Loading...
2003-02-25 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 25, 2003 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners M. McManus, Miller, Dolan, and Hesse. City Staff present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recarded by Becki Shaffer. Those excused: Commissioner B. McManus and Betlej. Chair Lorberbaum welcomed new Planning Commissioner Mark Miller. Commissioner Miller introduced himself and said he has been a resident of the city for about 9 years. Commissioner Miller now occupies the seat, which has been vacated by Commissioner Friel. Speaking on behalf of the Commission, Chair Lorberbaum thanked Commissioner Friel for all his years of expertise, and wished him well. The City Council will be recognizing Commissioner Friel's contributions at the next City Council meeting. Commissioner M. McManus thanked the Mayor and City Council for her reappointment to the Commission. Chair Lorberbaum said Commissioner B. McManus has also been reappointed. ELECTIONS Chair Lorberbaum asked for nominations for the position of Chairperson. Commissioner M.McManus nominated Sally Lorberbaum for the position of Chairperson. Commissioner polan seconded the nomination. Chair Lorberbaum asked for any more nominations. Hearing none, Chair Lorberbaum closed the nominations. A unanimous decision (5 ayes — 0 nayes) was made to elect Sally Lorberbaum to the position of Chair for the next year. Chair Lorberbaum asked for nominations for the position of Vice-Chairperson. Commissioner polan nominated Joe Betlej for the position of Vice-Chairperson. Chair Lorberbaum seconded the nomination. Chair Lorberbaum asked for any more nominations. Hearing none, Chair Lorberbaum closed the nominations. A unanimous decision (5 ayes — 0 nayes) was made to elect Joe Betlej to the position of Vice-Chair for the next year. Chair Lorberbaum said Commissioner Betlej has consented to the position. 'PROVAL OF MINUTE The Commission reviewed the minutes of November 26, 2002. Chair Lorberbaum thanked Commissioner Betlej for chairing the meeting. Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO APPROVED THE REVISED MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 26, 2002. 2 AYES 0 NAYS 3 Abstain (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioner M.McManus, Commissioner Miller) MOTION CARRIED The Commission reviewed the minutes of January 28, 2003. Corrections were made as follows: Page 3: Last paragraph, second sentence should read ... "There is an existing single family home, which the applicants are seeking to eXpand, as well as constructing an additional detached garage on the property." Page 4: Second to last paragraph, sentence should read ... "Commissioner polan said the deck would meet the standards if it does not extend above the ground floor level of the house." Page 7: Fifth paragraph from bottom, sentence should read .. ."Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Fire Chief had any concerns." Page 9: Second paragraph, sentence should read ... "Commissioner Friel said this was not a flag lot as it does not need to meet the flag lot requirements." Page 12: First paragraph, last sentence should read .. ."Commissioner M. McManus said the process is missing one more letter of information, specifically from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers." COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO APPROVED THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2003 AS CORRECTED. 4 AYES 0 NAYS 1 Abstain (Commissioner Miller) MOTION CARRIED DISCUSSIONS: [It is noted that the conversations in these discussions have been paraphrased] Discussion of Critical Area Ordinance — Steve Grittman Mr. Grittman The map on the screen shows is the map of the critical area. The critical area is a DNR designated portion of the community lying along the Mississippi River and is a federally designated protection area for the river itsel£ The DNR is charged with enforcing the federal regulations and they set up standards for cities along the river to adopt as local ordinances in Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 order to further the objectives of the federal regulations and the DNR's interpretations of the regulations. What we have in place is a set of local ordinances that are intended and reviewed by the DNR to further the federal objectives of the protection of the Mississippi River. At the time the City had updated it's comprehensive plan, during the last couple of years, a part of that planning effort was an update of the critical area and the corridar objectives that have come through the DNR to the city were changes in some standards. The DNR is requiring the cities along the corridor, as part of the plan update, to include references to those standards and as such, update the ordinances that were reflective of the changes in federal regulations. What is before you tonight is a draft that includes the existing language of the current critical area ordinance, as well as a significant amount of proposed language. The language has been taken from a number of sources, which include DNR model language, and from other communities that have adopted language in their ordinances. Some of the language is not particular to Mendota Heights, but it is desired to present a"landscape" of the ordinances, and then work back for our own purposes. We will have to have the language approved by the DNR staff as a part of the adoption process. There are some local objectives we will want to achieve as part of the ordinance update. Mendota Heights is largely a fully developed community, particularly in the critical area where most of that land is developed to one extent or another. There are only a few portions of the area that has any development potential at all, and most of that is either a lot split or very few lots that had yet to have any house built on it. Given that position, one of the objectives is to try to prepare some regulations that would take that into account, and not be punitive to people who already have eXisting developed property that would allow them to continue to use their property the way they have envisioned. The primary regulatory change that we're facing is the DNR's intent to change the definition of what a steep slope is. Under the existing ardinance, 40% is what we have applied as a steep slope, and deemed undevelopable. The regulations have been written to protect this slope area and the area that is within the bluff portion of the 40%. The change that the DNR is proposing is to an 18% slope, making a flatter area included in the protected part of the critical area. An 18% slope is not uncommon on a residential property. This would be a significant change for a lot of existing developed properties. It is desired to write in some language that would allow the existing developed properties to come back to the Commission for a CUP for any changes. The practice has always been to require a critical area permit for development in the area, so procedurally we don't believe timelines for applicants would be affected, but we do need to have some regulatory control in place because a blanket exemption would not get us through the DNR staff. There has been language written in that would establish some exceptions to setbacks acknowledging that a lot of development has already occurred on slopes on an excess of 18%, Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 and under the new regulations would not be permitted. Where setback lines are already established through those areas, we would allow encroachment into those setbacks under these regulations. In a pure regulatory situation, DNR would suggest that no development occur on 18% or more slope, so we need to write in some regulations that would exempt some existing development. Cl,air It's my understanding that what we are going to do is get a general overview of what was Lorberbaum provided with the red lined version and then Staff will come back before the Commission with something that would require a public hearing and notification to the owners of land affected by this. Steve Grittman We would like to be able to get to a point where we could prepare some actual ordinance language that the Planning Commission feels confident to be forwarded to the Public Hearing and then following the Public Hearing, and subsequent Planning Commission meeting, would go to the City Council for actual ordinance adoption. Commissioner There appears to be some types of clauses in sections of the new language that appears to be Hesse taken from the DNR language themselves, and believes that lot of this stuff does not apply to the city. We need to look at those, ie, barns, silos, structures associated with mining and excavation. In the previous ordinance, there was a moratorium on septic systems, and this seems some language in here that may allow that. We need to make sure we sift through the language and make sure we stay as consistent as possible with the previous ordinance. There are some restrictions that were made in the past, and were made far a reason, thus we should stick with those. Referring to Page 9, Section 2.7.A.2.F.: In the last ordinance, it asked that the gross soil equation be used and is there any reason the DNR did not include that here. This does not state how the developer will determine how it meets the "no more than 5 tons", and there needs to be some consistency from site to site, each developer being held to the same standard to prove that they are not causing more erosion then necessary. Steve Grittman That equation is not a part of the DNR rules now and I am not sure why they dropped it. From a Staff's standpoint, I'm not sure we do much of that calculation by civil engineers. Commissioner I think it may be from the DNR's standpoint. They may want to be as general as possible and Hesse the City wants to be more specific in what we see in terms of consistency. The universal soil observation may not be the one we want to implement. Referring to Page 10, B4.: This is talking about solid waste disposal which shall be permitted. First of all, this is one of the items I would suggest we don't elude to there being anybody permitted to store their solid waste, and if we are going to take that out, then I guess the units per inch seems quite odd. 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 Referring to Page 13, which addresses vegetation management, we may want to bring over from the previous ardinance items, which relate to diseased trees. I did not see any language in here regarding day — to — day pruning that would be allowed. Referring to Page 16, #2, I'm not sure that cuts and fills can be avoided. There may need to be some more clarification on this. Later last year, we had our engineering department put together the Natural Resource Management Plan and none of it really addressed the critical area. Would it be reasonable to get feedback from our engineering department when looking at the critical area in conjunction with the NRMP? Commissioner I'm concerned about how restrictive this is in terms of the percentage of the slope they are Dolan controlling. Do we have any leeway with the DNR to change the percentage from 18% to perhaps 25%? Steve Grittman We have exercised as much leeway as we could when we did the comprehensive plan. They actually encouraged 12% as a standard and were willing to take 18% as their measure. So we put that number into the comprehensive plan as the number we would be willing to protect. We were careful in the comprehensive language to make sure we were not claiming that we would preserve everything over 18%. Commissioner Have they set a deadline for implementing. Dolan Steve Grittman Technicially, since the DNR has made it a part of the comprehensive plan process, we were to have it adopted within nine months of the comprehensive plan however the DNR has not been very aggressive in pursing the various communities to do this. If we do nothing, eventually the DNR will contact us. Commissioner Given that background, I think we have to make sure we have some extra flexibility to vary Dolan from that 18%. When I was reading this, it was not clear to me whether we could approve building on slopes in eXcess of 18%. There is a variance section, but I think this section is specific to certain variance requests to build on property of less than 18%. If someone came with 25% slope, would this ordinance prohibit any building. Steve Grittman I don't believe so. I think what our intent was in Section 3.2 on Page 18, was to establish a process for construction and Item B says the area any greater than 18% shall require a CUP, which are easier to obtain. Commissioner Dolan Steve Grittman This ordinance would have be read in conjunction with the underlined zoning ordinance That is right. 5 Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 Commissioner Dolan Steve Grittman Chair Lorberbaum Steve Grittman Chair Lorberbaum Steve Grittman Chair Lorberbaum I would think that inevitably, there will be some inconsistencies. Where did the October 2002 date come from? I put that into one of the original drafts just because it was about that time we started the draft. This date could be changed upon adoption of the ordinance. Are you anticipating that people that are building will need to meet a higher standard than before, or are we just putting in process so that anyone that comes before us need a CUP. There would be one condition where the standards will be more difficult to meet and that would be a undeveloped lot that slopes between 18% and 40%, which would have always been a developable lot unrestricted from a slope standpoint, now could potentially run into some setback issues if the houses on either side are not near the bluff. To your knowledge, are there any undeveloped pieces of land, which we originally thought would be buildable, would now become unbuildable? I don't believe any would become unbuildable. Referring to Page 2... there is language that refers to the Bluffline being 40% slopes. Should there be some language in there about the 18% slope. Steve Grittman At this point, we hope to maintain a 40% as a bluffline definition. If we move the bluffline to 18%, then we will have difficulty as the DNR has a whole set of protection standards for one bluff. Chair Is there a different word we could use in the definition that would apply to the 18%. Lorberbaum Steve Grittman The reason this was left this way is the hope that we would not call DNR's attention to the fact that we anticipate most of our 18% slopes to get built on at some point. That was a reaction to try to keep this as low impact on our properties as possible. Our hope is that we can maintain this definition and that the DNR will accept it, and we will then impose a CUP standard to create a special area (18% - 40% slope) but not call it a bluff, which is what DNR would call it. Chair Lorberbaum Steve Grittman Chair Lorberbaum Steve Grittman We need to have something that would tell the DNR that we are hearing them by saying the 18% is something we need to look at. Perhaps I could work on some language for this. Referring to Page 8, Section G which talks about governing bodies. What is defined as a governing body? This is generic language the DNR uses and could be City Council, or any other designated body. Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 Chair Lorberbaum Commissioner Miller Steve Grittman Commissioner M. McManus Steve Grittman Commissioner M. McManus Read comments as submitted from Commissioner Betlej. Page 2, Section 2.3 — should there be any qualifications listed far experts, in the case where language asks for "expert opinion". Page 3, Section 2.3.B.6- would like to see the addition of a tree survey requirement. Page 6, Section 2.S.D — would like more clarification of this section and what it means. Why are we talking about marinas — may want to clean up the areas that don't apply. As there is another city actually between Mendota Heights and the river, how does that city stand on these issues? I am not sure where they stand in Lilydale, which is one of the most affected Regarding owners that have been identified, but have not been notified, do we have any ideas of the number of these property owners that might be affected. I am not sure how extensive this survey was done, and there seems to be about 25 individual parcels that have been identified, but not sure that is all of them. Are there other things in the ordinance that are specific to Mendota Heights? Steve Grittman I intended on give the whole ballpark on what's out there being done with these ordinances, and there is a lot of it that needs to be taken out such as the marina and those types of things. The only thing that is specific and not model language is the reference of the CUP section. A lot of the language is probably technical description of what we are already doing, and probably will not change our procedures and standards very much. Environmentally, this is sound material. Commissioner We have developers trying to meet all these requirements in relation to the Natural Resources M. McManus Management. Do we have to submit something to the DNR when we are doing this work in the critical area and do they monitor us? Steve Grittman Cmmissioner M McManus Steve Grittman Commissioner Dolan They do monitor but they don't review each individual request. They'll review our ordinance to make sure it we comply, but we are in charge of enforcing the ordinance. Referring to Page 9, the wording on the slopeage is very restricting. Referring to Page 21, Section 5.1 — How will the inter-community review process be handled. That is actually existing language and the intent of this section is to say that where we are reviewing an application for property that abuts another municipality, we will notify them that the application is out there. Referring to Page 18, Section 3.2.e.: If somebody comes to us with a request for a subdivision, and the slope is greater than 18%, does item "e" prohibit this? Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 Steve Grittman If somebody is creating a subdivision where they are going to create a building parcel, the intent of this clause is to say that the applicant needs to demonstrate there is buildable flat land on each of the lots. The DNR will almost certainly require this item to be in the ordinance. Commissioner Dolan Steve Grittman Commissioner Dolan Commissioner Hesse Steve Grittman Commissioner Hesse Steve Grittman Commissioner Hesse Steve Grittman Chair Lorberbaum CommissionerMi ller Chair Lorberbaum This seems to be harsh for people who come to the city for any development. We could try to have this passed without this clause I would suggest to take this out. We are looking at the 18% saying that rather than preserving it, we're seeking to protect it, which means yes you can build on 18% as ]ong as it's approved, that you will protect that slope. This applies to only those parcels that are already developed. We want to keep status quo. We do not have many parcels left that would be impacted by this clause. Do we know where these lots are? Staff has put together an inventory of affected parcels — both developed and undeveloped. Are the undeveloped lots deemed to be buildable, or is it best to keep as natural scenic overlooks. In other words, is it worth all this if the lots are not actually buildable? There are only a couple that are good enough for subdivision and will be heavily impacted by the 18% to the point they would not be able to be subdivided unless there are variances involved. If one has a lot and wishes to build one house on it, the regulations are saying no problem. With this clause, it would affect people who have a large parcel and wish to subdivide. There may a dozen or more with subdivision potential. Asked Mr. Grittman to provide a color coded map identifying those lots that are subdividable to the next meeting. We are trying to see who has ownership of these areas, be it private owners or the City. Asked Mr. Grittman to explain how this would affect property owners with some unstable bluffs. Steve Grittman There are standards that talk about how people are to develop within the critical area. Part of the 40% setback is intended to address and identify where the land is safe to build. Typically it would not be the practice of the City to go out and look for potential dangerous situations. Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 However, it is the City's practice to look for this potential when applicants come in to request permission to do work on their land. Discussion of Property Maintenance Ordinance — Patrick Hollister Mr. Hollister I provided to you a cover memo of mine attached to a memo from City Administrator Lindberg provided to the City Council. The idea of adopting a property maintenance ordinance has been brewing among the city officials far approximately 18 months. I wish to make a disclaimer that the Mayor eloquently made in that there is a broad agreement among the Council and the city officials that on the whole, Mendota Heights is a very well maintained community. We are blessed overwhelmingly with very responsible property owners who take good care of their property and the city looks good. I think most people would agree, however, that there are a very few number of property owners who are not keeping up with what has become the community standard. While, in a global sense, compared to all properties in Mendota Heights, this represents a very small percentage of our homes. If you happen to be a close neighbor to one of these specific properties, then it is a big problem for you. I think that an attempt to give the city the tools necessary to deal with some of these problems, discussion started last year about creating a property maintenance ordinance, which we currently do now have. I think another factor in the conversations were that ]ast year was an election year and those Council members who were running for office, and some of those who weren't running for office, got an earful when knocking on doors about various properties. We have provided copies of ordinances from other cities to be used as samples. One comment that was made at the Council meeting was that they think it's important for us to adopt a property maintenance ordinance, however I think that the timeframe here is that they are anticipating adoption some time before the end of this year, and so they don't want the Planning Commission to feel an undue sense of urgency and you are welcomed to take your time to kick this around, because it's better to do this correctly than quickly. Another comment was that it is not anticipated that this ordinance will be part of the zoning ordinance. This will be part of the general ordinance of the city, and maybe incorporated under the existing Nuisance ordinance. Adoption of this ordinance does not require a public hearing. The City Council can adopt it based on the staff's recommendations. I think the reason the Council referred it to the Commission is because the Commission deals with property and development issues on a monthly basis, and would like to have the input of the Commission. We also want to get input from the Code Enforcement Officers, and there may be a role for the planning consultant in this process as well. I think it's possible and desireable for us over the next several months discuss this ordinance and what we provisions we need or not need without mentioning or pointing fingers at any particular addresses or properties. In addition to the sample ordinances provided, there are also copies of letters received from Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 several property owners. Commissioner How are our situations handled right now? M. McManus Mr. Hollister We are a small city and staff is limited, we do address violations of ordinances when they come to our attention. Usually they come to our attention by us driving around and noticing something, or a resident will call to complain. As soon as we know about something, we act upon it, and it depends on the nature of the violation. [Mr. Hollister went into more detail on how the process is handled]. Commissioner Is there something of disrepair that relates to a health and safety issue or something that is M. McManus deemed to be really bothersome to a neighbor. Do we then recommend to that homeowner to cleanup the property, and is that the nature of our enforcement capabilities. Mr. Hollister There is a difference in the approach if something is seen to be unattractive or if it is dangerous. If it is perceived to be something dangerous, it almost certainly violates some part of the building code. In that case, the Code Enfarcement Officers do send a letter to the person and will facilitate a stop work arder if necessary. If the person does not wish to cooperate to find a resolution, it could become a court matter. The effort involved in here is beyond just what's dangerous and we want to address some things that are unsightly as well. If something is unsightly, but not dangerous, then we do some internal research to see if it's in violation of any ordinance, and this effort to create a property maintenance ardinance is in part a response to a perceived a gap in our ardinance structure because there are a lot of things that are unsightly and a general consensus is that we have no power to enforce because we have no language to enforce it. Commissioner I appreciate the properties because they are well maintained, and we are trying to accomplish M. McManus the minimum standards. I think it would be important to look into how we talk about all aspects of the property such as structures, what's left of the property, etc. We need more clarification on what defines yard maintenance. Mr. Hollister Mr. Danielson Commissioner Miller I think it would be helpful to have some degree of enforcement, ie, first notice, second notice, etc. and a respectful period of time on the property owner to take care of the problem. I was not clear on the noise ordinance. The noise ordinance was discussed a fair amount of time last year, but has been temporary put aside. The focus and emphasis right now is for the property maintenance. He does not recall any discussions recently regarding the noise issues. Who will write this ordinance? � Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 Mr. Hollister Commissioner Miller The Planning Commission would be writing the ordinance with the help of city staf£ The City Council will then have the final approval. I feel that the property maintenance and the noise goes hand in hand. Chair I like what has been done and we need some enforcement process. As a starting point, I would Lorberbaum like to address the issue of old cars, trucks, etc. I also want to add something about residents keeping their sidewalks clean and free of snow, ice, and other debris. Commissioner I think this is a good idea and I also thought Eagan was an example we should go with. My Dolan concern is with expectations, and will citizen's think that with this ordinance, they will have a basis to complain, and then will we have to hire another Code Enforcement Officer to handle more calls. How will this be enforced internally? Mr. Hollister We have given some preliminary thought to enforcement and also I think the Council at the last Council meeting faresaw some potential problems we may run into. This Council made it clear that they recognized there could be a danger point and we don't want to create something that's onerous for the residents. We also don't want to create a document that is so particular, detailed and exact, that the document itself could become a weapon that neighbors could use against each other. It is not anticipated that this will require additional staff and we certainly want to craft the language with an eye for avoiding the need far additional staff. One of the ways that we ensure that we don't get overwhelmed is by limiting the ordinance itself to those issues that we truly have to deal with. We need to identify the things that are out there that we need to address and how can we work this in a manner that we have sufficient capability to enforce it when the issue comes up. Commissioner I think that's a good idea and we should keep this in mind. Dolan Commissioner I'm aware of a couple of properties within the City of Mendota Heights that could use some Hesse repair and it is just those couple of properties that stand out. I agree there is a need to address this and understand its effects on their neighbors. How can we create this ordinance to give the city more teeth and doesn't become out of control. In Section 20 of the zoning ordinance that specifically identifies not necessary just physical issues but also activities of properties that may be of nuisance ar bothersome to neighbors. The one thing I don't see in that is a process to address those. It's important to establish a process, and to define what the issues really are, and coming to an agreement with the property owner and neighbors on who to address them. [Refer to Cottage Grove's example where there is an abatement procedure. ] Mr. Hollister Assuming we adopt a property ordinance sometime this year, if we don't specify otherwise in the ordinance itself or in some other document, what the enforcement procedure of this ordinance will be, then I assume that it will be the same enforcement procedure that we currently use to enforce our building code, the UBC, and our zoning ordinances. The bulk of � Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 the task of enforcing both our zoning code and general building code issues falls about 85% on our two Code Enfarcement Officers and the remaining 15% on other people (city staf� depending on what the issue is. There are clauses in our eXisting zoning ordinance that deal with property maintenance, noise, vibration, smoke and particulate matter. Those clauses are general in nature and sometimes we get into problem because of the vagueness of language. There are a handful of issues of specific types of problems that we want to enunciate in more detail. A way to avoid going to far is to start by adopting some time this year something that is rather skeletal and as time goes by, we can add to it as the need dictates Commissioner If we are going to have 5 books, let's keep it a 5. If we have to make a couple thicker on Hesse occasion, it would make sense if there is a handful of issues right now, why not chose existing ordinances that we could beef up versus creating a whole new ordinance. The existing Mr. Hollister ordinance attempts to address it, and if we do create a whole new ordinance, it almost makes this portion of the ordinance unuseful. Will work with Jim Danielson, Planner Grittman, and the City Attorney, to determine if this should be part of the zoning ordinance. There may be statutory, legal, or procedural reasons why we don't want it in the zoning ordinance. Commissioner This may cause a greater workload for the Code Enforcement Officers, and if there is a Hesse possibility to reduce that and allow them more of an opportunity to respond quickly and efficiently. Chair Lorberbaum Mr. Hollister When is this anticipated to come before the Commission again? On a monthly basis until it's adopted, but only when there is something interesting and informative to talk about. VERBAL RET�IEW Mr. Danielson reported on the following actions taken at the last City Council Meeting. PLANNING CASE #03-01: James Dzik & Joy Rude PLANNING CASE #03-02: John V. Goebel l2 Variance for a garden shed Approved as recoinmended by Commission CUP and Variance to construct a detached garage and expand home Approved as recommended by Commssion Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 2003 PLANNING CASE #03-03: Frank Nemeth PUD and Preliminary Plat for lot subdivision Approved as recominended by Commssion COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:15 PM Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 13