Loading...
2004-09-28 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting September 28, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2004 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 29, 2004 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:30 pm. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Betlej, Dolan, and Hesse. Those excused: Commissioner M. McManus. City Staff present were City Engineer Sue McDermott and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Approval of August 24, 2004 Minutes The following corrections were made Page 8, under Further Discussion, 8`h paragraph, should read: "Chair Lorberbaum withdrew her motion to combine the front porch and rear deck issues into a single motion." Page 15, second paragraph, add this last sentence: "Chair Lorberbaum said there was an applicant earlier tonight that proceeded with the completion of their work before coming to the City for approvals. Chair Lorberbaum said it is certain that the City knows the rules, and the bids are already open before Staff has come to the City for the approvals. Ms. McDermott said it was a matter of getting the plan finalized and wanting to have it done before this was brought forward to the Planning Commission. Ms. McDermott said staff does not intend to do the work on the golf course until late September /early October, and it has been assumed that this case would be approved. Chair Lorberbaum asked for confirmation from Ms. McDermott that no work will be started until the City Council grants final approval. Ms. McDermott provided that na'nrnnce " Page 18, 16`h bullet should read: "Chair Lorberbaum asked if there were any tradeoffs with the trees versus the pavers. Mr. Fefercorn said it was determined that this area would be better served by having pavers installed to allow for more gathering space, whereas the trees would not give that opportunity for openness. The sumac is quite dense there and will be spreading naturally to provide adequate aesthetics to the area." Page 20, third paragraph from bottom of page, fifth and sixth sentences should read: "Chair Lorberbaum said this could include a boat, kids' cars, k4ds that are driving, etc. Commissioner Dolan said it seems that people who have single - family lots that are rgreater is great than four acres.." COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2004 AS CORRECTED. 3 AYES 0 NAYS 3 ABSTENTIONS (Commissioners B. McManus, Betlej, and Hesse MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2004 HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #04 -38 Jeff Closemore 1527 Vandall Street Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for construction of a fence along a side property line adjacent to a street right of way, and within 100 feet of a designated wetland area. The street right of way, designated at 4th Street, has been improved with a bike path, and is not considered a full roadway. Mr. Grittman said the applicant gains access to his property from Vandall Street. Mr. Grittman said because of the closeness and daily use of the bike path, the applicant desires to construct this fence, which is a black - coated vinyl chain link fence, to provide privacy and deter bike path users from entering his yard. Mr. Grittman said the location of the proposed fence would appear to be at least 70 feet or more from the edge of the wetland and Staff believes this fence would not interfere with the wetland. Mr. Jeff Closemore, 1527 Vandall Street, said he also has pets and the fence is necessary to keep them on his property. Commissioner Betlej asked what the purpose was for the woodpile, which lies behind the applicant's property. Mr. Closemore said this wood belongs to his neighbor and is in on his neighbor's property. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant to explain the usage of the lot behind his property. Mr. Closemore said this is private property, which is owned by the neighbor, and he is not aware of any particular use. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Truce, 1435 Dodd Road, asked for clarification of the location of the fence in relation to the wetlands. Mr. Grittman reviewed the map to indicate this location. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLAND PERMIT AS PRESENTED. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -39 Paul Wild 813 Hazel Court Wetland Permit Request Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2004 Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for the construction of an attached carport structure over an existing concrete pad. The carport would be approximately 14 feet from the side property line and is proposed to be 12 feet in width, 32 feet in depth. This addition would result in total garage space not in excess of the zoning standard of 1,200 square feet and seems to meet all setback requirements. Mr. Grittman said that because the concrete pad has already been installed, there is no concern regarding any additional impervious surfaces and there is no indication of any additional infringement upon the wetlands. Commissioner B. McManus said he is concerned that an overhang from the roof would create additional dripping onto the ground and suggested the applicant install a gutter to deter any erosion from happening. Commissioner Miller asked if there was any feedback from the neighbors as there were no signature sheets included in the packet. Mr. Grittman said they have not received any feedback from neighbors. Commissioner Betlej asked if the Planning Commission has any jurisdiction to ask about building materials of the carport. Mr. Grittman said this was only a wetlands permit request and materials would not be in question at this time. Mr. Grittman said the carport structure appears to be of metal and the Building Official will review those issues. Chair Lorberbaum said the existing concrete pad is in the wetlands and asked if this is an issue? Chair Lorberbaum asked if the applicant had previously received approval to construct this pad. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has on record a request for a wetland permit, but is unaware that it pertained to the concrete pad. Mr. Hollister said concrete pads do not require building permits, even if they are in the wetland area. Mr. Hollister said Chair Lorberbaum raises an interesting question, and even though the City does not require permits for concrete pads, would the construction of such pad into a wetland area a trigger the need for the permit? Mr. Grittman said that typically, a permit would be needed as it creates alterations of the landscape in the buffer zone. Mr. Hollister said it's possible that Mr. Wild acquired a permit in the past for this pad. Mr. Paul Wild, 813 Hazel Court, said he would be willing to install a gutter on the roof. He also considered submitting a landscape plan for screening but was undecided whether he would change any of the landscaping. Mr. Wild talked to the City regarding a dilapidated retaining wall that was originally in this area, and was told by the City that he did not need a permit for the pad. Mr. Wild shared a picture of what the carport would look like. He said he wanted to use this area to provide more parking space for his family and this will help keep the family's cars from parking on the street. 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. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLAND PERMIT AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT GUTTERS BE INSTALLED TO INTERCEPT DRAINAGE FROM THE ROOF SO THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER EROSION OF THAT AREA. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -40 R. H. Joseph Shaw 999 Wagon Wheel Trail Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2004 Wetlands Permit Mr. Grittman introduced the case in which the applicant is proposing to construct a single family home at 999 Wagon Wheel Trail. Commissioner B. McManus said the map that was provided in the packet did show the location of 999 Wagon Wheel Trail. Commissioner B. McManus said he had spent considerable time trying to find the location. Commissioner B. McManus asked the planner to be more specific in the maps that are presented. Mr. Grittman said the property is a newly subdivided lot. A Wetland Permit is required to complete grading that would accommodate the home. The map shows the proposed house location and it appears that the house itself will not create any negative impacts to the wetland area. Mr. Grittman indicated on the map a line that was drawn showing the actual wetland, but in fact, the line was to be drawn showing the 100 ft. buffer line and made that correction for the Planning Commission's review. Mr. Grittman said the proposed home would not interfere with the buffer area, but that there is a concern with the grading that will be done during construction as it may encroach into the wetland. Mr. Grittman indicated where the string rule would apply in this case, and it appears the proposed home location would comply with this rule. The applicant has indicated that another wetland permit may be requested for the landscaping and final grading at a future date. Commissioner Betlej asked if the Planner reviewed any grading plans at this time. Mr. Grittman said he has not. Commissioner Betlej asked how a decision can be made if there were no grading plans available. Mr. Grittman explained that the grading that will occur during construction of the home would be temporary and that the process of the construction (truck traffic coming in and out) may encroach on the wetland. The applicant will have to come back to request another wetland permit if any future permanent landscaping is to be done that may encroach into the wetland area. Commissioner Betlej asked if the Planning Commission could make a finding that a wetlands permit is not necessary at this time? Commissioner Betlej said the Planning Commission could make the suggestion to the applicant to be wary of any encroachment to the buffer of the wetland during construction. Chair Lorberbaum said it would also be recommended that the City refund any permit fees to the applicant. Mr. Grittman expressed his concern that the applicant may still inadvertently go into the wetland buffer and may still need to keep the permit. Mr. R. H. Joseph Shaw, 1115 Elway, St. Paul, MN, is the current property owner of 999 Wagon Wheel Trail. Mr. Shaw said one of the reasons he purchased this property was because of the wetland, and it is his intent to preserve the wetland. Commissioner Betlej asked the applicant if, during the actual construction of the foundation, he anticipates any encroachment within the 100 ft. setback to the wetland. Mr. Shaw said the house will not encroach into this setback, however it is anticipated that construction equipment may come across some of the buffer zone, but it is his intent to return this buffer to its present state. Commissioner Betlej said a grading plan might be required before the construction begins, and that may push back the timeframe of the construction. Mr. Shaw said he would comply if the City Council determines a grading plan must be submitted. Chair Lorberbaum suggested that the applicant place a silt fence around the wetland area to deter any traffic and grading from encroachment into the buffer. Commissioner Hesse said that might be a question for the contractor. Commissioner Hesse said there appears to be a lot of property to the front side of the proposed home that could be used for staging of soils or movement of vehicles. There could be a condition placed upon the contractor, or the Planning Commission could recommend that the applicant bring the contractor with him to the City Council meeting to explain the intention of the construction and to address any wetland concerns. Chair Lorberbaum said she is hearing from the Planning Commission at this time that based on the understanding that the applicant bring the recommended actions to the City Council a silt fence would deter any encroachment of the wetland area. Mr. Shaw said that the most damage that would presumably be done to the wetland during construction would only be to the crabgrass, and no trees or major shrubbery would be affected. 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2004 Commissioner Dolan asked if the Planning Commission typically reviews grading plans, as he does not recall every doing so. Mr. Grittman said grading plans for single - family home construction are not typically reviewed. Commissioner Dolan said he was comfortable with Commissioner Hesse's suggestions. Commissioner B. McManus said he would be inclined to encourage the Planning Commission to approve this if the applicant can give assurances that regardless of where the staging of soil and equipment would be placed, that the contractor would guarantee no serious erosion or disturbance of the buffer to the wetland. Commissioner Miller asked if the applicant what his intention was regarding the driveway. Mr. Shaw presented a map showing how the home and driveway will be laid out. Chair Lorberaum said the applicant appears to be asking for approval for a house that the applicant is not exactly sure where the final location will be, and that it appears the home will not be within the wetland buffer. Mr. Shaw said this is correct. Commissioner Hesse said the concern is what may or may not happen in this case, as it pertains to how the construction will actually affect the wetland. In this case, the applicant could simply be made aware of the implications of any construction practices that would potentially affect the wetland area. Commissioner Hesse said it is unclear as to why the applicant would need a permit based on what he may or may not do, and that the applicant could simply be forewarned about the implications of going into the wetland area. Chair Lorberbaum said the location of the home needs to be known and suggested that the applicant revise the plans for the City Council to review. Commissioner Betlej suggested that the applicant could simply stake out the buffer area and that the applicant during the process of construction of the home would not go beyond that line, and it would result in no need for a wetland permit. Commissioner Betlej said that the applicant will probably have to come back to the Planning Commission with the grading plans after all the final drawings are completed. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant if Staff has now received the final location of the home. Mr. Shaw said they have not yet received this information. Commissioner B. McManus asked when this would be done. At this time, Mr. Shaw indicated on the map, his choice for the final location of the home. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Truce, 1435 Dodd Road, asked who would be responsible for any detriment to the wetland. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant would be responsible. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKE A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR A WETLAND PERMIT AFTER REVIEWING THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TODAY SOLELY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME. HOWEVER, THERE WILL BE A REQUIREMENT THAT A WETLAND PERMIT BE APPROVED WHEN FINAL GRADING AND LANDSCAPING OF THE PROPERTY, AND IN WHICH THE APPLICANT MUST COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO OBTAIN THAT WETLAND PERMIT. THIS MOTION ALSO MAKES THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE 100 FT. SETBACK TO THE WETLAND BE STAKED OUT BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION BEGINS IN ORDER TO GIVE THE Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2004 CONTRACTORS FULL NOTICE OF THAT WETLAND DELINEATION, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT TO BE MOVING ANY VEHICLES OR STORING ANYTHING WITHIN THE WETLAND BUFFER AREA. Further Discussion Commission Dolan asked if it is customary to stake out the wetland, and is the Planning Commission treating this case like any other property? Chair Lorberbaum said she does not feel this is any different, but that the suggestion of the staking and silt fence is only indicate to everyone where the buffer area lies. Ms. McDermott said it was common to place silt fences around wetland areas, and does not believe the City would be asking of something they would not ask of anyone else. Commissioner Betlej said he is comfortable with staking the property at this point. Commissioner Hesse asked if the Planning Commission has identified that there would actually be some grading at some point within the wetland. Commissioner Betlej said it is submitted on the plan that the applicant would be going into the wetland buffer area with grading. Commissioner Dolan asked if it is then being suggested that the applicant come back before the Planning Commission with any grading and/or landscaping plans. Commissioner Betlej said the motion would require that the applicant would have to come back to a wetlands permit before final grading and landscaping plan would be allowed. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #02 -41 Somerset Country Club 1416 Dodd Road Conditional Use Permit, Wetland Permit, and Variances Mr. Grittman introduced the case where the Somerset Country Club is seeking approvals to construct a new maintenance building that would replace a smaller, existing maintenance building in the same location. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site map, showing the location of the proposed building and parking lot. The following is a brief description of the requests: => Conditional Use Permit to accommodate the addition to a golf course ■ The proposed new building is a precast concrete structure to be built into a berm. It was determined that the top few feet of the 18 -ft. high building would be visible from the adjoining neighborhood. It is noted that the existing building is 14- ft., and that there is a significant number of trees and shrubs along the boundary. The building is to be constructed of metal, built in two sections, with a third section extending to the west. The roof of this building is visible to the north. The plans do not indicate the proposed height of the building addition. => A Wetland Permit to allow the construction and land alteration within the 100 ft. wetland buffer ■ The City is currently working with Somerset Country Club on storm water management in this area, including a pond expansion and other improvements. This project includes paving and curbing, which will result in the collection of parking lot runoff. => Variances: • Variance #1 — for the number and size of accessory buildings. 4 The zoning ordinance limits accessory buildings in this district to three, with a gross total of 425 square feet. Both proposed building would be larger and one of the issues that were identified is the assumption that to operate a golf course, the restriction on the size of accessory buildings is unreasonable in that the operations of a golf course would require larger buildings to properly operate. Staff has defined a hardship that a smaller building(s) would not make reasonable use of this property. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of this variance. • Variance #2 — for the height of the structure. Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2004 4 The building height of the proposed structure would be 18 -ft. The ordinance requires 15 -ft. Staff believes there could be some changes to the building, such as using a "mansard" design, would make the building comply with the 15 -ft. rule, and there does not recommend approval of this variance as requested. ■ Variance #3 — for the setback of the parking area from Emerson Avenue. 4 The ordinance requires a 30 -ft setback, the proposed site plan shows a setback of 6 -ft at the closest point. 4 Staff believes there is no other alternative sites for this parking lot, and therefore recommends the variance. Staff believes that it would be unreasonable to expect a golf course to operate without adequate maintenance buildings and associated parking. Chair Lorberbaum said Commissioner Dolan has excused himself from this case. Commissioner Hesse asked the Planner to point out the building that is suggested to be modified in terms of height. Mr. Grittman indicated the building in question. Mr. Grittman explained how that building could be modified to address their height requirement. Chair Lorberbaum asked if it would make sense to combine the two buildings into one to lessen the impact. Mr. Grittman said he is not sure that the impact would be lessened, and he is not sure how they would do that and be able to have proper usage of the building. Chair Lorberbaum asked if it would make sense to move the parking lot closer between the two buildings. Mr. Grittman explained how the parking lot was laid out and believes that moving the parking lot anywhere else would limit access to the buildings. Commissioner Betlej asked if the wetland permit was for all the uses. Mr. Grittman said the wetland permit was primarily for the parking lot. Commissioner Betlej asked if the parking lot would be paved, guttered and have proper drainage. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner B. McManus asked why there is a request for the variance for the number of buildings, as it appears that there are already two buildings, and the proposed is for two buildings. Mr. Grittman said when buildings are being removed; the golf course will loose all the rights they had to that building. It is also unknown to the Planner of how many accessory buildings there are on the golf course, and the variance is needed to ask for new buildings to keep within the zoning requirements. Mr.Grittman said if the applicant were to merely remodel the existing structure, a variance would not have been needed. Representatives for the Somerset Golf Course were present, and included Anthony Dollerschell, of R J Ryan Construction and James Bade, Superintendent of Somerset Country Club Golf Course. Mr. Dollerschell said the applicant is willing to drop the height of the building to 17 -ft. The reason for the requested height is to accommodate the owner's needs to maintain equipment and machinery. Mr. Dollerschell said the existing building is approximately 14 to 15 feet in height. Commissioner Hesse asked if the applicant has had any discussions with the Planner or Staff regarding reconfiguration of the roof, and if the applicant would reconsider changes that would keep the building in compliance. Mr. Dollerschell said the building is precast with a membrane roof, structurally sloped to the front. Mr. Dollerschell said there is a parapit that goes completely around the building because the building is only 45 -ft. wide and this presents no options for having the roofline altered. Commissioner Hesse asked what the use of 13 parking spaces was for. Mr. said there are about 16 employees that would need to park in this lot. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the applicant could place a mansard roof on the building. Mr. Grittman said it was possible to do this as the mansard is attached to the building sidewall and would not affect the membrane portion. Chair Lorberbaum told the applicant that they can still have what they want, and keep the buildings within compliance. Chair Lorberbaum asked if a landscape plan could be provided to the City Council addressing screening from the neighbors. Mr. Dollerschell said the golf course would be working to place adequate screening around the area. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the applicant could find a way to have the building retain the 18 -ft, but not protrude higher than the existing one does. Mr. Dollerschell said that could not be done due to drainage issues. Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2004 Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Truce, 1435 Dodd Road, said he enjoyed the golf course and the staff does a good job. The resident who resides at 515 Emerson Avenue said he lives adjacent to that area of the golf course and is most affected from the maintenance area. His main concern is that there is adequate screening from the street and expressed concerns about the parking. Seeing no one else 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. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant to address issues raised by the resident of 515 Emerson Avenue. Mr. Dollerschell said the golf course is landlocked and is limited because of the layout of the golf course's tees and fairways. If the parking lot was placed between the two buildings, it becomes an issue of accessing the buildings. Mr. Dollerschell said the height of the building is needed for the size of the equipment. The view of the back of the building will be minimized by the berm and will only show about 5 feet of actual building. Commissioner B. McManus said the parking lot could not be moved in any other way due to the topography being very steep. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THEY ARE REASONABLE IN TERMS OF SIZE AND NUMBERS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOLF COURSE; IT IS ALSO MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLAND PERMIT WITH THE FINDING THAT THE PARKING LOT PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED WILL IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE WETLAND BY RE- DIRECTING SURFACE RUNOFF AWAY FROM THE WETLAND AND INTO THE STORM SEWER, AS BASED ON THE PLAN SHOWING CURB AND GUTTER AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM; IT IS ALSO MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE MAXIMUM SIZE AND NUMBER OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AS PROPOSED; IT IS ALSO MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AS PROPOSED (17 -FT), AS IT WAS DETERMINED THIS WOULD HAVE VISIBLE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORS; AND THERE ARE BEEN ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTIONS FROM THE PLANNER'S OFFICE WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE BUILDING TO KEEP MORE WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE STILL ACHIEVING DESIRED RESULTS; IT WAS ALSO MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE PARKING LOT SETBACK. Further discussion Commissioner B. McManus said he agrees almost totally with the motion, but asked if the Planning Commission is just tinkering with the big blue building for the sake of tinkering with it? What would be the benefit of putting on a mansard roof on a vehicle repair facility that people really can't see, and which is better, 6 or 7 feet of wall or 6 or 7 feet of shingles? Commissioner Betlej asked if viewing shingles or a concrete wall would be more in character in a residential neighborhood. Chair Lorberbaum asked to add an amendment to the motion, that there be screening to the area that would be year- round. Commissioner Betlej and Commissioner Hesse accepted the amendment to the motion. 5 AYES Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2004 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the Hearings. CANCELLATION OF THE DECEMBER, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chair Lorberbaum said it has been traditional that the December Planning Commission meetings have been cancelled with the understanding that should there be any issues arise that can not wait until the January meeting, the Planning Commission will be notified to call a December Planning Commission Meeting. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CANCEL THE DECEMBER 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING UNLESS STAFF CALLS FOR THE NEED OF THE MEETING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED RESCHEDULING OF THE MARCH 22, 2005 MEETING TO MARCH 30, 2005 CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RESCHEDULE THE MARCH 22, 2005 MEETING TO MARCH 30, 2005. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW — Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #04 -30 Eric Miller, 1245 Knollwood Lane Critical Area Permit Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #04 -32 Valarie Namen, 964 Kay Avenue Conditional Use Permit Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #04 -33 Lawrence Goff, 675 West Marie Variance and Wetland Permit Ms. McDermott updated on Mr. Goffs situation regarding the construction of the swimming pool and his concern with the wetlands at the rear of his property. Ms. McDermott said Staff reviewed the situation and determined that the past few years have been very dry, and has affected many wetlands in the area. Staff will convey this information and their findings to Mr. Goff PLANNING CASE #04 -34 PLANNING CASE #04 -35 Gregory Hoffineyer, 546 Hiawatha Avenue Conditional Use Permit and Variance Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission United Properties Sign Setback Variance Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #04 -36 Dominic Alfonso, So. Freeway Rd. Variance Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2004 Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #04 -37 City of Mendota Heights Wetlands Permit Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #02 -11 Village at Mendota Heights Civic and Green Space Plan Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Property Maintenance Ordinance 4 Ms. McDermott said it was her understanding that there is a tour scheduled for Saturday, October 16`h at 8:00 am for the City Council and staff members to view various areas. Mr. Hollister said this "workshop of wheels" is only for the purpose of looking at various scenarios that could possibly be impacted by the proposed ordinance. Mr. Hollister said for clarification, that this tour is not for enforcement purposes of any kind, but to promote discussion regarding the proposed ordinance. 4 Mr. Hollister said it would be estimated that the earliest the Planning Commission would be able to review findings and hold a public hearing would be at the November meeting. Mr. Hollister said the City Council currently has the "final draft" of the ordinance and it's up to the City Council to determine whether they are comfortable with they have. 4 Commissioner Betlej asked if commercial properties would be included on the tour. Mr. Hollister said they would not be. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:15PM. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 10