Loading...
2004-04-27 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2004 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 27, 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, Miller, Betlej, Dolan, Hesse, and M. McManus. 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. Vice Chair Betlej announced that he would be chairing the meeting this evening. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Paae 2. motion made for Planniniz Case 04 -07 should be reworded as follows: COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THAT THE UNIQUE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY WAS CREATED BY THE INTENT OF THE STRING RULE, AS OPPOSED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION IN THIS SITUATION. Page 3, 2" d bullet, The discussion 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 it-is 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. Page 3, 6th bullet, Changes ha e been made to trade sehools and eolleges with the idea that they have been defined as- with 4ade seheals. The eeneem was for- additional aefivities that eellege hold whieh may not eompatible with the industr-ial distf; ^* 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. Page 3, 3rd paragraph should read as follows: Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 "Commissioner M. McManus said she read the minutes and asked for clarification of direct commercial transactions, and whether they be considered that they would be under a special use permit. Mr. Grittman said there is no definition of commercial offices, but allow such offices as a permitted use in the industrial district, and this amendment would allow for a definition of that use." Page 3, 7th paragraph should read as follows: "Dr. Ronald Swanson, Chancellor of Brown College, 1440 Northland Drive, addressed the Commission asking support of the new language r^r their °tipper*. Dr. Swanson explained how the college is expanding, and it is their wish to stay in Mendota Heights. " COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2004 AS CORRECTED. 5 AYES 0 NAYS 2 ABSTENTIONS (Commissioners Miller and Dolan) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #04 -08 Scott Landsman 661 Cheyenne Lane CUP and Wetland Permit Mr. Grittman displayed a map showing the location of 661 Cheyenne Lane. The request is for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a fence greater than 3 ft. in height, and within the 30 ft. setback, along with a wetland permit to allow the fence to be constructed within the 100 ft. buffer area of the wetland. Mr. Grittman said the proposed material to be used for the fencing is black vinyl coated chain link fence. The City has an ordinance that requires any fence within 30 ft. of the street to be no more than 3 ft. high, however by Conditional Use Permit, the City can approve a fence with a maximum height of 6 feet. Within that area, the ordinance is adopted to allow for properties such as this, being a corner lot or through lot, with a rear yard exposed to a roadway. The applicant indicated that they are intending to enclose the rear yard with the fence for protection of the family. The Planner believes this is consistent with the intent of the CUP requirements. One of the recommendations made by the Planner is to consider some enhanced material, particularly for the posts. A number of CUP approved in the past have required some decorative wood fencing or masonry posts along the exposed portion of the fence. Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Mr. Grittman said the fence would appear to have very little effect on the wetlands, but one of the recommendations includes the condition that the landscape outside of the fence be maintained in natural materials. Commissioner Hesse asked if the modifications to the posts would only be required along Huber Drive. Mr. Grittman said that was correct, and that the intent of the ordinance was to allow that encroachment into the setback along the busier streets as long as the area exposed to the busier streets was properly enhanced. Commissioner Hesse said he does not think the proposed fencing material is unattractive, and is not particularly concerned about the materials as proposed. Commissioner Hesse asked if the posts (masonry or otherwise) would be compatible with the rest of the chain link fence. Mr. Grittman said it was possible to construct this type of fence with alternative posts. Commissioner Hesse asked if there were other fences in the area that have similar fencing. Mr. Grittman said he did not know of other fencing types in the area, but the City has previously approved other fences within the right of way that are of exceeding height, but also had some type of upgraded modifications to the posts or landscaping/screening. Mr. Grittman said that the City chose to use the conditional use process in these cases as opposed to permitted uses to address the public view from the right of way, and it seems that the aesthetics was the main reason for requiring a CUP. Commissioner Hesse said that if the Commission recommends the upgraded materials there should be agreement between Staff and the property owner as to what is acceptable and what is not. Commissioner Dolan said he agrees with Mr. Grittman's recommendation. Commissioner Dolan said he was not a fan of chain link fences, however the black would look better than the silver. Commissioner Dolan said if he were a neighbor, he would appreciate some type of screening along the fencing. Commissioner Dolan asked for more clarification on the map of where the natural grasses along the wetlands were located and what the expectations of the Planner was in this area. Mr. Grittman explained where the cultured landscaping would be required to meet with natural area. Vice Chair Betlej said he is looking for consistency in the neighborhood with fences that have been allowed by CUP, and these fences have been upgraded with materials such as wrought iron, masonry, and decorative caps. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the applicant would install some landscaping outside the fence toward the street, if this would be acceptable. Mr. Grittman said that would meet the objective. Chair Lorberbaum said she had previously talked with the applicant, who had indicated that he would be agreeable to this suggestion. Commissioner Miller said he thinks the best fence would be no fence, and would like to see the proposed fence be as open as possible. Commissioner Miller said he believes a chain link fence as proposed would provide the openness adequately. Commissioner Miller inquired about the existing 5 -foot high portion of the fence on the west side. Mr. Grittman said that section meets code requirements and it is his understanding that it extends along with west property line. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the Planner is recommending the enhanced fencing be completely around the property, or just on the roadside. Mr. Grittman said it would be just on the roadside. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the City has a history of approving chain link fences. Mr. Grittman said chain link fences are not prohibited by ordinance, and does not recall any previous requests for chain link fences. 3 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Chair Lorberbaum asked about the fencing around the church near the City Hall. Mr. Grittman said that is chain link fence however it is for an institutional use. Commissioner B. McManus said the slope from the yard to the wetlands is very gentle. Mr. Scott Landsman, 661 Cheyenne, is the applicant and said when he made the application, he misunderstood the purpose of the conditional use permit and when the Commissioners who visited the site reviewed the report, he realized the purpose was in relation to the aesthetics. Mr. Landsman said if he had known this, he would have provided more detail on the layout of the fencing. Mr. Landsman provided and reviewed photographs of this property and how the fencing and landscaping would be laid out. Mr. Landsman indicated the portion of the fence that would be visible from the roadway. Mr. Landsman said his need for the fencing is to protect his children and pets from the busy roadway, and wants the fencing to be attractive. Mr. Landsman said that the chain link fencing would keep the need for maintenance low and used as an example, wood fences that would deteriorate over time. Mr. Landsman said he would be very willing to plant trees /shrubs that would provide adequate screening, except in the area along the back yard where the natural wetland is located. Mr. Landsman wishes to keep that area natural without additional screening so that his family can enjoy the natural aesthetics. Mr. Landsman said the 5 -foot fence is strictly a segregated area for the dog and is not part of the CUP. Commissioner M. McManus said she does not recall the Commission approving a chain link fence of this type, and expressed her concern about the consistency and uniformity with the types of fences previously approved. Commissioner M. McManus said she would prefer to see some other decorative posts, and even with the landscaping as proposed, she feels this fence would still be visible to the public. Mr. Landsman said any decorations would probably draw more attention to the fencing and believes his plans for landscaping would address those issues. Commissioner M. McManus expressed her concern that other property owners in the future may ask for this type of fencing but not be as open to the additional extensive landscaping as Mr. Landsman is. Mr. Landsman said he believes the chain link fence as proposed would look better and thinks his property may be different than others. Mr. Landsman said there is a property close to his with similar chain link fencing that does not have adequate landscaping. Commissioner Hesse said this discussion is mostly about style and appearance, which can be subjective. Commissioner Hesse said the applicant shows that the issue is not mainly a financial issue, but an aesthetic issue. Commissioner Hesse said he agrees that it would be easier to hide a chain link fence as opposed to any other fences, and believes the applicant is positively trying to do some landscaping. Vice Chair Betlej pointed out that given the winter months, the prime coverage time of this fence would be very little. Mr. Landsman said he could plant evergreens along this area, keeping in mind that it will take some time for them to fully develop. Chair Lorberbaum said she likes the idea of having landscaping that covers the full length of the fence, and would be there year- round. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant for the timing of the planting. Mr. Landsman thanked Chair Lorberbaum for visiting his home and said he would take whatever direction the City recommends on the landscaping, but he would like to proceed with the fencing as soon as possible to address safety issues of the children being in the yard. 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Commissioner Miller asked for clarification of the property lines. Mr. Grittman said the right of way line and the property line is the same line in the area along Huber Drive. Commissioner Miller asked the applicant for confirmation of the placement of the existing tree that would be located on the outside of the proposed fencing. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant why he is requesting a 4 ft. high fence instead of the 3 ft. high. Mr. Landsman said it is better to keep the dog in, plus keeping in line with the fences belonging to his neighbors. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant what his intentions were for the rear of the yard along the wetland. Mr. Landsman said he has not made any plans to change the wetland area. He would like at some time in the future, to remove some of the thistle bushes and plant some native grasses. Mr. Landsman said he was putting more money into the coated fencing, as it will look much better than the silver galvanized. Mr. Landsman said all the landscaping planned to hide the fencing only applies to the fencing along Huber Drive and he is not intending to add any additional landscaping along the wetland area. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there was a black chain link fence a few houses down from the applicant. Vice Chair said it was located on a backyard property on Cheyenne. Vice Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLAND PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE LANDSCAPE OUTSIDE THE FENCE BE MAINTAINED OF NATURAL MATERIALS. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO A LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT SHOWS THAT THE FENCE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND THAT THE LANDSCAPING IS UP BY SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN THIS APPLICATION IS IN FRONT OF THEM THE FIRST TUESDAY OF NEXT MONTH. Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said the back fence will be visible from the street, and asked if the City going to start a trend of chain link fences. Chair Lorberbaum said this was a good question to be discussed and that it was interesting that the Planner suggested just changing the look of the fence along Huber Drive and did not comment on any other areas. Commissioner Dolan asked Chair Lorberbaum to confirm that her motion was to address the site line along Huber. Chair Lorberbaum said that was correct, and she is concerned that there are no plans submitted at this time and she does not feel comfortable approving something without a plan. Commissioner Dolan asked if there were any other places that the public could view that fence. Chair Lorberbaum said Commissioner M. McManus was concerned that the fence could be viewed from the wetlands, however if the plantings were along Huber Drive, most of the fence would not be visible along the wetland. Commissioner B. McManus said that the back yard is visible from Huber Drive. Commissioner Dolan said he does not see that addressed in the motion, and asked Chair Lorberbaum if landscaping were not required along the back fence line. Chair Lorberbaum said that was correct and the landscaping that she is envisioning is strictly along Huber Drive. Vice Chair Betlej asked if the Commission would have input on any fencing along the back side of the property within the appropriate setbacks of the property. Mr. Grittman said if the fencing was more than 3 ft. high and more than 30 ft. from the street, the Commission would have no input. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the City has standards as to the kinds of fences allowed in the City. Vice Chair Betlej said the ordinance allows for a black vinyl coated chain link fence. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman to confirm that information. Commissioner M. McManus said she visited the property and did not see the other approved chain link fence down the street, and is not aware of approvals for chain link fences since her tenure on the Commission, with the exception of the church playground. Commissioner M. McManus said she is still concerned about the aesthetics of this fence as viewed by the public, however if the rest of the Commissioners feel that with the appropriate screening /landscaping, which was not originally part of the planners report, the fence would be acceptable, she would be supportive. Commissioner M. McManus suggested that the City look closely at any future requests for chain link fencing. Mr. Landsman asked for clarification of what the Commission is looking for in the plans. Vice Chair Betlej said the motion is for the CUP to be approved subject to a landscaping plan submitted to the City Council for the Huber Drive portion of the fence so that it would not be visible from Huber Drive with landscaping that would be year- round, such a evergreen types of plantings. Chair Lorberbaum said she found language in Section 12.1D.6 that does not pertain to the type of fences allowed. Mr. Grittman said that section is not in the zoning ordinance. 6 AYES 1 NAYS (Commissioner B. McManus) MOTION CARRIED C Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Vice Chair said this case will come before the City Council on May 4, 2004, and that the applicant will need to provide a more detailed landscaping plan at that time. PLANNING CASE #04 -09 Roy Higgins 1357 Cherry Hill Road Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 1357 Cherry Hill Road and the request for a CUP to expand an existing attached garage to a total square footage of 1,500 square feet. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance allows attached garages to be up to 1,200 sq. ft. as a permitted use, and allowed by conditional use up to 1,500 sq. ft. Mr. Grittman said the survey of the property shows the existing home and attached garage to the north side of the structure. The proposal is to extend the garage to the east (back) and the entire addition would be approximately 24 ft. by 36 ft., expanding the existing 792 sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. The north setback to the property line is about 21 ft., which meets the side yard setback requirement. Mr. Grittman said the neighbor to the north has expressed concerns and has addressed those issues in a letter submitted. These concerns relate to the length of the garage wall and the potential use of the additional storage space. The neighbor has therefore recommended some options for mitigating the impacts of the garage expansion. One of the recommendations is to require that the garage be built partially in front and partially in back rather than entirely in the back yard. Another recommendation is to have proper sound insulation added to the north wall in the event that there are activities within the garage that would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Grittman said the original report discussed the potential for adding garage space to the west (front) side, however it is noted that the driveway is relatively steep, showing a 12% slope from the curb line to the front edge of the garage. The city does not have maximum standards for slope, but a rule of thumb that is commonly applied to driveways is that any slope over 10% causes some concerns for vehicles, especially during the winter months. The Planner's original concern was that if the garage were expanded to the front, the slope of the driveway would increase to about 15 %. Subsequent to this report, an addition to the report notes that the bulk of the slope of the driveway occurs from the middle of the driveway to the street, and it has been determined that if the garage were to be expanded about 10 ft. to the west, there would be no significant impact. Mr. Grittman said in regards to sound insulation, the applicant indicated the additional space would be used to store antique vehicles and it appears to be a reasonable request, as a minimal amount of work would be done on these vehicles. Mr. Grittman said without any CUP, this garage could be expanded its full width to the rear about 13 ft. Commissioner Miller asked how many garage doors were on the existing garage. Mr. Grittman said there were two. Commissioner Miller asked how much side yard space is available. Mr. Grittman said the survey shows 21.18 ft. to the property line. Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Chair Lorberbaum asked about the window to be placed in the side wall. Mr. Grittman said the applicant proposed one horizontally oriented window. The Planner's recommendation is to add a more residential -type window to match the existing windows. Chair Lorberbaum said she is concerned about the slope of the driveway where someone may be exiting the car and the slope would affect the ease of exit (i.e., gravity pulls the doors shut, more difficult to exit due to injury). Mr. Grittman said the preferred design is to have a flat parking area in front of the garage, and that is the way the current condition is. As the driveway continues toward the street, the slope is distinctly more, clearing increasing the difficulty of parking if the garage is expanded to the west. Mr. Grittman said if the garage is expanded to the west, there will be room to park, however it would make it more difficult to access the vehicle. Commissioner Hesse asked if standard insulation of the wall is adequate. Mr. Grittman said there is no requirement for any particular insulation noise code. Commissioner Hesse asked if any upgraded type of window would be installed to address any noise problems. Mr. Grittman said a normal garage window would most likely be single -pane, but a residential - designed window could provide more insulation. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification on the site map as to how the garage would look if it were expanded to the west. Roy Higgins, 1357 Cherry Hill Road, said he would like to address the neighbor's concerns and has some ideas on how to further improve this addition, such as installing a bigger residential -type window. Mr. Higgins said he has not put much thought into any landscaping. To address the noise, Mr. Higgins plans on installing 2'x 6' insulated walls, along with triple pane windows. Mr. Higgins said he parks his truck in front of the garage door and having a standard transmission, he does not want to have the truck parked on a bigger slope since the parking brake does not work properly. Mr. Higgins said if he had to build to the west, the slope would be too dangerous for exiting vehicles. Mr. Higgins said that by moving to the west, he would have added expense in having to construct two walls instead of only one. The exterior will match the existing home. Commissioner B. McManus asked what type of work would be done on the vehicles that are to be stored. Mr. Higgins said these cars have already been restored and the only work would be oil changes and an occasional tune -up. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant if he has had any discussions with the neighbor. Mr. Higgins said he just moved into the neighborhood last October and has not yet met the neighbor to his north. Commissioner B. McManus said he is in agreement with the slope issues and feels there are some safety issues. Commissioner B. McManus asked about the roof layout. Mr. Higgins presented a picture of the house, which shows a hip roof, and further explained out the rest of the home is laid out. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant how the roof would be affected if the garage were expanded to the west. Mr. Higgins said the roofline would have to be altered as it would in the back portion. Commissioner B. McManus noted there might be serious cost affects in this case. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant if he would consider keeping the garage size to the standard requirement, or is the additional space necessary. Mr. Higgins said he has 4 cars that take up a lot of space, in addition to two everyday vehicles, and indicated how they would be parked within the new expanded garage. 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Commissioner Miller said it still seems that it would be hard to fit 4 cars in the proposed space. Mr. Higgins said the cars were on dollies that can easily be moved around. Commissioner Miller asked the applicant if he were willing to construct the garage in a L -shape into the back yard, noting that that would be a depth of 50 ft. and would allow for two cars. This would require a third stall along side of the existing garage that would extend around the back of the home. Mr. Higgins said there is a very steep bank along the side of the garage and that would not be feasible. Mr. Higgins said he had not previously considered that option. Commissioner Dolan asked the applicant if he were limited to 1,200 -sq. ft. (which would give room for 3 cars) would the extra 300 sq. ft. accommodate the 4th car. Mr. Higgins said he would not get 3 cars in the 1,200 sq. ft. Mr. Higgins said there would be a door existing the back of the garage to gain access to storage area under the sunroom of the home. He will also plan on placing another window along the back of the garage. Commissioner Dolan asked if the insulation will be more than what typically would be installed in a garage addition, and will it effectively keep noise down. Mr. Higgins said he was not sure why his neighbor had a concern about noise, except for the occasional tune -up. The insulation will be 2'x 6' walls instead of 2' x 4' and therefore he can put in extra insulation. Commissioner M. McManus questioned why the applicant purchased this home knowing he had four additional cars to store. Mr. Higgins said he did not think there would be a problem in obtaining the permits for an expansion. Mr. Higgins said his wife does not want to sell their home, nor does Mr. Higgins wish to sell any of his cars. Vice Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. John Janske, 1373 Cherry Hill Road, is the neighbor to the north. Mr. Janske introduced himself to Mr. Higgins saying this was not the way he wanted to meet his new neighbor. Mr. Janske said he couldn't see anyone moving into the neighborhood and expect to add on to the home right away, as well as automatically expecting an approval of an exception to the rules. Mr. Janske said he had lived in this neighborhood for twenty years, and there are rules in place to keep this a nice neighborhood. Mr. Janske said this addition would change the character of the neighborhood by having a huge garage on the corner of the street. Mr. Janske said he would like to know if this addition would be used completely for storage purposes or if the intention is to conduct a business. Mr. Higgins assured Mr. Janske that he had no intentions for a business. Vice Chair Betlej said the city has ordinances against such activity. Mr. Janske said the major concern he has is the size of the expansion and that an expansion to 1,200 would be adequate. Mr. Janske said he doesn't agree that people should be able to come in and have various requests granted as then the requirements are not doing what they were intended to do, but if the City feels that Mr. Higgins has demonstrated a significant reason for doing so, then he will support the exception. Mr. Higgins said that because he currently does not have room for his cars, he needs to store them off -site and therefore cannot enjoy his cars whenever he wishes to in addition to having to pay for that storage. Mr. John Huber, 1359 Cherry Hill Road, said his driveway has no flat areas, and a slope of 7.5% that is immediately before the garage. Mr. Huber said he has lived at this residence for 21 years, having no problems with people getting in and out of vehicles. Mr. Huber said he is concerned with the lineup of the homes, as Mr. 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Janske sits a bit behind him, and then Mr. Higgins' home is further back. Mr. Huber said that a reasonable compromise would be to balance the garage with the rest of the house. Mr. Huber suggested some soft landscaping that is low maintenance, and would like to see the size of the garage expansion to the east downsized. Mr. Huber said it is important that applicants take steps to ensure that the additions made to properties set standards for Mendota Heights and keep it a community to be proud of. Commissioner B. McManus said there still is the issue of the long, straight shot of the wall, and even moving the wall forward, it will still have the same characteristics. Mr. Huber said while he may or may not like it, it is within the applicant's rights to construct it in putting his property to reasonable use. Vice Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman what the granting of a conditional use permit is based on, whether it is based solely on not impacting the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood, or is there something else the Commission should be looking at. Mr. Grittman said in terms of local impact, the primary factor is the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Grittman said the zoning ordinance also mentions issues relating to consistency with the comprehensive plan and other zoning standards. Commissioner M. McManus asked Mr. Grittman for his comments on the slope standards. Mr. Grittman said staff usually looks to the standards to see if any of them apply, however there is not a particular standard for the driveway slope. Mr. Grittman said that he uses the 10% as a guideline, not a written requirement of the city. A rule of thumb is that steeper driveways are more problematic. Although the applicant's driveway is of a greater slope, it's flatter closer to the garage door, and steeper closer to the street, giving more flexibility. Commissioner B. McManus said he is concerned that the Commission is not meeting all the neighbor's concerns, such as the long straight wall, giving the loss of visibility unless the garage is moved to the west. Commissioner Dolan questions the loss of visibility versus creating a potential hazard. Commissioner B. McManus said the Commission should try to meet the concerns of the neighbors in granting what is an optional request, and protecting the character of the neighborhood, but it seems neither is being addressed. Chair Lorberbaum said she is reminded of cases where someone says "I want a three- season porch, my lot isn't big enough, let me have it because I really want it ". Chair Lorberbaum said in those cases, there is nothing that says a lack of a three - season porch, or a three -car garage, is guaranteed in Mendota Heights; and she feels it's 10 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 the same thing here. No one promised the right to a garage that would house 4 cars, and that is what will be weighing on her decision in voting on this case. Commissioner Dolan said most of those cases were considering a variance. In this case, it's a conditional use and the standard is different; the standard being can the City impose conditions that protect the health, welfare, and safety of the neighborhood. If the Commission does not think they can do this, then the Commission is required to deny it. However, with the conditions set forth in the planner's case, the health, safety, and welfare threats are minimized. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE PLANNERS REPORT AS FOLLOWS: a) Window style that is consistent with window styles on the existing structure. b) Insulation in the wall and windows designed to minimize transmission of noise. c) Landscaping of the side yard with a combination of 3 to 4 large spruce trees and various shade - tolerant shrubs to lessen the impact of the wall length. Further Discussion Commissioner Hesse offered to make a friendly amendment to the motion regarding the neighbor indicating that the spruce trees may be too much, and it may be more appropriate to have a softer landscaping plan and would amend the motion to remove the spruce trees. Commissioner Dolan said there would still be landscaping requirements imposed that would include shade - tolerant shrubs and therefore agreed to the amendment. Commissioner B. McManus said the Commission has a chance to permit a new resident to pursue his hobby without disturbing the neighborhood by adding some square footage to the front of the house and some to the back of the house, and not therefore alienating or hurting the neighbor or affecting the character of the neighborhood, and does not feel that a garage going all the way back would affect the neighborhood anyway; and asked the Commission for their consideration that this could meet the needs of both individuals by splitting the difference of going somewhat forward and somewhat backward from the house noting that it will cost more money to do so. Commissioner Miller said that this is too much garage for less than' /2 acre of property. Commissioner M. McManus expressed the same opinion. Commissioner Dolan expressed his understanding that the ordinance allows the expansion up to 1,500 sq. ft. by CUP, and the applicant has a right to ask for up to 1,500 sq. ft. The Commission can deny it only if the conclusion is that the conditions imposed will minimize the burden to the neighborhood. Chair Lorberbaum asked about Section 12, 1L.6e which says the Council may grant the CUP but is not required to. Mr. Grittman said Commissioner Dolan stated the legal standard for CUP that the courts look at a CUP in a way that the use is presumably allowed, and there may be reasonable conditions imposed, but if the applicant cannot meet those reasonable conditions, then the applicant does not have any rights to the permit; if they can meet those conditions, they have a right to the CUP. 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Commissioner M. McManus said a reasonable condition would be to split up the addition to the front as well as the back; and on a variance side, the Commission has asked people to do things that have incurred additional expenses because the Commission has felt this would put the property to a reasonable use and mitigate impact to the neighborhood. Vice Chair Betlej said there are technically more rights under a CUP to add those conditions than there would be under a variance. Commissioner M. McManus said it might still be more expensive for the applicant because of the conditions bestowed. Commissioner M. McManus asked for confirmation that the motion is as originally proposed for the full extension to the back. Vice Chair confirmed the full expansion to the back, the windows, insulation, and some landscaping. 3 AYES 4 NAYS (Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Betlej, and M. McManus) MOTION FAILED COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: a) Window style that is consistent with window styles on the existing structure. b) Insulation in the wall and windows designed to minimize transmission of noise. c) Landscaping of the side yard with non - spruce tree, various shade - tolerant shrubs to lessen the impact of the wall length. d) Proposal to expand the garage with 10 ft. to 11 ft. to the west (front) and remaining expansion to the back (east) Further Discussion Commissioner Dolan said he would not support this motion because this would be a trade -off of line of sight and preserving views against a safety issue, which is more important. Commissioner Miller offered a friendly amendment to change the slope of the driveway to lessen that safety issue. Commissioner M. McManus said she is not sure there is a safety issue involved. Chair Lorberbaum said having supported the last motion, which did not pass, if she supports this motion it basically gives the applicant an opportunity to get what he wants as far as space, not a requirement to do it, and it's his choice to determine whether or not building on the front is causing a safety issue. This may give him what he wants, but not necessarily the way he envisioned it. 12 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 5 AYES 2 NAYS (Commissioners Hesse and Dolan) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -10 Robert Inserra 2138 Aztec Lane Request for Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed a map, which showed the single - family home at 2138 Aztec Lane. The applicant is seeking to expand the existing structure by constructing a garage addition to the front of the home, which would encroach into the front yard setback, and includes a variance for the height requirement and side yard setback, resulting in a vertical expansion for additional living space over the existing garage, which is needed for a growing family of 2 adults and 4 children. The existing garage would be converted into living space. From the drawing submitted, it was not clear to Staff if a side -yard setback variance would be needed due to height. If the height of the building exceeded 20 ft., the greater setback would be applied. Mr. Grittman said the lot is relatively small, as are the surrounding homes in the Friendly Hills neighborhood. Due to the small lots, an expansion located anywhere else would consume much of the green space; therefore a vertical expansion would be a reasonable use of that property. Staff does not recommend approval of the front expansion to the extent the applicant is seeking, which would extend the garage to the front of the home, and encroach within 15 ft. of the street right of way. Staff feels this addition would be out of character for the neighborhood and is not a reasonable use of the property. Staff suggested expansion to the front might be appropriate in a limited fashion with a setback of 25 ft. to keep in line with homes along that street. It is recognized that the existing garage is slightly undersized according to code requirements for two car garages. Commissioner M. McManus asked at what point would it be determined that the side yard setback variance is needed. Mr. Grittman said the height has been approximated based on the scale of the drawing, which is not elevation scale. When the building official reviews the plan, then it will be determined if any additional variances are needed. If the vertical expansion is more than 20 ft. as measured, the setback is supposed to be increased. Commissioner M. McManus asked if that decision needs to be made this evening. Mr. Grittman said it is recommended that this be done this evening so the applicant does not have to come back a second time. Commissioner Hesse asked Mr. Grittman to outline the existing floor plan of the house, as well as the proposed vertical addition. Commissioner M. McManus asked for confirmation of the plans for the existing garage. Mr. Grittman said the existing garage would be converted into living space, however if the garage is shorted up as recommended, a portion of the existing garage space will need to be retained. 13 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Commissioner Hesse expressed a concern that the applicant will have parking extend into the right of way with the new addition as proposed. Commissioner Dolan said if the applicant were held to the required setback, there would be no viable way to construct a garage in front of the home. Mr. Grittman said it would be possible if the applicant would expand out of the back of the home to gain back some of the usable living space he requires. Mr. Grittman verified that a 15 -ft. setback would not be in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Grittman said more often than not, the City has been more flexible with the Friendly Hills area. Chair Lorberbaum said the notice calls for "Variance for Garage Expansion and Partial Second Story Addition ", and is this sufficient to cover the recommendation for the front yard, side yard, and height variance? Mr. Grittman said people technically do not need a variance for height, but as they build upwards, there is a need for a side yard setback variance. Chair Lorberbaum said the notice does not say it is for a setback, but a garage expansion only; has sufficient notice been issued legally to act on this now? Mr. Grittman said he believes that anyone reading the notice would have a general idea of what's being presented. Commissioner Miller said he agrees with the front yard setback and is more worried about the front yard than the side yard, and agrees with the 25 ft. setback, pushing it back into the house, and then coming out the back, although it would require additional costs. Commissioner B. McManus said if the variance were approved as requested, would that be violating the string rule? Mr. Grittman said they would become consistent with the string rule along the street, but not necessary directly to their neighbors. Mr. Robert Inserra, 2138 Aztec Lane, thanked some of the commissioners who stopped by to talk to him, since he is new to Mendota Heights. Mr. Inserra said he estimates the height to be 21'4" to the midpoint of the hip roof, assuming 9 ft. for the main floor. Mr. Inserra said having the garage extend out as proposed was the only way to get full garage space as there is no room to go to the side of the home. The garage would be small, allowing for three cars. Mr. Inserra said he could not cut into the garage as Staff is recommending because of the existing basement, and the existing garage is not over that basement. Mr. Inserra explained on the map how the home is currently laid out, and how the proposed addition would affect the current structure. Chair Lorberbaum confirmed that the existing garage is wide enough for two cars. Mr. Inserra said he needs the extra car spot to use as storage. Commissioner B. McManus said if the applicant could bring the garage forward only 25 ft., could the applicant use part of the existing garage. Mr. Inserra said he could, but then he would have to extend to the back to gain the living space he would be using. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman if there is an ordinance that says that the garage should be significantly more forward than the existing home. Mr. Grittman said that requirement only applies to detached garages. 14 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Commissioner Dolan asked if the garage were extended off the back, could it hold three spaces. Mr. Inserra said it could not, and that the extension to the back would only be for the extra living space; and the proposed plan does not show any extra living space extended to the back. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there were any hardship in using the green space in the back. Mr. Inserra said that space is very small, and he would prefer not to. Commissioner M. McManus said she visited the site and agrees that everyone is cramped and sees a need to build upward. Vice Chair Betlej asked the applicant if it is his intention to have three parking spots to accommodate three cars, or is the need for the extra room for storage? Mr. Inserra said at this time, parking is only needed for two vehicles, although there will be a time when his children will be driving. For now, the extra space would be used for storage. Vice Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Chris Matykiewicz, 2131 Aztec Lane, lives across the street from the applicant. Ms. Matykiewicz said it is her understanding that with the proposed garage, it would not be possible to keep a car on the driveway and not getting into the street. There are at least two homes on the street which have garages extending forward so that the cars are parked into the street, and one of the neighbors uses their garage space for living space and then placed a garage in the front of the home so there is virtually no room on the driveway to park a car. Ms. Matykiewicz said the applicant's back yard abuts either Dodge Nature Center or it is state owned natural land. If the applicant builds further into the back yard, that would be obstructing the neighbors' view of the deer and other wildlife. Ms. Matykiewicz said the garages on the homes in that area are very small, and unless garages are expanded any storage needs would have to be addressed with storage sheds, which would defeat the purpose of the natural settings along the back of the yard. Ms. Matykiewicz said it is very important to keep these homes updated, and because they are three - bedroom, they were built to encourage families, but the living space is hideously small. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE WITHIN 15' OF THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY AND APPROVAL OF THE SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ADD A SECOND STORY TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. THE HARDSHIP IS IDENTIFIED AS THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY, AND A NON - CONFORMING GARAGE IN EXISTANCE. IT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP TO IMPROVE THIS HOME IN ANY OTHER WAY IN TERMS OF ENCROACHING ON THE BACK YARD. THE ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN IDENTIFIED AS TO A 15 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 LOCATION OF A SEPARATE STORAGE SHED, WHICH WOULD CREATE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE GREEN SPACE IN THE BACK YARD. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said that if the expansion would go a number of feet into the back yard it would not interfere with views from the back yard, and the applicant will lose a minimal amount of area. Commissioner Hesse said part of the definition of the hardship given by Commissioner M. McManus' motion is not solely to address the hardship of the view, which he does not believe is the hardship at all, but rather having a small lot size and putting it to a reasonable use, and part of that reasonable use includes storage, which is very important. Extending the back part out 10 ft. would not be an obstruction issue as it might be more a storage issue. Commissioner Hesse said that regardless of the third car issue, the real issue is storage space and the only alternative to not adding storage space to the garage is adding a shed somewhere, which takes away from the use of the back yard. The issue is to have sufficient storage and use the property in a reasonable way to create that storage. Commissioner M. McManus said her proposed hardship did not include visual issues. Commissioner B. McManus said he responded in saying that you have to rectify the hardship, which in this case is to go back. Commissioner Hesse said he doesn't believe they can because they don't have that additional width to the garage for that storage space, and believes that everyone needs sufficient storage space for bikes, lawn mowers, snow blowers, etc. The smaller lot size restricts their use of the lot and ability to use the yard if they do any other option that try to expand the garage for not only storage space, but for car space as well. Commissioner Hesse says the only way they can do that is to come forward. Commissioner B. McManus said he is sympathetic to what the applicant is trying to do, and by the applicant enhancing their home, they also enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner B. McManus said the applicant can bring the garage out and still be 25 ft. from the curb by picking up some of the living space, and having some storage space in front of the cars as they are parked forward in the garage, and move a small portion of the space into the back yard without any need for a variance. Vice Chair Betlej said it has been found historically, in the Friendly Hills neighborhood, that these lots are undersized by current city standards and it has been found that the size of the lot cannot be used adequately, as is the same with the garages, which are also undersized by city standards. When there is an opportunity to eliminate a non - conformance, there is good reason to use that opportunity. Chair Lorberbaum said that historically, the City has been more flexible in this area because of the size of the lots, in issuing variances. Chair Lorberbaum said she also agrees that a 15 ft. setback does change the look of the front and does impact the character of the neighborhood, in which properties are significantly closer to each other than any others in the area. Chair Lorberbaum said she has a problem with that, and is sympathetic to the applicant, wishing there was a solution for all. Chair Lorberbaum is pleased to have the property upgraded but is in favor of the extension to the back of the property. Vice Chair Betlej said his attempt to find a hardship here was not necessarily to convince everyone of his support, and thinks the idea that the home does not necessarily need to be able to provide for a three car garage on the site is up for debate. Vice Chair Betlej said a 2 -1/2 car garage would provide adequate storage and space 16 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 for two cars, which would seem to be reasonable. Vice Chair Betlej said the cars could go into the existing part of the garage, and still create some living space. Storage area could also be placed to the side. Vice Chair Betlej said he used to live with the same floor plan and it is a very difficult garage to do anything in. Commissioner M. McManus said when making the motion, she looked at what was in that area, the current houses and the distances between the houses, and asked if this type of alteration would seriously impact the character of the neighborhood. Her thoughts were "no ", and she would be willing to waive some of the concerns of the conformity issues talked about in other situations because of the small backyard of this particular property and wanting to preserve some green space. In regards to the storage space, the applicant could probably hang a canoe on the side of the garage, but that would be all the room there is. Commissioner M. McManus said this property is tight and it is very difficult to accommodate family needs in that neighborhood. Commissioner B. McManus said he totally agrees with what Commissioner M. McManus is saying, that it is a good precedent to be fixing up, building up, and adding square footage, but believes this all can be done without diluting the standards for a variance, which the City does continually. If that is the direction the City wishes to take, that is OK with Commissioner B. McManus. Vice Chair Betlej said he has sympathy for this area to be able to provide variances whenever appropriate. The older areas were not designed to current standards in the ordinance, and there is a need to encourage people to reinvest in their homes. Chair Lorberbaum asked Vice Chair Betlej to call for the question. Vice Chair Betlej said the motion is to provide for a garage to expand by 22 ft. to within 15 ft. of the street right of way, and also provide for the side yard setback variance due to the height of the improvements suggested. Commissioner Dolan asked if these items need to be separated. Vice Chair Betlej said the motion on the floor did not. Vice Chair called for the question. 2 AYES 5 NAYS (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Betlej, Dolan) MOTION FAILED COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ADD A SECOND STORY TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT 17 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 CAN CONFORM BY EXPANDING THE GARAGE WITHOUT VIOLATING SETBACK REGULATIONS. Further Discussion Commissioner Dolan said he is very sympathetic to the neighborhood, and encourages people to invest, but in this situation it seems as though the opportunity to go out back prohibits him, in good faith, from granting the variance. Vice Chair Betlej asked Commissioner Dolan if he would consider withdrawing the motion and resubmitting it with some tolerable amount of front yard space. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant could always bring something to the City Council. Commissioner Dolan said he would retract the motion if someone wants to propose something right now. Vice Chair Betlej said it appears something could be done with 12 ft. in front and provide for a couple of parking spaces and if necessary, go to the back at a small amount. Vice Chair Betlej said he would be in support of a motion that would provide for a 12 ft. expansion, and a minimum of 25 ft. setback from the right of way. VICE CHAIR BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 25 FT. RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 30 FT. FOR AN ADDITION TO THE GARAGE. Further Discussion Vice Chair Betlej said this would enable the applicant to park two cars with the nose of the cars sticking into the existing garage, and provide additional storage area to the side of the garage near the front. Commissioner B. McManus said this would not essentially impinge on the characteristics of the garage. Vice Chair Betlej said a two -car garage is very consistent within this neighborhood. Chair Lorberbaum said she would understand that this would go into the living space of the existing home. Vice Chair said that would not be the case and mapped out how the expansion could be constructed. Commissioner B. McManus said this would give the applicant a useful sized two -car garage out of a non - useful two -car garage. Chair Lorberbaum asked if this would be wide enough for two cars, and it is an improvement for the storage space issue, but still the plan has not gained anything. Vice Chair Betlej said two cars would fit. Mr. Grittman said he would agree with this plan, and by parking the cars in this manner, there would be enough room to park in such a way to allow for door swing. 18 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Commissioner Hesse said a lot of discussion was held regarding the character of the neighborhood, and it is the residents of the neighborhood that are looking to change the character of the neighborhood and upgrade. While there is talk about not changing the character of the neighborhood, there is a need to change by upgrading the neighborhood as a whole. Commissioner M. McManus said she does not feel the Commission has helped the applicant out very much. 5 AYES 2 NAYS (Commissioners Hesse and M. McManus) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03 -04 Property Maintenance Ordinance Vice Chair Betlej noted that this discussion started early in 2003. Mr. Hollister called attention to a letter received from Mr. John Bathke, 699 2nd Avenue, Mendota Heights. Mr. Hollister spoke to Mr. Bathke earlier, and received this response today. Mr. Bathke does not work in this field professionally, but has a key interest in landscaping and horticulture, and he is aware that the City is talking about a property maintenance ordinance. Mr. Bathke's specific area of interest is maintenance of yards, and how the City could regulate or make decisions between manicured lawns and lawns that are purposely left wild or natural for homeowners who decide to leave a portion of their lawns natural, and how the City could assure those areas do not become a problem for the spread of exotic or invasive species. Mr. Hollister also provided a publication that Mr. Bathke gave the Commission from the Minnesota Forestry Association, as well as a piece of literature called "Beyond the Suburbs" published by the DNR. Mr. Hollister said this is an area that could be included in the subject of property maintenance. Staff does not anticipate that the Commission would have time to digest all this material and they can read it at their leisure. Mr. Hollister said one of the code enforcement officers for the city, Dick Gill, deals mostly with lawn maintenance issues. Mr. Hollister said he was under the impression that there are homeowners in Mendota Heights that have chosen to leave portions of their property wild and natural, having done so with permission by the city. There have been times that home owners have received letters that they are allowing noxious weeds to grow and allowing growth to get out of control, and are not properly mowing their lawns. The code enforcement officer monitors properties to ensure their lawns are properly maintained. There were discussions last year on the property maintenance ordinance, which were held by the City Council, who in turn referred to the Planning Commission for input. It was Staff's intent to bring back this issue to the City Council last year, however there have been a lot of difficult applications since then that the City needed to deal with. Staff has been waiting for a lighter agenda to bring discussions back to the table. Mr. Hollister said that at a recent Council meeting Mayor Huber said that it was time to "re- energize" discussion on this subject. City Council held a workshop recently with City Administration, Jim Danielson and asked to have this put back on the agenda for the Commission. 19 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 Materials were provided to the Commission for their review, which included sample ordinances from surrounding communities. Staff is planning on making a customized version of the ordinance specifically drafted for Mendota Heights for the May Planning Commission meeting agenda. Mr. Hollister said there were no deadlines, but the City Council wishes to have this completed this year. Comments from the Commission: ❖ Vice Chair Betlej ➢ Likes the comments from Eagan — addresses building maintenance as well as firewood storage. ➢ Would like to see language similar to a combination of Cottage Grove's and Lakeville's ordinance regarding outdoor storage added. ➢ Needs some language regarding unfinished additions — need more specifics outlined. ❖ Chair Lorberbaum ➢ Use Eagan's ordinance as a base. ➢ Would like to see some language regarding snow /ice removal on sidewalks. ❖ Commissioner Miller ➢ Agrees with comments made before him. ➢ Cottage Grove's ordinance has some "teeth" to it to give code enforcement officers more authority. ❖ Commissioner B. McManus ➢ Likes the comments from Eagan, but there are elements in the other ones that are not included that might very well be. ➢ Encourages Staff to glean those missing from Eagan and put them in our draft. If necessary, unwanted language can be removed during the review process. ❖ Commissioner M. McManus ➢ Has some concerns with Eagan because of the nature of some of the detail on what was being described; perhaps on the side of overkill. ➢ Likes Lakeville and Cottage Grove more. ➢ Needs to be specific regarding the abatement and enforcements sections; conditions for that and opportunities for the homeowner to prove they've done their business in the timeframe and are being held accountable. ➢ Language regarding governmental entities that help cities with critters and rodents. ➢ Will there be language regarding noise? Mr. Hollister said the noise and invasive plant species would be addressed. Noise is mostly a police matter, and there is a general mandate they enforce. Mr. Hollister said it might be best to talk with the police department and city attorney where this could be inserted. ➢ Concerns about the start/stop times of construction. Mr. Hollister said there is a standard timeframe that the city mandates for construction. Language regarding this issue can also be added. Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 ❖ Commissioner Hesse ➢ Important to have: Findings and Purpose Statement, Objectives, divide exterior issues from the interior issues. ➢ There should be a straightforward mechanism for notification and enforcement. ➢ More complete information for residents to know what, when, and how to do. ➢ Vice Chair Betlej said it is important to have a preamble, to provide guidance for interpretation. •:- Commissioner Dolan ➢ Apple Valley introduces their ordinances very well; not overly thrilled with the way they define the standards. ➢ Eagan does a better job with definition of standards. ➢ Questions whether the City needs to focus on this at this time, and does the city have the legal authority to do so. ➢ Mr. Hollister said there are some problem properties in Mendota Heights, although the vast majority of homeowners are very good with their upkeep. Mr. Hollister said there is a perception with some city staff that our ordinances are currently inadequate to deal with some problems. There are some areas that are not well defined enough. There have been some instances where the City has taken individual property owners to court. It has been found, on some occasions, that the courts have sided with the homeowner, even though the City was confident, and still is, that the City was in the right. Vice Chair Betlej said it is a good thing to have a well- defined ordinance to guide homeowners. Chair Lorberbaum expressed some concerns regarding home construction projects where there are "pods" used for storage sitting in the driveway. Chair Lorberbaum said that there should be a length of time defined for this usage. VERBAL REVIEW — Sue McDermott Patrick Donahue, 1924 Walsh Lane: Variance to front yard setback - approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Zoning Amendment for Industrial District to Allow Colleges - approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Robert Fink Subdivision Application Denied by the City Council 21 Planning Commission Meeting April 27, 2004 OPEN DISCUSSION None. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:00 PM. AYES NAYS 22