Loading...
2004-07-27 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2004 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Betlej, Miller, Dolan, Hesse, and M. McManus. City Staff present were Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister and City Engineer Sue McDermott. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The following corrections were made: Page 1. third DaraeraDh from bottom "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 Louse .Aes built in 1994, knowing there was ° �° ter- damage ar -ou a the main epAf a°°. 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." Page 2, I't paragraph, third sentence under Case #04 -19 " 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." Page 5, 1" paragraph under Further Discussion "Chair Lorberbaum asked the Planner if is 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." Page 8, 81h paragraph "Commissioner M. McManus asked how the college would designate specific parking for the restaurant. Mr. Swanson said it would be similar to as the Minnesota Room, in which parking places will be reserved for restaurant room patrons only." Page 9, 91h paragraph, first bullet => 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 Page 10, 4th paragraph under Further Discussion "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 ?" Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 Page 10, 6`h paragraph under Further Discussion "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 sign onto other properties. Under Verbal Review 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. -This daeument is provided as an example to help the Plamiiag GewAnissien ifiter-pr-et as instnaetiefis 0 deliber-atingthese Pfflesor eases inthe A+tfe. 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. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2004 AS CORRECTED. AYES NAYS ABSTENTIONS (Commissioner B. McManus and Betlej) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #04 -11 Ron Ettinger 1588 South Victoria Road Critical Area Permit, Variance and Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed a site plan for Children's Country Day School. The request is for three items: 1) a Conditional Use Permit is required to amend the site plan of a conditional use in the RI district, 2) a critical area permit is required as the property is partially in the critical area, and the city interprets the critical area to cover the entire property, and 3) a variance is needed to construct an accessory structure and the ordinance limits such building in the R -1 district. Mr. Grittman said there are existing accessory buildings on this site. The proposed building will be an open sided structure to provide shelter to students awaiting rides after school. Without this shelter, the students have to remain inside the building and are individually ushered out to waiting cars, which in turn creates a backup of vehicles along the driveway and roadway. Mr. Grittman said there seems to be no concerns with impervious surface and other factors that are usually considered for the Critical Area, and Staff finds this structure to be consistent with other day care schools within the Rl district. Staff recommends approval, as this structure would enhance public safety by addressing traffic movement issues and is a reasonable use of property for this school. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the ordinance means by "a few accessory structures ". Mr. Grittman said it would mean about 3 structures. Mr. Ron Ettinger, Country Day School, explained how the stress of the traffic management would be solved with this structure, which will be very useful during inclimate weather. Mr. Ettinger said the material would be a microlam -based structure. Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 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 BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, AND VARIANCE FOR THE STRUCTURE AS PRESENTED. Future Discussion Commissioner Hesse said he would like to make a friendly amendment to stipulate that the building inspector review the plans. Mr. Hollister said that process would already happen as a matter of course. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -25 William St. Martin 1933 Crown Point Drive Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for a variance to allow additional driveway space be constructed to allow the applicant better access to an existing garage. Mr. Grittman said the City had previously granted a conditional use permit and variance for the applicant to expand the garage into the front yard setback. The applicant submitted a letter to the Planning Commission, dated July 10, 2004 stating that because of the curvature of the road, the driveway comes closer to the road than allowed, causing an extreme hardship to negotiate the turn into the new garage space. In the Planner's initial review, it would seem Mr. St. Martin wanted to add to the existing driveway, causing the driveway to be wider. It is noted that as discussions moved along, it became apparent that Mr. St. Martin was not very clear in his application and told the Planning Commission that he was only trying to retain his current driveway, and not add any impervious surface. Mr. William St. Martin, 1933 Crown Point Drive, addressed the Commission. Mr. St. Martin told the Planning Commission that upon final inspection of his addition, Building Inspector Gill informed Mr. St. Martin that he needed to remove part of his driveway as it encroached into the setback, which would create difficulty in accessing the garage. With this clarification from Mr. St. Martin, it became clear that the issue had changed and the variance is being requested to allow the applicant to keep the existing driveway unchanged. After that clarification was made, Mr. St. Martin answered questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner M. McManus asked the applicant if he will be filling in any more driveway surfaces. Mr. St. Martin said the driveway would be exactly as is. Commissioner M. McManus asked the applicant if he had any previous discussions with the Planner or City Staff regarding the assumed realigning of the driveway. Mr. St. Martin said he had only talked to Building Inspector Gill. Commissioner M. McManus asked the applicant if he had any alternative solutions in the case the variance would not be granted. Mr. St. Martin explained how he would have to re -align the driveway, and showed that this alternative would make it impossible to Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 reasonably gain access to the garage and would have to drive on the grass. Mr. St. Martin said when he obtained the variance for the garage; he assumed it would include the driveway as well. Commissioner Hesse asked the applicant if he would work with the original concept that the Planner had thought was the original request to extend the driveway out straighter and move the curb cut. Mr. St. Martin said the driveway cut is adequate and would not want to move it. If the driveway was "centered" as the suggestion solution was presented in the Planners report, Mr. St. Martin said it still would not allow him to gain reasonable access, and would have more trouble negotiating both garages. Commissioner Dolan said it appears the Building Inspector wants the driveway cut so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback area where the road curves. Mr. St. Martin indicated on the picture of the driveway where the driveway would have to be cut, and this area in front of the garage would then extend only a few feet toward the street and there would not be sufficient space to allow for a car to be parked in front of the garage, and thereby making entrance into the garage very difficult without driving onto the grass. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. St. Martin the hardship. Mr. St. Martin said the hardship would be the curvature of the street, which would require cutting out that portion of the driveway, making any entrance /exit from the garage forced to drive on the grass. Commissioner Hesse said if the road were straight, the applicant would probably not be in the right of way. Commissioner B. McManus said that given the way it is now, there is no question that the garage could be accessed reasonably now. The issue seems to be the width of the driveway at the property line, and this is a situation where if the driveway were changed to conform fully to the existing standards, the applicant would not be able to get his car into and out of his garage. Commissioner B. McManus said it seems that the City told him he could do this when they granted the permits for the garage addition, and it would not be unreasonable for the applicant to be allowed to keep this driveway as is. Commissioner B. McManus said he believes the Commission should support him. 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 BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. Commissioner Betlej said there is also a requirement in the ordinance that says if it's a corner lot, it needs to be 30 ft. from the street. Commissioner Betlej read from the ordinance book which states "driveways are to be no greater than 25 ft wide at the property line and all driveways constructed to serve single family dwellings on a corner lot shall be set back a minimum of 30 ft. from the property line adjacent to the street corner ". Commissioner Betlej said it is his assumption that if the City gave the applicant reasonable use of the improvements as was previously approved; there would have been a variance that would have been approved as part of this if there was a discussion on this. Commissioner Betlej said the hardship would be no different than what was approved the first time, it's the curvature of the road that makes this difficulty. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH AS SUBMITTED, AND THE HARDSHIP BEING THE CURVATURE OF THE ROAD. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 PLANNING CASE #04 -26 Howard Adams 1241 Dodd Road Subdivision and Lot Combination Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 1241 Dodd Road, in which the applicant is seeking a variance to divide his existing property and add the rear portion of that property to an adjacent parcel. Mr. Grittman showed the piece of property that is to be joined with a property along Ivy Falls Avenue. Both lots would continue to remain in full conformance, and would also be over the maximum square footage. Mr. Grittman said there is another neighbor who expressed concern regarding the legal descriptions of the subdivision property. In the Planners review, it appears that the legals are appropriate, the language is similar because there are a number of parcels in the area that have shared the same original parcel number. Mr. Grittman said it must be confirmed that this parcel is documented correctly. Commissioner Miller asked if this was just a land transaction. Mr. Grittman said it is just trading a piece from one parcel to the next. Chair Lorberbaum asked that the Planner provide better maps that show homes, and asked if this was the best available map that technology could provide. Chair Lorberbaum said the map provided did not show which parcel would be joined with the other one. Chair Lorberbaum asked what could be done in the future to provide better information. Mr. Grittman said from the technology standpoint, this is the best information the City has. Mr. Grittman said survey maps are sometimes difficult to read, but he will work on finding ways to provide better maps in the future. Commissioner Dolan asked if there is an exception that if there is a subdivision and property is being handed from one lot to another, and there are no setback or other variance issues, would it need to come before the City? Mr. Grittman said it would have to come before the City for approval, but it would not need to be platted. Commissioner M. McManus referred to the Planners Report, under the Recommendation as it states, "The only non - conforming condition observed by staff is the existing lot width of the Dodd Road parcel." Commissioner M. McManus asked for more clarification. Mr. Grittman said the parcel that is being subdivided is 80 ft in width, and the zoning ordinance requires 100 ft. Mr. Grittman said this lot will always be non - conforming and nothing will change that in this action. Mr. Howard Adams, 1241 Dodd Road, said all he wants to do is sell the back part of the property to the adjoining lot on Ivy Falls Avenue to make that neighbor's lot larger and Mr. Adams' lot smaller. 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 BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND LOT COMBINATION AS PRESENTED, WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN TO ADD THE CONDITIONS LA., LB, AND 1.0 OF THE PLANNERS REPORT. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 PLANNING CASE #04 -27 Troy Randolph / David Odlaug 2122 Theresa Street Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 2122 Theresa Street, in which the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 6 ft tall fence within the street setback. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance requires such fences by permitted use meet the building setback of 30 ft. or be no more than 3 ft in height, however there is a clause in the ordinance where conditional use permit allows larger fences on corner or thru lots that can be built up to a maximum height of 6 ft. and maintain the 30% open requirement. In this case, the applicant is proposing to replace an existing fence, and the proposed fence meets the city requirements. Mr. David Odlaug, 2122 Theresa St. said there is an existing fence that is currently in compliance, and he wishes to construct a new fence in the exact same location to allow him to enclose his swimming pool. 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 BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6 FT. HIGH FENCE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE FENCE MEETS ALL THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CLAUSE. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbaum said she seconded this motion with the understanding that the new fence would be placed on the exact place the old fence was. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -28 Charles Skemp 1060 View Lane Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for a Conditional Use Permit for an addition to an existing garage. The applicant proposes to remove an existing, non - conforming shed and construct a 12 ft. x 12 ft. addition to the existing detached garage. The materials to be used for the proposed addition would match the existing structures, and would meet all required setbacks. Commissioner B. McManus asked why a conditional use permit was needed as the proposed structure is smaller than the maximum allowed. Mr. Grittman said all detached garages require a conditional use permit, and the expansion of an existing one falls into that category. Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 Mr. Skemp said he has an additional letter of support from neighbors and submitted this letter to Mr. Hollister 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 BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO A DETACHED GARAGE AS PRESENTED WITH THE FINDING THAT THIS WILL REMOVE AN EXISTING NON - CONFORMING CONDITION. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -29 St. Thomas Academy Conditional Use Permit, Variance Mr. Grittman reviewed a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow for the addition of two accessory structures to the campus of St. Thomas Academy. The primary structure is the addition of an air - supported structure to the west of the existing school buildings. The second building would serve as a storage building. Mr. Grittman said the school is currently in the process of campaigning for funds for a permanent structure, but because of crowding, the school is seeking a temporary solution by using a temporary structure until the permanent one can be constructed. Mr. Grittman said these uses are consistent with the principal use of the property, which is a school facility. The main issue is the nature of the building itself with the air - supported structure. Mr. Grittman reviewed a photograph taken from across Rogers Lake looking toward the school, and indicated that the existing buildings are not visible during full foliage months, and therefore has asked the school to provide information on how visible the new temporary structure would be. Mr. Grittman said the variance would be needed for the size of the building. Except for garages, accessory buildings are allowed a maximum of 225 sq. ft. individually, or 425 sq. 8. total on large properties. Mr. Grittman said these code requirements were written to address residential use properties, and schools are allowed in residential zones, but have different needs. As a result, Staff believes a hardship is met by the request, as the accessory structure seems to be a reasonable use to the facility. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has requested a time limit to extend their conditional use permit period for 6 years with the intent that would allow enough time to raise funds to construct a permanent facility. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the dome would show through the trees along the tree line represented by the photograph. Mr. Grittman said that would be a question for the applicant. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there is precedence for timelines for temporary structures and asked if the Planner feels this is an appropriate time frame. Mr. Grittman said he is unaware of any precedence of this type. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there were any standards for temporary structures that would give the City some guidelines. Mr. Hollister said it depends entirely on the Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 nature of the individual application. Mr. Hollister gave the example of Linder's Greenhouses, where Mr. Linder must come before the City each year to renew his permit. There are no written ordinances that cover this. Mr. Hollister said it would be recommended to impose some timeframe on this project, and give the school the 6 years they are asking for. By imposing a specific time limit on this would make clear that it is a temporary structure, and there is a need for a time limit. Mr. Hollister said he would expect the City would want to work to accommodate the school's and feels 6 years is reasonable. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there have been situations where the time limit was 2 years with a review for extension. Commissioner M. McManus said six years seems a little long to approve a temporary structure. Mr. Hollister said the City could stipulate in the approval that extensions can be granted by Council without the need to re -apply for a conditional use permit. Commissioner M. McManus referred to the letter from St. Thomas Academy, dated June 30, 2004, where it states "It has come to our attention that the building code may require that the air - structure facility contain a sprinkler system, if it is utilized more than 180 days per year. If necessary, we are prepared to take the facility down for the required time period each year to meet the building code definition of a temporary facility, thereby eliminating the need for a sprinkler system." Commission M. McManus asked Mr. Grittman to comment on this paragraph. Mr. Grittman said this would seem to be a way around the building code issue as a sprinkler system would then not be required. Commissioner M. McManus asked if this would not water down the safety issue of this facility. Mr. Grittman said the building code allows for this loophole and has assumed that the Code Enforcement Officer is comfortable with this solution. Commissioner M. McManus said she would be more comfortable that this issue be handled by City Staff instead of recommendations by the applicant to "get around" the building code requirement. Mr. Grittman said the Code Enforcement Department would review this plan. Commissioner Dolan said the dome may not be visible across the lake in the summer, but in the fall and winter it may be more visible with less foliage coverage. Commissioner Dolan asked if it were typical that there are no time limits on CUPs. Mr. Grittman said that was true. Commissioner Dolan said he was comfortable with the 6 years. Commissioner Dolan said he was concerned about the sprinkler system, and is not comfortable with the deflation of the dome to get around the code requirements, and believes there needs to be more discussion on this. Chair Lorberbaum said this school has a number of accessory buildings, and asked if there is any limit? Mr. Grittman said the school could have as many as the City is willing to approve. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant states there is a need for this structure because the school has been successful and they are growing. This facility has admitted students beyond the capacity of their facilities. Chair Lorberbaum asked if this is a problem that has been created by the applicant. Mr. Grittman said the question would be "do they need to do the construction now ", and if they were building a permanent structure, they would only need the conditional use permit and not a variance. It may then be construed that the issue has been created by the applicant. Commissioner Dolan said the discussion is really about the conditional use. Chair Lorberbaum said there also needs to be discussion on the variance and the bottom line is that the school says "we have to have it now before we have the money because we need it because we have too many students ". Chair Lorberbaum said this is a variance analysis. Commissioner Hesse said he thought the variance and the conditional use permit were for both structures. Mr. Grittman said he believes the variance applies to the dome structure as well. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the City allows air - supported structures, as tents and some other structures are not allowed. And would this type of structure need to be stated in the ordinance? Mr. Grittman said the ordinance does not list the things that are allowed and there is no language that specifically states the types of structure that are not allowed. Commissioner Betlej said if they did not meet the building code, the City could pull the permit, and does the Planning Commission need to consider that as part of their process? Mr. Grittman said the building code is typically a separate issue. Commissioner Betlej asked if this structure would be attached to the existing building. Mr. Grittman said it would be. Commissioner Betlej asked if the structure could be construed as an addition to the existing building. Mr. Grittman said it is considered a temporary Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 structure and therefore it was classified as an accessory structure. Chair Lorberbaum asked if it could be called a temporary attachment. Mr. Grittman said it probably could, but it would still need a conditional use permit. Commissioner Betlej asked if there is a separate part of the residential ordinance that talks about school rules that allows for appropriate buildings. Mr. Grittman said he was not aware of any. Mr. Hollister said there are multiple permitted uses and conditional uses listed in the R -1 single - family zone. St. Thomas Academy is in the R -1 zone, as the Country Day School is. Churches and schools are on the list and are allowed in R -1 zone by conditional use, and are all under the same restrictions in terms of setbacks, accessory structures, etc. as the typical detached single family home. There are no extra allowances built in to the R -1 zoning descriptions for non - single family uses. Commissioner Betlej asked if there were some temporary buildings in place when the Mendota Heights Jr. High was built. Mr. Hollister said there was a portable classroom in which the school district had to periodically renew their conditional use permit, and have come into City Hall multiple times to have it approved. Commissioner Betlej said this classroom was in place for at least 5 years Commissioner Miller said there is not enough information in the ordinance or the code for the Planning Commission to look at these types of structures. Commissioner Miller said this issue should not be rushed, as there are some public safety issues involved. Mr. Robert Ostlund, Interim Headmaster of St. Thomas Academy, said the need for this facility had existed for a long time. There are not more students than there were five or ten years ago. One gymnasium for 675 very active young men is not enough. These young men should be able to participate in athletic activities, but the 7th, Stn and 9th graders are being cut off due to lack of space. Inclimate weather also plays a big part in this need. Mr. Ostlund said a fundraising campaign has begun to raise the funds for a permanent field house and swimming pool facility as well, and it will take some time to raise the adequate funds, as well as building the permanent structure. There is a high level of need, and feeling about that need, in the St. Thomas community. Mr. Ostlund feels this is a good short-term temporary solution. Mr. Ostlund said there is no technology that provides sprinkler systems for these structures. The building code was amended recently and air - structures were caught into the building code because of their size. Mr. Ostlund said the school would not construct an unsafe facility for their students. Mr. Ostlund said the only way to meet the building code requirements at this time, until the ordinances are amended further, is to continuously take them down and put them back up. It's very expensive to do this as opposed to leaving them up, which also affects the energy costs that are incurred. Because of the current building codes, the school would have no choice but to inflate /deflate. Mr.Ostlund said the structure would be 36 ft high and would sit slightly lower than the existing gymnasium and other facilities, and would not be visible from the east. Commissioner M. McManus said she appreciates that it takes time to raise funds but would be more comfortable with a 3 -year temporary permit, review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner M. McManus said she would also like to have the fire chief review these plans and obtain feedback regarding the sprinkler system. Commissioner Dolan asked what type of structure would be built once the funds are raised. Mr. Ostlund said that has not been totally determined, but there will be a field house with several gymnasiums and a swimming pool. Mr. Ostlund said there would also be some classroom facilities as well. The plan would be to use the dome primarily during the winter season, and be placed where the field house would go. In the meantime, the pool facility would be the first to begin construction. Once the winter is over and the dome is taken down, the field house will begin construction. Commissioner Dolan asked what the school would do with the structure once it's down. Mr. Ostlund said it would be folded up and stored on pallets over the summer months. Commissioner Miller said there is a tremendous amount of work that will need to go into developing the pad this structure would sit on. It would be a very expensive undertaking. Commissioner B. McManus asked what the smaller facility would hold. Mr. Ostlund said this facility is located by the track and would store the track's equipment. Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 Commissioner B. McManus said these types of structures look pretty good and seem to be durable. Mr. Ostlund said a Teflon type of material is to be used. Mr. Ostlund said these structures have a life span of about 15 years. Mr. Ostlund said this structure would also be purchased brand new and then resold after it is no longer needed. Commissioner B. McManus asked how much it would cost to take this structure down each year. Mr. Ostlund said it would cost approximately $10,000 to $12,000 each time. Commissioner M. McManus asked why the structure would have to be inflated and deflated, and not simply be "unoccupied ". Mr. Bill Beyer, of Stageberg, Beyer, Sachs, Inc. Architects, said he met with Fire Marshall Paul Keyser, and the City Building Official as well. Mr. Beyer said that this structure falls into one of those gray areas that the code failed to address when the new international building code was adopted by the State of Minnesota in 2003. There have been a new building code and fire code in Minnesota since about one and a half years ago and for the first time, these air - supported structures are more specifically addressed. The word "temporary" had legal meaning in the building and fire codes and has been classified as a temporary building if it stays up no more than 180 days in a one -year period. One of the unintended consequences with the air - supported structures in the building code laws relates to sprinkler systems, and this type of structure can only be sprinkled unless there is another framework within the structure. The building code requires that the sprinkler pipes be rigid and supportive in a certain manner, and the flexible systems of the air - supported structure do not support a sprinkler system. There is a state building code committee that is currently working on addressing this issue. Commissioner B. McManus said he does not understand why this case needs to be reviewed every 3 years as other cities have had experiences with these types of buildings, and doesn't see why the school cannot go the 6 years. Commissioner B. McManus said he doesn't see why this structure needs to be inflated /deflated to prove it's not permanent when the school's intention is clear and should just as well secure it. Mr. Ostlund said he is hopeful that the building codes will soon address these issues. Commissioner M. McManus said part of her concern with the time frame has to do with the visual concerns of the neighbors. Commissioner M. McManus said she would not think it would be a hardship to have the permit for 3 years, with a review and approval by City Council to extend. Commissioner Hesse asked if there would be any other type of fire protection equipment associated with this structure. Mr. Ostlund said the Fire Marshall is requiring a water line be extended up near the building. The fire code also requires portable fire extinguishers be placed in the facility, as well as exit doors must be 50% wider than standard building requirements. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ONE (1) PERMANENT ACCESSORY BUILDING AND ONE (1) TEMPORARY AIR - SUPPORTED STRUCTURE, WITH A TIME LIMIT OF 3 YEARS WITH A REVIEW AND REAPPROVAL AFTERTHAT FOR A SECOND 3 BY THE CITY COUNCIL; AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE REASONABLE, INSTITUTIONAL USE OF THE LARGE SITE REQUIRES ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TO EXCEED THE REGULATIONS WHICH ARE WRITTEN FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN MIND. AYES 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 1 NAYS (Commissioner Dolan) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03 -04 Property Maintenance Ordinance Continued Discussion Mr. Hollister provided the following documents to the Commission for their review. 1. Strikeout / underline draft of the Property Maintenance that was submitted by City Attorney Dan Schleck for the last Planning Commission meeting. 2. Weeds and Noxious Vegetation Ordinance that is part of the City's current code. 3. Webpage from the University of Minnesota Extension Service, which talks about noxious weeds in Minnesota. 4. Cover memo of July 22, 2004 and version of the Property Maintenance Ordinance. Mr. Hollister said there was some confusion as to what the draft in the packet represents. This represents Mr. Hollister's attempt of a clean version of Mr. Schleck's strikeout/underlined form. This version also contains language to address Chair Lorberbaum's concerns in reference to aesthetics. Mr. Hollister said in reviewing the comments from the Planning Commission at the last meeting, there was discussion about weeds, natural prairie grasses, natural areas, manicured lawns, unmanicured lawns, etc., he also had a discussion with Code Enforcement Dan Gill. Mr. Hollister referred to Section 4.3.5: EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS, Item B Grounds for Exemptions. Mr. Hollister said a lot of discussion at the last meeting revolved around these issues. Commissioner B. McManus said he was quite satisfied with the July 22 version. Commissioner Miller said he appreciated the fact that the aesthetic opinions were removed, and is fine with this version. Commissioner Betlej said the weeds and noxious vegetation ordinance doesn't work because the code cannot be enforced until the lawn is 12 inches long, and by that time, it's overrun with weeds. There are other situations where people have sold the home and moved out of town, and ignored the home until the new homeowner has taken possession. Again, 12 inches is not an appropriate number to be used and would like to see it changed. Commissioner Betlej said this ordinance seems to talk only about residential uses, and does not address commercial and industrial properties and their outdoor and truck storage. Commissioner Betlej said the City should call this a Residential Property Maintenance Ordinance, as it seems to primarily pertain to residential properties. Chair Lorberbaum said she would change Section 12.5.6.a.2 - there should be a comma after trailers. Chair Lorberbaum commended Staff on a nice job. Commissioner Dolan referred to where the language reads "premises" has been changed to "property", and where the language reads "houses" now reads "dwellings ". Does "dwellings" include detached garages, and should garages have completed siding requirements as well? Commissioner Betlej said there are other uses in residential districts that are not dwellings or garages. Commissioner Dolan said the document needs to be more comprehensive, and there needs to be some changes in this area. Commissioner Dolan asked to have Section 12.5.3.a.16 change "followers" to "flowers ". 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 Commissioner Hesse asked about Section 12.5.10.b, which talks about notice to abate, and asked whether the 90 -day time frame has been agreed to. Commissioner Hesse feels that the Code Enforcement officer needs to have some leeway to work with certain situations. Mr. Hollister said he believes that Mr. Schleck would say the City, by rights, has the ability to grant clemency to enforcement to any provision of the ordinance if the individual successfully pleads a hardship. The 90 -day timeframe is more of a target time limit. If someone has an extreme hardship of a financial or seasonal nature, the Council is by definition able to grant a waiver or extension. Commissioner Betlej said this gives the Code Enforcement officer the right to enforce. Commissioner Hesse said he wants to have some clause that allows the City to be flexible in situations where they may have to come down on someone who has no control over their situation. Commissioner M. McManus said she like to see what would be done as far as community notices and education, and awareness of processes. She would like to focus on education first, and enforcement secondly. She also would like more clarification on the fine /penalty processes. Commissioner M. McManus said she would also like to have the ordinance show gender references as appropriate. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the City has obligated itself to follow these instructions. Mr. Hollister said he will discuss city - owned property with Mr. Schleck and it is hoped that the City will properly behold to its own ordinances. The City should and tries to live up to its own standards. VERBAL REVIEW— Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #04 -18 Eugene Priborkin, 2361 Apache Court, Variance PLANNING CASE #04 -19 PLANNING CASE #04 -20 PLANNING CASE #04 -21 PLANNING CASE #04 -22 PLANNING CASE #04 -24 Other City Council Actions: Dennis Corrigan, 1309 Furlong Avenue, Variance Antonio Postiglione, 562 Fremont Avenue, Variance Tom and Tracy Stute, 1050 Theresa Street, CUP Mendakota Country Club, 2075 Mendakota Drive, CUP Convent of the Visitation School, Wetlands Permit Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Thomas McEllistrom, 1007 William Court. => Received a 20 ft front yard setback variance over a year ago and is now requesting an extension of the deadline as he had not started the building addition. The City Council denied this extension due to the fact the applicant now wants to demolish his existing home and build a new one. These changes will have to come back to the Planning Commission for review. Robert Alvarez, 1167 Dodd Road => Requested subdivision and variance was denied by the City Council. Mr. Alvarez is now planning on remodeling his existing home, which straddles the lot line, in order to have that home be totally on one lot so that he could then build a home on the vacant lot. 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 27, 2004 COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:10 PM. (It is noted that Commissioner M. McManus left the meeting before adjournment) 4 AYES 0 NAYS Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 13