 32 -ft. in height. The building meets all zoning requirements and Planning staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. The accessory structure must be of the same color and design as the existing principal structure. 2. The applicant shall be required to receive all relevant local and state permits for the storage and pretreatment of waste. Copies of these permits shall be provided to the City. 3. The applicant shall provide the City with parking count information. The applicant shall be required to maintain the minimum parking stall count required for the site under the Ordinance. 4. The applicant shall demonstrate how the loading and circulation plan will occur during and after construction. Commissioner M. McManus asked for examples of local and state permits that would be required. Mr. Grittman said they may require permits from the Met Council. Commissioner Hesse said they will also have to obtain an industrial discharge permit. Commissioner M. McManus said the applicant's letter indicate that there have been some problems in the past regarding a problem with grease build up in the sewer. Ms. McDermott said the City has been working with Lloyd's Barbeque on this issue where the applicant has been reimbursing the city of any extra costs incurred to clean the lines. Chair Lorberbaum asked if this treatment plant has to be an accessory structure. Mr. Grittman said that would be a question for the applicant. Matt Ropchak and Chuck Morrisette were in attendance representing Hormel Foods Corporation, specifically the Lloyds Barbeque manufacturing facility at 1455 Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Ropchak said the accessory structure will house wastewater pre - treatment for their facility. Mr. Ropchak reviewed his letter submitted to the city, dated October 12, 2005, which covers the reasons for wanting to construct this facility. The current equipment is housed in the basement of the existing facility, and the condition of the equipment is failing. Mr. Ropchak said the design of the structure is going to be tip -up concrete wall panels consistent with the construction of the main building today. It will be painted to match as close as possible. The necessary permits include the industrial waste discharge permit which they hold today and will continue to hold that permit going forward. Additional parking information was passed out for the Commissioners' review. Mr. Ropchak explained on the site plan how the bulk loading and circulation will be implemented. Commissioner M. McManus asked what the hours of operation will be. Mr. Ropchak said the facility operates 5 days a week, 24 hours a day. The new facility will operate the same hours. Commissioner M. McManus asked what the applicant's expectations of the life of the equipment now and in the future. Mr. Ropchak said he could not give a precise estimate of how long the facility will be at this location, that would be up to Hormel Foods Corp., but to his knowledge, the company is growing the Lloyds business and bringing new products into the facility such that eventually, the capacity of the facility will become an issue and expansion might become the best alternative to providing manufacturing space for those products. If expansion did occur, it would most likely occur to the north of the facility. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Ropchak if he has a depreciation schedule. Mr. Ropchak said he believes it would be a 40 -year depreciation on the new structure, equipment would be 7 years. Mr. Morrisette said at present time, they are at 2,400 gallons of holding capacity in their basement and the basement is very limited in space which is why the accessory building is proposed to be built. The new facility will hold 4,000 gallons as well as an additional holding tank which will hold the grease that in on top of the water. Mr. Morrisette said at this point, they are looking at the next 7 to 10 years to be in good shape. Mr. Ropchak said they looked at three options: 1) replace the equipment in the same location but the size of the new equipment would cause space restraints; 2) another location in the existing building but in the event of expansion of the facility, this area will be targeted as the primary expansion location; and 3) the proposed accessory building. Commissioner Betlej asked if the building could be cut more into the hillside so it does not appear too obtrusive. Mr. Ropchak said the reason for the height of the building is to hide a 28 -ft. tall grease storage tank which will house the grease that is pulled off the waste water, and does not believe that the building will be excessively higher than the main building. The existing building is about 34- 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 ft. high, plus there is a 6 -ft. elevation of the ground. Mr. Ropchak said the new structure will not be significantly taller. Mr. Morrisette said the location chosen is better suited to accommodate the pumping process. Commissioner Betlej said this is not the prettiest building and he has concerns that it's highly visible from the highway. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. A resident came forward to ask why is done with the fat. Mr. Ropchak said the grease is hauled away to rendering companies who disposes it in a way that is safe to the environment. 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. AYES 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 AS PRESENTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The accessory structure must be of the same color and design as the existing principal structure. The applicant shall be required to receive all relevant local and state permits for the storage and pretreatment of waste. Copies of these permits shall be provided to the City. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said he drove around the site and the addition to the building is an appropriate industrial building, and it will intrude on no one's visibility except someone that is driving by this industrial area, and does not feel the need to question the height of the building any further. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -57 Paul Aplikowski / Wold Architects for ISD #197 1979 Summit Lane (Mendota Elementary School) Conditional Use Permit / Variance Mr. Grittman shared a neighborhood plan of the Mendota Elementary School property. The Planning Commission previously tabled action on this request as the original plan showed a pond proposed for the additional to the school and the concern at that time was how it would be constructed and the amount of water it would contain as well as whether or not it would be fenced or landscaped. One of the issues that the applicants were asked to investigate was whether there were alternatives to that pond design and how that might be treated. As a result, the applicants have redesigned the project and are seeking a Conditional Use Permit as originally requested but also a variance to waive portions of the required curbing requirement on the parking lot. The revised plan shows a relocation of the pond from its original location to the northeast corner of the site and this pond would be much shallower, approximately three or four feet deep, surrounded on two sides by berming about three or four feet in height, and this pond would be designed to drain dry after a period of time, holding no water for long periods of time. The applicant will also be constructing a structure that will treat the storm water on site rather than using the wet pond design that was originally proposed. Mr. Grittman said requests were made from the Planning Commission to add some landscaping along the north side. There is relatively a thick buffer of vegetation along the east portion of the property, and while there is some along the north boundary, it would be better if there were more screening on this side. 12 Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 Mr. Grittman said Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit for the excavation of the site and also the variance from the curbing requirements from the parking lot. Commissioner B. McManus asked where the water treatment structure going to be. Ms. McDermott said it will be located behind the curbed parking lot where there will be catch basins in the parking lot. Commissioner B. McManus said there will be some occasions that pond will be 4 -ft. deep and asked if a fence will be located inside the plantings. Mr. Grittman said this plan takes the fence out of the project. Ms. McDermott said the pond will not have standing water for days at a time and said the project engineer will be able to answer those questions. Commissioner Dolan asked how it has been concluded that the catch basin location was in the best position. Mr. Grittman said the topography was a main factor. Commissioner Dolan said it appears that the new plan eliminates the curbing so the water runs naturally into the pond, and asked for clarification where the curbing will be placed. Mr. Paul Aplikowski, Wold Architects, spoke on behalf of ISD #197, also introducing Mr. Dave Rey from Anderson- Johnson Associates. Mr. Aplikowski made some clarifications: • The pond will be only 21/2-ft. as there will be an overflow structure that will control the water at that point. • The drain time on the pond for a 100 -year event is about 18 -24 hours. • All the water that will be draining into the catch basin is controlled by storm sewers and there will be curbs on the pieces that will drain into that. One of the things that allowed the applicant to reduce the impact of the pond is to maintain existing sheet - drainage to the east side of the site so a variance is needed to not have to put curbing in that area. Commissioner B. McManus asked if any excessive water will be running into neighbors' yards as a result from the lack of curbs. Mr. Aplikowski said none that they are aware of. Commissioner Betlej asked if more lights would be added, or will the existing one be re- arranged. Mr. Aplikowski said they will be rearranged. Commissioner Betlej asked if there will be any lighting spilling on to adjacent properties. Mr. Aplikowski said he believes this will not be a problem. Commissioner Betlej asked that a complete lighting plan be submitted to the City Council for review. Commissioner Betlej asked if additional plants of pine trees would be planted to block access to the ponding area better. Mr. Rey said there are already pines in that area. Commissioner Betlej said he wants to make sure there is sufficient blockage as children walk past that area. Commissioner Dolan asked if the pond could be move further to the east. Mr. Aplikowski said the natural topography allows berming to be placed to create this dry basin if placed as proposed. Mr. Rey said on a day to day basis, this area will look just like a sodded lawn. The only time there will be water is if there is a rain shower. Commissioner Dolan asked why there will be no fencing. Mr. Ray said it will be open grass area most of the time. Chair Lorberbaum said it may only draw more attention is a fence was located there. Commissioner Dolan asked if there will be a 3 -ft hole. Mr. Rey said there would be, but it would be more of a depression. Commissioner Dolan asked for more clarification on the grading from the parking area. Mr. Aplikowski said they were decreasing the amount of area that runs towards the neighboring properties. Commissioner Dolan asked where the path will end. Mr. Aplikowski said it would end at the city street. Commissioner M. McManus said she appreciates the efforts made to tend to the safety concerns and has confidence in the City Engineer in working with this project. Commissioner M. McManus asked what kinds of adjustments will have to be made in the event there are problems with this project, i.e., children playing in the water, children getting hurt, etc. Mr. Rey said some adjustments could be made to the mechanical structure but it would take significant work to do so. 13 Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 Ms. McDermott said the fencing could be an attractive nuisance and there have been cases in other cities where children have climbed over a fence into a pond and it was very difficult to rescue them as the fence acted as a barrier. Ms. McDermott said a lot of cities do not allow ponds for that reason. Commissioner B. McManus asked how steep will the sides of this depression be. Mr. Rey said it would be a 1 -ft rise for every four feet of run, and is intended to be a lawn area on a day to day basis. Commissioner B. McManus said if there is a rare occasion that a child falls in that area, will he be able to get back up. Mr. Rey said that a child would be able to get back up, and that he would also be comfortable allowing his own children in that area. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Geraldine Gunderson, 1960 Walsh Lane, said she lived in her home for over 50 years and has never seen any standing water on the property and sees no problem with run off anywhere. Ms. Gunderson said there are no storm sewers in that area and asked where the water will run into. Mr. Aplikowski explained on the map where the run will be directed. Tom Strombeck, 1872 Summit Lane, expressed his concerns regarding drainage, standing water and additional screening on the north side of the property. Mr. Strombeck said all the talk about additional plantings on the north side seemed to focus on the view from the school. He would like to have additional screening from his (and the neighbors) view as well. Mr. Strombeck said there is gas line that runs right through his backyard at an angle towards the school. Ms. McDermott said the contractor will work with the gas company on this, and does not believe this pipe line will affect the proposed changes to the school property. Mr. Rey said additional landscaping will also be placed per Mr. Strombeck's request. Dave Tetzlaff, 1046 Avanti Drive, expressed his concern with the amount of water in the catch basis, even a small amount. Mr. Tetzlaff said he also wonders if any curbing needs to be placed around the parking lot, and would rather see the water being able to run down the slope naturally into the grass. Mr. Tetzlaff said he have concerns about the issues with the storm sewers. Ms. McDermott said there is an increase in the impervious surface due to the changes to the parking lot, and with that increased hard surface, the rate that the water that flows off the site increases and will overload the city's existing storm sewer system. The basin will control the rate that the water is running off the site so it doesn't flood people's yards. Ms. McDermott said the water will run into the Summit Lane sewer system. Mr. Rey explained how the system is designed for water running through the catch basin into the sewer. Mr. Evans, 2015 Victoria Road, asked who will be paying for this work, and will there be special assessments to the property owners. Mr. Evans expressed his concern standing water and mosquitoes. Ms. McDermott said she believes there will be no mosquito problems. Mr. Aplikowski said the funding will be paid through the school's previously approved referendums. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE AS PROPOSED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Increased landscaping on the north and east sides of the pond. 2. The applicant must submit revised plans showing proposed parking lot lighting consistent with the submitted site /landscape and grading /utility plans, subject to City Staff approval. THE HARDSHIP FOR THE VARIANCE IS IDENTIFIED AS THE REDUCTION OF THE SIZE OF THE POND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO LIMIT OR REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF STANDING WATER WHICH WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE RISK OF DANGER TO THE PUBLIC. 14 Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #05 -52 Quinn S. Hutson for St. Peters Church 1405 Highway 13 Variance, Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat Mr. Grittman said a portion of a survey that was received by St. Peters Church came before the Planning Commission in September and the applicants are seeking a series of planning approvals for preliminary and final plats, a conditional use permit which is related to altering the use of an accessory building for a church in a R -1 zoning district, variance which relates to the size and number of accessory buildings on the property, and a Critical Area Permit to allow the conversion of what was the use of a single family home into the storage facility. Mr. Grittman said the approval was granted for the Critical Area Permit, however because of the lack of information relating to the land and the survey of the property itself, the plats, the conditional use permit, and the variance request was held as they are related to the property and the eventual use of the facility. The City has since then received a survey which Mr. Grittman reviewed for the Commissioners. The survey shows the entire church property and also the triangular piece that mostly contains the proposed storage building. Mr. Grittman said the City needs a plat drawing that shows these two parcels combined so the plat can be recorded. This information is still unavailable at this time. Mr. Grittman said it may be wise to table this application again so this plat can be prepared. Mr. Hollister said the applicant has waived the 60 -day time limit in writing after a previous Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hollister said that since the last meeting, the Commission now has two drawings from the surveying firm that St. Peter's Church is using. The one that was received in the original packet was the survey drawing, which took them a couple of months to prepare. Mr. Hollister said it was found that some of the church property was acquired by the church before Minnesota had become a state. Mr. Hollister said that before this meeting, a second drawing was delivered which has been labeled a "plat drawing" and that one shows both the property with the Cave House on it and the other larger parcel which is the remainder of the church property. The intent was that this fills the requirement for the submission of the plat drawings. Mr. Grittman said it was labeled as a plat, but it is technically a survey, and explained what the plan drawings need to show. Chair Lorberbaum said she was concerned that although the applicant has waived the 60 -days that waiving was previous and now they have brought forth an application and is the intent today that the 60 -day is no longer waived? Mr. Hollister said the waiver of the 60- days is still in tact and this does not constitute a new application, this is their attempt to provide all the materials required for their current application. Commissioner B. McManus asked if this application is slow in coming because of the age of the sight. Mr. Hollister said it is unusual how long it is taking to gather this information, but given the fact that this may be the oldest church in the State of Minnesota, it's not entirely surprising that it's been hard for the applicant to come up with all this information. Mr. Hollister said Mr. Quinn Huston, the architect for St. Peter's Church, is in attendance and asked Mr. Grittman what his opinion would be if the two properties were combined with a lot combination as opposed to a plat. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the different was. Mr. Hollister said from the applicant's point of view, a lot combination is cheaper to achieve and the practical effect would be the same, in which the two parcels can be joined and cannot be sold independently of each other, which may be a concern of the City. Mr. Grittman said this would be a possibility and would need a revised legal description. Mr. Grittman said he would be inclined to say the bulk of the work has probably been done for the plat, and the most difficult part of this project is the researching and identifying of the legal descriptions, then creating the plat as the last piece of the puzzle. Mr. Hollister said if the Planning Commission feels strongly that is should be done as a plat, then the Planner could recommend approval of a preliminary plat and refer them to Council with the insistence that they make the revisions to the drawing, which are not that complicated. This would be showing the 10 -ft easement of each side of the property line, fusing the two parcels together, and giving the plat a name. 15 Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 Commissioner Betlej asked what the advantage would be of doing a plat. Mr. Grittman said the advantage would be for future reference to this property, as it would be identified by plat name rather than a very complicated legal description. It would also be less like to have property line or title disputes. Mr. Grittman said lot combination will leave a confused legal description that leaves out the opportunity that people will misidentify the lot lines or title issues in the future. Chair Lorberbaum said it looks like the parish house goes beyond Parcel A, and is there a concern about that slipping over? Mr. Grittman said this is still a legal non - conforming structure because it's encroaching over the property line and this condition is not affected by the plat. Commissioner Miller asked Ms. McDermott if she received the insurance letter from the church that was requested on August 29"'. Ms. McDermott said she has not yet received it. Commissioner Miller said this should be made a condition in the approval. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there were any reasons that this should be hurried, or can it wait until January. Mr. Quinn Huston, architect representing St. Peter's Church, thanked everyone for their patience in waiting for the survey to be completed. Mr. Huston said this was a very challenging task. Mr. Huston said the piece of the existing building that extends over the property line, which is an existing porch, will be moved. Also, the church prefers to turn this into a plat if possible so there will be a clearer long term description of the property. Mr. Huston said he would like to request the consideration for taking the recommendations of the engineering staff to move the project on from this meeting tonight in order to allow them to start on the renovations. Mr. Huston said the letter is in process and needs to be signed off by the insurance company. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the existing building and who owns the land. Mr. Huston said it is a private residence and he does not know who it is. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS SUBMITTED WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN PARCELS A AND B BE ELIMINATED BY COMBINING THE TWO PARCELS, AND PROVIDING A TEN - FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT THE LETTER FROM ST. PETERS CHURCH, ACKNOWLEDGING THE LACK OF FIRE SERVICE TO THE BUILDING, AND A LETTER FROM ST PETER'S INSURANCE COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGING THE LACK OF FIRE SERVICE TO THE BUILDING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED 16 Planning Commission Meeting November 22, 2005 COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY STORAGE BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 225 SQUARE FEET LOCATED THE R -1 DISTRICT. THE HARDSHIP FOR THE VARIANCE IS IN COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND THAT NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE IS AVAILABLE TO MEET CURRENT REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AYES NAYS (Commissioner Betlej) MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum reminded everyone that there will not be a December Planning Commission meeting unless Mr. Hollister has an urgent need for one. Chair Lorberbaum gave an update on the recent Infill Meeting that was held. VERBAL REVIEW — Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #05 -55 Chuck and Nancy Reich — Wetlands Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -56 Elizabeth and Reid PoLome — Conditional Use Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:30 PM. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 17