Loading...
2004-05-25 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting May 27, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2004 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Betlej, Hesse, and M. McManus. Those excused: Commissioners Miller and Dolan. City Staff present were City Engineer Sue McDermott and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page 2, Under Planning Case #04 -08, first paragraph, first sentence should be reworded as follows: "Mr. Grittman displayed a map showing the location of 661 Cheyenne Lane." Page 2, Under Planning Case #04 -08, second paragraph, first sentence should be reworded as follows: "Mr. Grittman said the proposed material to be used for the fencing is black vinyl coated chain link fence." Page 3, first paragraph, first sentence should be reworded as follows: "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." Page 6, fourth paragraph should be reworded as follows: "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." Page 12, last paragraph should be removed in its entirety "Commissioner M. McManus said this motion is the intent of the charity of something positive of this discussion, because the option is to not build as large a structure and be down one car space." COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2004 AS CORRECTED. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #04 -12 Dennis Forsberg 1111 Dodd Road Conditional Use Permit and Variance Mr. Grittman showed a map of 1111 Dodd Road, which is a single family residence in an RI zone. The applicant is seeking to remove an existing detached garage currently on the property at the end of the existing driveway and replace with a new detached garage. Detached garages require a conditional use permit. The applicant is also seeking a variance to allow for the new garage to be more than the maximum 750 sq. ft. size. Mr. Grittman noted that attached garages can be larger. The Planners office does not find a hardship in this case to justify the variance as there is adequate area to construct a conforming 750 sq. ft. garage, and recommends that Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2004 if the applicant is in need of additional storage space, that an attached structure be built. The conditional use permit would be allowable and recommended if the applicant stays with the 750 sq. ft, and would be keeping within the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the existing shed on the property is allowed with a detached garage. Mr. Grittman said the conditional use permit would allow more than one accessory building on the site. Dennis Forsberg, 1111 Dodd Road, said he has lived at this location for thirty-one years. Mr. Forsberg said he needs the additional storage space to accommodate three cars and a boat/trailer. He said he is puzzled by the hardship requirement and referred to the Planners Report, Page 2, which states "Based on the strict interpretation of the City's Zoning Ordinance regarding hardship as well as the City's standard for establishing a 750 square foot detached accessory building, the proposed request does not appear to meet the definition of a hardship. The applicants have indicated that the proposed building size is necessary to allow the indoor storage of an 864 square foot building. In fact, it may suggest that the volume of accessory equipment proposed to be stored indoors is beyond that considered appropriate for a single family home. It should be noted that the applicant is allowed to construct an attached garage up to 1,200 square feet by the Zoning Ordinance. If the applicant could redesign the garage to meet this standard, additional space could be provided within the lot". Mr. Forsberg said this language suggests that he has too many items to be stored, but also says that he is allowed to have a 1,200 sq. ft. garage if it is attached. Mr. Forsberg said he is not comfortable with the way an attached structure would look. Mr. Forsberg said he has three lots and feels he has plenty of room for this garage. The garage would be built to match the home. This configuration would allow him to better move snow around in the winter. Commissioner M. McManus said one of the things used to determine granting variances is the uniqueness of the property, and said if the applicant could add something else to the uniqueness, a variance may be allowable. Mr. Forsberg said he feels that because he has plenty of room, and is not infringing on any of the neighbors, he would view this as a unique situation. Commissioner Hesse asked the applicant if he feels that the 750 sq. ft. would not accommodate every piece of equipment that is needed. Mr. Forsberg said that was correct, and may then be able to remove the existing shed. Mr. Forsberg said he would not want to go any bigger than the 864 sq. ft. as that would make the structure too overbearing. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman why the zoning ordinance requires 750 sq. ft. Mr. Grittman said a 750 sq. ft. structure can be built, however it may result in an odd dimension, and would probably give some wasted space. Chair Lorberbaum said she questions whether this is a reasonable number to use, or should it be changed to a number that would make more sense from a building perspective. Chair Lorberbaum told the applicant a hardship needs to be identified, and by having the applicant live on live property for thirty -one years, it would seem the property has been put to reasonable use. Mr. Forsberg said there is nothing about the project that says he cannot use the land, and will have to pay further considerations as to a hardship. Commissioner Betlej said he would suggest the applicant takes the issue of a hardship requirement for a variance to the City Council. Commissioner Betlej asked the applicant for the square footage of the existing home. Mr. Forsberg said he would estimate about 1,600 sq. ft. Commissioner Betlej said when looking at this ordinance, it was decided that the required square footage of a garage should be in line with the home so as not to present an over - imposing structure. Mr. Forsberg said the garage would be sitting on one 60 ft. lot and he believes he would not be able to sell that parcel. Commissioner Betlej said it was not a legal lot. Commissioner B. McManus commended the applicant for beautiful landscaping and gardens. Commissioner B. McManus said this home cannot be seen from the road, or by the neighbors. Commissioner B. McManus said he feels this is a unique home in a unique neighborhood. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant if the new garage would have overhang sheltering as is the case with the existing garage, which uses this sheltering for additional equipment stored outside the existing garage. Mr. Forsberg said this equipment would be stored in the new, bigger garage. Commissioner B. McManus said he would rather have a larger garage to be able to remove this equipment out of site, even though it is not in anyone's view. Commissioner B. McManus said an attached garage could be built by attaching to the home by a breezeway, and therefore having a larger garage than was the applicant is requesting. Commissioner B. McManus said this home presents uniqueness by having so much Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2004 open land and poses no negative effects on the neighborhood. Commissioner B. McManus said he does not know what the City could be saving by imposing these current regulations on an unusual situation such as this. Mr. Forsberg said this was certainly an option he could pursue. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mike Klustik, 1057 Chippewa, said he had come before the city three years ago to obtain a conditional use permit to construct a detached garage, the Planning Commissioner approved the request, but the City Council denied it. Mr. Klustik said he would like to see the City of Mendota Heights take a look at these unique properties and changing the requirement to allow property owners with larger lots be more flexible. Mr. Klustik said that by limiting this square footage, the integrity of the structure is compromised, and sometimes it is more difficult to simply attach a garage to a home than by merely building it separately. Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, AND REGRETABLY THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DETACHED GARAGE BEYOND THE ALLOWABLE 750 SQ. FT. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Further Discussion Commission B. McManus said in this particular case, the Planning Commission is bound by this requirement and feels they are not protecting Mendota Heights from this property. Commissioner Betlej said the Planning Commission is restricted with the powers they have, but the applicant has the opportunity to plead this case before the City Council. PLANNING CASE #04 -13 Robert Alvarez 1167 Dodd Road Subdivision and Variance Mr. Grittman presented a map showing the location of 1167 Dodd Road, which holds a single family home. The applicant is looking to subdivide the property which contains the single family home. The applicant also owns the property to the left which contains a part from a previous right of way. The proposed subdivision would create a new lot line south of the existing house, and a new building site would be established as a corner lot at Dodd Road and Ivy Hills Drive. Mr. Grittman explained how the lot lines would be placed and how this would affect the setback requirements. Mr. Grittman said if this subdivision were to be approved, a hardship would be identified by saying there is a condition that interferes with the property owner putting the property to a reasonable use. Mr. Grittman noted that the City Council agreed to vacate this portion with the condition that no further subdivisions are made in order to deter from any additional homes to be built in this area. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2004 Chair Lorberbaum referred to Resolution 81 -64 "Resolution Authorizing Vacation of a Portion of Partition Road Right -of- Way ", adopted by the City Council of Mendota Heights on September 1, 1981. Chair Lorberbaum said this resolution does not say no subdivision cannot happen, however it shows the opposite in the Minutes of the Regular Meeting. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the property could then be subdivided if it does not actually state such requirement in the resolution. Chair Lorberbaum said if the applicant agreed to not subdivide, what would happen if the applicant sells the property to someone else, and would that person be able to subdivide. Mr. Grittman said the suggestion of the vacation was not for the intent of creating a building site and was not part of the resolution, but just a part of the discussion. If the current City Council wished to grant the subdivision, they are free to do so. Mr. Grittman said the proposed subdivision would make a non - conforming condition out of the existing home site, and would create an additional substandard parcel. Mr. Grittman noted that the character of the neighborhood would be dramatically changed with this subdivision and therefore, does not recommend variances to accommodate this non - conformance. Commissioner Betlej asked if there were an opportunity to gain access to Ivy Hill Drive should the applicant place the new building site to the rear of the existing home. Mr. Grittman said there is a small parcel along the vacated portion that is owned by the Ivy Hills Townhome Association and the applicant would have to acquire that piece. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the owner could acquire the additional parcel, how would that affect the lot? Mr. Grittman said this would bring a both properties into conformance by having the lot split to the rear of the existing home, as the space is adequate for all setback requirements. Mr. Robert Alvarez, 1167 Dodd Road, said he purchased this property about twenty-two years ago. Mr. Alvarez said he always thought the vacated portion was part of his property. Upon questioning the City Council on whether the applicant owned the property, the City told him that they would vacate the property to him under the condition there would be no subdivisions. Mr. Alvarez said he had no intention of subdividing, and he was under the assumption that he had purchased three buildable lots. Mr. Alvarez said he did not wish to subdivide his property, but only wanted to move an existing lot line. Mr. Alvarez said his interpretation of a subdivision is creating two separate parcels from one. In this case, moving a lot line is not creating a subdivision. Based on this interpretation, he agreed to the City that he would not subdivide. Mr. Alvarez recently sold the lot to the right of the existing home. Mr. Alvarez explained how he would like to see his property laid out. Mr. Alvarez said he does not wish to create the buildable lot behind the existing home because the land is beautiful and does not wish to disturb that area. Mr. Alvarez said his hardship is that he has the extra lot and would like to put it to a reasonable use. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant if he were aware of the setbacks being an issue, and the size of lot (width on Dodd Road) being a key issue. Commissioner B. McManus said the lots that would be created by moving the lot line would both have too little frontage on Dodd Road. Commissioner B. McManus said if the applicant would consider acquiring the small piece of land on Ivy Hills Drive, and building in the back, that would be appropriate. Chair Lorberbaum said if the applicant would move the lot line, Parcel A would be 65 ft., and Parcel B would be 70 ft.; the requirement is 100 ft. per parcel. Therefore, variances would be needed and a hardship would have to be identified. Mr. Alvarez said there is no way these parcels could be stretched 100 ft. each. Mr. Alvarez said he hoped the Planning Commission could help him design his property to stay within the requirements. Chair Lorberbaum said the Planning Commission is only addressing the issues that have been applied for. It is not part of the duties of the Planning Commission to re- design the applicant's property. Commissioner B. McManus said he wanted to make sure the applicant understands the position of the City in regards to the frontage requirements. Mr. Alvarez said he understands. Chair Lorberbaum said the Planning Commission can only make some suggestions to help the applicant find solutions to re- designing the property but the City Council will make the determining decisions. Commissioner Betlej asked the applicant if he built the existing home. Mr. Alvarez said he did not, and said he has been paying separate taxes on all three parcels. Mr. Alvarez said he was not asking for something unreasonable, and only wanted to move the lot line to be able to accommodate a building site. Commissioner Betlej said the original homeowner built the home on two lots. Mr. Alvarez said the original platting of the land shows three separate buildable lots. 4 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2004 Commissioner Hesse asked about the third lot (to the east), which Mr. Alvarez said it was recently sold. Commissioner Hesse said it was his intent with the question that the applicant could reconfigure the three lots to allow adequate frontage by using a piece of the third lot. As this lot has been sold, that option is no longer available. Commissioner M. McManus said she would not be able to support the proposal as presented, predominately because of the inadequate frontage along Dodd Road, as well as the unclear position of the vacated parcel along Ivy Hills Road. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Dr. William Hueg, 1170 Dodd Road, lives directly across the street from Mr. Alvarez. Dr. Hueg expressed the concern for the recent sale of the third lot, and if someone builds on that lot, the driveway will most likely be directly across from Dr. Hueg's driveway. Dr. Hueg asked what the lot size limit is in Mendota Heights. Mr. Grittman said for a single family parcel, it would be 15,000 sq. ft. Dr. Hueg said he believes the third lot is not that big, but as it was already sold, it was not his concern. Dr. Hueg said his concern is the five to seven cars parked in the Alvarez's driveway, as well as a few boats. Dr. Hueg said he thought it was interesting that the previous applicant who wanted to construct a garage to conceal his equipment was denied, and wonders what will happen with the Alvarez case. Dr. Hueg said from his standpoint is the fact that Ivy Hills Drive is a very dangerous road and would not want to see additional driveways in that area. Dr. Hueg asked if the City of Mendota Heights feels the need to have every available square foot in the city be built on. Mr. Brad Clarey, 1179 Ivy Hills Drive, said he does not see any problem with the applicant's plan. Mr. Clarey said by adding potential garage space, the impact of the cars in the single home driveway would be lessened. Mr. Clarey said he does not believe the traffic problem would not be any more significant. The issue of constructing a driveway off Ivy Hill Road to the proposed new building site would require the applicant to acquire the additional piece of property currently owned by the Ivy Hill Townhome Association, or have the Association grant an easement to Mr. Alvarez. In either case, Mr. Alvarez will have to work with the townhome association to work this out. The property is not currently being used and does not believe it would have a major affect on the townhomes. Ms. Marge Araby, 1150 Ivy Hills Drive, is the President of the Ivy Hills Drive Townhome Association. Ms. Araby said she is here as a resident, not as a representative of the association. Ms. Araby said Mr. Alvarez has not contacted the townhome association as a whole, but has had discussions with Ms. Araby about his plans. Ms. Araby suggests Mr. Alvarez come to the association to discuss. Most of the townhome residents that have contacted Ms. Araby would not directly be affected by Mr. Alvarez's property, and the overall opinion of those residents are split — some being okay with the project, and some having issues and concerns. Ms. Araby said she was present at this meeting to address her own concerns regarding the 13 ft strip easement that runs across the front of Ivy Hills Drive, and it was her understanding that this is a platted easement in which the City dedicated right -of -way and if Mr. Alvarez wants to run a driveway through there, an easement must be granted and presented this information to Mr. Alvarez to make sure he was fully aware of this. Ms. Araby and Mr. Alvarez reviewed the easement lines. Chair Lorberbaum asked both parties to continue their conversations outside the Planning Commission meeting to try to resolve these concerns. Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES BASED ON NOT FINDING A HARDSHIP AND THE PARCELS THAT WOULD BE SUBDIVIDED WOULD BE LESS THAN 100 FT. FRONTAGE ON DODD ROAD. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2004 AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -14 Kim Beauclair; Joe and Patty Juliette 1920 Glenhill Road Critical Area Permit Mr. Grittman introduced the request to remove an existing front three- season porch and walkway, and replace with a garage and porch addition. Mr. Grittman indicated on the drawings how the new porch addition would be positioned and what the new addition would look like. Mr. Grittman said this site is within the Critical Area and meets the zoning ordinance requirements in relation to the setbacks and the R -1 zoning standards. Mr. Grittman reminded the Commission that the Critical Area is intended to protect the Mississippi Corridor and sees no negative impacts resulting from this proposal. Mr. Joe Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road, said he was having trouble with water - related deterioration of the existing structure and would like to replace and enhance the home. Commissioner M. McManus said the applicant has proposed a nice design. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Having no one come forward to comment, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR THE GARAGE ADDITION AND PORCH REPLACEMENT AS PRESENTED. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03 -04 Property Maintenance Ordinance Continued Discussion Mr. Hollister acknowledged Mr. John Bathke, 699 2nd Avenue, sitting in the audience. Mr. Bathke has a key interest in landscaping and horticulture. Mr. Hollister asked that the Planning Commission give Mr. Bathke an opportunity to lobby the Commission for the incorporation of some language regarding these topics. Mr. Hollister said there were additional materials in the packets for the Commission's review. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2004 Mr. Hollister acknowledged Mr. Robert Alvarez, 1167 Dodd Road, who is also interested in this topic and welcomed him to participate in the conversations regarding Property Maintenance. Mr. Hollister presented a draft property maintenance ordinance. Mr. Hollister said this was a synthesized edition based on examples of other cities' ordinances, and comments from the Planning Commission made at the last meeting, and other staff members, particularly code enforcement officers. Mr. Hollister supplied photographs taken by Officer Scott Patrick of various houses in Mendota Heights. Mr. Hollister emphasized that these photos have been taken for illustration purposes, and such photos would not be shown on the television monitor in respect for the homeowners. Mr. Hollister said it was suggested by Mayor Huber to have the City's prosecuting attorney review draft ordinance, Mike Mayer. Mr. Mayer reviewed the ordinance draft and the only comment he had was that in addition to Mendota Heights, he also has a client with the City of Burnsville, and provided a copy of their ordinance. Mr. Mayer also stated he liked Burnsville's property maintenance ordinance and feels it serves the city well, as well as himself as their prosecuting attorney. Mr. Mayer highlighted some suggestions that the City of Mendota Heights may want to consider incorporation of some of the language. Comments from the Commission: ❖ Commissioner B. McManus ➢ There should be some clarification regarding attached garages as well as detached garages. ➢ There should be some language regarding actual roofing materials, not just the structure, trim, etc. ➢ Chipped paint requirement - chipped paint is to be no more than 20 %; and believes this is a high figure and may want to be reviewed. ➢ Vehicle storage — Planning Commission recently reviewed some guidelines regarding the parking and storage of vehicles. ➢ Firewood storage — noticed one house that had built -in storage area to the front of the stone house. According to the ordinance, this is now illegal. Provisions for that may need to be made to allow this existing use. ➢ Likes all the recommendations made by Mr. Mayer as it clarifies all these issues and makes them more enforceable. ➢ Likes all the information provided regarding the concerns of noxious weeds. Commissioner Betlej ➢ Asked Mr. Hollister if this ordinance is intended to be enforceable in all zones. Mr. Hollister said these ordinances were written to cover all zones, but most comments received relate to concerns of residential properties. If this ordinance were to be adopted by the city, is would cover all zones. Commissioner Betlej said there are issues present concerning business and industrial areas, as well as schools. ➢ Believes the verbiage is lengthy, and if there are no powers to enforce, it's worthless. These ordinances need to have language to strengthen enforceability. ➢ Important to address the issue of ice and snow free sidewalks, however the timeline of enforcing must be designed to make sure sidewalks are cleared promptly. Perhaps a separate ordinance should be created for a more rapid ability to enforce this concern. ➢ Pod storage — when pod storage was originally introduced, it was under the impression that after the pods were filled by the homeowner, and the pods would be moved to a designated storage site. This would eliminate the need for the pods to be in front of the home. There are also other options such as self storage units. Recreational vehicles are currently not allowed to be stored in driveways, and pods should not be either. ❖ Chair Lorberbaum ➢ Asked Mr. Hollister about the grandfathering issue in regards to non - matching garages, fencing, etc. Mr. Hollister said it is his opinion that grandfathering concept would be used when a project would have begun at the time it was allowable. Since then, if the City changes the rules, and as long as the project was a permanent fixture such as a garage, fence, shed, house, and was built in compliance to the rules at that time, it would be allowed to remain as is. There is a distinction in how much of a grandfathered claim someone can make depends on what the claim is. (Chair Lorberbaum said this may apply to the home with the built in fireplace storage that Commissioner B. McManus recently referred to as used as an example.) Mr. Hollister Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2004 said there are other types of activities that are not permanent structures, but rather ongoing /daily activities (example, an ordinance was recently passed placing restrictions on where someone can park an RV, and in those cases, the RV can be moved and therefore doesn't qualify to be deemed "grandfathered ", same thing with loud music, recreational fires, etc.). Mr. Grittman said these types of changes in ordinances have been widely published to ensure the residents are aware of the changes. The City also grants the residents a certain period of time to comply. ➢ Asked Mr. Grittman if someone had a garage that did not match the color of the home, or a fence that needed to be painted a certain way, would that be grandfathered? Mr. Grittman said this kind of example would be qualified to be grandfathered. (The garage and fence could be painted to comply with the ordinance.) ➢ Mr. Hollister said he has seen ordinances in place that have to do with historical issues that now may seem antiquated, for instance, agricultural uses. There is something in the ordinance that addresses land use for farming — if it was established prior to the change date, then it would be grandfathered in, but any new farming uses would need to comply with the new ordinance(s). ➢ Mr. Hollister said there have been comments received of instances where there is a line in an ordinance that contradicts a line in a separate ordinance, for example, storage of firewood. Those contradictions will not be changed unless dictated by the City Council or the Planning Commission. ➢ Mr. Hollister said he believes the City Council wants to stay focused on what is seen as minimum standards for aesthetics, safety, and health standards. Mr. Hollister said the more the ordinance gets into detail, the less the City Council will be agreeable to adopt. ➢ Received question from resident regarding an existing retaining wall on an adjoining property that has fallen in disrepair and has since shifted onto the concerned resident's property. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman who would be responsible for bringing this wall up to code. Mr. Grittman said it would be the responsibility of the owner of the property in which the retaining wall currently sits upon, despite who originally constructed it. Mr. Hollister said he concurs with that statement. ➢ According to the existing ordinance, accessory structures include fences and retaining walls. Chair Lorberbaum asked if fences and retaining walls are then defined as an accessory structure, and would they count into the number of accessory structures on a particular property. Mr. Hollister said this is not deliberately the case and suggested that definition be removed from the ordinance. Chair Lorberbaum suggested that fences and retaining walls be included in the property maintenance ordinance, but not as an accessory structure. ➢ Snow and ice on sidewalks is an issue of concern, but the timelines needs to be addressed depending on current weather conditions /time of the year. ➢ Storage pods used to store and secure home furnishings — would 60 days be enough. The commission is split on 60 days or 90 days. Mr. Hollister will put in 90 days for purposes of discussion at the next meeting. ➢ Language applying to dumpsters needs to be addressed. ➢ Language applying to tractor trailers needs to be addressed. Commissioner Hesse ➢ Beware of overlapping of departments for enforcement. ➢ Abatement procedures — consideration should be given to appointing the most appropriate person/agency to enforce ordinance. ➢ Firewood storage — firewood shall be no closer than five feet to an inhabited building or structure, and attached or detached garage shall not be considered an inhabited building or structure. In winter months, people may not want to go far into the garage and around vehicles to get wood, and it may be better to have the wood closer to the back door. ➢ From a police officer's perspective, some of these items appear to be "chippy" and how far does the enforcement want to go to address someone's cracked driveway. Another example is the enforcement of rotted windows and how much time will the resident need to find the funds to replace them, as long as the health and safety issue is not a concern. ➢ Need to avoid making the neighborhood a hassle to live in. ➢ Noted some stairways where there were no handrails. This is part of the build inspector's responsibility, and there may be some overlapping in this case. ❖ Commissioner M. McManus ➢ Questions how this information will be communicated to the City of Mendota Heights residents. There is a need to keep people informed and it's important to find the best mechanism to do that. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2004 ➢ Under outdoor storage — asked for clarification on the rules for parked or stored vehicles that they can park in the front yard provided they are kept on an established driveway, entirely on the equipment or vehicle owner's property. Mr. Hollister said the phrase " the equipment" refers to the all materials and equipment shall be stored within a building. This language needs to be reworded to be better defined. ➢ Abatement procedures — notice to abate. "Such notice shall require the owner or occupant of the premises, or both, to take reasonable steps within a reasonable time" — seems subjective and not sure this is the best language to use. Who does the judgment call in this? ➢ Should be more specific about abatement by the City where there must be abatement issue must be taken care of within 10 days from the mailing. This should be more specific about the allotted time as it relates to when the property owner actually receives the notice. ➢ Regarding the liability issue, there is something the City can have for liability for any kind of business taking place by the building inspector — does this need to be in the ordinance? ➢ Imminent danger — would like to see some condition that would pose imminent danger where immediate action could be taken. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. ■ Mr. Robert Alvarez, 1167 Dodd Road One of the things that makes Mendota Heights is that it takes care of itself. When people have a problem with a resident/neighbor, they will contact that neighbor to let him/her know. Mr. Alvarez said until this evening, he was unaware that anyone had a problem with the cars in his driveway. Mr. Alvarez said the City is trying to put a blanket over all the problems at one time, and copying all the other communities. There are residents from some of these other communities who say they don't like living there because there are so many rules they can keep up with them all. By dictating the color of the paint on someone's home, and worrying where someone stores their firewood, and the locations of pods, vehicles and trailers; and putting them all under one blanket. These issues need to be addressed individually, and as they arise. Mr. Alvarez said if he were to keep firewood in his garage, that would attract mice, and some people are smart enough to know that in the winter time, people want the firewood close by because they do not want to put their shoes on to go outside. Mr. Alvarez said the lady that used to live by her lot, gradually become more elderly and could not cut her grass. Mr. Alvarez said he would cut it for her. But a lot of elderly people don't have someone to do that, and before long, the grass and weeds begin to grow. There are also some people with woods in their back yards, and how far will the City go to tell these people what they can and cannot do with the woods on their property. Some of these rules may push a lot of elderly people out of the neighborhood, and that should never happen. People should be able to live in their homes as long as they can, and feel part of the community. Grandfather certain things can be a good thing. Will the City begin dictating how many cars, lawnmowers, etc. a person can have? Mendota Heights never got into anybody's business unless there was a complaint. People would talk and resolve issues on their own. As families grow, the need for more cars in driveways becomes apparent. When the City starts getting into peoples' business, and its all about what you can and cannot have, then the City needs to be aware of things going on with residents and why they do the things they do. Mr. Alvarez asked if the City believes these ordinances and rules are necessary because things are wrong in the city. When he drives through the city, he sees more good things about the City and does not worry about what everyone else is doing. ■ John Batlike, 699 2nd Avenue Mr. Bathke said when thinking about property maintenance, he thinks about: => the enforcement of cutting grass, what level is it to be cut? => what about people who want to have native grasses prairie restoration portion of their property Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2004 Mr. Bathke said he has always enjoyed Mendota Heights and also questions why every square foot of space needs to be developed. Mendota Heights needs to make provisions for other kinds of yards besides a perfectly manicured short grass. The City should allow residents to plant other interesting grasses. Mr. Bathke asked the City to read his materials and to gather additional information, and to consider allowing other types of planting materials. Mr. Bathke talked about exotic and evasive species and hopes these issues are addressed. Open Discussion Chair Lorberbaum thanked Commissioner Betlej for chairing the April meeting. VERBAL REVIEW — Sue McDermott Scott Landsman, 661 Cheyenne Lane: CUP and Wetland Permit - approved as recommended by the Planning Commission with the condition the applicant provide a landscape plan for staff to approve. This has been done. Roy Higgins, 1357 Cherry Hill Road: CUP — applicant withdrew his request Robert Inserra, 2138 Aztec Lane: Request for Variance — approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. CHAIR B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:00 PM. AYES NAYS 10