Loading...
2004-06-22 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2004 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 22, 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 Miller, Dolan, Hesse, and M. McManus. Those excused: Commissioners B. McManus, Betlej. City Staff present were Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF May 25, 2004 AS PRESENTED. 3 AYES 0 NAYS 2 ABSTENTIONS (Commissioner Miller and Dolan) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #04 -18 Eugene Priborkin 2361 Apache Court Variance Mr. Grittman showed a map of 2361 Apache Court. The application is for a variance for a front yard setback. The applicant is hoping to construct a small open porch addition to the front of the existing single family home. Mr. Grittman reviewed a plan which indicates how the porch would be constructed and attached to the front of the home. The purpose of this extension is to provide protection to the front entry. Mr. Grittman said the encroachment is approximately 2 feet and would be an open porch area. The hardship has been defined by the Planners Report that there is no other alternative solution to protect the entryway of the home. Chair Lorberbaum asked if it would be common to assume that most houses would need this type of structure to provide weather protection. Mr. Grittman said it is a common improvement to many homes, although not every home has such a structure. Mr. Grittman said the variance would be needed as the string rule applies, the dormer would extend into the front yard more than the neighboring properties. Mr. Priborkin said he has lived in the home for two years. Mr. Priborkin said the house was built in 1984. Mr. Priborkin said when he purchased the home, he knew there was some water damage around the main entrance. The applicant has replaced the damaged door and said a contractor has recommended that a dormer be placed to protect from further damage. Mr. Priborkin said the style of the proposed attachment would not be out of character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Miller said this seemed to be a good solution. Chair Lorberbaum said she thinks this would be logical. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SETBACK VARIANCE AS DESCRIBED BY THE PLANNER. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -19 Dennis Corrigan 1309 Furlong Avenue Variance Mr. Grittman presented a map showing the location of 1309 Furlong Avenue. The application is for a variance for a front yard setback for an addition to the front of the existing single family home. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan for the addition, which would extend the addition into the front yard setback as a result of the string rule. The applicant wishes to construct an addition off the front door area. According to the string rule, the addition would extend forward from that string. Mr. Grittman said he did not have the opportunity to visit the site before he made his report, and would like to change his recommendation. After visiting the site, Mr. Grittman said he would now recommend this addition as there is a significant slope to the front yard and it would now appear difficult to construct an addition to the front entryway in any other location of the property to provide reasonable access to the home. Mr. Grittman said he finds the hardship to be the difficulty in gaining reasonable access to the front of the home due to the topography. This addition would be consistent with the neighborhood, as there is a wide variety of setbacks from the street in this neighborhood. Commissioner Hesse said there is a wide variation of setbacks along the north side, which creates a significant angled line and agrees with the recommendation and the hardship as presented. Commissioner Dolan asked if the string rule would apply in this situation as the setbacks from the homes are so varied, and the home to the southeast is actually nearer to the street than the homes on the other side of the applicant. Mr. Grittman said the rule does apply, but in an odd way because the string rule would be angled. The string rule in this case would appear to serve no purpose to the homes to the east. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the string rule was used, and if the home to the east was included in that line, what would it look like. Mr. Grittman demonstrated on the map and said the proposed addition would still encroach. Chair Lorberbaum said there is no site plan to allow the Commissioners to review what the addition will look like. Mr. Grittman said he would sketch out the approximately dimensions. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there were concerns with the driveway being on the property line. Mr. Grittman said he is not aware of any construction that would affect the driveway, and would consider that being an existing condition. Mr. Grittman said the information that is provided to staff in determining lot lines is based on GIS information provided by the County, and it is not uncommon that lot lines shift slightly in the aerial photos, and that thi lot line may not be the correct representation of the exact location. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the addition would be enclosed. Mr. Grittman said it would be fully enclosed. Commissioner Miller said he would not believe the string rule should apply here and is comfortable with the proposal. Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 Mr. Dennis Corrigan, 1309 Furlong, said this is the third attempt he has made to try to correct the plat he is using. The structure that was the carport is on his property. The plat has not been upgraded and is 20 ft. short of what it is supposed to be. Mr. Corrigan said he was told that he could build as long as it would not extend past other buildings along side of him. Because the carport was constructed closer to the street than the home, and the home to the east, he did not think he needed to worry about a variance. Mr. Corrigan said his house was the first house on the block, and the neighbor to the east built after the fact. If the string line was in tact then, that neighbor should not have been placed where he was and the house to the east of him should not have been placed as it was. The string rule, therefore, is an interpretive issue. Mr. Corrigan said the house to the left, which was the original milk house to the original farm, was built before the street was completed. Mr. Corrigan said all these homes were built to standards that are not uniform. Mr. Corrigan said his reason to modify the property is because of his special needs son, who cannot use stairways very well, and it is necessary for the son to have safe and appropriate access to the home. Mr. Corrigan passed the site plans to the Commission for their review. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the driveway was an issue as the map shows the driveway located along the property line. Mr. Corrigan said the driveway was not an issue as it is actually located 20 feet west from the property line and the carport is on his property. Mr. Corrigan said the string rule in this instance actually cuts through the front third of his house. Chair Lorberbaum asked when the string rule was put into effect, and was it possible that the string rule did not exist when these homes were built. Mr. Grittman said that the first ordinances were into effect in the `60's. Mr. Corrigan said his home was built in 1968. Chair Lorberbaum said it appears that the applicant is doing some major renovations to the home, and asked why he chose a house that needs so many renovations. Mr. Corrigan said it gave him the opportunity to build custom spaces for his son's needs, and when properly developed, this home can give easy access to the back yard as well to the front yard. Commissioner Miller asked if there would be a sidewalk to the driveway. Mr. Corrigan said there would be a stair access in the present location, as well as driveway level door leading into the addition. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE SLOPE IN THE FRONT YARD CREATES A HARDSHIP IN CONSTRUCTING AN ACCESS TO THE HOUSE WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK AND THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -20 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 Antonio Postiglione 562 Fremont Avenue Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 562 Fremont Avenue, in which the applicant is seeking a variance from the required 5 -ft. setback for driveways. The applicant is wishing to replace the driveway due to some damage and it was found that the variance was needed to place this driveway in its current location. The parcel is currently non - conforming and this variance would bring this new driveway into conformance. Because this is a reconstruction situation, the Planner believes a hardship exists. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there was a safety concern as the driveway would be close to the neighbor's driveway. Mr. Grittman said there is adequate space between. Mr. Antonio Postiglione, 562 Fremont Avenue, said when he received a copy of the lot from the City; the map showed his home being located across the property line. The applicant shared photos of his property, which indicated where his property line markers were located. Mr. Grittman said it is not uncommon that some of the lines are shifted as the aerial photos are not totally precise and are not the actual survey measurements. Commissioner Miller asked if there is sloping to the street. Mr. Postiglione said there is not much of a slope. Commissioner Dolan asked if the applicant was in the middle of the process when it was found a variance is needed. Mr. Postiglione said a letter was received after the driveway was torn out to notify him of the requirement of a variance. Commissioner Dolan asked how long this driveway has been in its existing state. Mr. Postiglione said since May 13th. Commissioner Dolan said it appears the applicant also has approval of the property owner to the west. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AS REQUESTED WITH THE FINDING THAT THE VARIANCE IS NEEDED TO HAVE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND ACCESS TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AND WITH THE CONDITION THE DRIVEWAY IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED THE SAME LOCATION, WIDTH, AND LENGTH AND BEING CONSTRUCTED OF APPROVED CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS. Further Discussion Commissioner Dolan asked if there is any requirement of the material to be used. Mr. Hollister said it has to be a hard surface, as concrete and bituminous are the acceptable surfaces. Commissioner M. McManus asked if pavers could be used. Mr. Hollister said any hard and smooth surface is considered sufficient for driveway, and as long as the material is smooth and will adequately hold vehicles. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -21 4 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 Tom and Tracy Stute 1050 Theresa Street Condition Use Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 2050 Theresa Street, in which the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to construct a fence that is within the 30 ft setback greater than 3 ft in height. The applicant is seeking to construct a fence that is 6 ft. high along the north property line and Mary Adell Avenue. A condition of the approval is that the applicant constructs a fence that will meet the 30 percent open requirement. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there are any guidelines as to the height used in a CUP. Mr. Grittman said the maximum is 6 ft. Mr. Tom State, 1050 Theresa Street, said Mr. Grittman explained the application well. Commissioner M. McManus asked what type of fence would be placed. Mr. State said the fence will be cedar alternating boards along Mary Adell Avenue, and there will be a chain link fence running along the back of the fence. There is chain link fencing currently existing along the rest of the property. Commissioner Miller asked if the chain link would be black vinyl coated. Mr. State said it would be. Commissioner Miller said there was no signoff sheet from the neighbors in the packets. Mr. State said there is something coming in the mail from one of the neighbors that will approve the chain link fencing, as it will be placed directly on the property line. Mr. State previously has a verbal agreement with that neighbor. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6 FT. HIGH FENCE WITHIN THE 30 FT YARD SETBACK WITH THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNER. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbaum asked the Planner if any language should be added to the motion to include the chain link fence. Mr. Grittman said that the chain link fence is already included in the application. Commissioner Dolan asked for confirmation that approval will be coming from the neighbor regarding the chain link fence on the property line. Mr. State said he would move the fence if needed, but would like to keep it there to protect the current landscaping. Chair Lorberbaum reminded the applicant to bring the necessary paperwork to the Council Meeting for their review, which includes the signed approval of the neighbor. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 PLANNING CASE #04 -22 Mendakota Country Club 2075 Mendakota Drive Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of Mendakota Country Club along Highway 110. The applicant is for tow separate items: 1) Conditional Use Permit to allow the country club to make some modifications to the golf course facility and 2) Wetlands Permit as some of the modifications will occur within the 100 ft. buffer area of the existing wetland on the course. Mr. Grittman said the modifications are to the 18th Hole and the applicants are looking to correct some problems that have been encountered with the design of the course as it relates to activities around the clubhouse. This modification will require some additional space that will encroach into the wetland area. It is noted that the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District has indicated that the majority of the wetland to be altered is not applicable to the wetland replacement criteria of the Wetland Conservation Act and therefore, the Planner is comfortable with recommending approval of the wetland permit and the nature of the golf course will have little or no impact on surrounding properties. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification on Option #2 of the recommendation. Mr. Grittman said there may be some additional issues that may need to be followed up on with the SWCD, and other coordination issues with the City Engineer. Mr. Robert McKinney, Mendakota Country Club Golf Superintendent, explained how there are safety issues with the golf course. There are so many errant balls ending up at the Pro Shop and Clubhouse, which is not a new issue, but has become more frequent, and the country club is concerned that it will get worse. Mr. McKinney said the country club has invested much time and money into contracting an architect to help redesign the 18th hole to move it further away from the clubhouse. Although the country club has not planned on doing any new renovations for a while, the safety issue has come into play and has since began working with architects and contractors to build a feasibility study. Mr. McKinney explained how the modification would be made. Commissioner M. McManus asked if written confirmation is needed of all the meetings with SWCD. Mr. McKinney said a letter would be forthcoming. Commissioner Dolan asked if there would be a pond by the 18th hole. Mr. McKinney explained how the pond would be located and additional wetland will be placed. This hole went into play in 1989 and was a straight Par 4. Since then, the clubhouse was built where the green was and created a dogleg left. With the new golfing technology used, and the increase of people using the course, there are just too many balls flying toward the clubhouse. The new design will be aimed further left and away from that area. Chair Lorberbaum asked if a silt fence would be placed by the critical area identified by the SWCD. Mr. McKinney said there would be. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLAND PERMIT BASED UPON THE FINDING THAT THE ALTERATIONS WILL NOT 6 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 JEOPARDIZE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE AREA, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH ITEMS 2 (A), (B), (C) IN THE PLANNERS REPORT. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Other Discussion Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Hollister for a status report about an applicant who had been on the agenda several times, and has since not yet presented his application. Mr. Hollister said the 60 -day review period had been extended to the full 120 -days. Mr. Hollister said that each time this applicant has asked to be pushed back a month, a letter has been sent to the City waiving his rights under the 60 -day review period and the City is well covered under that regard. The reason this case has been tabled is because the applicant wishes to retain an architect to assist in drawing a full proposal for this shelter. In between the first tabling and second tabling, Staff discovered that part of the property is actually within the Critical Area, and sent a letter to the applicant making him aware of this. The applicant has since completed the necessary paperwork for the Critical Area and has been reviewed by the Planner. All permits have now been applied for and the case is tentatively scheduled for July for a Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Critical Area Permit. PLANNING CASE #04 -23 David Quade, LeCordon Bleu 1440 Northland Drive ConditionalUse Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of a proposed addition to Brown College Campus for the purpose of a cooking school. The CUP is to allow for a restaurant to be located in this facility. Mr. Grittman said restaurants are allowed in the industrial district by the CUP. Mr. Grittman referred to the agenda with includes an approval for a liquor license, which is an issue for the City Council, but has been placed on the agenda to make the Planning Commission aware. Also, the agenda states a Sign Setback Variance issue, but again, this is for the City Council only as they have already looked at the building permit portion for this application and has approved the sign at the previous City Council meeting. Mr. Grittman said the only thing in front of the Planning Commission on this case is the CUP for the restaurant. Mr. Hollister said United Properties is involved in building the new building for Le Cordon Bleu. About six weeks ago, United Properties understood fully that Le Cordon Bleu needed to get a CUP for a restaurant for the new building so that they could have the type of liquor license they were seeking for the new school. Mr. Hollister suggested that United Properties submit the plans for the new building at the same time as the CUP is applied for. United Properties indicated that because the building conformed to the zoning ordinance, and there was a need to begin construction, it was desired to have the opportunity to go directly to the Council for review and approval of the new building. For a commercial /industrial building that conforms to the ordinance, the property owner or the person intending on building the building, is able to go directly to Council for review and approval of the site plan and for authorization for the Code Enforcement Officer to issue the necessary building permits. As part of that, United Properties wanted the ability to also go directly to the Council for the approval of a 20 -ft. front yard setback for a monument sign as opposed to a 40 -ft. front yard setback. Mr. Hollister and Mr. Grittman advised United Properties that a variance would be needed for that. United Properties have stated that a) the city has granted numerous 20 -ft. front yard setback variances in the industrial park for various monument signs, and b) United Properties was under the impression that such front yard setback variances had already been granted for industrial park properties in a general sense and therefore, he did not have to apply in this specific instance. Mr. Hollister said it is true that the City has granted numerous variances with the 20 -ft setbacks. Mr. Hollister said United Properties could take the argument of item "b" directly to the City Council, and it would be preferred to have all the necessary paperwork for the variance application completed so it's done when needed by the City Council. Mr. Hollister said the paperwork has since been all submitted.. At the Council meeting, United Properties made the case to have the approval that evening for the front yard setback variance. Upon City Council consultation with the City Attorney, the City Council granted the request for the variance. Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 Mr. Hollister said it was pointed out by Mr. Grittman that the building actually will be built on two parcels, and there was concern that the City or some other private entity may have some easements running along that lot line as is often the case. Mr. Hollister said it was more for Le Cordon Bleu and United Properties' own protection to make sure they would not be building on any easements. United Properties has assured the City Council that their retained surveyor has verified there are no existing easements, and therefore it's not a problem. The Council again consulted with the City Attorney and said if it is accepted that the representation that there are no easements along that lot line, is the City then at liberty to allow a building to be built. The City Attorney said they could. The City Council then said United Properties could build a building across the lot line. Apart from the fact the monument needs and was granted at 20 -ft front yard setback variance by the Council, and the fact that the building straddles the lot line, this is a building that conforms entirely to the ordinance. Seating is designed to be approx. 150 guests for the restaurant. The required parking for this type of industrial park would be 350 spaces but as a college or classroom type building with a restaurant, it is estimated that parking demand would be approximately 450 spaces according to the code requirements. The site plan itself has 560 parking spaces on site and it is the applicant's intend to provide additional parking on this site to accommodate existing overflow positions that occur in that neighborhood because of other college classes that occur. Mr. Grittman said this site should have more than enough parking. There is also adequate parking for the visitor entrance itself and will not be conflicting with the existing school activities. Commissioner Dolan asked if the CUP would terminate in the event the trade school ceases operations. Mr. Grittman said the nature of this particular restaurant is in relationship of a particular trade school and would not be feasible to continue operating as a stand- alone restaurant. Ron Swanson, Chancellor of Brown College, said David Quade, President of Le Cordon Bleu, was no longer associated with Brown College. Mr. Swanson introduced Helene McDermott, the former President of Le Cordon Bleu, who has returned to the position. Mr. Swanson said that without a restaurant, the school would not be there, as the restaurant is the laboratory in which the students practice. Mr. Swanson said that because of this, it is important that the restaurant be there and has been developed as an educational entity. Mr. Swanson said the additional parking would also help alleviate the over crowded parking situation on the main campus. Commissioner M. McManus asked how the college would designate specific parking for the restaurant. Mr. Swanson said it would be similar to the Minnesota Room, in which specific parking places will be reserved for restaurant room patrons only. Commissioner M. McManus asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Swanson said the students will not be parking in those locations during the day, and the spaces will be open. It has not been determined exactly how many spaces will be reserved for the restaurant, but it will be sufficient. Mr. Swanson said there are currently students parking at the main parking campus and walk through the building to get to the Minnesota Room. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there are any handicap requirements. Mr. Grittman said the State of Minnesota uses a formula they apply to the parking lot based on the size of the parking lot. Commissioner M. McManus asked if Mendota Heights would have any say in how many parking spaces a building should have. Mr. Grittman said he was not aware of any different ordinances or regulations. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there would be any walkways constructed to allow students to access the rest of the campus without walking in the street or on the grass, or is there any busing setup to assist the students. Mr. Swanson said there will be no shuttle buses, but the students can either walk or drive. Chair Lorberbaum asked how far the walk would be. Mr. Swanson said at the most, it would be one -half mile. Mr. Swanson indicated on the map the routes the students usually take to get to the main campus, which is estimated at four blocks from the main campus. Mr. Hollister said there are some trails in the industrial park, but he is not aware of a continuous trail to provide linkage between the Le Cordon Bleu site and the Cray building. Mr. Swanson said there are no sidewalks in that area as well, and the students sometimes walk on the lawns of neighbors. Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 Chair Lorberbaum asked what actions would be taken to deter the students from walking across these areas. Mr. Swanson said because of the amount of cars in the main Brown College parking lot, it is difficult to even find a parking space, so the students will park on the street. Mr. Swanson said the majority of the culinary arts program students, which is estimated at 75% to 85 %, will be in the proposed facility. Chair Lorberbaum asked for confirmation that most students will have adequate parking at the culinary, but there is no promise that there will be any improvement on the other site. Mr. Swanson said that would be true. Chair Lorberbaum said there are no guarantees that the students will not continue to park as they have been. Mr. Swanson said that unless there are "no parking" signs, the students cannot be ticketed. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman if he saw any safety issues with people walking where there are no trails. Mr. Swanson said there had been some previous discussion about sidewalks prior to his tenure, but he does not know if anything came of that. Mr. Grittman said it would be preferred that pedestrians are separated from the traveled street area and this is always a concern. If it becomes an issue over time, the City Council might want to take some action. The Planning Commission may also choose to add some routes to that area. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Planning Commission would have the right to request, as part of the approval recommendation, that if it does seem to be a problem, that a trail may be constructed and the applicant pay those costs. Mr. Grittman said the difficulty would be that Le Cordon Bleu does not control all the property. Chair Lorberbaum said that if the City chose to, for safety reasons, could they make the condition that the applicant would have to cover that cost. Mr. Grittman said there could be a development agreement that would include this type of clause. Chair Lorberbaum asked for the capacity of the current restaurant, and the proposed one. Mr. Swanson said the school does not wish to go over 70 people, but will sometimes do 100 for banquets. The requirement is no more than 150. There may also be a patio. Chair Lorberbaum said the restaurant does a wonderful job, the food and service being excellent; a great value. Mr. Swanson said he is hoping for January 2005 for completion of the facility and start of class. Chair Lorberbaum asked for clarification of the hours of operation and amount of safety lighting, as Mr. Swanson was very vague on that information. After some discussion on how the restaurant and classes would be operated, it was agreed between the Planning Commission and the applicant to add the following language into the motion: => The hours of operation were determined to be Tuesday through Sunday, 11:00 am to 10:00 pm o The school is not currently planning on serving on weekends, but perhaps a Sunday brunch will be incorporated later => Lighting would be on a 24 -hour basis not to extend to other properties. • There are classes that run from 11:00 pm to 4:00 am, making the operation of the school 24 hours. • Lighting will be on all the time. Mr. Hollister said he was not aware of any businesses in the industrial park that is open and working 24 hours, but he is not familiar with any other operations in industrial parks. However, it is possible that some businesses may have employees there for 24 hours. Mr. Hollister said that the City would prefer to have adequate safety lighting for those students in the late night classes. Mr. Hollister recommended using a photometry light plan as a condition to the approvals. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the City has any ordinances regarding 24 -hour lighting. Mr. Grittman said the zoning ordinance does have some language regarding lighting in industrial parks. Mr. Swanson said it seems that the only building in that area which has 24 -hour lighting is the college and the surrounding hotels. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. John Bathke, 699 Second Avenue, said his office is located nearby at 2401 Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Bathke said his offices were previously located at 2515 Northwest Drive. Mr. Bathke said there are no trails or sidewalks connecting the two campuses. Mr. Bathke said parking and traffic is a problem. Mr. Bathke said there are several businesses that are open 24 hours and have 24 -hour security lighting. Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: => Photometry lighting plan be submitted and approved by the City, which includes lamination and hours of operation Hours of operation of the facility be from 11:00 am to 10:00 pm, Tuesday through Sunday, with the understanding the hours be extended for whatever reason, the applicant come back to City for review and approval. => If the Planning Commission identifies a safety problem due to students walking, the applicant work with United Properties to install and cover costs for a trail system between the two properties. Further Discussion Commission M. McManus said she would like to have a better description as to why the Planning Commission would be placing conditions on for hours of operation and for the concerns of the pathways at this time. Chair Lorberbaum said with regard to the path, there is an expectation there, and if safety issues arise because of what's there, she would like the people responsible for it to address these concerns. Chair Lorberbaum said with regard to the hours of operation, it's the detail oriented nature of what typically the City has required in previous CUP applications, and used the Rhythmic Gymnastics case for an example, in which the hours were clarified. Mr. Hollister said that Chair Lorberbaum is asking for clarification of the hours of the restaurant. Chair Lorberbaum said that was exactly her intent. Commissioner Dolan asked why there is a concern on how late the restaurant is open. Is it to protect someone in the neighborhood? Commissioner Dolan said this area is not heavily residential, so would a plan be justified? Chair Lorberbaum said she looked at the area around Rhythmic Gymnastics on a weekend, in the winter, and it was dark and isolated, she is looking at trying to understand expectations for the restaurant. Commissioner Dolan said he is all for providing a lighting plan, but assumed that Chair Lorberbaum had wanted to limit the lighting in this case. Chair Lorberbaum said that was not her intent, but wanted an understanding that the lighting will not shine onto other properties. Mr. Swanson said the main concern for security lighting is for the school, not so much for the restaurant, which is just a small part. It is necessary to have adequate lighting to the school as a whole, and will go by the City's ordinances. Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Grittman if there were enough protection in the code that another set of requirements is not necessary. Mr. Grittman said the zoning ordinance would limit their lighting to make sure it's lighting their site only and not adjoining properties. Typically, a lighting plan is requested from the applicant in any case. Commissioner Dolan asked if there needs to be a condition made in this case. Mr. Grittman said it is not a bad suggestion, but is not necessary. Commissioner M. McManus spoke on the sidewalk issue and that this is an accessory use to an existing school area and will the City end up with a whole development with sidewalks. Mr. Hollister said unless a critical mass of the Planning Commissioners find that condition objectionable, and do not wish to vote for it, it is suggested that this condition be left in there to see how the City and Brown College feels after the proposed restaurant is up and running. It may be possible that the City and /or college will observe a higher than average number of pedestrians between those two points, and may wish to consider construction of a trail. If this gets built, it will probably take the form of a trail because that what is existing in the industrial park. If a trail gets built between the proposed building 10 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 and the main campus building, it is going to fall entirely on City right of way and consequently will be a city-owned trail and this City built trail will be up to city standards. Mr. Hollister said there is no harm to leave the condition in and he will be following up with the City Attorney. It is unusually albeit understandable in this case to include a condition as it relates to something off -site or the construction of infrastructure on someone else's property, but as a catalyst for discussion, it's worth having this in there. Mr. Hollister said if the City decides the trail is warranted, to what extent can the City require Brown College or United Properties to share in the costs of that trail by assessments or something of that nature is really a question for the City Attorney. Mr. Hollister said with this understanding, he would recommend leaving this condition in with the intent of further discussion of this potential need. Chair Lorberbaum said she is concerned with the safety of what the applicant has put into place. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification that the CUP would be terminated should Le Cordon Bleu cease to exist. Chair Lorberbaum said that was true. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there would be concerns of the restaurant parking. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant has stated there would be designated parking for the restaurant only and this clause is included as part of the motion, and there are five conditions. Commissioner Hesse said he would like clarification of the conditions being used in this case. He does not think it is appropriate to make the applicant pay for the trail, and would like to have the condition worked in a way the topic of costs would be for discussion purposes only. Mr. Hollister said the portion of who pays the costs for construction of a trail could be struck from the motion and kept as commentary accompanying the resolution, it will be passed along. Mr. Hollister said that if Le Cordon Bleu moves into its new building and generates a lot of pedestrian traffic which causes a safety concern, the argument could be made that this is a trail link that would be nice to have, and it is public infrastructure to be used by the general public, then why should the City not pay for it as it does the other trails in the city. But the argument could go the other way that the need for that is triggered specifically by the new school and the parking difficulties created by the phenomenal success of Brown College, in which case it would be fair to ask the applicant to pay for it. Commissioner Hesse said he doesn't have a problem with the motion, but thinks there is a lot more to be looked at before a condition such as this is made. Commissioner Hesse said there may be other industries in the area that are contributing to the parking and traffic problems and should they not contribute as well? Commissioner Hesse said this condition is not in the scope of what the case has presented today. Chair Lorberbaum said that if the City has to put in the trail because of the students, then this is an expense the city should not have to pay. Chair Lorberbaum said if the Commissioners felt uncomfortable with the motion, it should be voted down, therefore striking that condition. Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to see something in the motion that states "if the need arises" then the applicant should have to pay for the costs of the trail. Commissioner Dolan said it would be his preference to word this more broadly so if the situation arises where the City needs to take action alleviate the pedestrian traffic, the City is at a disadvantage of not knowing what shape that would take and would not want to form certain trails right now and would like a general condition that says "if the needs arises for alleviation of pedestrian traffic, the applicant will bear some responsibility in paying for that ". Commissioner Dolan said the issue of who pays is not foremost in him mind, but a specific method needs to be developed for solving the problem. Chair Lorberbaum said she would accept that statement as a friendly amendment. Commissioner M. McManus said she accepts the friendly amendment. Commissioner Dolan asked if hours of operation is a typical condition posed upon restaurants in a CUP. Mr. Hollister said the city has so few restaurants that there have been some such conditions imposed on other businesses like SuperAmerica, and the city has the right to impose such conditions. Mr. Hollister said it would be wise to keep this condition in as the applicant has already agreed to these hours. Mr. Hollister said most approvals within the CUP run with the use as in the case of variances, which run with the case of the land; both of them transcend changes in ownership. Mr. Hollister said that in the past, when the Council has approved CUP's, they very often put conditions in there with not only an eye on the current owner, but on future use of the property. 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 4 AYES 1 NAYS (Commissioner Dolan) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -24 Convent of the Visitation School 2455 Visitation Drive Wetlands Permit Mr. Grittman presented a map showing the location of Visitation School, located at 2455 Visitation Drive. The application is for a wetlands permit as the applicants are seeking to construct a sidewalk that would connect a remote parking lot with the remainder of the facilities. Mr. Grittman reviewed the map, which lays out the proposed sidewalk addition. The Planners recommendation is to approve the wetlands permit, as this construction will not have any negative impact on the existing wetland and surrounding buffer area. Commissioner Miller asked if this pathway would be for bicycle traffic as well as pedestrian. Mr. Grittman said he believes it is for pedestrians only. The applicants, Mr. Gary Ostberg, Ostberg Architects, and Sister Mary Denise, Convent of the Visitation School were present at the meeting. Mr. Ostberg reviewed the layout of the proposed sidewalk, stating the need for a connection to this parking lot as students and volunteers often use this parking lot, and the driveway is extremely busy at times. Mr. Ostberg said there would be pathway lighting a many activities are held after dark such as athletic activities. Mr. Ostberg said this was strictly a pedestrian walkway. Commissioner Miller asked if there has been consideration to extend the pathway further toward the street when the overflow parking is full. Mr. Ostberg said there have been situations where street parking was needed. Mr. Ostberg said students are instructed to park in alternative areas from the overflow parking on special days when more visitors are expected. Commissioner Miller said it would make sense to extend the length of the pathway. Mr. Ostberg said there will be no negative impact to existing trees. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there should be any additional lighting. Mr. Ostberg said three 25 -ft. light standards are to also be installed. There currently are several 12 -ft light standards closer to the building. Mr. Grittman said the lighting is not subject for review on this case, as this case is only to review the wetlands permit. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS PRESENTED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE CITY ENGINEER VERIFY THAT THE SIDEWALK WILL NOT IMPEDE THE FLOW OF WATER UPON THE PROPERTY. AYES 12 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 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. Hollister said supplied an updated draft version of the proposed property maintenance ordinance in "strike- out /underline" form for the Commission's review. Mr. Hollister referred to a phone call he received from Chair Lorberbaum asking him to follow up with the City Attorney on the following issues. Mr. Hollister then read the responses to the questions submitted by Daniel Schleck, City Attorney: 1) After we adopt this ordinance, would properties in Mendota Heights that already do not conform to the ordinance be "grandfathered "? Response "I do not believe there are any provisions for grandfathering of any properties in the proposed ordinance itself. Certainly, there are no explicit provisions in the current draft and it is written to include All structures ... ' '. "Grandfathering provisions of this ordinance would apply in the same manner as any other ordinance for the City. " Mr. Hollister's Comments: "If you put the question basically "once we adopt this ordinance, are existing properties that do not conform to the standards of this ordinance grandfathered? My answer would be in almost all cases, no, they are not grandfathered in. In fact, that's the very intent of the ordinance. If we were to somehow, either verbally declare or explicitly institute within the language of this ordinance, that existing non - conforming properties are grandfathered, we've defeated about 95% of the reason why we wanted to adopt this ordinance. What's prompted discussion about this ordinance are existing conditions, so we certainly don't want to exempt existing conditions from the requirements of this new ordinance." 2) How long would we give people to bring their property into conformance? Response "In terms of how long to give people to comply, the ordinance by its term discusses 30 days after notice in several places. This may be too short for the initial compliance. The City can make the effective date whenever it wants and may want to think about 45 — 60 days as an alternative. Mr. Hollister's Comments: "That is really up to the Council in terms of what the final language is that the Council adopts, and they're looking to the Planning Commission and Staff for recommendations on that. They may also ask the City Attorney about that. 13 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 It's really up to you [the Planning Commission], and I know from discussing this ordinance with you [the Planning Commission], that there is a spectrum of opinion among the seven of you as to how long we should give people to bring their property into conformance. I think Dan is suggesting 45 — 60 days may be more lenient and probably more achievable than 30 days, although I know there are some people on this body that probably think that 45 — 60 days may be too generous. I would say if you [the Planning Commission] think 30 days is a little tough, let's make it 60." Chair Lorberbaum said she recalled at the last meeting that someone might have suggested one year. Mr. Hollister said that would be another option. Mr. Hollister said the City would get into the situations where they will be balancing frequent interests. The homeowner whose property has been sighted for maintenance issues, in many cases the neighbor to the property, or other residents, who brought this issue to the City's attention, you get into a situation where the property owner obviously would like as much time as they can get to remedy the situation, the neighbors want to see it fixed as quickly as possible, and the City wants to see it corrected, but probably would rather see it done right than quickly. How do you balance those three interests? It will ultimately come down to what the Council's comfort level is in terms of the time frame. Mr. Hollister said the Planning Commission could recommend whatever they feel is a good period of time. Commissioner Hesse asked if there needs to be a specific time period decided on, or can it be a range when the time period can be determined based on the specific issue and the recommendations of whatever enforcement office is involved? Some cases will have instances where weather is a factor, or permitting is required, and to set an actual date, it may be better to have a minimum and a maximum depending on the situation. Mr. Hollister said language stating the required remediation period shall be not less than 30 days and no more than 180 days at the determination of the Code Enforcement Officer, and depending on the circumstance, what is needed to be repaired. Mr. Hollister said it is desirable to allow the City enough flexibility to deal with individual circumstances. Mr. Grittman said a lot of times those extenuation circumstances tend to be issues that code enforcement officers don't like to get into judgment calls on and one other consideration might be to say a time period could be 60 days unless extended by the City Council. Let the Council be on the decisionmaker on how long a situation can be resolved. Commissioner M. McManus said she would be more comfortable with that, and not put a minimum time line on something and there should be something that allows an extension if necessary. Mr. John Bathke, 699 2nd Avenue, asked how many times this ordinance will be reviewed before it goes to City Council. Chair Lorberbaum said it depends on how comfortable the Planning Commission is with it. Mr. Bathke made the following comments: There are a lot of judgmental terms. Words like "reasonable" can cause trouble, as it is open for interpretation, as well as needing a better definition for "significant" and "enforcement ". Chair Lorberbaum asked that he submit examples found to Staff. => "Stagnant Water" — may be confused with wetland and needs better definition. => Weeds — definition of weeds could range from one person's weed to another person's prairie plant. Mr. Bathke suggested the Planning Commission take more time in better defining this ordinance and is willing to work with Staff on the language. Comments from the Commission: ❖ Commissioner M. McManus ➢ Would like to review this draft one more time. ➢ Needs more clarification regarding wetland areas, and conditions where there would be runoff and erosion onto other properties. Staff needs to expand a little more in this area. ➢ 12.5.3.a Item 16 — Weeds — has trouble following what the definition of weeds, grasses, and annual plants. This also could be expanded more. ➢ Are cultivated flowers being included ➢ Natural grasses / natural state is okay. Commissioner M. McManus said she does not expect Mendota Heights to be totally manicured. 14 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 Commissioner Hesse ♦ ➢ Would like to see more clarification on the grandfathering issue. ❖ Commissioner Dolan ➢ Doesn't believe the grandfathering concept applies in this instance. People don't have a vested property right in maintaining their home in a poor manner or not fixing their fence. This should not be an issue to be factored into this ordinance. ➢ To a certain extent, some of this language such as "significant" and "reasonable" is inevitable and when one is trying to apply language to concepts they are not quite sure of, it may be better to rely on vague language. ➢ Specific language in 12.5.3.a. I — "the occupant shall keep that part of the exterior property which such occupant occupies or controls in a clean and sanitary condition." Commissioner Dolan said he is not quite sure is being excluded there. Mr. Hollister said he thinks this would pertain to a multi - family dwelling, either rental or owner- occupied. If there is a 5 -unit building, the resident of a unit would be responsible for the exterior maintenance of that portion of the building the resident lives in if the covenant dictates such responsibility to the resident. ➢ Not everything in the ordinance deals with safety issues. Part of it should have some language on aesthetics. ❖ Chair Lorberbaum ➢ Asked Mr. Hollister to go back to the City Attorney what his intent was regarding his statement about grandfathering. Mr. Hollister said he believes the intention of the statement was that this ordinance is no different than any other ordinance of the City in that it doesn't define any new categories of grandfather status or further restrict any existing categories of grandfathering status, that whatever other things are grandfathered elsewhere in the ordinance would remain grandfathered in this ordinance. ➢ Appreciates the work that has been done on this draft. Also appreciates the comment made by the City Attorney and glad the 24 -hour determination to the snow removal of the sidewalks. ➢ Has a concern about the property maintenance agreement regarding the interpretive language. This agreement needs to focus completely on health, safety, life, limb issues and not aesthetics. Residents do not want a "big brother" ordinance that dictates issues such as color of buildings. ➢ Would like to see all regards to "aesthetics" stricken from the ordinance. Commissioner Miller ♦ ➢ Asked what the trigger is — does a resident call City Hall with a complaint? Mr. Hollister said violation of this ordinance would be enforced as any other city codes, most likely coming in from a neighbor's complaint or concern. Concerns from Staff include crafting an ordinance where the enforcement would consume a lot of staff time and resources above and beyond how much they are currently taxed. Mr. Grittman said that the grandfathering really relates to what the zoning ordinance calls legal non - conformity, and that clause does not show up in any other general city code ordinance, so things that are grandfathered typically tend to be zoning related issues for a structure. Mr. Hollister said he is hearing from Chair Lorberbaum is that the City is not the color - selection committee, but there may be a place in the end for the word "aesthetic" but the City must be careful on how it is used and how it is defined. In common sense language, it would be easy to agree on these issues but when putting it down in language that is not only enforceable and gives clear direction to the Code Enforcement officers, but also something the City could go into court with if necessary. It is complicated to craft this language and in laymen's term, if someone had a fence, please have it in good condition, and have the paint on the house in reasonable condition, and please don't have an undue amount of rubbish and junk on property. This is very basic and the intent is to impose some minimum standards. Chair Lorberbaum said the ordinance needs to be careful to not go too far. Mr. Hollister said once this is adopted, it is not the final form as it can be revised periodically. 15 Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2004 VERBAL REVIEW — Patrick Hollister PLANNING CASE #04 -12: Dennis Forsberg, 1111 Dodd Road => Conditional Use Permit and Variance for detached garage was approved by Council as recommended by Planning Commission. In addition, Councilmember Duggan requested a copy of the resolution be provided to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Duggan shared the information because he wanted the Planning Commission to understand what he did. Chair Lorberbaum said the intent is for the Commission to look at each case on its own merits. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Hollister if there were any Council discussions regarding the odd shape of a 750 -sq. ft. garage. Mr. Hollister said that the Council seems to not be interested in changing that number, but it appears there may be circumstances where the Council may entertain a variance. PLANNING CASE #04 -13: Robert Alvarez, 1167 Dodd Road => Subdivision and Variance — has not yet gone to Council. Mr. Alvarez requested that his case be scheduled for the July 20th meeting to allow him time to talk to the Ivy Hill Townhouse Association about the statements that were made at the May 25th meeting. Mr. Alvarez has retained Loucks McClavin to assist him from this point forward. PLANNING CASE #04 -14 Kim Beauclair; Joe and Patty Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road => Critical Area Permit was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Chair Lorberbaum asked for an update on the Fink property. Mr. Hollister said the case was approved for subdivision and a variance. The location of the new homesite has been deemed a condition of the approval. A shared driveway with the existing home has been approved. The new home will be located on the top of the hill, northwest of the existing home, will have a covenant established to protect existing vegetation. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:00 PM. (It is noted that Commissioner M. McManus left the meeting before adjournment) 4 AYES 0 NAYS Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 16