Loading...
2003-05-27 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 27, 2003 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 27, 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: Vice Chair Betlej, Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Betlej, 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 recorded by Becki Shaffer. The following Commissioners were excused: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioner M. McManus. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Commission reviewed the minutes of Apri122, 2003. City Staff has received the corrections from Chair Lorberbaum and will incorporate them into the minutes. The following corrections were made: Page 8: last paragraph, first sentence should read: "Commissioner Betlej asked about the distance to the Foxwood Lane street right-of-way." Page 9: • First paragraph, iirst sentence should read: "Commissioner Betlej said there was a discussion regarding the size of the lots in the Foxwood development during its initial approval and it was suggested to have a minimum of 2.5 acres to allow far sufficient area for drainage fields as well as having a secondary drainage field. • Second paragraph should read: "Commissioner Betlej asked if the Planner had any concerns with a loop road versus the cul-de-sac." Page 10: last paragraph, sentences one through four should read: " Commissioner Betlej asked if Mr. Fuchs was referring to the restrictive covenants. Mr. Fuchs said this was correct. Commissioner Betlej said these covenants were signed off by the owners of the three lots that were created by the Foxwood subdivision. Mr. Fuchs said this was correct. Commissioner Betlej said none of this appears on the plot. Mr. Fuchs said it was signed off by the person who owned Foxwood before the plat was recorded, and not signed on by any of the current owners." Page 11: last paragraph, iirst sentence should read: "Commissioner Betlej commented on the reference to similar long cul-de-sac cases such as Orchard; and asked if that was processed as a variance?" Page 12: second to last paragraph, second sentence should read: "Commissioner Betlej said that the city attempted to encourage cooperation amongst the various land owners in this area and found no willingness to work together on planning the development of the area and perhaps the result would take precedence here that the city will end up with numerous dead end cul-de-sacs if there is not any sort of cooperative type of development. Commissioner Betlej said he is not comfortable with what is being proposed here, but he is not totally unwilling to dismiss it either. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Page l 5: last paragraph should read: "Commissioner B. McManus suggested placing a friendly amendment saying that until there has been shown some physical accomplishment of the restoration". Page 26: seventh paragraph, iirst sentence should read: "Corninissioner Betlej said this needs more parking, materials need to be consistent with the commercial district, and to make sure there is adequate lighting." COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BETLEJ, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2003 AS CORRECTED. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #03-15 Paul Haggerty 645 Sibley Memorial Highway VARIANCE/CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR A REAR DECK AND LANDSCAPE PLAN Mr. Grittman reviewed a drawing submitted by the applicant showing the location of proposed plantings on the bluff to replace vegetation that was removed from the bluff area of the critical area and the rear portion of the applicant's property. The applicant has also submitted a summary of various plant materials that was removed froin the bluff, identifying types and sizes. Mr. Grittman said the DNR provides certain guidelines for replanting in cases such as this. The applicant has not provided a landscape plan showing the proposed planting layout, as well as addressing erosion impacts. Planning staff has recommended that a total of 19 trees, with a three-inch diameter truck, be planted with a mix of species similar to that which exist on other parts of the bluf£ The replanting should be designed to preserve a view corridor of no more than 25% of the lot width in order to comply with the DNR standards. Commissioner Hesse asked if the Planner's office was comfortable with the proposal as submitted. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has come as close to the requirements as possible. Commissioner Hesse asked if there have been any repercussions with the DNR Mr. Grittman said input has been received from the DNR, and may need to have further input as needed. Commissioner polan said the requirement is for 19 trees to be planted, and aslced if that is taken into account for the 25% reduction. Mr. Grittman said the applicant, Mr. Haggerty, has submitted to the City a plan which identifies 19 trees which have been removed, and it has been recommended to replant 19. At this time, the planting pattern is still being worked on and it is unknown if this will adequately qualify for the 25% rule. Commissioner polan asked if the slope made it impossible to use a tree spade. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner polan asked if Mr. Grittman's comments at the last meeting on fast-growing vegetation are in included in the recommendation now presented. Mr. Grithnan said this plan will be reviewed with these comments in mind, as well as incorporating the DNR criteria and recommendations. The drawing submitted by Mr. Haggerty includes the following trees/shrubs to be planted: 14 Shrubs: Gray Dogwood (2), American Black Currant (4), Missouri Gooseberry (4), Red-Berried Elder (4) Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 12 Trees: Paper Birch (4), Green Ash (4), American Basswood (2), American Elm (2) Commissioner Miller asked this plan meets the requirements. Mr. Grittman said the plan submitted is only a preliminary drawing and a formal landscape plan will have to be submitted. Commissioner Miller asked what kind of clear cut corridor this is. Mr. Grittman said the drawing is not specific, and the DNR allowance is to maintain a 25% open view. It is not clear how the applicant has perceived the 25%, whether it be clear cutting or thinning. Commissioner B. McManus asked who has the authority to make final approval of this proposal. Mr. Grittman said the city does. Commissioner B. McManus said the drawing as presented is not a suitable plan to be submitted for approval or disapprovaL Mr. Grittman said that was carrect. Commissioner B. McManus asked how the Commission can take action on a unapprovable plan that is currently before them. Mr. Grittman said it was the Commission's discretion to ask the applicant to provide that plan as on occasion, the City has passed on plans like this before. Paul Haggerty, 645 Sibley Memorial Highway, said this drawing is what has already been planted on the bluf£ Mr. Haggerty said he had been instructed by the Commission to get some planting done and come back in 60 days to get an approval on the remainder of items left to be done. Mr. Haggerty showed a container that the trees come in as an example as to the size of the trees that were planted. Mr. Haggerty said he received a letter the previous Friday from Mr. Grittman regarding the planting of larger trees. Mr. Haggerty said that was the first he had heard of this requirement, and at this time, he is very reluctant to drag bigger trees over the hill and damaging any existing vegetation. Mr. Haggerty is also looking for approval of the deck that is within the 40' of the edge of the bluff and believes he is in compliance. Mr. Haggerty said he felt he did not receive a fair hearing regarding the request for variance for the front porch that was denied at the last meeting. Mr. Haggerty showed a list of signatures from about twenty neighbors who have been in favor of the plans, and City Staff has been instructed to make copies for their files. Mr. Haggerty estimates the total width of the clearing to be 63', and said the previous owner had also done some clearing over the years which would not result in having a full canopy at the time Mr. Haggerty purchased the property. Mr. Haggerty said he is receptive to getting this job done. Commissioner B. McManus asked how many trees have been planted. Mr. Haggerty said twelve trees and fourteen native shrubbery, all species taken from the comprehensive plan requirements. Commissioner B. McManus said Mr. Haggerty appears to have acted in good faith and asked when the restoration will be completed to allow for an inspection. Mr. Haggerty said the planting will be completed by Thursday, May 29`�. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the number of trees to be planted, and said there was some miscommunication in that requirement. Commissioner Miller said he appreciated the plantings that have been done so far, but would like to see a more long term plan, or a full plot plan of that area. Commissioner polan is concerned about the reluctance to plant bigger trees, and asked how much damage it would create. Mr. Haggerty asked Commissioner polan if he was capable of carrying down a 200 pound tree without some destruction. He added that he wants to do the right thing, but doesn't want to create more problems. Commissioner Dolan said he is assuming it can be done without too much trouble and that trees with a three-inch diameter are pretty reasonable. Mr. Haggerty said he has planted 50 trees on his lot since he owned the house two years ago, and also has a plan to plant another 45. In making this comment, Mr. Haggerty does not want to have an "overkill" of plantings, but wishes to reach some compromise. Commissioner polan recognized that Mr. Haggerty received information from an unknown source. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Commissioner Hesse said he thinks the City should obtain more input from the DNR, and said there should be ways to get these bigger trees safely down the hill. Commissioner Hesse said he doesn't believe there will be a substantial amount of damage done to the existing vegetation. Mr. Haggerty asked about other cases of residents taking down trees on their own property within the critical area and how was that handled. Vice Chair Betlej said he wished to keep the discussion directed to this plan only. Commissioner Hesse added that the Commission looks at each individual case on its own merits. Commissioner B. McManus said there have been no plans provided on which to vote on, and there is a need for further information such as the position that the DNR has taken, if in fact they have even reviewed this plan. Mr. Haggerty said he has met with the City four times trying to iigure out what needed to be done, and feels he has done everything he can based on the information he has been given. Mr. Danielson said the applicant has submitted the information to them this evening. Vice Chair Betlej said a full City inspection of the project will have to be done at the time of completion. Vice Chair Betlej opened the public hearing, and added that he would like to limit the discussions to the facts at hand and that which is pertinent information to the project itsel£ It was noted that at the last meeting, there was quite a bit of verbal slashing between neighbors. Mr. Burt Anderson, 643 Sibley Memorial Highway, lives directly next door to Mr. Haggerty. Mr. Anderson claimed that Mr. Haggerty has made untrue statements about the trees in the front yard, as well as planting simple flowers and vegetation, but not trees. If in fact Mr. Haggerty has planted trees, they are so tiny they are not visible. Mr. Anderson shared a picture showing designated property lines, and indicated how the trees were laid out in connection with the layout of the property, and which trees were cut down. Commissioner B. McManus said the discussion should not be about the Anderson property. Mr. Anderson said it should be. Commissioner B. McManus said it is not the purpose of the Commission to settle neighbors' disputes. Vice Chair Betlej instructed Mr. Anderson to stick to the plan in front of them. Mr. Anderson continued to complain about the damage to his property, at which point Commissioner polan interjected that Mr. Anderson is free to bring civil action against Mr. Haggerty, but the Planning Commission will not step into these discussions. Mr. Anderson said cranes can be brought in to plant larger trees, and according to the DNR's letter, there are ways that restoration can be done. Mr. Anderson said a member of the City Council, whom he did not name, looked at the Haggerty property and said it was "horrible" and was an "open tundra of desert area now". Mr. Haggerty asked for an opportunity to respond to Mr. Anderson's comments and said that he has not planted flowers, but they are technically shrubbery. He said he did not remove any trees from any other yard but his own. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Vice Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS 11% C��C�]�[�1\ .7.71 �17 Vice Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Further Discussion Vice Chair Betlej said he visited the property. Vice Chair Betlej said the slopes are quite significant and would agree that it would be difficult to place larger trees there. Vice Chair Betlej said what he did iind, however, was very thin and needs to be "beefed up" a bit. Commissioner B. McManus visited the site and believes it has been clear cut. Commissioner B. McManus said that because there is no clear plan in front of them, he suggested either tabling the discussion or turning down this application until a formal plan is presented. Commissioner polan said he agreed with Commissioner B. McManus and added that he does not feel qualified to make a decision based on what has been presented. Commissioner Hesse commented that the DNR recommendations are important to take into consideration. Mr. Grittman said that any discussions should then be relayed to the DNR in connection with the permitting process. Mr. Grittman said the City uses its own ordinances to enforce tree cutting permits, and the DNR does get involved when there is a special consideration such as in this case. Vice Chair Betlej said the DNR report provided in the Commissioner's packets basically cover guidelines. Commissioner B. McManus said it is not the function of the Planning Commission to punish an act or rectify things that have happened, but to determine whether there should be a critical area permit granted and at this time, there is not enough infarmation to make that decision. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT BASED ON THE FACT THERE IS NO APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF OR ACCEPTABLE PLAN, AS WELL AS DNR REQUIREMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-16 Craig Wagenknecht 1062 Wagon Wheel Trail VARIANCE AND SUBDIVISION FOR THE CREATION OF AN ADDITIONAL TWO LOTS Mr. Grittman showed a map depicting a proposed subdivision as a revision of a previous application that the City reviewed. Mr. Grittman said this map was merely a sketch drawing and there is not enough information to provide a recommendation to the City on this matter. Vice Chair Betlej recommended to table this discussion until the next Planning Commission meeting, at which time the appropriate plans and information can be supplied to enable the Coinmission to make proper decisions. This recommendation does not require a second and there is no further discussion. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED TO TABLE DISCUSSION UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, IN WffiCH THE APPLICANT MUST SUPPLY SUFFICIENT PLANS AND INFORMATION AS REQUIRED. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-25 BWBR Architects, representing St. Peter's Church 1405 Sibley Memorial Highway CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Mr. Grittman introduced the application a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of the existing church facility as well as the Critical Area Permit to construct and do site improvements within the critical area. The Church of St. Peter wishes to construct a new church building and preserve the historic church and the largest existing building. Two of the existing buildings will be demolished. Mr. Grittman pointed out the concern for some special trees that are to be preserved. Commissioner Hesse asked about the roofline and building height. Mr. Grittman said there is a building height limitation of 25', or up to two stories, which is required in the R-1 zoning district as well as the critical area. Mr. Grittman said the new building will be taller, but that depends on how the space is measured. The building adjacent to the main entrance, where the height is measured from, will comply with the 25' height requirement. Church spires, cupolas, and domes that do not contain useable space are exempt from the ordinance requirement, according to Section 23 of the City Code. Commissioner Hesse asked if the building goes higher to the back because of grade changes. Mr. Grittman said that was the building height in itsel£ Commissioner Hesse said he would consider the elevated roofline to contain unuseable space and would therefore be acceptable. Commissioner polan asked what kind of other activities would require parking space while the sanctuary is in use. Mr. Grittman said that while there are no identified activities, it is a good practice to "hedge" some parking spaces where available. Mr. Grittman also pointed out some parking in the existing right of way, and there are currently no plans to change that condition and it seems to present no concerns at this time. Mr. Grittman said most churches are in the R-1 zone. Commissioner polan referred to the conditions on the timeline extensions requested by the church. Mr. Grittman said these conditions can be included in the recommendation. The special considerations are being requested because of the nature of the church's fundraising efforts needed to proceed with the additions. Vice Chair Betlej asked about the drainage controL Mr. Danielson said the City Engineer has approved the plan for drainage. Commissioner Miller asked if the Planner has an opinion regarding the height variance in the R-1 district, and as a church, will this be grandfathered in. Mr. Grittman said he was not aware of any previous variances, and that the elevated roof is not taller than the existing church spire. Staff is comfortable with the height of these buildings as they see that elevator roofline resulting from unusable space. Commissioner Miller said it would be best to keep with the procedures and proceed with the variance instead of dismissing it. Vice Chair Betlej said a variance would have to be advertised and a separate hearing would be needed. Commissioner B. McManus said he would agree that this space is unusable and therefore, the roofline would be in lceeping with the character of other churches. Commissioner B. McManus said there is a lot of hard surface and will there be extra runof£ Mr. Grittman said the engineering staff is comfortable with the plans. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Steve Erickson, Architect for BWBR Architects reviewed in more detail some colored renderings of the new buildings. Mr. Erickson said he is in agreement with all Staff's recommendations Commissioner B. McManus asked about the buildings to be demolished. Mr. Erickson explained that the Rectory will be demolished as it is currently underutilized as Father Kevin will live off site. The historical hall will also be removed. These spaces will be replaced with what is known as the Social Hall. Commissioner B. McManus asked how far down the hill does the property go, and what is the purpose of a house there. Father Kevin said that a number of years ago, before the Planning Commission was in existence, someone built a home thinking it was on their property, when in fact, some of it was on Church's property. The parish purchased the whole house and has been used as a residence for maintenance people. Currently, the home is being rented to three Notre Dame Nuns who work in variance parts of the church. The church will continue to maintain this home. Vice Chair Betlej provided some questions from the absent Commissioners referencing four special trees that have been transplanted on behalf of the Dakota Mdwakanton community. Father Kevin said the tribe was very upset with the changes in Highway 55 and there four sacred oaks that were cut down in order for the highway improvements to happen. Cuttings were taken from those trees and grafted onto oak trunks. The Church of St. Peter welcomed these plantings as part of their hospitality. Vice Chair Betlej asked if there will be a grade change between the existing and new buildings. Mr. Erickson said there will be slight change and all grading will comply with code. Vice Chair Betlej said he hopes to keep the old church preserved and not allow any construction to disturb it in any way. Mr. Erickson said all efforts will be made to protect the church. Commissioner polan asked for a deiinition of a cupola. Mr. Erickson said this would be a small ventilation structure that sits on top of a barn. Mr. Erickson described how a pitched roof is measured to determine height. Mr. Erickson said the new church will blend in nicely with the existing church. Mr. Grittman said that the notice far this hearing included the notice for a variance. Vice Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS Il% C��C�]�[�1\ .7.71 �117 Vice Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said this has been extremely well planned. This is a massive undertaking on that site and all the planning has been made, and therefore sees no problems with this proposal. VICE CHAIR BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITION USE PERMIT WITHIN THE CRITICAL OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE VARIANCE FOR THE ROOF HEIGHTS, ALL SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE PLANNER: Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 1. Parking stalls must be at least 20 feet long, and drive aisles adjacent to parking stalls must be at least 20 feet wide. 2. Proposed lighting for parking lots shall have no direct source of light visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent land in an "R" District. 3. Grading, utility, and erosion control plans are subject to City Engineer review and approval. 4. Some of the trees indicated to be saved on the tree preservation plan are within the grading limits. For these trees to survive, care will have to be taken to minimize the removal or addition of soil within the root zone. 5. Grant an extension for CUP from six months to one year, and extend the time period to obtain necessary permits after CUP approval from one year to two years. 6. Any further revisions/changes are to be brought back to the Commission for review. Further Discussion Commissioner Hesse said in order to approve a variance, a hardship must be shown. As stated in the Planner's repo�t, church structures can be 50% taller than the height limit. The Planning Commission needs to consider whether the proposed church complies with the intent of the height ordinance. The Planning Commission could determine that the building exceeds the 24' limit, and therefore, the applicant must apply for a variance. As another option, the Planning Commission could determine that the proposed building complies with the intent of the height ordinance based on the following factors: • Most of the proposed building, including the entry a�ea, is 24' or less in height. • The portion of the building that exceeds the height limit is only over the sanctuary and is removed from the front of the building. • The building is only one-story in height, albeit a very tall one story. • The proposed building is shorter than the steeple of the historic church. • Section 23 of the City Code lists exceptions to the building height for soine types of sti^uctures that do not contain usable space. Commissioner polan said Mr. Grittman said this doesn't have to be approached as a variance. Commissioner polan's preference would be to not approach as a variance and get hung up on the hardship issue. This can be approved based on compliance with current zoning. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR Vice Chair Betlej amended his motion to remove al] language regarding the variance and replace as follows: VICE CHAIR BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITION USE PERMIT WITHIN THE CRITICAL OVERLAY DISTRICT ALL SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE PLANNER: 1. Parking stalls must be at least 20 feet long, and drive aisles adjacent to parking stalls must be at least 20 feet wide. 2. Proposed lighting for parking lots shall have no direct source of light visible from the public right-of-way or adj acent land in an "R" District. 3. Grading, utility, and erosion control plans are subject to City Engineer review and approval. 4. Some of the trees indicated to be saved on the tree preservation plan are within the grading limits. For these trees to survive, care will have to be taken to minimize the removal or addition of soil within the root zone. 5. Grant an extension for CUP from six months to one year, and extend the time period to obtain necessary permits after CUP approval from one year to two years. 6. Any further revisions/changes are to be brought back to the Commission for review. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Reasons for Amendment: • Most of the proposed building, including the entry area, is 24' or less in height. • The portion of the building that exceeds the height limit is only over the sanctuary and is removed from the fi^ont of the building. • The building is only one-story in height, albeit a very tall one story. • The proposed building is shorter than the steeple of the historic church. • Section 23 of the City Code lists exceptions to the building height for some types of structures that do not contain usable space. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS AMENDED: AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-26 Robert Fink 1850 Arvin Drive PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE Mr. Grittman introduced the request for preliminary plat and variance approval to re-subdivide two properties. The larger of the two properties in located at 1850 Arvin Drive and contains an existing house. The smaller, vacant lot to the south is landlocked. The applicant is proposing a subdivision that would relocate the buildable portion of the property to allow construction to occur on the land in front of the existing home. The applicant needs a variance for the lot width of 53' for the throat of the driveway portion that would access the existing home. The first step is to evaluate the reasonable use of this property in order to call for a hardship. Commissioner polan said in the applicant's letter, it is noted that the City has vacated the right-of-way for Wachtler going south, assuming there will be no plans to extend Wachtler to the south. Mr. Grittman said this was the understanding. It is unclear through county records if this vacation was made and when it was made, and Staff has asked the applicant to provide any information he can on this concern. Commissioner polan said this is a flag lot issue again. Mr. Grittman said it does not appear that there are other flag lots in the area, in fact some lots have double frontage. Mr. Grittman said it is troubling that this is a flag lot and would obviously be taken into account. Commissioner polan asked if there were any issues with the access to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Grittman said this issue comes into play for the existing home, as this is where the variance would have to be required. Mr. Grittman said this request seemed reasonable as there are not many existing driveways on the cul-de-sac. Vice Chair Betlej asked if the road is vacated, does the land revert back to the adjoining lots? Mr. Grittman said the land would go back to those lots which had originally given up the land in the original plat. In this case, the assumption would be when Wachtler, which at one time existed as a right-of-way, was vacated; the property lines would then be adjusted. It is Staff's belief, but that is not known for sure. Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Commissioner Miller said the existing property owners then had some bonus land coming. Mr. Grittman said Staff received different information with different maps they reviewed, and it appears that the right-of-way no longer appears; it is important that this information gets verified. Mr. Grittman said the vacation runs from Marie Avenue south to Hilltop Road. Commissioner Miller asked if the power lines follow the lot lines. Mr. Grittman said that would be a part of the initial plat information. Commissioner Miller asked if there will be a point in time when the lot width becomes 100' as the radius is increased back toward the existing home. Mr. Grittman said it doesn't seem to until after passing along the throat. Commissioner B. McManus said the drawing of the proposed home and garage seems very close to the cul-de-sac. What stops the builder from placing the proposed home back from the street more. Mr. Grittman said the slope of the driveway would be the main factar. Commissioner B. McManus said the Commission has in the very recent past, approved a site very similar to this. Mr. Robert Fink and his wife, Jean ZaiKaner has owned this property for about 16 years. Mr. Fink said he believed the proposed lot will meet the 100' street frontage. Mr. Fink reviewed the map showing how the vacant lot is landlocked. The reason the lot was put there originally, was that is was anticipated that Wachtler would have been extend through. Mr. Fink would like this re-subdivision to allow the vacant lot be more useful. Mr. Fink said he was told a home could be constructed on this proposed lot. A surveyor would be needed to answer the question as to whether it can be moved back or not. Vice Chair Betlej asked if the buildable site, as suggested here, would address runoff issues. Mr. Fink said this is out of his expertise and would have to consult with a surveyor. Vice Chair Betlej said the proposed home seems to be out of character with its size. Mr. Fink showed a picture of what the actual house would look like, and said the information previously provided was incorrect. In actuality, the proposed home would have double the square footage as was stated in the Planner's report. Vice Chair Betlej said he would have to see how that design would wark with the steep slope. Commissioner Hesse said the Commission needs to look for a hardship, and if Wachtler was extended, the lot would have been usable. However, with Wachtler not going through, this created a landlocked parcel which is essentially unusable. More information needs to be obtained as to the timing of the planning stages in relation to when the lot was divided and when the right of way was not completed. Mr. Fink said the variance is specifically because of the lack of proper street frontage. Commissioner polan asked City Staff if this sort of lot would be approved today in this kind of situation. Mr. Grittman said that would be an odd situation as usually in subdivision, the properties run along the street construction. Commissioner B. McManus asked if Wachtler has always been shown on the maps. If so, when was it vacated? Mr. Danielson said Wachtler was at one time a County road, but it is not know the date of vacation. Commissioner B. McManus said it was possible to assume that this lot was purchased with the impression that there would be access to that lot, thus deiining a hardship. Vice Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. � Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Jean ZaiKaner explained how the land is very heavily wooded, and therefore the visibility of their existing home, as well as a proposed home, would be difficult to see, and therefore would not affect the character of the neighborhood very much. She also suggested to place the proposed home higher to alleviate some of the drainage issues. Commissioner B. McManus said the drainage also runs abit to the west. Eric Swanson, 784 Hilltop, is concerned about the steep slope and the visibility of a new home. Mr. Swanson said he was in opposition of this proposal. Gerald Scheuyer, 820 Hilltop, has lived at this location for 33 years. Mr. Scheuyer has witnessed the vacation process of Wachtler, which was done by Ed Stringer. Mr. Scheuyer said to his knowledge, the vacation was done before the applicants purchased their property. Mr. Scheuyer expressed his concerns with the subdivision and does not want this one to set precedence for the neighborhood, and there are other properties in the area that are larger. There is no hardship here. Jennie Robinson / Chuck Kluse, 1817 Valley Curve, purchased their home based on the openness that the applicants property provides, as well as the character of the neigborhood. Other issues include traffic, parking, spring meltdown and drainage. Les Grapond, 829 Hilltop, built their hoine in 1999. The reason they chose that lot was because of the trees in the area, and the general look of the neighborhood. Mr. Grapond said he could not understand why the applicant is not content with the property the way it is as they do not have to pay extra taxes for that vacant lot. Molly Green, 1821 Valley Curve, asked if the City has an ordinance to address house sizes. She also said many of the residents feel that this is their back yard and it will all be gone. Vice Chair Betlej said the city has standards and setback requirements that are followed. Ms. Green also expressed the concern of on street parking. Beverly Baletz, 821 Hilltop, and Betty Wilde, 1890 Valley Curve spoke of the pleasantness of having such a wonderful area to live. Both women are widowed and have enjoyed living in this area for many years, and do not want to see the area change. Mr. Fink said he appreciates the neighbors' wonderful concerns and it is a wonderful neighborhood. Mr. Fink said they don't want to change it in a negative way. Mr. Fink wanted to clarify the following points: • There is currently two lots. The applicant is not looking to create two lots. • The applicant pays taxes on both lots. • Asking to keep two lots, but make one more usable than it is now. • Very much value the land and nature. Will not want to remove a lot of trees. • No need to park on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Fink said he believes a home could be put in there with out a lot of tree removal and negative affects to the neighborhood, thus the need for expert advice on his plans. At this time, they are just exploring their options and have no concrete plans. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS � Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 MOTION CARRIED Vice Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. Further Discussion Commissioner polan says he would feel as everyone else if he were in this situation, but the applicant have the legal right to subdivide if it meets the requirements. The Commission must base their analysis on that, as opposed to view and expectations. Vice Chair Betlej said there was not enough information to determine if this would be a buildable lot, and question the slope and drainage issues. VICE CHAIR BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO TABLE THIS CASE UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. AYES NAYS (Commissioner B. McManus) MOTION CARRIED Discussion of Critical Area ONdinance Mr. Grittman opened discussion of the updated draft of the Critical Area Ordinance. The following comments were made: Mr. Grittman The structure of the ordinance was made to address the DNR's changing regulations in the critical area, but also to deal fairly with the several properties in Mendota Heights that are already developed, and potentially adding building additions or other accessory structures to their properties. This is an attempt to draft these regulations in a way that would allow reasonable expansion of those properties while still achieving the DNR's obj ectives. The biggest change is on the ordinance itself, which includes language about the slope of the bluff which has been changed from 40% to 18%. Commissioner B. Change: Page 6, D.: "Existing Residential Uses. Residential buildings on parcels McManus developed and built upon prior to June 1, 203, that otherwise conform to the standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance, and which comply with the standards � and regulations ..." Question: Document talks about setback from the high water mark ...does not say remaining above the high water mark, should there be a provision be added that says "setback from the high water inark, or higher than......, should page 6, B.2 read: l2 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 "Setback from Normal High Water Mark: No structure or road shall be constructed less than one hundred (100') from , or higher than the normal high water mark of any water body. Mr. Gritt�nan Those regulations do existing in the floor protection rules and shoreline regulations that are separate from the critical area. The purpose of the critical area is basically to protect the view from the river of the land, so it would deal more with the setback issues on how close encroachments can come to the river itself. Commissioner Miller There is something in the ordinance relating to having the basement a foot about the water level mark. "The lowest elevation of buildings used for living quarters or work areas shall be at least 3' above the seasonal high water level of any wetland. Question: Page 9— what is a gabbion. Mr. Gritt�nan A abbion is chainlink fence that is full of rocks used for erosion control. Vice Chair Betlej Staff has Chair Lorberbaum's corrections for staff to incorporate. Staff has done a nice job of pullin this all to ether. Commissioner polan I have been �roubled by this ordinance since we've first talked about it. There is not much we can do. DNR's proposing 18%, and its safe to say we don't really have any authority to vary from that. We have always said 18%, and if someone has a grade steeper than 18%, if we are acknowled in that it may not be a wise ordinance, why are we uttin 18% in? Commissioner Hesse I'm not so sure that if you actually had a chance to look at 18%, you've got to think about it. And a 20°/o slope is 5 to 1, (which is a mowable slope). People get buggy about mowing a 25% slope. For draining purposes, a lot of structures' grading plans that have distances of 200' or reater on a 20% slo e are re uired to have a drainage break. Commissioner polan If we've been constructing on slopes greater than this without any problems, now we are proposing 18% which we may feel is restrictive, is there any thought to changing that number? Mr. Grittman In my opinion, you would ultimately be made to comply. Pm not sure how long you could fight this, if the DNR chose to fight it with you. Pm not sure you'd prevail eventually. I don't think you would. Acknowledging that, what we try to do is correct margins that would be res ectful of that number but it's a small im act on ro erty owners as ossible. Commissioner polan So if somebody comes in to us that wants to plat property that has not been platted before, after we enact this ordinance, they have to establish the criteria of the variance. Mr. Grittman New subdivisions would be limited, and those properties would the most heavily impacted. What we've aslced them to do is show land on their property that would be less than l 8% so ihey could establish building sites. Otherwise, a variance is needed. Commissioner polan If they had land that wasn't develo ed, and the entire grade is 18%, how would we den it? Mr. Gritt�nan If somebody has a body such as this, we would be compelled to grant a variance to build there. If they come in with a new subdivision, then they will have to show a hardship. That would be the greatest impact. What we tried to do in the early analysis was to identify how many properties are out there, and of the few that are out there, almost all of them, except for a small handful, are �ust 2 for 1 sli s. Commissioner Hesse Page 10, B.4. I think the last time we looked at this, it struck me that we even have this type of language in there. I'm not saying that we can't allow a landfill in the critical area, but is it necessary to have this type of language in there. 13 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Page 11, C.l .b. 1 think this is a fairly universal rule, and I don't want to suggest we take it out if we think someone is going to find a way around it. Mr. Grittman I doubt that anybody is going to find a way around these things, even though the wetlands shall not be used for solid waste disposal. Whether it's in the ordinance or not, wetlands are not going to be used for solid waste disposal as part of our regular review. I would advise to keep the language in there because if we take it out, my guess is that some staff at DNR will notice it's missin . Vice Chair Betle� I think the land that is covered b this zoning is anythin but residential use. Mr. Grittman There is critical area that zoned Bla for Ecolab Commissioner polan Are ou su esting that this is a little too broad? Vice Chair Betle� I think there is a lot of land in here that should be. Commissioner Hesse I�ust thought it was odd the first time. Mr. Grittman In our opinion, it's easier to leave it. Commissioner B. Where are the wetlands, it's not defined. McManus Mr. Grittman A wetland would be defined by state law. Commissioner Hesse A wetland has three criteria: vegetative, soil, and moisture/surface water. I don't know the specifics, but a stream could be designated a wetland. An area could be a wetland if it's only wet a portion of the time of the year. This is something that is delineated by a professional wetland delineator. Typically, if a piece of property has cattails or water in any way, one would think this would be a wetland. Vice Chair Betlej Is it a federal law that covers that? Commissioner Hesse There is a state law Commissioner B. So where is the definition shown in this document? McManus Mr. Grittman There are objective standards that determine what is a wetland and what is not. Commissioner Miller What are the next ste s? Patrick Hollister Let me give you my vision of what's neXt. I think the best thing for us to do is to get this ordinance into a shape where the Planning Commission feels comfortable with the way it's worded, which it seems like we are there. Then we will present this ordinance to the City Council and say "here is your Critical Ordinance Provision" as drafted by our Planning Consultant and as reviewed by the Planning Commission. Then we will ask far direction from City Council. City Council may have their own revisions that they want to make to it, and they may say it looks great to us, and hold the farmal public hearing at the Planning Commission. After this public hearing, it goes forward with the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Council for adoption. The City Council could say, although I think this is very unlikely, because I think the Council is aware of and sensitive to the mandate that we are under from the DNR. We will leave it the way it is, and if the DNR comes back to us, we will deal with it. I suspect the Council is interested in amending the ordinance along these lines to put forth a good faith effort to comply with the wishes of the DNR. This is an amendment to the Critical Area Ordinance. When we amend our ordinances, ie dog lease, liquor licenses, etc., different rypes of ordinance amendments have different types of hearing requirements and it's possible that since this is an amendment to the Critical Area Ordinance, and not the zonin ordinance, it's ossible that no ublic hearin 14 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 is required. If one is required, that hearing would take place at the City Council. I am not 100% sure on that detail. Mr. Danielson I do believe a ublic hearin would have to take lace at the City Council. Vice Chair Betlej If there was a public hearing at this point, would everyone that was within the critical area be informed. Mr. Hollister If we treated this as an amendment to the zoning ordinances, this is an amendment that we are not doing in response to an application for a specific property, so my understanding is that we would put the notice in our official designated newspaper and that is all we are statutorily required to do. There have been some comments made by the Planning Commission at earlier meetings about going above and beyond that to make sure that all the properties within the critical areas, or at least identified property owners is having a significant amount of land, or sub dividable, gets something in the mail. That is a question we would also present to Council. This is their call to make. We will present the ordinance to the Council, and also discuss what the steps would be to amend the ordinance law. We could mail to each property owner within the critical area, but that would be enormous. All the decisions should then come from the City Council. Vice Chair Betlej Do we then preclude any challenges on the basis of taking away rights that a land owner currently has? Mr. Hollister We are on solid ground regulating the use of people's property as long as we do not strip them of any reasonable use of their property. If a landowner who either was unaware of the change, or did not bother to show up at the hearing, wants to later do something with their property, the landowner may think we did a regulatory taking, they will have the right to apply for a variance. Based on our understanding of what the City is interested in to strike that middle ground between giving the DNR what they want, and complying in good faith with the mandates that has been handed down by the DNR, I think Mr. Grittman has done an excellent job in doing that, and I don't think that this is any kind of iron fist that is really going to shock people or ruin their day. It's an extra hurdle to jump over for a few people, but I don't think we are imposing anything that is all that onerous, especially if you examine the land that is in the critical area, and how fully develo ed this area really is. Commissioner B. Should we be taking some formal action in forwarding this to the City Council? McManus Mr. Hollister It would be a ro riate to make a motion. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BETLEJ, TO FORWARD THIS FINAL VERSION OF THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW. Further Discussion Commissioner polan asked if this motion will say that the Planning Commission is approving it or is it just a forwarding function. Vice Chair Betlej said it would be more favorable if formally forward. Commissioner Hesse said if Council will not approve it, we'll recommend that they approve it. 15 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 4 AYES 1 NAYS (Commissioner polan) MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW Planning Case #03-08 Planning Case #03-09 . Planning Case #03-13 . Planning Case #03-15 Rongitsch Properties — Preliminary Plat Burow Farm LLP — Preliminary Plat M. Bader — Prelim. Plat and Variance for cul-de-sac length P. Haggerty — Variance / Critical Area Permit Approved as recommended Approved as recommended over the County's objections to the seven new driveways. The City passed a resolution endorsing the subdivision and we are now in the process of applying for the variances for those driveway. Along with the approvals, the neighbors are asking the City to also review the developer's concept of the two-story, 24 —unit condominium building. The developer is in agreement with working on the plans for this. That application will come before the Commission in June. This was tabled by the Commission. Council has not yet reviewed this application. Denied as recommended . Planning Case #03-17 T. Mussell — Variance / Critical Denied as recommended. Instructed applicant Area Permit to submit an alternative plan that would require no variance. Council approved the original application as recommended by the Commission. . Planning Case #03-16 C. Wagenknecht — Variance / Denied plan and instructed applicant to submit Subdivision an alternative plan. . Planning Case #03-18 D. Fiege — Conditional Use Permit Approved as recommended. . Planning Case #03-19 P. Conroy — Conditional Use Denied by Council over Planning Permit Commission's recommendation. Accessory Structure was removed. . Planning Case #03-20 AT&T (J. Plante) — Conditional Use Approved as recommended � Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Permit . Planning Case #03-21 Lyman Properties, LLC — Concept Council indicated they did not want to change Plan the comprehensive plan, leaving this property as a golf course. . Planning Case #03-22 Moen Leur Development ( J. This has been tabled. Sawyer) — Concept Plan Discussion on the Verbal Review cases: Planning Case #03-] 6 Wagenknecht: Commissioner polan asked if there was any way to make sure all the requirements will be filled before he is back on the agenda. Mr. Danielson said he and Mr. Hollister have been working on some examples to share with Mr. Wagenlcnecht and will put a packet together and assist him in the process. Vice Chair Betlej said the plan submitted this evening did not even comply. Vice Chair Betlej said he would like to see cases better prepared before coming before the Commission. The Commission would otherwise be grasping at straws trying to come up with alternative plans, and the intent of the Commission is to approve or deny. Commissioner polan said all the required documents for application must be available before applicant will be put on the agenda. Mr. Danielson said that was the correct process. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BETLEJ, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:35 PM Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary l7