Loading...
2004-03-23 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting March 23, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 23, 2004 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Betlej, Dolan, and M. McManus. Those excused: Commissioners Miller and Hesse. 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 introduced the new City Engineer for Mendota Heights, Sue McDermott. Ms. McDermott said she had worked for the City of Prior Lake, as well as various jobs in the private sector and the Federal Government. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page 4, last paragraph, should read: "Commissioner Betlej had questions whether there will be asked abeut building signage. The applicant replied that there would be, but he had not decided. Commissioner Betlej said this should have been part of this application and it was not clear whether there would be building signage that was in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Sehneia °r said there would be the monument sign, along with coordinated directionaPbusiness identification signs on the buildings." Page 6: The vote for Case #04 -05 should be corrected as follows: 4 AYES (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Hesse) 2 NAYS (Commissioners Betlej, Dolan) MOTION CARRIED Page 7, 6t" paragraph, should read: "Chair Lorberbaum asked if Staff is looking for specific language approval tonight, or will this come back again for further review? Mr. Hollister said there is no specific timeframe. When the medical usage for diabetes patients eome came up, the ordinance was viewed as being rather vague as to whether or not it was permitted. The Council determined it was substantially similar to other uses in the industrial district and could therefore go forward. Discussion was held at the Council to amend the ordinance to specifically allow this type of business and allow colleges to be included in the amendment." COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2004 AS CORRECTED. 4 AYES 0 NAYS 1 ABSTENTION (Commissioner M. McManus MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #04 -07 Patrick Donahue 1924 Walsh Lane Variance to Required Front Yard Setback Mr. Grittman reviewed a map, which showed the location of 1924 Walsh Lane, and reviewed the proposal for a garage addition and a variance to accommodate that addition. There is an existing single family home of the property and the applicant is proposing to Planning Commission Meeting March 23, 2004 construct an addition that would expand the garage to the front of the home toward Walsh Lane. Mr. Grittman said this addition would allow approximately 38 ft. of setback from street right of way. The property to the north is currently occupied by a single - family home with a setback similar to the setback on the applicant's home, and the parcel to the south has a single - family home, which is located around the corner and facing Kay Avenue. The City's ordinance in the R1 district requires a 30 ft. front yard setback except that it also has a requirement for the "string rule ", which is a line that extends between the two adjoining homes that creates an additional requirement for front yard setbacks. In this case, that line cuts through the existing home, requiring a setback of 60 ft. or more to comply with the string rule for this structure. The variance is necessary for the expansion of the garage, as it would extend across that line. Mr. Grittman said the hardship is defined as this line interferes with the applicant putting the property to a reasonable use, which is due to the location of the house to the south. In relationship to the house to the north, the applicant's proposed addition would be well within the setback sight line of that home, and gives this situation uniqueness for the hardship. Mr. Grittman explained that the string rule was established to avoid large variations in front yard setbacks for houses facing the same street. The application of the rule in this case creates a unique condition that results in an existing non - conforming setback, and unfairly limits the applicant's use of the property, which therefore creates a hardship. Commissioner M. McManus asked if this property had recently come before the Commission for a different variance for a side yard setback. Mr. Grittman said he was not aware of this. The applicant, Mr. Patrick Donahue, 1924 Walsh Lane, said he did come before the Commission with a request about a year ago. The request was for a special conditional use permit for the oversized shed that was built, which was granted. Mr. Donahue said the existing garage depth is not deep enough to accommodate his vehicles and the house is positioned so close to the side yard that an expansion to the side is not feasible. Commissioner B. McManus said he noticed that the applicant is in the process of doing some roofing, and asked for clarification on how the expansion would be constructed. Mr. Donahue explained it would be done with a hip to match the existing roof. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THE UNIQUE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY WAS CREATED BY THE INTENT OF THE STRING RULE, AS OPPOSED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION IN THIS SITUATION. Further Discussion Commission Betlej said if it were determined that long length side of the property to the south was a front yard, then this home would be non - conforming because it's beyond the less than 30 ft. setback, and it is not the intent of the ordinance and based on this, he recommended approval. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Mr. Hollister informed the Commission that the next City Council Meeting would be held on Wednesday, April 7th out of respect for Passover. Planning Commission Meeting March 23, 2004 PLANNING CASE #04 -06 ZONING AMENDMENT - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Mr. Grittman said the Planning Commission has previously reviewed a draft amendment at the February meeting and asked Staff to work on a few clarifications and questions that were raised. Mr. Grittman made the following comments regarding the outcome of those discussions: • The intent of the amendment is to add some depth and better definitional language to the industrial district and trade schools that are allowed in that district. • The discussions arose from some recent conversations that the City has had with staff regarding the prospective tenants in the industrial park who were looking to do training types of activities rather than traditional office space, and also acknowledgement that the former Brown Institute, which will occupy the industrial park as a trade school, has expanded ids its activities to become a four -year college. Brown Institute is now referred to as Brown College. As the ordinance does not cover colleges, but only trade schools, Staff has drafted an outline of an ordinance amendment in which the Planning Commission has made some recommendations for changes. • The term "University" has been added to the definition of colleges. • Professional training language has been added to expand from administrative training language. • The definition was amended for recreation commercial, as commercial entities, which call themselves "schools" such as martial arts, or dance schools, to include those activities. • Changes ha-ve been made to tfade seheels and eelleges with the idea thm they have been defined as traditional uses, a-ad Sta The language will make trade schools, colleges, and universities a permitted use in the industrial district, so long as there are no housing activities. If housing were included, that proposal would have to come before the city for a specific conditional use permit. Commissioner M. McManus said she read the minutes and asked for clarification of direct commercial transactions, and whether they be considered thm they would e under a special use permit. Mr. Grittman said there is no definition of commercial offices, but the City allows such offices as a permitted use in the industrial district, and this amendment would reflect a definition of that use. Commissioner Dolan referred to Section 4, which addresses the parking requirements definition. Commissioner Dolan asked for a definition of design capacity. Mr. Grittman said schools have a specific design capacity based on the maximum population of students that the school can accommodate. Commissioner B. McManus referred to Section 2, last line that says "facilities including housing, recreation facilities ... ". Commissioner B. McManus asked that the Staff add or give serious consideration to adding "facilities or other uses ". Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Dr. Ronald Swanson, Chancellor of Brown College, 1440 Northland Drive, addressed the Commission asking support of the new language for- t suppai4. Dr. Swanson explained how the college is expanding, and it is their wish to stay in Mendota Heights. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING AMENDMENT CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF AND TO ADD ALL THE Planning Commission Meeting March 23, 2004 DEFINITIONS AS DESCRIBED TO ENSURE ALL RELATED USES ARE ALLOWABLE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW — ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Planning Case 04 -04: Klingelhutz Development Co., Highways 55 and 13 • PUD Concept Plan: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission with some modifications recommended by the City Attorney. Chair Lorberbaum asked for an update on the following properties. Mr. Hollister gave the following updates: • Robert Fink: Subdivision application will be on the Council Agenda for April 7th. Mr. Fink has requested that the Council not take up the issue until there was a full contingent of council members, and he is still within the boundary of the 60 -day rule, which was extended to 120 days. Mr. Fink has received office notice of this decision. • Both the Par 3 property and the Acadia properties are in litigation and could be a number of months before any new developments can be reported on. OPEN DISCUSSION None. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:00 PM. AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 4