Loading...
2004-11-23 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 23, 2004 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 23, 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, Hesse, and M. McManus. Those excused: Commissioner Dolan. City Staff present were City Engineer Sue McDermott and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Approval of October 26, 2004 Minutes COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2004 AS PRESENTED. 5 AYES 0 NAYS I ABSTENTION (Commissioner Hesse) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #04 -43 Dennis and Lori Galligan 1845 Hunter Lane Critical Area Permit Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a critical area permit for 1845 Hunter Lane. The property has been before the City Council for a previous critical area permit for construction of the home and driveway. The applicant had since done additional work on the property including landscaping and construction of three retaining walls, as well as having fill brought onto the site. Mr. Grittman explained the criteria for the critical area permit, and added that there are also maximum requirements for fill; and there are thresholds in place where depending on the amount of fill, different procedures must be taken in the permitting process. The ordinance requires that fill and retaining walls be kept to a maximum height of 5'. There is a standard in the ordinance that changes the threshold of review when there are more than 100 cubic yards of fill or land alterations. In this case, it appears that approximately 147 cubic yards of fill was placed on the property. At the 100 cubic yard mark, the review process comes through the Planning Commission and City Council. If the fill is below 100 cubic yards, the process is to be reviewed by the City Council only. Mr. Grittman said the three retaining walls are part of the permit request as well as the fill and landscaping. The applicant has provided a landscape plan, which identifies the planting being proposed. Mr. Grittman reviewed the landscaping plan. Mr. Grittman said Staff feels the walls, landscaping and fill is consistent with the intended requirements of the critical area ordinance and recommends approval of the permit. Commissioner M. McManus referred to the background materials, under the analysis and said the explanation of the purpose of the walls was to: 1) "maintain grade level that preserves an existing tree on the neighbors' property to the north ", 2) "to hold fill for the driveway in this area ". Commissioner M. McManus asked if it was the opinion of the planner that these explanations were of reasonable fashion. Mr. Grittman said it appears that this is the purpose of the walls and explained his findings. Commissioner Hesse asked Mr. Grittman if the work has already been done. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman if the City Council granted the applicant a permit to construct the home or to remodel it. Mr. Grittman said this was a remodeling project. Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 Chair Lorberbaum asked if the wall was there to support the fill, or was the fill there to support the wall? Mr. Grittman said the walls were there to support the fill. Chair Lorberbaum said that the fill is then the issue as they would not need the wall if there were no fill. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant has come forward because the fill that was brought on to the site was about 50% more than allowed. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the City was legally allowed to grant a permit for the walls if the permit for the fill was not obtained? Mr. Grittman said the fill permit issue would be a separate issue from the Critical Area ordinance. The City could issue a permit for the retaining wall and have a fill permit issued later. Chair Lorberbaum asked which should come first and how would the City grant one permit without saying the other one is okay. Mr. Grittman said if the City would issue a permit for the retaining wall, there would probably be some indication that the City will grant the fill permit. Commissioner Miller asked if all the walls were within the side yard setbacks. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Mr. Dennis Galligan, 1845 Hunter Lane, apologized for being unaware of this problem and said he has always heard that anything within the 40 -ft. setback is what he had to be concerned with, and he has left everything on the bluff side undisturbed. Mr. Galligan said he should have asked more questions regarding some of the construction on the front side of the home. Mr. Galligan said a lot of the landscaping is not done, as the sod has not been laid and the driveway is not yet in. There is currently crushed rock in the driveway and the applicant was told to stop all activity. Commissioner M. McManus asked the applicant if the original retaining wall was to support the air conditioning equipment. Mr. Galligan said that was correct. Commissioner M. McManus asked how the applicant learned about the need to come back to the City Council and Planning Commission. Mr. Galligan said the City Inspector told him to stop all construction and come before the City for the required permits. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification of the purpose of the retaining walls. Mr. Galligan said one of the walls has been constructed around a tree, which is on a neighbor's property. That neighbor said he was fine with the Galligans to place the wall as constructed. Another retaining wall was constructed to hold up the driveway to alleviate any grass /dirt sloping toward the neighbor to the side. Mr. Galligan said his builder felt it was more beneficial to construct a wall to stop any water drainage. The third wall is to hold up the three air conditioning units. Commissioner Hesse asked if the driveway retaining wall contains a lip to redirect water runoff away from the neighbor. Mr. Galligan said the wall was about 2 blocks higher than the driveway and shared a picture of the driveway. Chair Lorberbaum said she stopped by the home and asked if any changes occurred to the back of the home, such as removal of any shrubbery. Mr. Galligan said there was only grass in that area and no shrubs were removed. Mr. Galligan shared a picture of the rear of the old house. Mr. Galligan said the foundation of the back of the home is the same so there was no major damage to the land. Chair Lorberbaum asked for clarification that the only grade change was on the bluff side. Mr. Galligan said that was correct. Commissioner Betlej asked if there was a concrete patio to the rear of the home. Mr. Galligan said there was a small concrete patio and has since been removed. Mr. Galligan said there would be a new small patio constructed in that area, around the indoor pool area. Commissioner Miller asked if the three retaining walls were on the original remodeling plan. Mr. Galligan said there was no landscaping plan when they applied for the permit as they did not know they needed one. Mr. Galligan said the driveway and front sidewalk was included in the plan, and said no one told him that a landscape plan was required. Commissioner Miller said this would be a lesson learned that the City needs to be more involved in the building processes and that the home looks great. Commissioner B. McManus asked for a photograph of the bluff view from the house. Mr. Galligan shared a picture of the back yard but does not show the actual bluff line. Commissioner B. McManus asked if any vegetation was removed from the bluff. Mr. Galligan said some of the grass was removed as the construction equipment was in that area. Mr. Galligan said there is a silt fence further toward the bluff area and on the other side of that fence is bluff area and grass. Mr. Galligan said this area has not been touched. Commissioner B. McManus asked the applicant when he was approached by the City. Mr. Galligan said it was about three weeks ago. Commissioner B. McManus asked when construction of the walls and fill was completed. Mr. Galligan said it was about four weeks Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 ago. Mr. Galligan said he had a letter from the City saying that he could go ahead and put in the driveway and sod, and some of the fill was brought in to prepare the driveway. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Katz, 1855 Hunter Lane, handed out a letter from Faegre & Benson LLP, dated November 23, 2004, which states that "It is understood that Mr. Paul Katz has been instructed to confine his comments to the case before the Planning Commission." After Mr. Katz handed the letter out, he promptly left the room. Mrs. Vicky Katz, 1855 Hunter Lane, said that there has been a large amount of mature trees removed. The Katzes are the immediate next door neighbor to the applicant. Mrs. Katz said she had pictures of the trees that were removed but did not have them with her. Chair Lorberbaum told Mrs. Katz that it would be a good idea if she brought them to the City Council meeting. Mr. Grittman referred to the applicant's drawing and said that anything within the walls would be legal for the applicant to remove trees. It is on the bluff side of the wall where the bluff begins and any vegetation removal in that area would be illegal. Mr. Galligan shared a picture, which shows the old house and the bluff line. Chair Lorberbaum said it appears there is only grass in that area of the rear yard. 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. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum said that since the Planner stated that the walls were installed to support the fill, which is in violation of the ordinance because the applicant has not obtained a permit. Chair Lorberbaum said that since the Planner has said that recommending approval of this request would also be recommending approval for the fill, she would respectfully ask for a recommendation from the Planning Commission to deny this request until the applicant has gone through the critical area permit requirement for approval of the fill. Based on this finding, CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B.MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS PRESENTED. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said for the amount of fill used, does the applicant need a critical area permit before they can do it? Mr. Grittman said for any fill, a critical area permit is required. Mr. Grittman said the way the ordinance reads is that it's a 100 cubic yard threshold, and because the applicant has exceeded this amount, he has been required to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council to have the fill approved. Commissioner Miller asked if the request for a permit for the fill is included in the critical area permit? Mr. Grittman said it was his understanding that this was part of the critical area permit request being presented before the Planning Commission at this time. Chair Lorberbaum asked if Staff needs to post a notice of the critical area permit with the inclusion of the fill, or can the Planning Commission recommended approval for a fill permit even though the applicant has not filled out an application for a fill permit? Mr. Grittman said there is not a separate application for a fill permit. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the City must give notice to residents if there will be discussion regarding fill? Commissioner Hesse said there is information regarding the fill in the Planner's Report. Chair Lorberbaum said she still questions whether or not the neighbors have been notified of the fill, and if there has not been proper notice, the Planning Commission cannot make a recommendation for approval. Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 Commissioner M. McManus said in the background analysis, she believes she read that that fill was not an issue. Commissioner M. McManus said now she is hearing that it is an issue. Chair Lorberbaum said that is why she is asking the Planner to help her interpret the law and show that proper notice was given, and the applicant has exceeded the fill allowed without going to the Planning Commission. The amount of fill has been calculated by the Planner based on the applicant's information. Chair Lorberbaum said that the applicant openly came to the City to say that he and his builder /architect believe that the fill has exceeded the maximum amount. Chair Lorberbaum said there are processes that need to be followed, and the applicant needs to get permission for the fill, and then go through the process and approve the walls at the same time. Commissioner Hesse said he is not sure if there is anything missing as the information provided to the Commission talks about not only the walls, but the fill, and if the issue is that the applicant must come to the Planning Commission because of the amount he has brought in, that is the process the applicant is going through. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Planning Commission can recommend approval for something that is not part of this application now, or does the City now have to post a public notice to neighbors about what permit is being recommended. Commissioner Hesse asked where is the fill issue not a part of the application? Mr. Grittman said it is the concern of Chair Lorberbaum that the issue of the fill has not been specifically listed in the public hearing that was sent to neighbors, and that the public notice only referenced the three retaining walls as part of the critical area permit. Commissioner Hesse asked if public notices are typically more detailed, or is there something in there that references the availability of the plans that are public for their review? Mr. Grittman said that typically, public notices are not very detailed. Commissioner Betlej said it would be practical to say that a public hearing regarding retaining walls would have discussion regarding fill. Commissioner Betlej said that if this application were to come back to the Planning Commission, what additional information would be presented? Chair Lorberbaum said there probably would be the exact amount of information provided, but the question is, can the Planning Commission recommend approval of a permit for fill without posting a public notice as this is a legal issue. Mr. Grittman said he believes that the permit granted would be for a critical area permit which is inclusive of other activities, fill being one of those. Mr. Grittman said the City does not have a specific fill permit. Mr. Grittman said he believes it has been the City's practice not to itemize every individual activity but try to be generally description. Chair Lorberbaum said it is her understanding that the Planning Commission can legally recommend that the applicant obtain a permit for the fill at this time. Mr. Grittman said he believes that would be correct and that it's part of the critical area permit package. Commissioner M. McManus said she would not support this motion because the planner's report states the three components that the Commission has reviewed, which is what she has used for her analysis of the critical area permit. Commissioner M. McManus said it is her understanding that the critical area permit also includes the fill permit. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the fill permit must be included in the language of the motion? Mr. Grittman said it should be included in the language so it is clear of the recommendation for approval. Commissioner B. McManus referred to a letter from the City of Mendota Heights to Bill Robey of J. P. Bush Homes, dated October 27, 2004. Commissioner B. McManus said according to this letter, the City has made a number of requirements of the contractor. Item #4 states "You may plant trees, bushes, shrubs or other plantings provided that the plantings are entirely within the Galligans' own property and adhere to the requirements of the enclosed Critical Area Ordinance. You may not remove any existing vegetation on the property unless specifically permitted to do so as part of your Critical Area Permit application ". Commissioner B. McManus said he does not see anything that talks about removing vegetation on the property and does not know if this is an accurate statement. Commissioner B. McManus said it seems to him that the City would be granting the critical area permit in a situation in which existing vegetation has been removed. Mr. Hollister said he wrote this letter the day after the Galligans and their contractor met with the Planning Staff (which included Steve Grittman, Sue McDermott, and Mr. Hollister). The letter was a summary of what was discussed at that meeting, and that was after a stop work order was issued for the retaining walls. Mr. Hollister said the main gist of the letter as "until you go through the critical area permit process to get approval for the retaining walls, here is what you can and cannot do ". Mr. Hollister said item #4 was one of the things the applicant could not do. Mr. Hollister said this directive was not related to the beginning of the construction of the home, but as of the stop work order. Mr. Hollister said to his knowledge, the applicant has not removed any vegetation. Commissioner B. McManus said the applicant has indicated he has removed one or two trees. Mr. Hollister said the Planning Commission could make a recommendation either way if it has been found that the applicant has improperly removed some vegetation, and a condition could be made with the recommendation that whatever was removed must be restored. 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Hollister if it was his intent that the entire property owned by the applicant fall under this provision? Mr. Hollister said that was correct. Chair Lorberbaum asked what would the applicant have to do if the Planning Commission does not recommend approval for the walls or the fill? Mr. Grittman said if the fill were not permitted, it would appear that the applicant would not have access to the garage. Chair Lorberbaum said there was also fill on the side of the home, and this would also affect the house. Commissioner Betlej said the City Council already gave the applicant permission for the driveway and sidewalks. Mr. Grittman said that given the existing conditions, to make use of the garage, the applicant would need that driveway, and to do their driveway, the applicant would need that fill. Chair Lorberbaum said this would be a condition of the applicant's own making. Mr. Grittman said that is correct, but conditions of their own making typically applies to variances. Chair Lorberbaum said it seems to be more common that people are coming in to the City after the fact. Is there any downside to residents for doing this such as a fine? Mr. Hollister said he is under the impression that permit fees are tripled for "after- the - fact" permits, and this is handled by Code Enforcement Officers. Mr. Grittman said it is also a possibility that the City may require the applicant to remove whatever has been done. Mr. Grittman said if the fill is not approved, the garage elevation may have to be changed. Commissioner M. McManus said the Planners Report indicated that the City Council gave approval for reconstruction of this house and approval for the driveway, there must have been some discussion about fill. Chair Lorberbaum said she has not seen the minutes from the City Council meeting and it is her understanding that the application came in as a reconstruction and she was not sure where some of these issues stood. Commissioner M. McManus said in the background materials, it states that the applicant received approval for reconstruction of this home and approval for the driveway. Commissioner M. McManus said it was her assumption that to approve a driveway, there needs to be fill and retaining walls. Mr. Grittman said it appears to him that the approval was based on a layout that was not necessarily based on a topographic map. Commissioner M. McManus said it seems to be up to the Planning Commission to get all the details. Commissioner Miller said the information that was provided for this case is for the three retaining walls and fill. Commissioner Miller said he has no idea why the Commission received the letter regarding Mr. Katz and has no idea what to do with it. Commissioner B. McManus said the Planning Commission is responsible for knowing what is required for the Critical Area and adhere to it, and does not believe the applicant was well served by his professionals. AYES NAYS (Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Betlej, Hesse, M. McManus) MOTION FAILED COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) RETAINING WALLS, PLACEMENT OF FILL BEHIND THAT RETAINING WALLS, AND INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY AT 1845 HUNTER LANE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS REQUIRED BY THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE AS CONSTRUCTED. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbaum asked to make an amendment to the motion that the fill exceeds 100 cubic yards and that the motion includes language concerning the driveway fill so that all fills are included. Commissioner Betlej said there is also some fill in front of the house. Commissioners' Hesse and M. McManus accepted the amendment. Commissioner Betlej asked for an additional friendly amendment to address restoration of removed trees. Commissioner Hesse said it is difficult to require someone to re -do something that they did not do illegally, and he has only heard discussion about trees that were used for screening of the structures from the neighbors. Commissioner Betlej said according to the pictures presented, there was one tree at the back of the house that was removed. Mr. Galligan said that tree is still there. Commissioner Hesse said that as far as he Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 knows, nothing has been done illegally. Commissioner M. McManus said that is her contention as well. Commissioner Betlej said the reason he is asking for this amendment is in the case any trees will be illegally removed, then the amendment will cover restoration. Commissioner M. McManus said she did not hear from the applicant that any trees were removed, except for some minor stuff during construction. Commissioner B. McManus said this requirement would not hurt the applicant a bit. Commissioner Hesse asked if this was an issue the Planning Commission should even be addressing as the applicant has not done anything detrimental to the critical area. Commissioner Betlej said if the applicant would have come before the Planning Commission before any construction was started, in accordance to the ordinance, the Planning Commission would have asked for this condition. Commissioner Hesse said that the Katzes said some of these trees were 100 -ft high, and what would the requirement for replacement be? Chair Lorberbaum said the City would require pictures as well. Commissioner M. McManus said she was unaware that there would be more discussion following this motion and did not realize the level of interest regarding the trees. Commissioner M. McManus said the applicant had not come forward with more information regarding the letter that Mr. Katz handed out. Commissioner M. McManus said she appreciates the concern about the trees and would be comfortable if the motion is stated in some way that the issue would be explored and restoration requirements in place. Commissioner Hesse said that if language were added to the motion that upon presentation of evidence at the City Council meeting that there were existing trees, the Planning Commission can recommend restoration and the City Council would make the appropriate determination. Commissioners Hesse and M. McManus accepted the amendment to the motion from Commissioner Betlej. Commissioner Miller said that Mr. Katz's document was delivered late and the Planning Commission is not able to address this letter, therefore the letter should be forwarded to the City Council. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -44 Robert Alvarez 1167 Dodd Road Variance Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a variance from the 30 -ft. rear yard setback. The property is a combination of two single family lots in which one lot currently has a single family home. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan which show a property that consists of two parcels under the original plat containing lots 9 and 10. The single family home on Lot 10 overlaps the property line between the two lots and the applicant will plan on reconstructing the home to remove that overlap, and would be constructing a new home on Lot 9. The new parcel has frontages on Dodd Road and Ivy Hills Drive. The frontage along Dodd Road is 95 ft., including Lot 9 and the former street vacation. As a result, this lot is not a full 100 -ft. of width. The ordinance requires legal frontages to be no less than 100 - ft. The applicant is looking to construct a home in a way that uses the 100 -ft. frontage along Ivy Hills Drive, which will make the normal side yard the actual rear yard. The applicant has provided documentation to the City that the house could be constructed in this area and the purpose of that documentation was to prove that Lot 9 is a buildable lot. The applicant is now seeking a variance to allow for a 10 -ft. rear yard setback, as the required setback is 30 ft. Mr. Grittman said it is possible to construct a home on this property without the variances, however the home would be very long and narrow. The applicant wishes for the variance to allow the home to be built larger than what the current existing property lines would allow. Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 Commissioner B. McManus asked if the applicant is planning on cutting off the existing home to keep it away from the property line. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the applicant is currently building a garage pad on the existing house. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the concern would be long and skinny if the home was to be built more to the northwest, which would keep within the current setbacks. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner B. McManus asked if it would be easier if the applicant would move the home toward that area and therefore the applicant would not need a variance. Mr. Grittman said that the new home would only affect the applicant's existing home on Lot 10 and would not impact the remainder of the neighborhood, therefore, it would be possible. Commissioner Miller asked if the renovation work on Lot 10 required any variances. Mr. Grittman said no additional variances or permits were required for this work. Chair Lorberbaum asked if a narrow, 27 -ft. wide home is not livable? Mr. Grittman said it may be narrower than existing homes in the City, but it's not uncommon to see homes of that width. Chair Lorberbaum asked about how the homes would fit in with the neighborhood. Mr. Grittman said there is quite a variety of homes in that area and both a larger or smaller home would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Chair Lorberbaum said the City has received a note from a neighbor stating that the driveway not open into Ivy Hills Drive. Chair Lorberbaum said she visited the area and feels that it would be safer to have a driveway on Ivy Hills Drive as opposed to on Dodd Road. Mr. Grittman said he agrees that Ivy Hills Drive would be better. Chair Lorberbaum said the plan shows a home with a beautiful four -car garage, and it's her understanding that ordinances do not allow four separate doors, and the city only allows two doors. Chair Lorberbaum referred to Section 12. LE.2(b) of the ordinance, , which states "attached private single level garages with a minimum floor area of 1, 200 sq. ft. and a maximum of 1, 500 sq. ft. under the following conditions, no more than a double wide and a single wide garage door shall be permitted ". Mr. Grittman said that is in the case where the garage would be greater than 1,200 -sq. ft., which this one is. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant would need to change from two doubles to a single and a double. Commissioner Hesse asked how many times the applicant has been before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hesse said he believes that there was a plan that the Planning Commission has not been able to review until now, that demonstrated that a house could be built within the setbacks. Mr. Grittman said that plan was prepared for the City Council when the applicant was required to come back to the City within 6 months. Mr. Grittman said the effort was to show City Council that this was a buildable lot based on the frontages and the layout. Commissioner Hesse asked what the purpose was for a 30 -ft. rear yard setback. Mr. Grittman said it was to make sure there is adequate open space around homes for recreational issues and a separation issue. Mr. Grittman said it was not a zoning issue if a rear yard abutted a side yard. Commissioner Hesse said the definition of reasonable use could be up to anyone's interpretation, and asked the Planner what his view of reasonable use is. Mr. Grittman said the City has the ability to define what reasonable use is for a particular neighborhood, and takes into consideration of conditions of the property. The ordinance gives some flexibility on reasonable use. Commissioner M. McManus asked if all new homes built are required to make a park contribution? Mr. Grittman said the City collects a Park Dedication requirement for new homes at the time of platting, using a specific formula. Commissioner B. McManus asked what the lot could not have been divided vertically instead of horizontally which would make good building sites for both lots. Mr. Grittman said the rear portion on the lot would only have a small frontage on Ivy Hills Drive as there is some property between Lot 10 and Ivy Hills Drive, which is owned by the neighboring townhouse association. There would be a variance required for that type of frontage or the applicant would have to acquire that small triangular piece owned by the townhouse association. Commissioner Betlej said that variance is not in front of the Commission at this time. Chair Lorberbaum said she does not know if that scenario is doable with the owners of the triangle. Mr. Paul McKinley, Loucks McLagan, is the representative of the applicant. Mr. McKinley showed a drawing of the home that Mr. Alvarez wishes to build on Lot 9, being the view from Ivy Hills Drive and explained the rational for the home facing Ivy Hills Drive. Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 Mr. McKinley said that Mr. Alvarez had received a demolition permit for the existing home and a permit to build a new garage on that home. Mr. McKinley said that there is a 70% rule that states that a lot of record meets at least 70% of the width and area requirements, it was interpreted that the road that was vacated since 1982 no longer left the 70% rule applicable because it happened in a more contemporary time period. Mr. McKinley says he believes that rule is questionable and leaves room for a lot of interpretations. The reason being is when there is a platted street adjoining a lot, the fee title to that street always vests in the lot from the beginning. The ownership of that street vests in the lot, and the lot essentially extends out into the street subject only an easement of the street. In this case, when you change the parcel by the vacation, you are therefore invalidating the ordinance. This has resulted in having no legal frontage on Dodd Road. The City can either approve a variance for about 5 -ft to allow for frontage on Dodd Road, or for the rear yard setback as presented. The applicant has pursued this scenario as recommended by City Staff. Mr. McKinley said when Mr. Alvarez wished to prove this was a buildable lot, he used a small enough home for an example. However, a home of that size would not a reasonable size home in Mendota Heights today, and by narrowing the home, the garage would only be a two -car garage. Mr. McKinley said he sees two hardships in this case. Mr. McKinley identified one hardship as the questionable interpretation of the 70% rule as the lot has been in existence since the 1950's, and the lot was platted at 65 -ft. Mr. McKinley said the applicant should be able to use Dodd Road as the frontage using the 70% rule without any variance being necessary. Mr. McKinley said if the variance is granted, the applicant is left with setbacks on this lot that meets or exceeds the setback under normal circumstances for a side lot. If it were not for the 5 -ft. frontage shortage on Dodd Road, this lot is a corner lot with two street frontages. In normal circumstances, there is a 30 -ft. setback on the side street, which there will be and at least at 30 -ft setback on the front street, and 10 -ft. on the interior sidelines because there is always a 10- ft. setback between two adjoining houses. Mr. Alvarez will be removing part of the existing home, which will give him 10 -ft on Lot 9, exclusive of the chimney. The back yard setback is 132 ft. for usable space. Mr. McKinley identified the second hardship is the configuration of this lot as it is wider at the front and loses about 30% of the width as it goes to the back of the property. The narrowing of the lot creates a hardship. Mr. McKinley said he believes this style home will function nicely as a walkout and will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. McKinley if the applicant's attorney talked to the City Attorney regarding this case that they could make friendly agreement on this case. Mr. McKinley said that has not been done. Commissioner B. McManus said this might be a good idea as Mr. McKinley's logic makes sense to him. Mr. McKinley said that would have been a logical conclusion but the applicant has chosen this route based on suggestions from City Staff. Mr. McKinley reinstated that had the 70% rule applied in this case, a variance would not have been needed and Dodd Road would have been the frontage. Commissioner B. McManus said that although the Commission depends on the input from City Staff, he wonders if this case should be tabled until some possible resolution can be made between attorneys for both parties. Chair Lorberbaum said could be done. Commissioner B. McManus said he believes a lot of people could benefit from this. Mr. McKinley said he appreciates the comments of Commissioner B. McManus, but he does not wish this to become a legal argument. Commissioner Betlej said he would like to leave lawyers out of cases if at all possible. Chair Lorberbaum said City Staff tries to help the Commission; they have a fine line to tread and can't lead applicants to any particular point. They can give history, but cannot give more than that. Mr. McKinley said he did not mean to give that impression, but meant to say that they made their own independent decision. Chair Lorberbaum said she would rather see the larger house with the driveway access to Dodd Road with a variance of the 5 -ft. Chair Lorberbaum said the City must be sensitive to the fact that the Alvarezes may not always live there and need to look at this case long- Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 term. Mr. McKinley said that the house would be position is such a way that they would be compatible to each other and would accept either variance. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Planning Commission give the 5 -ft. variance for the driveway access to Dodd Road instead of the variance that has been originally requested at this time. Mr. Grittman said the notice refers to a rear -yard variance, and may have given adequate information to the neighbors to allow this flexibility. Commissioner Hesse asked who came up with the interpretation against the 70% rule. Mr. McKinley said it was the City Attorney during a discussion at a recent City Council meeting. Commissioner M. McManus said she supports the suggestion of the 5 -ft. variance for Dodd Road, which would be more acceptable and would eliminate any concerns for a driveway on Ivy Falls Drive. Chair Lorberbaum said the driveway could be at either location because of it being a corner lot. Commissioner M. McManus said she would be in favor of the Dodd Road access. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mr. Carl Fox, 1144 Ivy Hill Drive, referred to the easement that is in question and said it should never be allowed to change because of the on street parking in that area, which also contributes to difficulty for snow plows in the winter. Mr. Fox said a lot of the parked vehicles are visitors of the Alvarezes. Mr. Fox says there is a lot of townhouse traffic around that curve. Mr. John Inchlow, 1155 Dodd Road, said the biggest problem with the traffic is along Dodd Road and it would be much safer to have the driveway access on Ivy Hill Drive. If the driveway accesses off Ivy Hill Drive, all the parked cars could then be parked in the Alvarez's driveway. The parking lot of the townhomes is only about 30 -mph and Dodd Road is getting busier every day. He also believes that a larger home would look very well in this neighborhood. Mr. John Schwartz, who lives directly across Dodd Road from the applicant's property, said he wondered why the homes along Dodd Road were platted with narrow, deeper lots. Mr. Schwartz said it would seem to him that this approach is the best that any of the other that have been considered in the past, as it has the back area that is consistent with the other lots along Dodd Road. Mr. Brad Fluery, 1179 Ivy Hills Drive, said the proposal makes good sense. He would like to see the home have the back yard where it's at He said he would much rather see the home have a three car garage to the wider end with a longer driveway out to either Dodd Road or Ivy Hills Drive and the variance makes a lot of sense. Because of the way a smaller house's garage would be place, the driveway to Ivy Hills Drive would require the townhouse association to give an easement over the triangle that they own. At their October townhouse association meeting, they approved in principal giving an easement to Mr. Alvarez to access across that property, subject to the final plans, and so there is potentially still a fight over whether or not the house with the garage sitting in the more narrow part with no variance actually is workable, because the some of the townhouse residents may start fighting on this issue, whereas with a larger house with access to Dodd Road that would not need to cross their property would be much more acceptable. 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. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK AS PRESENTED BASED ON THE HARDSHIP BEING THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT SUBJECT TO THE HOUSE PLAN AND WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR THIS SITE ORIENT TO THE REAR OF THE YARD BEING CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST SIDE OF DODD ROAD AND ALSO BEING A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus asked if this motion would approve the current design that was composed by Loucks McLagan. Commissioner Betlej said it would be the layout that was submitted to the Planning Commission facing Ivy Hills Drive. Chair Lorberbaum said she would agree with Commission M. McManus that she would much rather see a variance for the front yard along Dodd Road and keeping with this plan. Chair Lorberbaum said she will not support this motion but would rather see a motion with the same plan, with the alternative plan for the garage area, and with the access to Dodd Road with the 5 -ft. variance. Commissioner Betlej said his motion was for the house with orient to the back yard versus the rear yard as defined. Orient is defined at walkout, large banks of windows, etc. Commissioner Betlej said he would not care to add more traffic on Dodd Road and would be more in support of the access to Ivy Hills Drive. Commissioner M. McManus said she understands the motion as saying it is reasonable that the house could face either way to Ivy Hills Drive or Dodd Road. Commissioner Betlej said the Ivy Hills Drive would be the street frontage. The front of the house could be either on Dodd Road or Ivy Falls Drive, but the driveway must access Ivy Hills Drive. Commissioner Betlej said he would like to home to be consistent with the home on Lot 9 so that there is not a bank of windows close to that existing home. Chair Lorberbaum said the motion is saying orient and windows when it is not the purpose of the Commission at this time to recommend approvals for the style of the home. Commissioner Betlej said the motion covers the nature of the development on the west side of Dodd Road based on the comments from the neighbors along Dodd Road. Chair Lorberbaum said she has concerns about the usage of the orient language as this request is only for a rear yard setback. Commissioner B. McManus suggested rephrasing the motion. Commissioner Betlej withdrew his motion. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE LOT WIDTH ON DODD ROAD. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -45 Frank Matthews 1003 Delaware Avenue Variance Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a variance for a side yard setback to construct an addition to the existing single family home at 1003 Delaware Avenue. Is has been noted that the lot is extremely substandard in size and area and therefore, and currently has a single car garage. Mr. Grittman said there is currently a single car garage on the property, and while the City is not requiring construction of a two -car garage, the plans must be show that the proposed addition will not impede the applicant from accommodating a two -stall garage in the future. The Planners report indicates that this lot makes it difficult to construct an addition onto the existing house, and the location of the shared driveway to the south as well as the basement stairwell and bathroom location further impede the ability to construct an addition. Mr. Frank Matthews and Mr. Michael Potts, owners of Fusion Home Improvement, 5853 Vincent Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN, are the applicants in this case. Mr. Matthews said the guttering was not on the initial plans and Fusion Home Improvement will be planning on installing gutters to the home. Mr. Matthews showed on the map how the addition would be laid out in connection with the driveway, and if there is a problem with the one car garage, they will tear it down and rebuild a two -car garage. Mr. Matthews said that there is ample space to accommodate a two -car garage along with the proposed addition. Mr. Grittman said the City asked for a plan showing a two -car garage be prepared to allow the City to see how it will be laid out with the setbacks involved. Mr. Matthews said the access will be the same, but expanded to the north. Commissioner B. McManus said the new plans should show with dotted lines how the driveway would look. 10 Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 Commissioner Miller asked if the property owner owns the lot up to Chippewa? Mr. Matthews explained that there is a garden to the rear of the property and the property line abuts to Chippewa. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. 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 BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT GUTTERS BE INSTALLED AND THERE ARE NO OVERHANGS AT THE LOT LINES AND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE HARDSHIP HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE SIZE OF THE LOT. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -46 Tom and Linda Garrett 540 Wentworth Avenue Variance Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a variance from the rear yard setback to accommodate an enclosure for an existing deck, basically construction of an enclosed three- season porch. Mr. Grittman said this lot is deep and relatively narrow. The rear yard setback is 30 or 20% of the average lot depth. In this case, 20% of the average lot depth is equal to 121 feet. The existing deck is currently 108 ft. from the rear lot line, and the rear building line of the existing single family home to the rear lot line is approximately 120 ft. Mr. Grittman said the deck is unusable during a portion of the year and because of the design of the home, the location of the porch is not appropriate. It is the Planner's opinion that the lot is large enough to accommodate building additions to other areas of the home, but does not feel it is feasible to place this type of structure anywhere else but the existing deck. Mr. Grittman stated in the report that while the porch is clearly an attractive convenience, it is not a necessity to make reasonable use of the property. Commissioner B. McManus asked how far an enclosed porch would encroach into the 121 ft. Mr. Grittman said it would be approximately 13 ft. Commissioner M. McManus asked if this were a new construction, a porch or deck, whether it was covered or not, would it not have to meet all setbacks. Mr. Grittman said the deck would not as they are allowed to encroach into that space, however an enclosed structure would be considered part of the home and would have to comply with all the required setbacks. Commissioner M. McManus asked what the distance is for notifying neighbors. Mr. Hollister said the applicant needs to get signatures from the neighborhood in a radius of within 100 ft. of the property. Mr. Tom Garrett, 540 Wentworth Avenue, said he built the house in 1992. At that time, the Garretts did not wish to enclose the deck. Mr. Garrett said they wish to enclose the deck to be able to use the deck area more. Mr. Garrett said he did talk to neighbors and prepared letters to be sent to other neighbors who are out of the state during for the winter season, and have received favorable 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 responses for this addition. Mr. Garrett feels he has enough private space that this proposed addition would not adversely affect any of the neighbors. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the addition would change in a material way, the footprint of the balcony. Mr. Garrett said there would be a change in the footprint just in a corner and an extra footing will be placed on the side of the home. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant is asking for the porch to be 108 ft. from the rear lot line, and asked the applicant how far that porch would be from the closest neighbor. Mr. Garrett said he would estimate about 100 ft. Mr. Grittman said it was at least 100 ft. Mr. Garrett said no one can see the deck during the summer months, and in the winter, the neighbor to the south may be able to see it through the trees if standing on the roof. Commissioner Hesse asked if the house was placed to the rear of the lot due to the topography. Mr. Garrett said a stand of stand of spruce trees and the septic system affected the placement of the home. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, 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 THE VARIANCE FOR A 13 FT. REAR SETBACK TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED THREE - SEASON PORCH AS PRESENTED. THE HARDSHIP HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE EXTRAORDINARY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS LOT AND FURTHER, THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -47 Joseph Juliette 1920 Glenhill Road Critical Area Permit Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a critical area permit for 1920 Glenhill Road. The applicant is seeking a critical area permit for relocate a fence that surrounds and pool and deck area of the existing single- family home. When the pool was constructed in 1999, it was found that the applicant's surveyors were incorrect and placed the fence on the neighboring property to the east. The District Court has ruled in favor of the neighbor, which causes the applicant to relocate the fence. Mr. Grittman said at a previous City Council meeting, the applicant had received approval for a temporary fence due to weather issues. The City Council approved this request subject to the applicant submitting an application for a critical area permit to permanently place the fence. Mr. Grittman said the change in the location does not affect into the critical area issues that the City is normally concerned about. Mr. Grittman said there would be some additional concrete area installed along with some additional landscaping. Mr. Grittman said this request is consistent with the intent of the critical area permit. Commissioner Miller asked for the requirements of swimming pools in relation to the setbacks. Mr. Grittman said swimming pools are required to be set back 10 ft. and noted that this swimming pool is a legal non - conforming condition. 12 Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 Mr. Joseph Juliette, 1920 Glenhill, said Mr. Grittman explained the request very well. Mr. Juliette said this was a matter of non- disclosure when closing on his property and was led to believe that his initial request was placed in accordance to the requirements. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant is taking something larger and making it smaller, and improving it with additional landscaping. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. 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 HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS PRESENTED. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -48 David Newcomb 1565 Dodd Road Minor PUD Amendment Mr. Grittman introduced the request for an amendment for a PUD for a lot line adjustment to accommodate an encroachment that currently exists with a driveway on the northeast corner of the condominium property. Mr. Grittman said this proposal seems to be consistent with City's PUD ordinance and sees no adverse issues raised. Mr. Grittman said the City Engineer to research some items such as drainage and utilities and it appears there will be no relocation of any such items. Commissioner Betlej asked if the condominium association could do a subdivision or lot split, and is there more to that versus granting an easement. Mr. Grittman said probably not as the condominium association would create a parcel by description and separating it from the main property at the Recorder's Office. Then the owner of the parcel at 1565 Dodd Road would then add it to their main property. Commissioner Betlej said this could be simply processed as a lot split versus going through the full subdivision process. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Planning Commission should recommend that the existing driveway be reconfigured. Mr. Grittman said it would be a good idea but are hesitant to make that an absolute condition. Mr. David Newcomb, attorney for the Somerset Condominiums, is the applicant for this amendment request. Mr. Bob Meinke, 1565 Dodd Road is the owner of the property to the northeast. Mr. Newcomb said the owner of the property has an older house with a driveway and showed how the property related to the condominium property. Mr. Meinke said he has been considering moving the driveway in the near future southward on Dodd Road past the telephone pole. Mr. Meinke said the telephone pole does not need to be moved. The existing driveway shows a curvature, and a new one would run perpendicular to Dodd Road. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. 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 HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 13 Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MINOR PUD AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #04 -49 Moen Leur Construction I -494 and I35 -E PUD Concept Plan Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for a proposed office condominium plat that would consist of ten office units and a parking lot along Mendota Heights Road to be built on approximately 2.4 acres of land located at the northwest corner of I -494 and I -35E. and south of Mendota Heights Road. A PUD is being requested to accommodate multiple buildings on a single lot. The ten office units are in four buildings (2 three- office buildings and 2 two - office buildings). Mr. Grittman said it would be possible to avoid a PUD in this case if all ten units were in one single building. To accommodate the proposed PUD project, a base lot/unit platting arrangement must be made and the applicant will need to present a formal preliminary plat. Mr. Grittman said this parcel is a remnant property that is zoned B -IA but guided LB -PUD. The applicant will also need to submit a request for a variance from the PUD 5 -acre standard. Mr. Grittman said the plan calls for a single access into the site and reviewed the layout of the parking. The total office area is estimated at 28,512 sq. ft. Using the 1 space per 200 -sq. ft., the total required spaces of the site would be 143. The applicant is proposing 120 spaces. The plan shows setbacks of 30 ft. at the side yard along Mendota Heights Road and 35 ft. from the I- 494/I -35 ramp. The applicant has identified a 20 -ft. building separation between buildings. The applicant has submitted exterior designs for the front elevation. Commissioner M. McManus said it seems as though the applicant may have some difficulty working with this parcel as it's only 2.5 acres. Mr. Grittman said there may have to be some variance requests in this project. Commissioner Hesse said the City seems to have an interest in allowing construction on this site. Mr. Grittman said this site is one of the few "in- fill" sites left in the city and the review of a proposed PUD will allow the City to see what the possibilities of this site will hold. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there were any advantages of placing the units in separate buildings versus one building. Mr. Grittman said that Staff liked the idea of having all the units placed into one building to give more green space around the corners and would less likely look like a series of small houses. Chair Lorberbaum asked for information about the impervious surface. Mr. Grittman said a study has not been done at this time, but looks to be extensive. 14 Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 Commissioner Betlej said according to the ordinance, PUD's are used for a minimum of 10 acres, with a provisional for a reduction with a number of requirements. One of these requirements is a landscape buffer around the perimeter of the entire project. Mr. Grittman said there has not been adequate detail provided on this issue yet. Commissioner Betlej said the ordinance also states that the Council should be conservative in their interpretation. Chair Lorberbaum read from the ordinance, which states "the Council shall be conservative in exercising its discretion to promote land of less than 10 acres ". Commissioner Miller asked if there were other options rather than a PUD. Mr. Grittman said there is an advantage to the PUD as it will avoid language as Commissioner Betlej just stated. Mr. Grittman said that by using one building would eliminate that problem, but will gain some variance issues for setbacks. Commissioner B. McManus asked how much input the City will have it this project is not a PUD. Mr. Grittman said that because the applicant will need some other variances in addition to setback variances, the City has some authority to mitigate the affects of those variances. Commissioner B. McManus asked the Planner if there would be any other way this project could be done without setback variances that area substantial. Mr. Grittman said there would not be any other way. Mr. Todd Mohagen, Mohagen/Hansen Architectural Group, 1415 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, MN, said his firm has been involved in previous office condos in Mendota Heights, such as Waters Drive. Mr. Todd Mohagen said because of the previous work his firm has done in the city, he is quite familiar with what works and what doesn't work. From a marketing standpoint, the marketing of separate buildings is easier to do. The marketplace gives more aesthetics and is more appealing to people who wish to own the units. Mr. Mohagen said these owners will want to have their own signage that they could not have with other larger buildings. Mr. Mohagen said he believes there was a previous proposal several years ago for this site for a single building, which had some setback variance needs. Mr. Mohagen said a PUD is the best way to go as the City will have some input onto the project. Mr. Mohagen said the visual from the highway with the multiple buildings would also be more appealing, and it's easier to work with smaller buildings in moving them around. Mr. Mohagen said this type of product will also act as a good buffer zone. Commissioner M. McManus said she is concerned about developing every square inch of property in Mendota Heights and any kind of development should be non - intrusive and agrees that the visual aspect from the freeway would be appealing. Commissioner M. McManus said she is concerned about the number of parking spaces and amount of impervious surface in that small parcel. Mr. Mohagen said there would be about 25% to 30% green space. Mr. Mohagen said this product has a very small scale to it. Commissioner Hesse said he agrees that the marketability for a product like this and the look for the area would be better suited with smaller buildings such as the ones proposed. Commissioner Hesse suggested that the applicant bring photos to show some of the other projects he has done. Commissioner Hesse said PUD's offer a more cooperative approach, and if the City believes this parcel should be developed, this would be the way to go. Chair Lorberbaum said this is a gentler, low -key approach. Chair Lorberbaum asked what type of tenants would purchase these units, and also, how many employees /visitors would be in and out of this project as she would like to have a feel for the number of parking spaces. Mr. Mohagen said what was approved at Waters Drive actually has a lower parking ratio than this project, and a typical project would have about a 30% to 25% circulation. The types of tenants would include professionals in real estate, mortgage, insurance, and attorneys. Mr. Mohagen explained how the parking stalls would be placed and traffic would be during business hours. There would be approximately 6 to 12 people per unit (employees and visitors). Chair Lorberbaum asked that the handicap spaces be increased. Commissioner Betlej asked that the project is in line with the zoning and that this style of the buildings is as residential as the City would allow without it looking like homes. The City Council will probably want high quality commercial materials used. Commissioner Betlej said he would like to see more landscaping and building front plans. Commissioner Betlej said a signage plan is required, especially with the comments made by Mr. Mohagen about the tenants wanting to use their own signage. Commissioner Betlej said he has concerns for the impervious surface plans. Commissioner Miller said he would like to see a lighting plan. 15 Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 Commissioner B. McManus asked from what vantage -point this plot is best seen. Mr. Mohagen said it will be seen from all sides. Commissioner B. McManus said this seems to be a good use of the property, and asked how the pond will be used. Mr. Mohagen said the pond will be used for runoff from the parking lot, and will be controlled to go into the MnDOT waterway. Commissioner B. McManus said the PUD would be the best way to go. VERBAL REVIEW— Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #04 -42 McDonalds Restaurant, Dodd Road and Hwy. 110 Conditional Use Permit Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Amendment that the applicant come back to the City Council meeting with a landscape plan for screening from neighbors PLANNING CASE #04 -41 Somerset Country Club Conditional Use Permit Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Amendment Chair Lorberbaum said that there are two Commissioner terms that are about to expire. Mr. Hollister said those Commissioners whose terms are about to expire have been approached by Jim Danielson to see if they will be interested in continuing to serve, and asked that a letter of intent from those individuals be turned in to the City. Chair Lorberbaum asked for an update for a December meeting. Mr. Hollister said there have been no applications received for the month of December and the City Staff does not anticipate any coming forward at that time. Chair Lorberbaum said it will be assumed that there will be no December Planning Commission meeting unless otherwise notified. Commissioner M. McManus said she spoke to some individuals about community development planning and talked about getting together some individuals from Park and Recreation Committees and Planning Committees, to work together on joint issues concerning communities that come up in the future. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in attending a meeting with other committees to address future development needs. Commissioner M. McManus said she has been in several of these types of meetings recently and found this may be a valuable tool. Chair Lorberbaum said there will most likely be some issues coming up as the City will be soon be fully developed, and that will affect the Parks and Rec. Commission as park dedication fees will be coming down. Chair Lorberbaum said some new plans may need to be discussed to continue the on -going operations for the parks without these fees. Commissioner M. McManus said these concerns will also include trails and sidewalks. Commissioner Hesse said he would be interested in this. Commissioner Betlej said he agrees in theory, but wonders what this group would have to talk about. Commissioner M. McManus said part of the discussion would be about community development and restoration, and what the consideration is for some issues (upgrades to walking trails and sidewalks are one example). Commissioner M. McManus said these issues have been challenging to built communities, and believes there are a lot of Dakota County municipalities that have been struggling with these types of issues. Chair Lorberbaum asked Commissioner M. McManus if she would include City Council members. Commissioner M. McManus said she absolutely would. Commissioner B. McManus said this would not be a negative, and there would be nothing to lose. Commissioner Miller said he agrees with the concept and there are plenty of trails that dead -end which may need to be addressed for future expansions. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:00PM. 16 Planning Commission Meeting November 23, 2004 AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 17