Loading...
2003-06-24 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 24, 2003 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 24, 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 B. McManus, Miller, Dolan, Hess, and M. McManus. Those excused: Commissioner Betlej. 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. Chair Lorberbaum thanked Commissioner Betlej for chairing the May Meeting.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Commission reviewed the minutes of May 22, 2003. The following corrections were made: Page 16- Verbal Review — it is noted that Case No. 03-19 was denied by the City Council, however it was recommended for approval from the Planning Commission. Page 7 — under "Further Discussion" Commissioner B. McManus said this has been extremely well planned. This is a massive undertaking on that site and all the planning that is necessary has been accomplished, and therefore sees no problems with this proposal. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2003 AS CORRECTED. AYES NAYS ABSTAINED (Chair Lorberbaum and Commissioner M. McManus) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #03-23 John Gelderman 1812 Valley Curve CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Mr. Grittman introduced the application for a conditional use permit for a proposed 200-sq. ft. shed and a wetland permit, as the shed will encroach into the wetlands. Mr. Grittman reviewed the layout showing the location of the proposed shed and how it affects the wetlands. The applicant is proposing to create a pond in the wetland area that will be supplied by the creek that currently flows through. The applicant provided an alternative plan, which was reviewed. The water district staff does not recommend the pond construction as proposed as it has been their experience to have some difficulties with erosion and other aspects with the alterations. They expressed no concern regarding the iill to support the shed. Natural landscaping materials will also be used. Commissioner B. McManus asked if staff had any problems with the building of a retaining wa1L Mr. Grittman said they did not. Commissioner Miller asked if the Planner has any concerns about extending from 144 sq. ft. requirement to go 200 sq. ft. Mr. Grittman said he did not. Commissioner Hesse asked if the fill acreage far the wetlands would be below tbe requirement as determined by the Wetland Conservation Act. Mr. Grittman said it would be below the threshold of the requirement. Mr. Gelderman, applicant, said he was iine with the statements made by Mr. Grittman. Mr. Gelderman said there was some arbitrary issues with the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), who feels the pond, would not improve the wildlife habitat. Because of this, Staff does not recommend approval of the proposed structure in a location that is not supported by the SWCD. Commissioner polan asked what the purpose is of the pond. Mr. Gelderman said the pond would be to help attract wildlife. Commissioner Hesse asked if this area was considered a Type 2 according to the Wetland Conservation Act Manual. Mr. Gelderman said it was. Commissioner Hesse asked if the applicant obtained a protective exemption requirement through the Soil and Water Conservation District. Mr. Gelderman said the City is responsible for applying for this, and he supplied all the pertinent information to the city during the permitting process. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLAND PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED BY THE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN THE PLANNER'S REPORT. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 PLANNING CASE #03-16 Craig Wagenknecht 1062 Wagon Wheel Trail PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE Mr. Grittman reviewed the preliminary plat that was previously addressed at the May 22°d meeting, in which the applicant provided a slcetch-like plan for this subdivision. Mr. Wagenknecht has come back before the Commission with a full plat plan showing 41ots with a private road along 35E. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has shown on the plan, a 10-ft. easement along Wagon Wheel Trail as was requested by the City. The proposed plat requires a variance to allow the plat to occur without public street frontage as is otherwise normally required for single family properties. Mr. Grittman said there is a defect in the design because Lot 4 is less than 15,000 sq. ft. and the minimum standard is 15,000. There is adequate area in the plat and the north lot line could be moved northward more to allow more footage in Lot 4. It has been the City's practice to consider private streets carefully as some were approved, and the normal requirement requires public streets for all single-family lots. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there have been any discussions with the applicant regarding moving lot lines. Mr. Grittman said there have not been any discussions with the applicant, but Staff has indicated the concern in the Planner's Report. Commissioner polan asked why the Planner has a concern with the frontage on Highway 35E. Mr. Grittman said the City has a responsibility when development occurs to provide adequate emergency access to individual properties and the streets must be built to city standards, and well as having the roads maintained properly. Commissioner polan asked if there were other private streets in the city. Mr. Danielson said it is quite cormnon to have a private street in townhouse developments and there are some on Dodd Rd. Commissioner polan said he assumes there will be some construction standards applied to the road. Mr. Grittman said the road area is 25-ft in width, and with the proposed coniiguration, there is no way the City can impose a standard that would equal the public street requirements (33' ft. of paved roadway with curb and gutter). Mr. Grittman said this could be an added consideration to the recommendation. It is common for private streets to be maintained by homeowners associations, and there is the possibility of disagreeinent amongst the neighbors. Commissioner polan asked if the applicant could construct a road in accordance with the City's standards, and dedicate it to the City. Mr. Grittman said that would be the normal requirement. In this case, it is the applicant's intention to avoid creating a full right of way, which would impact the lot arrangement significantly. Chair Lorberbaum asked what it would take to make a private road a public road. Mr. Grittman said he has not completed all the drawings but it would probably reduce the plan to 3 lots, and a full standard street would require a cul-de-sac at the end, which is not currently being proposed. Chair Lorberbaum said this is an option the Commission can recommend if they choose. Commissioner Miller asked if the Planner has any history on this piece of land. Mr. Grittman said that at staff level, it was said there were several interested parties over the past few years. Commissioner B. McManus asked how a fire truck, or any large vehicle, would be able to turn around on this road. Mr. Grittman said they would only be able to rely on a driveway to do so, and that is not always possible. In this situation, the only possible way would be to back out. 3 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Commissioner B. McManus asked if the fire department has an opinion. Mr. Grittman said he has not heard any comments from the fire department, but it is his guess ihat they would not be very excited about this plan. Commissioner B. McManus asked if a cul-de-sac would make them happier. Mr. Grittman said it typically would from the standpoint that it gives them the opportunity to exit the road quickly if needed, as well as any staging that needs to be done. Mr. Craig Wagenknecht, 8251 College Trail, Inver Grove Heights, said he talked with City Staff about the iire truck access and on the previous plans; there was a 22-ft. driveway. In this plan, he has increased that to 25-ft. It was Mr.Wagenknecht's understanding that the length of the driveway was short enough to allow a fire truck to back up and would be acceptable. Mr. Wagenknecht said he also has access from the apartment building on the south side. Mr. Wagenknecht said it was also his understanding that the City requires the developer to install cul-de-sacs on parcels 5 to 7 acres in size. Mr. Wagenknecht said he has no problems with adjusting the lot lines. Mr. Wagenknecht said the homes would be built closer to Interstate 35E to keep a better distance from the neighbors to the west. Commissioner B. McManus asked how long the driveway is. Mr. Grittman said it was about 250-ft. long. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the applicant could handle putting in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Wagenknecht said if it did not require curbs and drainage, it might not be too cost prohibitive. The rest of the road will be paved with asphalt, but with no curb and gutter installed. Commissioner Miller asked what the distance is from the back of the house to the back lot line and what kind of buffer would be left there. Mr. Wagenknecht said the topography would not be changed. Commissioner Miller asked if the neighbor to the west was given a copy of the plan. Mr. Wagenknecht said he did not give one to him, but tried to address some of the issues in the letter submitted by that neighbor. Chair Lorberbaum said her personal preference is to have a public road dedicated to the city, and have only three lots. Mr. Wagenknecht said his original plan was for three lots, but there is enough frontage on Wagon Wheel Trail where two driveways would access Wagon Wheel and there would only be the need for a third driveway in the back, as a flag lot. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the sizes of the proposed homes would be. Mr. Wagenknecht said the homes would be custom-built, and probably range around 2,000 to 2,500 sq. ft. Commissioner asked about the responsibility of maintaining a private road. Mr. Danielson said it would be the developer's responsibility to create covenants for the developer to address these concerns. Mr. Danielson said the City has had good luck with these situations so far. Mr. Wagenknecht said he would have his attorney draft such covenants. Commissioner M. McManus said if the lot lines were moved, the variance would not be needed. Mr. Grittman said the variance would still be needed for lack of public street frontage. Commissioner M. McManus asked how the houses would be arranged if the lot lines were moved. Mr. Wagenknecht said it would not change the impact to the neighbors significantly and explained how the layout would work. Commissioner M. McManus asked why the required standards were not followed in the original planning of this parcel. Mr. Wagenknecht said his designer was not aware of the minimum standards in Mendota Heights. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant to explain the hardship needed for the variance. Mr. Wagenknecht said there were three reasons he was limited on the access options: L Interstate 35E to the east. 2. Apartments on the south side. 3. Topography on the west side is too steep. Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Chair Lorberbaum said the properry could have two lots, thus fnding reasonable use of the property. It seems Mr. Wagenknecht is choosing 3 or 41ots, thus having creating the hardship himsel£ Mr. Wagenknecht said in keeping to the density of the area, having only two lots would not fit in the characteristics of the neighborhood. Mr. Wagenknecht gave a brief history of the property in which the original owner planned on developing this land, but later decided against it. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. There being no one present wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE HARDSHIP DUE TO RESTRICTED ACCESS FROM THREE SIDES (WEST, SOUTH, AND EAST) OF THE LOT, AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE LOT LINES BE ADJUSTED TO ALLOW FOR MINIMAL REQUIRED LOT SIZE 2. APPROVALS ARE OBTAINED FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR STREET WIDTH 3. ALL COVENANTS ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROAD. Further Discussion • Commissioner Hesse said he thinks Mr. Wagenlrnecht has come in with the revisions to the proposal as he was asked. And despite the fact it took some time to get the submittal, the applicant has made substantial attempts to meet the requests of the Commission and meet some of the concerns of his neighbors. The applicant has presented a respectable hardship with the access issues. • Chair Lorberbaum said this would be a private road, and would stay at 25-ft. width as long as the fire chief is comfortable with this. • Commissioner polan said he is uncomfortable with this, and doesn't find a hardship. Commissioner polan asked if the desire is to have a public road strictly due to maintenance and access as the concern is the private roads are not maintained as a public road is. Commissioner polan would like to hear from the iire chief as well. • Commissioner Hesse said Mr. Danielson stated earlier there were no problems with private roads, and there is no indication that this road would be lacking proper maintenance should it be constructed as a private road. Commissioner Hesse said the Commission asked the applicant to come back with a plan for four lots. Chair Lorberbaum said not all the Commissioners were in favor of four lots. 4 AYES NAYS (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioner polan) MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Chair Lorberbaum suggested that the applicant obtain an opinion from the fire chief before going before the City Council, as well as a revised site plan with the suggested lot line changes. PLANNING CASE #03-26 Robert Fink 1850 Arvin Drive VARIANCE AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Mr. Grittman introduced the request for preliminary plat and variance approval to re-subdivide two properties. The larger of the two properties has an existing home, which will be located on the south property lot and the second lot has been redesigned to be located closer to the cul-de-sac. The applicant has provided grading and drainage, as well as utility plans that indicated how the site will be developed. Mr. Grittman said the variance is required far the parcel with the existing home, as it will no longer meet the minimum of 100-ft. width standard. Chair Larberbaum said there were two plans, slightly different, and asked which one would be the final one being considered. Mr. Grittman said the applicant would have to answer this question. The applicant has supplied a plan and narrative dated June 17, 2003 as well as a plan and narrative dated June 19, 2003. Commissioner Miller said the revised plans seem to have addressed some of the concerns from the last meeting. Commissioner Miller said the only concern he has is the street elevation. Mr. Grittman said it was 4-ft. from the pad to the street and the minimum is 1-ft. elevation. This plan does meet those requirements. Commissioner polan asked if the vacant parcel was ever buildable being that it never had the proper frontage, as Wachtler was never extended. Mr. Grittman said it would be considered buildable since it is a separate lot of record at the time of the adoption of the zoning ardinance, and it is believed that the city would be compelled to approve a building permit for an existing lot of record. Mr. Grittman said this opinion would change however, if the parcel was originally only one lot. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there would be a noticeable tree loss between the two plans. Mr. Grittman said the second plan shows the home located further back from the cul-de-sac, and that there may be more tree loss on this plan as there will be more grading done. Mr. Grittman said there will be tree loss regardless, and this is not an issue at this time. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there were any conditions influenced by the timing relative to the vacation of Wachtler and the purchase of this property related. Mr. Grittman said this was not played into the analysis, and as the variance needs to have a hardship established, it could be that the hardship is the making of the applicant. It is the planner's opinion that the timing of the street vacation and the property recordings have been completed prior to the applicant's purchase of this property. Mr. Grittman said the revised plat is a more reasonable layout of the property as opposed to the existing conditions. Robert Fink, 1850 Arvin Drive, introduced Paul McGinley of Loucks McLagan, who will be speaking on behalf of the applicant. Mr. McGinley's office is located at 20 East Thompson Avenue, West St. Paul. Mr. McGinley said the narrative and smaller plat dated June 16rh is the current one, and the larger plat dated June 19r" should be the one considered. Mr. McGinley said the applicants own two current parcels, the north parcel consists of approximately 75,600 sq. ft. and the south vacant parcel consists of approximately 15,384 sq. ft. Almost all of the property is wooded, with predominately mature hardwoods. The owners wish to rearrange the division of the two existing parcels to create two Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 new lots, making Lot 2 on the south and containing the existing house. Lot 2 would end up with 61, 470 sq. ft. and the future lot to the north, Lot 1, would have 29,500 sq. ft. Mr. McGinley said the proposed Lot 1 is designed to meet all of the zoning requirements, as well as doubling the minimum lot size for a typical lot in the city. Lot 2 will require a variance primarily because of the configuration of this parcel, which is very long and narrow and the only access remaining after the vacation of Wachtler is the 90-ft. of actual street frontage. Prior to the vacation of Wachtler, it would have had 486-ft. of front along Wachtler. Mr. McGinley said the spacing from other houses far exceeds the requirements of the codes and this plan shows reasonable use for this property. Mr. McGinley said all the drainage from the property to the north will be diverted to the street with some berming installed, and this area currently drains onto the neighboring properties. Mr. McGinley said the total disturbance of tree removal is about 9%, which is a very small fraction of the total tree area. Commission B. McManus asked about the capacity of the catch basins with the increased runoff due to more impervious surface. Mr. McGinley said he does not have a calculated iigure but about 7 acres of drainage goes into there, and the developer will be adding about 40,000 sq. ft. to that, and is a very small percentage of the total. The drainage actually goes around the cul-de-sac into a depression on each side of the street, which contains pipe that run into the sewer. These inlets are on public property. Mr. McGinley said he is not aware of any current issues with drainage. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there are any requirements for the berming, and expressed a concern coming from neighbors. Mr. McGinley said the berm will be just a couple of feet high. Mr. Danielson that for every single family home that comes in, drainage and erosion plans are submitted which are reviewed individually, and the site is monitored to ensure the measurements are accurate. Commissioner Miller said he would like to receive more input from the neighbors. Chair Lorberbaum said this case was advertised as a lot and width variance, and is the concern the width of the lot or the frontage. Mr. Hollister said these terms are used interchangeably, and confirmed that the due diligence and public notice was handled appropriately. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Les Kapaun, 829 Hilltop Rd — submitted a petition dated June 24, 2003, all in opposition of the application for a variance. Some of the issues of concern include water runoff as some of the existing lots already have flooding due to the design of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Kapaun pointed out on the map the location of these lots. Another concern is the site frontage on Arvin Drive and having enough access for the driveways. The neighbors have not seen the revised drawings until this meeting, Mr. Kapaun asked for the deiinition of the hardship in this case, and expressed concern for future lot splits in the area. Mr. Kapaun commented on the vacation of Wachtler being done years before the property was purchased, as well as his concerns for variances being granted for purposes that did not seem necessary and all the things that are changing in the area. Mr. Kapaun said the neighbors enjoy the trees and the privacy and atmosphere, and don't want to see any changes. Gerald Springer, 820 Hilltop Rd — speaking on behalf of the neighbors that have signed the petition, this sets a precedence for creating more lot splits and the applicant only wants to benefit monetarily. Sean Larson, 885 Hilltop Rd — property lies just south of the applicant's property. Mr. Larson asked if there were any possibilities for future roads running the Larson's north property line to access the south parcel of the applicant. Chair 7 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Lorberbaum said the applicant could apply if so desired. Mr. Grittman said it's not clear that there is a possibiliry that a full street could be run into that area. Michael Smith, 1823 Valley Curve — asked if there are any changes being made to the cul-de-sac, and are there any covenants in the neighborhood that do not allow for two-story homes. Chair Lorberbaum said she is not aware of any covenants, and that would be between the neighbors. Mr. Grittman said staff is not aware of any covenants. Shelly Smith, 1823 Valley Curve — asked if there has been any precedence set for determining how to keep proposed buildings consistent with the neighborhood, which is single level or split entry. Chair Lorberbaum said it was to her knowledge, there has never been any specific discussion that a house has to be single level or split entry, but the City encourages the houses to be consistent in keeping with the pattern of the neighborhood. Mr. Hollister commented on private property covenants in that they are filed with Dalcota County, not the City of Mendota Heights. These documents are enforceable, and generally not the concern of the City. If the City allows this subdivision and permits a house to be there, the City does not dictate what kind of house would be built. This does not override the authority of the private property covenant, and the covenant still rules. Mr. McGinley responded to some of the concerns expressed. In terins of the drainage on the west side of the cul-de-sac, most of the drainage from the new house pad would be directed around the east side of the cul-de-sac. Mr. McGinley said one neighbor disagrees with the 4,500 sq. ft. tree removal, and this was a mistake in the initial report. The actual number is 7,500, or approximately 9%. Mr. McGinley said there is no concern about the south lot having a roadway put in. This would only be done should the whole area be re-platted. Mr. McGinley said all the covenants and restrictions have expired in 1985. Mr. Fink said that he checked with the City for veriiication of the vacation of Wachtler and was told the City believed it was but did not have clear record of it, as the proper recording of it was not done, and the notice did not occur, which makes this property not being accessible. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. Commissioner B. McManus said he does not believe the addition of a house on that location will alter the characteristics of the neighborhood, and finds a hardship of the City's making. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CREATION OF AN ADDITIONAL LOT AND VARIANCE FOR THE SUBDIVISION, WITH THE CONDITION THE DRAINAGE IS APPROVED BY THE CITY AND THERE IS NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON SURROUNDING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE HARDSHIP HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A LANDLOCKED SUBDIVISION CAUSED BY THE CITY, NOT THE HOMEOWNER. Further Discussion Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Commissioner polan said this is a unique situation where there is a parcel to the south that the Ciry has an obligation to provide access to. Commissioner polan said the revised plan has far less impact than the original. Commissioner M. McManus said her concern continues to be the drainage issue, and these may be existing conditions that should be identified by the City. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-27 Thomas Minea 1562 Wachtler Avenue WETLAND PERMIT Mr.Grittman introduced the request for a wetland permit to construct a deck onto an existing single family home that is currently being reconstructed from a previous fire. The applicant proposes to construct an additional deck on the rear portion of the property, which would encroach 14-ft. into the wetland buffer area. Mr. Grittman said staff is comfortable with the plan and suggests the applicant document the existing vegetation before construction to make sure the minimum amount of ground area is being disturbed. Mr. Steve Hanson, 826 Sherry Lane, is representing the applicant who could not be available. Mr. Hanson said the deck would only be extending out 6-ft. from the den and there will be no disruption to the vegetation. Commissioner Hesse suggested the applicant take photographs to document tbe vegetation. Commissioner B. McManus asked what level the deck was on. Mr. Hanson said it was on the lst level, but the ground slopes to allow for a ground level view. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Buretta Foss, 755 W. Wentworth — asked that the applicant makes sure the wildlife habitat is kept in tact, and is in favor of the deck as proposed. Mr. Grittman said it is unlikely any wildlife will be endangered. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLAND PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 PLANNER'S REPORT AND THAT THE APPLICANT DOCUMENT EXISTING VEGETATION AND DEMONSTRATE THE DECK CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THAT VEGETATION. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-28 Mendota Heights United Church of Christ 680 Highway 100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a Conditional Use Permit to build a fence around the existing playground that is used for the Sunshine Learning Center that operates in the church. Mr. Grittman said all conditions in the original approvals have been met. Jen Feige, representing the Sunshine Learning Center, said they wish to construct the fence to protect their kids. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-29 Christine Snyder and Stephen Landry 2085 Valencour Circle CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Mr. Grittman introduced the request for approval of a conditional use permit and variance for construction of a detached garage upon a non-conforming property. The garage would serve as an accessory building and an existing shed would be removed. Staff does not recommend approval for this, as there is room on the property for an attached garage to be placed on the front of the home with all requirements being met. Staff also iinds the characteristics of the neighborhood are not � Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 established to compare the usage of detached garages in that area. It is also pointed out the properry is currently considered non-conforming due to the existing dog kennel use. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the possibility of constructing an attached garage was discussed with the applicant. Mr. Grittman said he does not believe there have been any discussions, but the applicant has been provided a copy of the report. Mr. Grittman reviewed the layout of the site, which shows the existing home; two kennel buildings (one which contains an office), one shed, and one shop. Commissioner Hesse asked if the kennel was the primary business and if so, does the business require any additional conditional use permits or licenses in the city to operate. Mr. Grittman said he believes this is a legal non-conforming business. Mr. Danielson confirmed that it was a legal business currently in operation, and they are non-conforming. Commissioner polan asked if the additional buildings constitute accessory structures. Mr. Grittman said they are not accessory to the single-family use, which classiiies them as non-conforming buildings rather than accessory buildings. Mr. Grittman said in this case, these buildings are not classified as accessory buildings. Commissioner polan said this property seems to be over the limit in accessary structures. Chair Lorberbaum said an accessory structure "is a usable structure subordinate to serving the principle use or structure on the same lot, and customarily incidental thereto". Chair Lorberbaum said by this definition, the existing buildings would not be considered accessory structures, and there are limits to the number of accessory structures on a residential lot. Commissioner B. McManus asked when this property was rezoned. Mr. Danielson said it's been R-1 for at least the past 22 years. Commissioner B. McManus said this looks like a little farm, as there are horses, kennels, pastures, etc., and to continue that usage, a lot of auxiliary structures are needed. Commissioner B. McManus said if the City holds to R-1 standards, the horses would have to go. Commissioner B. McManus said the applicant is willing to tear down an eyesore of a shed and replace with a newer building, and they would like to have room to store some equipment, and that this is not a typical R-1 situation that may have to be dealt with differently. Commissioner B. McManus said the applicant's intentions would benefit the city. Commissioner B. McManus said he fnds no other areas on the property that would be a better location for the detached garage. Mr. Grittman said there is adequate room by moving the structure closer to the home and make it an attached garage. Commissioner B. McManus said he would see this option as an unreasonable request, and asked if it could be rezoned for farm use. Mr. Grittman said the city does not currently have zoning requirements for agricultural use. Christina Snyder / Stephen Landry, applicant, 2085 Valencour Circle addressed some of the issues raised Mr. Landry said he and his wife need the garage to store their vehicles in as they are outside all year long. Mr. Landry sees a hardship where the city requires an attached garage to a single-family home, and the only place to build such a garage would be in front of the house. However, this cannot be done, as there is a wellhead in that area underneath the decking. Mr. Landry said the drawings that have been submitted are not accurate and referred to the view taken from an overhead satellite. Mr. Landry said this site has been in existence for at least 40 years, having horses and agricultural use for that length of time. The kennel buildings were both built while the land was used for agriculture, and this was not an issue until the property was rezoned sometime during the 1980's. Mr. Landry said they do have horses, and the additional equipment needed that will be stored is a bobcat that is used for the horse pasture, and has nothing to do with the kennel business. � Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Commissioner M. McManus referred to the pictures provided by the applicant. Mr. Landry said these pictures are properties within a reasonable area to show other accessory buildings being used. Mr. Landry defined the hardship as needing the additional storage of the equipment needed to maintain the property, as well as the need to accommodate that storage by eliminating the smaller building and constructing a bigger one. Mr. Landry said there was absolutely no way a garage could be attached to the home. Also, to the north of the home, there is a 1,000 gaL LP tank which limits the usable area; to the west is the drainfield and the horse pasture. Mr. Landry said additional equipment that needs to be stored includes lawn mower and garden equipment that is currently being housed in the old shed that is slated to be removed. Mr. Landry said the plan that was chosen was an "off the shelf ' plan, and to construct a customized garage would be more expensive. The applicants do not feel that the additional number of feet would not be a significant increase. Commissioner polan said a variance is needed due to the close location of the garage to Highway 55 and asked if the garage could be repositioned to keep within the standards and eliminating the need for the variance. Mr. Landry said there is no other place to put it, and the elevation of the pad is a major factor in placing it as proposed. Mr. Landry said it would not ft if the building were turned in any way. Mr. Landry said the height of the proposed garage would be 22 —ft. Commissioner B. McManus asked how close would the garage building be to Highway 55. Mr. Grittman said the closest corner of the garage appears to be 7-ft. from the property line. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. Commissioner B. McManus said if this proposal is not granted, the applicant will build a smaller garage and retain the little shed. In looking at what is the best interest of the residents, to remove that old shed would probably be a service to the city. The city also requires cars to be parked inside, and without the new garage, this cannot be done. Commissioner B. McManus said he feels the city is gaining something here by this request. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE AS PRESENTED, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE EXISTING STORAGE SHED BE REMOVED; THE HARDSHIP IS BEING DEFINED AS THE LACK OF ADEQUATE SPACE AND THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE CITY ORDINANCE. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED l2 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Commissioner M. McManus asked if the Planner has any additions thoughts/opinions based on the information that has been provided. Mr. Grittman said the limitations of the site are really caused by the non-conforming use on the property. If this were a conforming use, there would be no concerns with the placement of the garage on the property in any way in any location, but that the constraints are actually made because of the non-conforming use, and it's difficult for staff to recommend approval of a building that is violating setbacks, and it might be illegal out of the preference of the zoning ordinance for attached buildings when the primary constraint is the other non-conforming aspects and not bringing buildings into conformance with the property. Commissioner B. McManus said he believes the rezoning of the properry turned it into a non-conforming use, and it was not the applicants that have done so. Commissioner B. McManus said it would be hard to try to locate another location on this whole site that would not be a hardship. PLANNING CASE #03-30 Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course 1695 Dodd Road COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Commissioner Hesse excused himself from this discussion. Mr. Grittman introduced the case where the applicants are seeking an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use designation for the Par 3 Golf Course located on Dodd Road and Bachelor Avenue. The applicant wishes to exit the golf course business and submitted a proposal to have the property sold to a developer for a subdivision, which was denied by the City CounciL The current application would change the land use designation from a golf course to another use, although there are no current plans for development at this time. Mr. Grittman said the golf course designation is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). Mr. Grittman said if a golf course is no longer a feasible use of the property, as has been indicated by the applicant, and the land use regulation will allow no other use, then the city may need to deal with the issue with the regulatory agencies and may have to deal with the fact that the City may be near the limits of its land use authority. Mr. Grittman said the City should seek the advice of the City Attorney with this case. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the designation can easily be changed. Mr. Grittman said any comprehensive plan change would need to be processed through Metropolitan Council as well, and a recommendation would need to be made to the City Council and the Council would presumably adopt the change if the Metropolitan Council agrees the change would meet their criteria. Chair Lorberbaum said it was her understanding that the City Attorney has said the City does not at this point need to worry about a regulatory taking, but the City is to determine an appropriate use for the future. Commissioner polan said it is assumed that all golf courses in Mendota Heights are zoned R-1, and asked if other cities have more specific zoning classifications for golf courses. Mr. Grittman said not necessarily as other cities may have different designations than R-1, and an actual golf course classification is unique. Commissioner polan asked for clariiication in the statement made in the Planners report that staff believes an alternative land use designation would be appropriate. Mr. Grittman said if there is an agreement that the land use should be changed, the City would then be subject to all the rules and allowances of the R-1 zoning district, and it may be desirable to zone the land to a PUD. 13 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Commissioner M. McManus asked if this were a lengthy process to pursue. Mr. Grittman said the land use change would take a response time from the Metropolitan Council 30 to 60 days. Corrnnissioner M. McManus referred to the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission and asked if this was a project for the City Council. Mr. Grittman said he does not believe so. Alan Spaulding, partner of the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course, resides at 616 Lincoln Ave., St. Paul, MN. Mr. Spaulding said the golf course has been operated for 8'/2 years and the owners have worked to provide something valuable to the city. However, the business has suffered some iinancial losses and has tried to improve operations to encourage more business, but has not been very successful. The partners of the business have decided they wanted to alter their career paths and would like to sell the property. Mr. Spaulding feels that because of the restrictions on the land use as it is, it is impossible to turn the property into another use. Mr. Spaulding said landowners need to have some discretion on how to use their property. Mr. Spaulding referred to a flyer that was circulating around town that states "save this public asset". Mr. Spaulding said this is a private asset, but open for public use. Mr. Spaulding said the traffic and parking situation would only increase if the golf course remains. Mr. Spaulding said one of the partners owns 8 acres adjacent to the course and is the largest landowner that would be affected by this change and he has no concerns about the change. Mr. Spaulding said he is in a tough position and needs to have some options. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the property has ever been put up for sale. Mr. Spaulding said he and his partners own 4 golf courses and have marketed two of the properties to developers. The third one located in Oakdale is on the market for $900,000 for about 4 to 6 months and have had no offers. The City of Burnsville is going through the same thing in looking at a golf course for sale for $750,000. Mr. Spaulding said when the golf course was purchased; the land use designation did not exist, and while bidding against other developers, purchased the property for $1.3M. Mr. Spaulding and his partners purchased this with the thought they had a"safety net" to have the option to resell to developers in the future. That is not the case now. The business has not yet been put up for sale. Commissioner B. McManus said the partners should feel good that the residents see this business as an asset to the community, and perhaps other alternatives should be pursued. Commissioner B. McManus said he feels the traffic would be affected the same way (with a developed plan) if the golf course went public — there would be just as much trafiic. Commissioner Miller made reference to the great showing of residents at the meeting, and if everyone here would play golf, there would be more revenue coming in. Commissioner Miller would like to see more patience to see what other options could be found by doing more marketing to determine the viability of the business. Mr. Spaulding said the word is going out with brokers that the golf course is for sale and there have been no feasible interests. Chair Lorberbaum commended Mr. Spaulding for the excellent upkeep of the course, and it is an asset. However, it doesn't seem it has been marketed enough, and a golf course is still a viable usage. Chair Lorberbaum said she is sympathetic to the losses incurred, and suggested there could be some financial alternatives to Mr. Spaulding to help him deal with the taxes and financial areas of the business. Commissioner polan said he was also sympathetic to the iinancial situation, and does not feel it is the City's right to force a private property owner to continue a business that doesn't make any money, but agrees that all the options should be looked at. Commissioner polan said it was stated there is competition from West St. Paul and the revenues fell, but it 14 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 seems that the numbers are fairly constant throughout the time of business operations. Mr. Spaulding said as revenues may have gone up so has expenses for payroll and equipment. Commissioner polan asked if there have been any conversations to the city for tax abatements, and other avenues to help with the taxes. Mr. Spaulding said the property taxes are about $8,000 -$9,000 range and there is not much that can be done. Mr. Spaulding said he and one of the partners met with the Mayor some time ago to discuss options to sell, which is when they found out about the changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner polan said he thought the Comprehensive Plan had the golf course designation for some time and asked Staff to follow-up on some history. Mr. Hollister said this property is currently guided GC-Golf Course in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned R-1 according to the zoning map. It has been guided golf course dating back to at least 1979. The City has copies of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan that shows this designation. Mr. Hollister said a couple of events have happened since then, which Mr. Spaulding is alluding to: L In 1996, the state legislature passed the Minnesota Land Use Planning Act. Before then, in a case where the zoning designation and the comprehensive plan designation differs on a piece of property, the zoning code had supremacy over the comprehensive plan designation. 2. Even pre-1996, the City would have still required a change in the comprehensive plan designation to actually subdivide and develop the property into single-family lots. 3. In 1996, the Act had two main impacts on the Cities: • All municipalities within the seven county metro areas had to revise their current comprehensive plans, which were turned over to the state in 1999. • This Act reversed the traditional relationship between the zoning code and the comprehensive plan designation. In this case, the zoning code had priority in pre-1996, but was reversed after, and suddenly the golf course designation rules post 1996 over the single-family designation. The decision was made in 1999 to not change the comprehensive plan for this property, but to leave it as it was. That is where there has been talk that the Council designated the property "Golf Course" in 1999, but the Council actually "left" it a golf course in 1999. Commissioner M. McManus said this a very difficult decision and something has to happen here that may cause a change for the community, a change that may speak to the quality of life in Mendota Heights. Commissioner M. McManus acknowledged the responsible business operations that have been in place, as well as the many improvements, and she talked about the comments she has received from the residents pertaining to the value this property has given to Mendota Heights. Commissioner M. McManus said this is not an easy situation to grapple with, as the same goes for the Burows Farm case that is up for review. Commissioner M. McManus said it is difiicult when influencing a private business, however the good of the communiry as a whole needs to be taken into consideration, and all parties need to take some time to visit all other options. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Robert Winter, 1648 Dodd Road — commented on the value of the green space John Hartman, 812 Deer Trail Point — former City Council member and is somewhat familiar with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, etc. Mr. Hartman said the zoning is R-1 and the Comprehensive Plan was revised in 1979 and again later. Mr. Winter was included in the planning of these plans and ordinances. Mr. Hartman spoke of a previous case where the Comprehensive Plan designation was changed several times. Mr. Hartman said the course in Burnsville was purchased as a golf course for $750,000 and sold to a developer for $3.SM. The City of Burnsville wanted to buy it, but they balked at the price tag. The City of Mendota Heights was approached previously to purchase the golf course but declined. Mr. Hartman said he wonders if the Land Use Plan would stand up in court. Mr. Hartman said it seems that if the owners of 15 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 the golf course cannot make money in its present use, if the Comprehensive Plan is preventing them from using it for residential purposes, this would be coniiscation without compensation. Chair Lorberbaum said it has held up in court. Robert Ehrlich, 1656 Gryc Court — passed out flyer and acknowledged the golf course if privately owned, but believes it is a public asset. Mr. Ehrlich suggested looking into ownership by the neighbarhood, and it probably would not be sellable for $3.SM, but perhaps $750,000 would be affordable. George Turner, 726 Evergreen Knolls — one of the few neighbors that play the course regularly and enjoys the view. Mr. Turner is concerned by the desires of the property owners to do what they wish with their property be impeded by the City Council, and would like to see the City wark with the owners and provide proper leadership. Jim Smith, 1760 Trail Road — green space is the beauty of Mendota Heights and it is sad to see the loss of trees happening on Dodd Road and expressed his concern for the traffc impact. Janice Chasmine, 723 Evergreen Knolls — surprised that the Comprehensive Plan can be changed so easily, and some options such as the Parks and Recreation Committee's discussion about purchasing should be revisited. People have asked the owners what the aslcing price is for the property, only to receive no response. Ms. Chasmine asked what would be involved in the city purchasing the property. Mr. Danielson said a bond referendum could be placed on the next ballot. Mr. Hollister reviewed the process of holding a referendum, pleading on behalf of City Staff that the referendum be done on a regularly scheduled election year. Steve Lundquist, 1830 Eagle Ridge Drive — owners should consider working with a business consultant to make their business better. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BASED ON THE FINDING THE GOLF COURSE IS THE BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITA THE SURROUNDING USE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Further discussion Commissioner M. McManus said she based this motion on the fact that discussions are not done with this and there should be some exploration of other opportunities. While she understands what this means to the business owner, this golf course has been in the community for a long time and it's a difficult decision and needs to have more time. � Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Commissioner B. McManus asked if a friendly amendment to the motion would be accepted to encourage City Council and Staff to work with the owners to attempt to develop a win-win situation. Chair Lorberbaum said that doesn't need to be attached, as the statement stands alone. Commissioner polan agrees with the motion but emphasized to the property owners that he is agreeing to simply push it along to the City Council to encourage discussions. Chair Lorberbaum said she also feels sympathetic and the applicant has provided a wonderful golf course, and would probably think differently if she would see some proof that the applicant is actively trying to sell the business. YES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-09 Burows Farm LLP: Dan Tilsen 1875 Victoria Road PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 7-LOT SUBDIVISION Mr. Grittman reviewed the alternative plan for a 24-unit condominium building. Mr. Grittman reminded the Commission that the County had previously indicated they did not want 7 more driveways accessing onto Victoria Road. Discussions with the County are currently in process in which the County will be turning back the street to the City, and in turn, the City would be able to approve the additional driveways. Dan Tilsen, applicant, said the proposal for the 7-lot has already been approved and work can begin at any time. The driveway issues are almost pointless, as Victoria Road has been designated to turn back to the city and it just a matter of time to when Victoria Road will be a city street. Mr. Tilsen asked the Commission to look at each proposal on it's own merit and decide which to go with. The proposed one condominium unit would allow more green space than the single- family lots. Mr. Tilsen shared a picture of a barn that was saved in the Lake Elmo area, and said this is what he would like to have done to the existing barn on this parcel, and would like restore the barn to keep the historical feeL The barn could be kept on site only if the condominium building was built. All the property and the barn would be maintained by the homeowners association. Mr. Tilsen asked the Commission which plan they would prefer. Commissioner M. McManus said she appreciates the effort that the applicant has put into this project, and asked if there would be public access along the walking path around the pond. Mr. Tilsen said there needs to be more of a landscape plan done. Mr. Tilsen had a landscape designer prepare a plan with a trail system using the condominium plan. Mr. Tilsen said the trail as proposed should be moved more away from the pond. Commissioner M. McManus asked if people could have horses in the barn. Mr. Tilsen said there could be a possibility. Commissioner M. McManus asked the applicant how he felt if the gabled roof would be used as opposed to the flat roof. Mr. Tilsen said it doesn't make a big difference, and the goal was to downsize the size of the building as much as possible. l7 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Commissioner Hesse asked the applicant if he felt it was a reasonable expectation that the barn can be restored. Mr. Tilsen said it could be but will need more support, and would not be a very costly project. Commissioner Hesse said his preference would be the single-family homes, but the barn being a particular piece of the proposal intrigues him very much and would want to see it be a significant portion of the proposal. Mr. Tilsen said they could go with either the condominium plan or the single-family home plan, and that it would be up to the city as to which it should be. Commissioner polan asked Mr. Tilsen why he would feel a preference toward a condominium. Mr. Tilsen said it was better to keep as much open green space as possible, plus there is a market for it as families downsize and empty nesters move out of their bigger homes. This project would bring 24 homes into Mendota Heights and is a more efficient use of the land. Chair Lorberbaum said it looks as though a PUD cannot be granted as some of the conditions have not been met. Chair Lorberbaum referred to the Planner's Report that states under "Residential PUD, item a) `it is determined by the council to be "infill type development" that would be difficult under the zoning district or districts comprising the project area."' Chair Lorberbaum this cannot be true since we have already approved the development of single-family homes. This would wipe out the possibility of the PUD. Mr. Tilsen said this would depend on interpretation, and the PUD would allow a lot of flexibility to do whatever desired. Chair Lorberbaum said it doesn't prefer it because it keeps the character of the land, and says it would be difficult to develop, and the seven lots was already approved. Chair Lorberbaum is concerned about this item. Chair Lorberbaum said item b) "The site will not require a wetland permit, which the proposal does, and based two of iive requirements, how can the PUD not be granted? Mr. Tilsen said the City could make exception to it if the City wants this proposal Commissioner Miller thanked Mr. Tilsen for presenting the second proposal and it is an interesting idea. Commissioner B. McManus expressed his comments on the gable roof concept, and said the feedback from the residents seem unanimously in favar of the single family homes, but as more information is being presented on the condominium concept, residents may feel differently when they have seen the beneficial aspects of this proposal. Commissioner B. McManus said that although this would be an excellent place for senior citizens, he is not sure the City has the technical capacity to go ahead with the PUD. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mickey Keiffer, 1830 Rolling Green Curve, is representing 192 of the neighbars that live within a 3-block radius of the Burows Farm. The results of the survey sent out shows that out of 192 respondents, 174 wanted the single-family homes and 18 wanted the condominiums. Mr. Keiffer asked the Commission to reject the PUD and continue with the plans for the single-family homes. Cynthia Kraack, 1001 Oxford Court, reminded the Commission of the history of the Burow Farm. This is a single-family neighborhood and asks that the pond be taken care of. Mary Roszak, 988 Stratford Road, lives directly across the site. She has lived there since 1980 and has been a part of the "save the Burow Farm" where the neighbors tried to create a referendum to save this land, but was not successful in doing so. The city seems to be losing something very precious in losing its green space. Ms. Roszak said the condominium building would create more impervious space, and the single-family homes could be more integrated into the environment and the condominium development would not iit into the character of the neighborhood. l�:3 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Joanne Hasternack, 1854 Welsh Lane, said the most important thing is the keep the green space and preserve the wetland, and would favor the condominium concept better, Nancy Karisof, 1870 Eagle Ridge Drive, said no one has addressed the traffic that would come in and out of that driveway. The condominium would not be a good fit and several neighbors told her they would sell their homes if the condominium goes in. Kate Wall, 970 Stratford Road, asked if any traffic assessments have been done. Mr. Hollister said there have not been any traffic studies done. Chair Lorberbaum said tbe Commission could choose to recommend one be completed, but it is not a requirement. Kevin Milbery, 1000 Oxford Court, said he asked Mr. Tilsen if there were any alternatives, and if he had the choice, no development would take place. However, Mr. Milbery said he is looking for the environmental plan and 7 lots strung along, there will be a lot of cramming along the roadway. This would take away the ruralness of the property and all that Tom Burow meant to that land. Kathryn Krazinski, 959 Stratford Road, said her family particularly chose this area when moving from West St. Paul because of the single family housing, and would like to keep it that way. There are also a lot of children in the area that needs to be taken into consideration when dealing with safety issues, and 7 homes is too much. Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Larberbaum closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hesse asked Chair Lorberbaum to clarify the feasibility of the project. Chair Lorberbaum referred to the Planner's Report on page 3 that talks about the acreage needs to be a certain amount, however the city can reduce the 10 acre requirement to no less than 5 acres if the following conditions are met. Chair Lorberbaum said the iirst two conditions have not been met. Commissioner B. McManus said the residents have clearly expressed their opinions and a PUD does not meet the technical requirements. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND WETLAND PERMIT AS PRESENTED. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED �] Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 It is noted that a threatening weather situation was at hand and there was some discussion by the Co�nmission to either continue with the meeting, or adjourn at this time. Mr. Hollister said that if the Commission wished to adjourn, they should formally co�ti�ue the Public Hearing on the Bader application to the next nzeeting.. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED TO ADJOURN. THERE BEING NO SECOND, THE MOTION DIED. (It is noted that Commissioner polan excused himself for the rest of the evening) PLANNING CASE #03-31 Michael Bader 1673 Delaware Avenue PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE Mr. Grittman introduced the case in which the applicant proposes to subdivide his property into three buildable lots. This case was previously considered in March, but discussions have been continued to allow notification of the necessary cul- de-sac length and to further research information on the covenants on the property. Eventually, that plat proposal was rejected. Mr. Grittman reviewed the revised site plan. Chair Larberbauin asked if the curve of the cul-de-sac divides a parcel that is owned by one owner when it was shifted to avoid the trees. Mr. Grittman said that was correct and that Mr. Bader is the owner. Commissioner Hesse asked if the alteration was done by the City. Mr. Grittman said that was correct, and the developer has received a copy of the report. Commissioner Hesse asked if there was any input from the iire department. Mr. Grittman said the fire department preferred shorter cul-de-sacs as a rule. Mr. Grittman reminded the Commission that the disputes over the covenants do not involve the City and the City has no jurisdiction regarding private covenants. Commissioner M. McManus referred to the Planner's Report, page 4, and asked for clarification of the options under Item #4. Mr. Grittman said this is offering the option of the developer's choice, which is that the cul-de-sac is a straight south configuration as opposed to the curved option the City has proposed. The Commission needs to choose one of the options in their approvals. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the plan tonight is to look at what the applicant has proposed with the narrow street construction. Chair Lorberbaum said this is a new case, and not a continuation of the previous one, in which case the 60 days has just recently started. Mr. Hollister said the Council determined at their last ineeting that the latest iteration of the subdivision plan constitutes a new application. The Council also waived any additional planning fees, as well as the customary 6-month waiting period between the denial and reapplication and told him to proceed immediately with the Planning Commission. Mr. Bader introduced Mr. John Uban, who reviewed the plan. Mr. Uban commented on some of the history of the super block. Mr. Uban spoke on how the streets today are better accommodating emergency vehicles and feels this issue should be addressed again for this case. Mr. Uban said the fireiighting capabilities for this development had been 20 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 approved by the extension of a hydrant all the way to the end of the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac was enlarged. There is a natural pond, which creates a better turnaround of the cul-de-sac for the turning of fire trucks. The wetlands have been re-delineated and all hydrology tests have been completed. Mr. Uban said this is only about adding two lots and extending not just a private drive that could be almost any width but extending the public right of way and there is some flexibility here. When Foxwood was developed this was a big issue. Access should have gone through but this is sort of a compromise to have a private road inside the public cul-de-sac driveway. The city required the easement be extended from that cul-de-sac to Mr. Bader's property and so there is a utility easement to naturally extend access and utilities to the south. The road is supposed to be where that easement is today. Mr. Uban believes the cul-de-sac preserves a sense of separation from the adjacent landowner. Commissioner B. McManus asked what the surface of the road would be made o£ Mr. Uban said it would be asphalt with a gravel shoulder, which provides better drainage. Commissioner B. McManus asked what would be done with the current cul-de-sac. Mr. Uban said he thinks the adjacent landowner wants to keep the cul-de-sac in place, however if that landowner wishes to vacate, Mr. Bader's representatives will help him. Commissioner Miller asked how far up the cul-de-sac would be paved. Mr. Uban said the whole thing will have to be paved. Mr. Jerry Fiel is the attorney, which is representing the Baders. Mr. Fiel said it is the position of the Bader's that a variance is not required as the conditions are unique and pointed out that the city has previously granted cul-de-sacs longer than 500-ft. Mr. Fiel said all the standards have been satisfied by the present application and the applicant has the right to develop his property and being consistent with the city's regulations. This variance is not detrimental to the neighborhood. The hardships are being defined as lack of access from Delaware. In closing, Mr. Fiel said private covenants are private matters and the city should not use that circumstance to either approve or deny this application. Commissioner Hesse asked Mr. Fiel to explain why he feels a variance is not needed. Mr. Fiel said the wording in the regulation speaks of the topography and the city should determine whether that would justify the need for a longer cul-de- sac, and not relying on just defning a hardship. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing Gary Fuchs, attorney, 3440 Federal Drive, Eagan, MN, spoke on behalf of Tom and Linda Garrett. Mr. Fuchs said to refer to the proposed plan, as a revision is not accurate. This revised proposal contains changes that are so subtle that they are almost meaningless. Mr. Fuchs said the length of the cul-de-sac is the same, as well as the consequences and circumstances, and this is not much of a revision at all. Mr. Fuchs referred to the Planner's Report that says, "neighbors take the position that the City cannot vacate this cul-de-sac because of the private covenants. Mr. Fuchs denied saying that, and added that the neighbors have never taken that position. Mr. Fuchs said the private covenants will prohibit the construction of the street through the no-cut zone. Mr. Fuchs referred to the exhibit used showing the area that surrounds the proposed plat and sees only one cul-de-sac in this entire exhibit that is longer than 500-ft., only one cul-de-sac approved by the city, and was platted in approximately 1971, before the ordinance was adopted to require variances. Mr. Fuchs said the flag lots that have been created in 1934, 1943, 1970, and 1971 are all created before the ordinance was adopted and none of them have public cul-de-sacs. Mr. Fuchs said it's misleading because the city in the past has approved longer cul-de-sacs or flag lots that would not have been approved now. Mr. Fuchs said there are unique circumstances. 21 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Mr. Fuchs said he was not aware of any county action prohibiting the driveways on Delaware, and why has the applicant not obtained formal opinion from the county. The private covenants will prohibit the construction of the road and apparently the Baders think otherwise. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there was any documentation from Dakota County denying access from Delaware. Mr. Danielson said a letter was received from the county stating this. Larry Berg, attorney with Fredrikson and Byron of Minneapolis, spoke on behalf of Dr. Lutz and Mr. Aune. Mr. Berg said the letter from the counry in which a question was asked of the county in a way that a certain response was received. Mr. Berg said he also spoke to the county and the county made it quite clear that no, that was not really what they were saying. There is access that they will permit on Delaware, and that was not the question that was asked of them. These statements are highly misleading. Mr. Berg discussed how the access on Delaware could be laid out. Mr. Berg said cities do not enforce private covenants when they've been breached. It is not true that cities do not take private covenants into account when people are doing subdivisions, using a situation is Chaska, Minnesota for an example. Mr. Berg said the Baders received all the necessary documents and information regarding the covenants, and they chose to ignore them. Mr. Berg said if the Baders pursue this extension, the Lutz' will take court action. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Berg if he was so certain that the covenants will prevail, why not let the city err and the Lutz' go ahead and prevail on the covenants. Mr. Berg said he finds that upsetting, as the covenants were required by the city in the first place. Mr. Berg said the settlement when the neighbors opposed this original plat was forestalled a lawsuit by these neighbors as they gave up some very good rights and perhaps could have stopped this subdivision. Mr. Berg said it was also upsetting that most of this doesn't seem to be a part of the public records. Commissioner B. McManus said he is not prepared to make his decisions on very technical, legal aspects such as covenants. Commissioner B. McManus asked what question was asked of Dakota County when the Delaware Avenue question was answered in the negative? Mr. Berg said the county explained that they understood from what they were asked whether they, when given a choice between access from Delaware or Wentworth. The county replied they do not want anything else on Delaware. Mr. Danielson said Mr. Bader provided the letter from Dakota County sent, and quoted from the letter "if this plat includes property that abuts County Road 63 (Delaware), adequate right of way would need to be dedicated to Dakota County". Mr. Danielson said that means Delaware right-of-way would have to be widened. "No access would be allowed onto County Road 63 due to the close spacing of driveways in this area". Tim Aune, 2246 Fairmont Avenue, said they asked the county to make another cut on Delaware Avenue but the county only looked at one of the two options on the original plan. Mr. Aune said decisions need to be made, as the Foxwood Operating committee needs to proceed with the paving of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Miller asked if there were any time when all the lawyers sat down and discussed this to try to make this work. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED 22 Planning Commission Meeting June 24, 2003 Chair Lorberbautn closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE AS THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS BY THE PLANNER, PLUS THE ADDITION THAT DAKOTA COUNTY RENDER A FINAL WRITTEN OPINION THAT ACCESS ONTO DELAWARE AVENUE HAS BEEN DENIED. AYES NAYS (Commissioner B. McManus) MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum asked for an update on Planning Case #03-22 — Moen Leur Development. Mr. Hollister said the applicant withdrew his concept plan. VERBAL REVIEW • Planning Case #03-15 Variance/Critical Area Permit — Mr. Haggerty did not show up at the meeting, but sent a letier saying the was not going to attend the meeting and would be proceeding with his soil restoration without city approval. Council passed a resolution denying the request and the attorney sent a letter to Mr. Haggerty directing him not to proceed with the restoration and to come back with an amended plan made by a design professional to be present to the city. Mr. Haggerty will plan on doing that. Planning Case #03-25 Condition Use Permit, Variance, and Critical Area Permit for St. Peter's Church - approved as recommended • Critical Area Ordinance was reviewed by the Council and Staff has been directed to advertise in the city's newsletter for a public hearing and Planning Commission Meeting in August. COMMISSIONER HESSE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 1:12 AM ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 23