Loading...
2003-08-26 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2003 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 26, 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 Miller, Betlej, and Dolan. Those excused: Commissioners B. McManus, Hesse, and M. McManus. 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Commission reviewed the minutes of June 24, 2003. The following corrections were made: Page 3, under Hearings, 1 sc para�raph: Mr. Grittman introduced the application for an amendment to the conditional use permit to expand the existing environmental cleanup facility. The MPCA had made a change in the method of remediation, which necessitates this eXpansion. The new building is planned to be 12 feet wide by 18 feet wide, which would approximately double the eXistin cl�eanup facility building and the new cleanup facility building would be set back 47 feet from the street right of way. The requirement of the B-2 zoning is 30 feet, however, there are additional setback standards imposed for motor fuel stations as follows: ..." Pa�e 3, under Hearings, 3rd paragraph: Jared Otto, a representative of Delta Environmental Consultants, 5910 Rice Creek Parkway, St. Paul, answered questions on behalf of Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC. The new building would replace the existing cleanup facilitv building, which will be taken down. Mr. Otto commented on the building materials to be used, which would be similar to that of the existing buildings. Page 5, 4th paragraph from the bottom: Chair Lorberbaum said the existing shed as shown on the plan looks to be located on the property line. Mr. Grittman said the shed is not actually on the line, but the drawing was not done correct�. Page 5, last parag�raph: Vern Gunderson, who lives next door to the Donohue's, stated the shed is not on his property. Mr. Gunderson said he has no objection to the new shed being built. He asked for clarification as to the maXimum square footage allowed for a shed. Mr. Grittman said the standard is 144 square feet, and the applicant needs a conditional use permit to extend that to 384 square feet. The maximum allowance is 1,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2003 AS CORRECTED. Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 3 AYES 0 NAYS ABSTENTION (Commissioner polan) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #03-06 REVISED CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE Mr. Grittman said the case involves the amendment to the city's critical area ordinance. The critical area is a designated area along the river that is defined by a specific mapped requirement from the state and actually is a result of some federal regulations for river protection that have been passed down to be required as part of local ordinances, and that is the Critical Area Ordinance. The city embarked on this project beginning with the amendment to comprehensive plan a few years ago where the DNR, which is the agency in charge of enforcing the critical area regulations was encouraging every one pursuant to some changes in federal mandate to update the critical area ordinances that were in place and take another fresh look at the requirements that were being applied to development in those areas. The intent of the critical area ordinance generally is to provide for a closer look at development grading, any kind of development impact that might be happening within the river area, with the intent of protecting the river corridor both visually and environmentally from any types of impacts. Mr. Grittman said the most substantial change that was given to the city, as a benchmark was a change in the definition for what the protection areas within the defined critical areas would be. The current ordinance pays particular attention to slopes that are greater than 40%, and those are quite steep and typically unbuildable and usually in the critical area, slopes of more than 40% are mare likely to be natural areas than anything else. The change that has been given to the city is a change to protect slopes that are as level as 18%. It is not uncommon for residential yards to be steeper than 18%, so it has some significant impact in the manner that there are some significant greater amount of area that is going to be subject to a closer review in the critical area. For Mendota Heights, the impact is less than some areas because most of the critical area is already developed. There are also some areas that are potentially developable or occasionally lots that might be subdividable in the critical area, but there are few. Typically, the type of requests to the city are for additions to existing homes or landscaping projects that might affect grading or other kinds of structures that are being built in the critical area, and require the city's review. The structure of the ordinance was built to address the 18% rule but staff wants to be able to grandfather in the eXisting amount of development that is in the critical area. Staff did not want to have an ordinance that would prohibit people that have already developed in those critical areas to be able to continue to improve their properties as they traditionally have expected to do. A process tool has been built in to always be able to refer back to the 40% rule. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance is about 18 to 19 pages of text. Commissioner polan asked how many cities have adopted the DNR requirements. Mr. Grittman said he did not know, but most of them have already done this, or they are in the latter stages of their final adoption. There are probably about 15 cammunities that area affected by the critical area. Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 Commissioner polan asked if the city is prohibited against deviating from the 18%. Mr. Grittman said the city is not necessarily prohibited from doing this, but will be required to meet the DNR approval of the ardinance. To change the structure the DNR has given, it would require some eXtraardinary negotiating on the city's part. The city needs to have some flexibility within the 18% rule rather than trying to negotiate a different number. Commissioner polan asked in the case that the city applies the new ardinance from now and going forward, what would happen to those people who have not yet developed their property, and trying to build on slopes in eXcess of 18%; would they have to meet the variance requirements within the ordinance. Mr. Grittman said that if some one has a parcel that is undeveloped and be subjected to the new slope regulations, which are more eXtensive that they used to be, that would render their property undevelopable, therefare the property owner would need a variance to develop. Commissioner polan asked if the city needs to get DNR approval for each variance granted. Mr. Grittman said the DNR has the opportunity to review and comment, but not approve the city's actions. Commissioner polan asked if the DNR has the ability to stop the city from granting that variance if the DNR disapproves it. Mr. Grittman said no, but they may try to sue the city for failing to enforce. If the city grants a variance, it is presumed that some conditions would apply that address the issues. Chair Larberbaum asked if the applicant would have to show a hardship for the variance. Mr. Grittman said they would. A typical variance analysis would have to show a hardship and in Staff's view, without knowing specific cases, if there were to be some properties like that, there is a legal lot of record now subject to new regulations that would prohibit any development; those people would be making a good case for a hardship. Chair Lorberbaum said that the fact that this was changed presents the hardship. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner polan asked for a definition of a legal lot of record. Mr. Grittman said it is a recorded parcel on the books on the county's recording system. Chair Larberbaum asked if notification was sent out to property owners of properties that are affected by this. Mr. Grittman said it was his understanding that individual mailed notifications were not sent, but the notice was provided in the Heights Highlights and also on the city's website (www.��,endota-1,ei,�hts.com) as well as on cable. Mr. Hollister said that because the critical area ordinance is a separate ordinance from the zoning ordinance, statutorily the city is not required to send any notice to amend the ardinance, just as is done with any non-zoning ordinance. Staff asked City Council if they wanted to hold a public hearing for amending the critical area ordinance in line with the mandate from the DNR, and if we hold a public hearing, how should the notice be handled far the public hearing. The City Council decided to advertise it in the Heights Highlights, the website, and the local designated newspaper. There was no individual mailing. Chair Lorberbaum referred to Page 7, C.4: "Restoration and construction of historical sites and structures"; and asked how would one construct an historical site. Mr. Grittman said this would be constructing a marker or monument on a historical site. It was agreed to reword it to "Restoration of and construction on historical sites and structures." Chair Lorberbaum referred to Page 8, A.2: "No development shall be permitted on land having a slope before alteration in excess of twelve �ercent (12%), but less than ei ng teen percent (18%), unless the ap�licant shall 3 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 prove that the followin� conditions are met. The procedures for Site Plan Review in Section 3.2 of this Ordinance shall ap�lv to a�plications under this section"; and asked for clarification of the 12%. Mr. Grittman said the DNR actually encourages the city to adopt a 12% grade prohibition, however they are soft on the 12% rule and hard on the 18% rule. Cases with 12% will receive special attention, but not necessarily prohibition ar additional requirements. Chair Lorberbaum referred to Page 16, 3.2E: "New Subdivision: For new subdivisions approved after October 1, 2002, the subdivider shall be required to demonstrate that an.�y created parcel will be able to support a buildable area consistent with the underl.�in� zoning regulations, on grades less than 18% "; and asked why the date of October 1, 2002 used. Mr. Grittman said this was the date that was chosen when the draft was originally put together as trying to be current in where the development of the draft was. It would be more appropriate to refer to a mare current date once this draft is ready for adoption. Most likely, the date will be changed to the date the City Council adopts the ardinance. Commissioner Betlej said that the DNR asked the city to change this ordinance. What would happen if the city refused to change it? Mr. Grittman said if the DNR were of a mind to, they could take it to court, claiming the city is out of compliance with the federal regulations that were established in the critical area. Cammissioner Betlej asked if there are any federal regulations on the slope number? Mr. Grittman said he does not believe so and relies on the DNR for that information. Commissioner Betlej asked how the DNR came up with the 18%. Mr. Grittman said he did not know the background on this, but he said it is a common number in other bluff ]and protection regulations the DNR has that are applicable in some of the Mississippi and St. Croix River corridor regulations. It is a number the DNR uses in some of its other environmental protection rules. Commissioner Betlej addressed the audience, stating that the document the Commission is reviewing contains a number of comments, which were made at previous Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Grittman said this document has gone through a number of initial discussion drafts and this one reflects all of that previous input. Commissioner Betlej referred to Page 7, C.S: "Structures associated with mining and excavation", and said he thought a lot of this was removed. Mr. Grittman said there was a lot of river barge/industrial river use language removed, but this sentence was left in, as there may be some mining or excavation that may occur in the critical area, although it seems highly unlikely, but it is possible. Mr. Grittman said that probably reflects some competing priorities at the regional level in terms of interest of pursuing gravel resources. Commissioner Betlej referred to Page 7, F.1: "No land shall be subdivided which is found to be unsuitable for reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water su�lv or sewer disposal capabilities ar any other feature likely to be harmful to the communit_y. The Planning Commission, in a�lving the provisions of this Section, shall in writing cite the particular features upon which it bases its conclusions that the land is not suitable for the_proposed use and afford the subdivider an o�portunity to �resent evidence re ag rding such suitability. Thereafter, the Commission ma_y affirm, modify ar withdraw its determination of unsuitabilit�', and said it seems like this language asks for additional requirements for the Planning Commission more so that what the Commission is expected to do. Why would a subdivision require eXtra conditions? Mr. Grittman said he was not sure that it requires anything more than what is already in process, but this is just more formal in language, for asking for the findings in which to base approval or denial. This information would be reflected in the minutes, but saying it in a different way. 4 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 Commissioner Betlej referred to Page 9, 2.7.A.d.3: "The use of gabions, pilings, tiebacks, metal retaining walls and �recast ar cast in �lace concrete retaining walls is specifically �rohibited", and said that in some areas with slopes, tie backs are very common, as was precast units used in the construction of Highway 13. Commissioner Betlej asked why these are restricted. Mr. Grittman said it is the preference of the DNR to use natural materials. In cases where natural materials are believed to be unfeasible from an engineering standpoint, the applicant would need to seek a variance. This is draft language from some modellanguage that was put together by other sources, which reflect their DNR's interest in avoiding slope construction or any kind of construction on a slope that would require extreme slope retention measures. Commissioner Betlej said an applicant would have to apply for a variance should they want to construct a 5-ft. retaining wall stepping down to their walk-out. Mr. Grittman said they would need to use any other material, i.e. boulders, wood, etc., other than pre-cast, to keep within the ordinance. Commissioner Miller said he has trouble in trying to approve this ordinance that seems all encompassing, but it probably would affect very few people in the city. Is there information regarding claims for variances or conditional use permits for the existing critical ordinance? Mr. Grittman said most of the critical area permits reviewed and approved in the last couple of years have not required variances, but at that time the slope requirements were less burdensome than before. There have been some variance requests for construction with the critical area, but they have all had to meet the hardship and reasonable use tests. Commissioner Miller said it might seem from the public point of view that this is a large complicated ordinance, and will probably never be affected. Commissioner Miller asked to show a map indicating the Critica] Area. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman what action is he looking for. Mr. Grittman said he is looking for a recommendation to the city council for adoption of the Critical Area Ordinance as corrected. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, Mr. Gene Chaput, 1835 Hunter Lane, said he was the only one that has a subdividable lot and his concern is to be able to do what he wants to do with the developable portion of his property. Mr. Chaput said he wants to do what all the neighbors have done in the past and is afraid this ordinance would take the possibility away from him to construct a hame on his property. Mr. Grittman said that without knowing the specific property, the ordinance obviously changes the playing field because of the change in the slope regulation. The current process that Mr. Chaput would be required to go through to subdivide would be seeking an application for a subdivision and a critical area permit, and we try to make the procedural requirements the same, with perhaps some additional applications that need to be filed. If the proposed lot is primarily on the greater than the 18% slope, one of those applications would be a variance to construct on slopes greater than 18%. Mr. Chaput said it seems that in his situation, he will be impacted by the ordinance and feels he should be allowed the same benefits as everyone else in that area has had in the past. Chair Lorberbaum said that without seeing the lot, it would be handled in a similar manner that any time an ordinance has been changed, and say the existing land and homes would be grandfathered in and all new construction would be subject to a new ordinance. 5 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 Mr. Chaput said it was like a race to the courthouse. People that came to the city in the last couple of months get a permit to build, and because he has not actually planned to build at this time, being the last and only one not on the hill already this seems to be very heavy handed when applying it to one citizen. Chair Larberbaum said it's hard to say what the future might hold, but reminded Mr. Chaput that although this ordinance may prevent building to a certain degree, a case could be reviewed and it may be decided that a conditional use permit could be applied for. Chair Lorberbaum said she was very glad to receive these questions, and if Mr. Chaput had more questions, he could ask the city council next Tuesday. Mr. Chaput said that was fair enough. Commissioner polan asked for clarification that some of the property might be in excess of 18% would not prohibit building on a mare flat part of that parcel. Mr. Grittman said that was correct and that the current regulation uses 40% as a threshold. The city has maintained the 40% rule for the purpose of setbacks from the bluff, and if there is land flatter than 18%, that land would be eligible for construction without any special permit. Maureen Harm, 662 Highway 13, lives across from the Critical Area and asked how the neighbors across Highway 13 will be affected by these changes. Mrs. Harm asked for a draft for the ordinance. Mr. Hollister said it was on the website. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AS SUBMITTED WITH THE CHANGES DISCUSSED. Further Discussion Commissioner polan said he was hesitant passing this along to the City Council without some note of reservation because the Commission feels compelled to do so, but not because if feels this is a good idea. Chair Lorberbaum said she agrees that the DNR is telling the city to do this and the city has no choice but to comply. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 PLANNING CASE #03-41 City of Mendota Heights Wagon Wheel Trail at Rogers Lake CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WETLAND FILL AND WETLANDS PERMIT Mr. Grittman reviewed the request from the City of Mendota Heights as a result of a combination of events, one being local citizens' interest in improving the fishing habitat in the Rogers Lake area and the need to construct some improvements to accommodate those changes primarily related to culvert construction of the connection of the two portions of the lake. The project also includes some additional construction that would prepare the roadbed for Wagon Wheel Trail in a subsequent sometime future improvement to the street, although the actual street improvement is not a part of this project. Mr. Grittman said there are two planning applications presented. One is the Conditional Use Permit to fil] in the wetland area, and the second is a wetlands permit for the work that disturbs the wetland area that is affected by the construction of this project. Chair Larberbaum asked if the fact that the applicant is the City of Mendota Heights does that then give any special leverage. Mr. Grittman said this would be treated as any other applicant. Guy Kullander, a member of the city's staff, has been appointed to act as Project Manager and to coordinate the application and processing of all necessary permits or submittals. Mr. Kullander is working with a consultant, (Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates), to prepare plans and specifications. Mr. Kullander said this proposal is for the replacement of the culvert, and to do that, it is necessary to know what the future roadway alignment would be and the requirements for that future project. Representatives from Bonostroo, Rosene, Anderlilc & Associates were present: Kevin Kelp, who is the engineer who has worked on the design of the roadway and culvert; and Rick Brash, a lake specialist who has taken care of the environmental and wetland impacts. Chair Larberbaum asked if there was a reason the road is not being addressed at this time. Mr. Kullander said the roadway is a project that the City Council brought before the neighborhood in 1989, and was tabled at that time, while recognizing that the road will have to be reconstructed in the future. Part of the funding comes from the Municipal State Aid (MSA) Fund that the city receives from the state. These funds offset the assessments for areas that the city cannot access along the lake or park. Mr. Kullander said in order to receive these funds, the roads must be improved to a certain standard that is set by the state, which includes curb and gutter and storm sewer, as well as trail systems, parking lanes, and lights. Mr. Kullander said the consultants have been aslced to re-design the "S" curve, which is considered hazardous in its current alignment, and in doing so, it was established as to how the culvert would be redesigned. The future roadway will have to be widened to the north of the existing road, which is a requirement established by the DNR, as they wish to preserve as many of the trees to the south side as possible. In order to widen the roadbed, the lake must be filled in. The consultants have performed soil tests to determine the conditions needed to widen the roadbed in preparation for future upgrades. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there were any economies in doing this work now. Mr. Kullander said there would be, as the permits required from the DNR and all the necessary tests must be done at some point, and the City should do it now so they do not have to repeat these steps in the future when they start construction. 7 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 Chair Lorberbaum asked what the savings would be if the road was done now. Mr. Kullander said the roadway is still serviceable and doesn't require total reconstruction at this time. The cost to do it now would be the same as it would in the future. The savings in this case would be to not have to repeat the processes later. Mr. Kullander said tests have shown 6-ft. of peat to be at the bottom of the lake. The peat on the roadway is about 3-ft. due to the compression of the road. The peat at the bottom of the lake must be compressed before the new roadbed is completed and therefore needs to have fill placed in the lake to compact the peat down. Commissioner polan asked if the decision was made to put off the road construction because of the settling issue. Mr. Kullander said that was not the reason, and the roadway does not have to be constructed now. The City Council gave the consultants three options: 1) redo the whole road, 2) construct a partial of the road, ar 3) construct a new culvert. The consultants have chosen to do the culvert and roadbed, as they did not want to have to redesign the whole road at this time, which would be a much larger project and take a longer time. Mr. Kullander said that a private donor, Mr. Clifford Timm, has offered to help with a donation to cover some of the costs of this project. Commissioner Betlej asked what the assumption was as to the width of the road. Mr. Kullander said the city receives funding from the state each year, and the MSA has a typical design that would be used. That design consists of 2 traffic lanes, 2 parking lanes, and curb and gutter. Mr. Kullander said that if the City goes toward that goal, they could receive the funding, however the goals do not necessarily have to be achieved. A similar project is Decarah Lane, which has been planned for 28-ft. of bituminous, trail along the side of the road, and curb and gutter. This project has not been completed yet. The proposed improvements for Wagon Wheel Trail have been approved for MSA funding and follow the same design as Decorah Lane. Mr. Kullander said these improvements can be adjusted according to the local conditions. Commissioner Betlej said this type of construction would fit into the 66-ft. right of way that currently exists. Mr. Kullander said it probably could, but to do the work on the culvert, work would have to be done to the lake, such as damns put in to enable the construction of new culverts, and that would require additional right of way. Commissioner Betlej said this seems to present a very wide right of way that suggests there may be a whole lot more than what is needed far a neighbarhood road. Mr. Kullander said the widening proposed should be viewed, as "the ultimate" in the case the City Council wants to proceed with the total improvements. This proposal would alleviate the need to go through the process again later. Commissioner Betlej asked if the Commission is only being asked to approve for the very maximum. Mr. Kullander said the plan is to realistically look at what the residents want and what the Council wishes to approve, and to anticipate the need for the maximum design. After the fill material is put in, the roadway would become approximately 22-ft more than where it is now. The average shoreline would move out about 22- ft. at maximum point. Commissioner polan asked if this area would be part of the trai] system. Mr. Kullander said Wagon Wheel Trail has been identified as a future trail ]ocation. Mr. Kullander said Wagon Wheel Trail was originally a county road, but was given back to the city in 1986, and this project would be totally funded through MSA and homeowner assessment. This road would therefore be constructed in accordance with city standards. Commissioner Miller referred to the Mayor's letter regarding the fishing, and it seems the discussion is gearing toward the road building. Mr. Kullander said one of the options was to replace the culvert at its existing length. If doing this, when the future project comes along, most likely the culvert will have to be taken out. In this case, 8 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 the process of permitting would have to be done all over again. Fishing improvements were anticipated when this project came up, and those improvements would be funded only by the private donation and not the MSA. Commissioner Betlej asked if there would be any change to the elevation of the lake. Mr. Kelp said the construction would not affect the elevation of the lake. Mr. Kelp explained how the water is controlled and regulated. Commissioner Betlej asked if there would be any conditions that would make the levels drop. Mr. Kelp said he does not see any. Mr. Brash said the culvert is designed to provide equalization in order to provide enough depth of standing water to allow fish to pass back and forth from one cell to another year-round. The current culvert is equalizing from a water level standpoint, but it is not deep enough to allow the fish to pass through. Mr. Kelp said this new culvert is larger than the existing one, and will increase the ability far balance of water on both sides. Chair Larberbaum opened the public hearing. Jerry Nelson, 894 Wagon Wheel Trail, the ]ake is currently in bad shape and contains a lot of scum. Mr. Nelson said the DNR made a mistake when they set that lake level and did not allow for any proper drainage. Mr. Nelson said because motorboats are not allowed on the lake, which would help cut the scum and move the flow of the water. Mr. Nelson referred to the lake as a"99-acre cesspool". Mr. Kelp referred to a cross section of the lake elevation and indicated how the lake will be cleaned out to install the culvert and then refill. All the material that is removed from the lake will not be put back into the lake, but will become the property of the contractor who is awarded the work. Mr. Brash said the lake does not have a big watershed contributing to it. The lake is mostly fed by run-off water, and has been currently affected by the lack of rain in recent months. The vegetation growing in the lake is common with shallow lakes such as this. Mr. Nelson said he estimates the depth of the lake to be 7 ft. 6 in. Mr. Brash said this lake is full of thick grasses/weeds, which also deters water circulation. Mr. Brash has suggested to dig an additional 5-ft. in front of the proposed culvert. Chair Lorberbaum asked staff if speedboats are prohibited from the lake. Mr. Hollister said motorized vehicles are prohibited on all bodies of water in Mendota Heights as stated in a special ardinance, which he noted is not a part of the zoning ordinance. Scott Miller, 1021 Wagon Wheel Trail, said the problem is that the city has taken a very generous offer from an individual, Mr. Timm, and have since exploded the idea. Mr. Miller said it's nice to see the city want to make improvements, however this type of action to rebuild the road is too fast. Most of the residents along Wagon Wheel Trail do not have cable television and were unaware of this issue until they received notice in the mail that indicated this was almost a done issue. Mr. Miller said this issue needs to be revisited in regards to the hazardous "S" curve, where it is a safety factor as families, often with young children, come there to fish. These young children sometimes run across the road. At certain times during the day, the sun makes it difficult for a driver to see anyone crossing. Mr. Miller said this seems to be too big for what is the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Miller asked about the surveyor stakes that were currently located along the road. Mr. Kelp said these stakes were from soil borings that were conducted. Mr. Miller asked if the city could take Mr. Timm's donation and apply to upgrading the existing park fishing pier. Chair Lorberbaum said that would have to be discussed with Mr. Timm. Mr. Miller said this would be a good thing to discuss, and that this project is moving too fast to allow for these discussions, as it will be coming to the City Council in the next week. E Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 Richard Bevel, 1011 Wagon Wheel Trail, said he supports Mr. Miller's comments. The potential widening of this roadway could be viewed as a"superhighway" being constructed from a neighborhood roadway. Mr. Bevel said he does not believe this project can be approved with plans for the future, as once the project starts, it usually keeps on going. Mr. Bevel is very concerned about the safety of the area as well. A walking path would be nice, but he has heard talk of putting in parking and public restroom facilities. Mr. Nelson said the fish in the lake was originally placed in there by him and the neighbors, and believes the lake is now "fished out". Seeing no one else wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYE S 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. Commissioner Betlej asked how much fill would be taken out of the lake. Mr. Kelp said the total volume of fill would be 3,800 cubic yards, and the amount taken out is fairly minor, digging down about 3-ft in several areas. Mr. Kelp explained how the water would be removed from the peat and the fill will then compact the peat down. Commissioner Betlej asked if a conditional use permit would then be needed far the amount of the fill coming in. Mr. Grittman said that is correct. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the intentions of Mr. Timm's donation could be achieved without widening the road to this extent. Mr. Danielson said Mr. Timm wants to improve the fishing, and the culver can be done to accommodate that purpose without all the additional roadwark, but the city will have to incur the costs later for new permits from the DNR to proceed with soil corrections. Commissioner Miller asked if it were possible to raise the lake level. Mr. Brash said the level can be raised by building up the outlet, but expressed the concern on how it may affect surrounding residents. Mr. Brash said the 1986 DNR reports show the elevation at 873. Commissioner Miller asked what the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission was. Mr. Hollister read an eXcerpt from the Park and Recreation meeting dated August 12, 2003 as follows: "Commissioner Libra moved to recommend the project as currently proposed. Commissioner Craighead seconded the motion. 3 Ayes. 3 Nayes. Motion Failed". "Commissioner Craighead has then moved to recommend that if the Council approves the project, there should be a path installed along that stretch of Wagon Wheel Trail. Commissioner Linnell seconded the motion. 5 Ayes. 1 Naye. Motion Carried". Chair Lorberbaum asked why that information was not provided to the Planning Commission. Mr. Grittman said he did not know about it. Chair Larberbaum said she was surprised that city staff did not make it available to the planner. � Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 Commissioner polan asked if there was a recommendation to do the trail now as opposed to waiting until the road is upgraded? Mr. Hollister said that was the implication he derived from it, and that the Park and Recreation Commission is saying to wind the roadbed at the "S" curve portion now, install the larger culvert, and have a trail. They left it ambiguous as to whether it should be to the north or south because there is a larger question about whether the trail should be along the north ar south of Wagon Wheel Trail as a whole between Dodd Road and Lexington Avenue. Commissioner polan asked if there would be a path just along the "S" curve. Mr. Hollister said that was not defined, but the trail would be just along the portion of where the project would be taking place. Commissioner Betlej made the following motion, recognizing the very generous gift from Mr. Timm, and the intent of what the proposal offers, seems to make a lot of sense, however it seems like what is being proposed by the city are improvements that would not be in character with the neighborhood as the width of the roadbed seems way out of character with what is going on with the balance of the road. Commissioner Betlej said it makes sense to improve the road as it has been a hazard for a long period of time, and there have been a number of comments with regards to the trail, which makes a lot of sense, and will be making the motion as follows: COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A WETLAND FILL AND WETLAND PERMIT AS PROPOSED. Further Discussion Commissioner polan said he agrees with what Commissioner Betlej is saying, although his understanding is that the city would extend the road to the right of way, and putting back the existing 24-ft. road. Commissioner Dolan said the decision as to how and why the road will be is not to be made at this point. Chair Larberbaum said that was correct and the only issue concerns the extent of the wetland fill and where it is going. Commissioner polan said it was his opinion that the Commission should approve the actions being presented, taking advantage of the generous gift, and leaving the decision as to the size of the road, and the safety issues for when the entire road is updated. Commissioner Betlej said his concern with that is that there is 65-ft. on the north side of the road that will essentially become a park, or a fishing area, and he does not know if the neighbors have intended that area to become a public use area, which could be viewed as an extension of Rogers Lake Park. Chair Lorberbaum said if this were any other applicant who said "I would like to put some wetland fill in there, I may not need it later, but give it to me now and I'll figure out later what I want to do with it", it would be her guess that the City Council would say "come with a plan and we'll look at it and say `aye' or `naye' at that point". Chair Lorberbaum asked to have this proposal treated like any other applicant. Commissioner Miller said he is in support of Commissioner Betlej's comments and if the residents want to widen the road, and to improve the fishing while doing so, that would be acceptable. However, he is not sure that is what the resident's want and this is not the ariginal request. Chair Larberbaum said she is hearing feedback from the Commission of their appreciation for the generous donation from Mr. Timm and is in support of his idea of improving the fishing culvert, but the Commission is � Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 not comfortable with the plan as presented. Commissioner Miller said the focus should be more on improving the fishing and possibly another way of addressing the safety issues. Commissioner polan said it's okay now, but at some point in the future, something will have to be done, and believes the Planner is taking a realistic approach as to what will happen in the future. 3 AYES NAYS (Commissioner polan) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-42 William St. Martin 1933 Crown Point Drive REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a 30-ft. setback variance from the side yard setback requirement to expand an existing attached garage. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan showing the garage space, which is approximately 600-sq. ft., eXpanded to approXimately 1,176-sq. ft. Mr. Grittman said the proposed eXpansion would encroach into the required setback from Crown Point Drive of 30-ft. The proposed additional garage space will be used for automobile storage, and it is the Planner's opinion there is no hardship identified as the addition could be set back further into the rear yard to accommodate all the requirements. Commissioner polan asked for clarification on the map where a possible alternate location could be. Mr. Grittman said it could be possible to either build a smaller structure in this space, or a larger structure set further back from the road. Commissioner polan asked if there were any considerations for the curvature of the road along the property line. Mr. Grittman said this could be a consideration of a hardship, however the planner's concern is the definition of a reasonable use and whether a variance should be granted for a garage that is larger than necessary, and where the applicant clearly has an alternative. Commissioner Betlej asked if there would be an issue with the rear setback should the applicant choose to move the garage back. Mr. Grittman indicated what he thought to be the proper setbacks of this property, and the rear yard may be slightly shallow to build this size of garage as proposed. Commissioner polan said the new garage portion would then not be flush with the rest of the house. Mr. Grittman said that is not an uncommon condition in architectural trends today. Chair Larberbaum said some people purposely design homes in this fashion. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification of the front setback and the two "psuedo-sideyard" setbacks. Mr. Grittman said that the rear setback is a very small portion, and it would not be uncommon to determine the sideyard as the Planner suggests. Commissioner Miller referred to another property in the same block with a similar configuration, where the existing home has a three-car garage. Mr. William St. Martin, 1833 Crown Point Drive, said the curvature of the street necessitates the need for a variance. Mr. St. Martin said he does not wish to move the garage back as it would interfere with the roofline, l2 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 as well as winter maintenance of the driveway would be easier for clearing snow. Mr. St. Martin said he has support of the surrounding neighbors. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Larberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED, WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THE ODDLY CONFIGURED LOT, AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALL PRIVACY SCREENING IN THE WAY OF LANDSCAPING, TO KEEP WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-43 Dan Stoven 825 Bluebill Drive REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a variance for construction of a RV garage to be attached to the existing garage. The property currently had an existing single family home with a three-car garage. The applicant wishes to add an additional garage for his RV to protect it from the elements. The applicant states that the garage will also increase curb appeal, as the RV will be fully enclosed. Mr. Grittman said the total square footage of the garage addition (excluding the workshop) would be 1,604-sq. ft., which exceeds the maximum of 1,500-sq. ft. The proposed garage door would be 12-ft. in height, which eXceeds the maximum of 9-ft. The overall height of the building would be 17-ft., which eXceeds the maximum of 15-ft. Mr. Grittman said garages between 1,200- and 1,500- sq. ft. require a conditional use permit. Mr. Grittman said that by denying the request for the variance, the property would still be in compliance by maintaining reasonable use of the garage. Commissioner Miller asked if there were any conditions regarding the quantity of garage doors. Mr. Grittman said under the conditional use clause, there is a limitation on the number of garage doors to 3(or 1 single and 1 double). 13 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 Commissioner Betlej asked for the status of the RV ordinance. Mr. Hollister said the city adopted a revised RV ordinance recently. Commissioner polan said a conditional use standard is being applied to a variance and if the garage were within the size limitations, the conditional use would still not be met because of the addition of one mare door. Mr. Grittman said this was correct, as well as having an issue with the height requirements. Mr. Dan Stoven, 825 Bluebill Drive, said he received support of all the surrounding neighbors and presented a signed petition to the city. Mr. Stoven provided a picture of what his property currently looks like, and a computer rendition of the home with the additional garage. Mr. Stoven said his RV has been adversely affected from the sun, hail, and rain damage. Mr. Stoven said he does not know what the RV ordinance entails. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Hollister to provide a copy of the RV ordinance to Mr. Stoven. Commissioner Miller asked the applicant if he were willing to remove a garage door. Mr. Stoven said he could not do that and referred to the plans showing an existing workshop currently occupying that space. Commissioner Betlej asked what the height of the RV was. Mr. Stoven said about ll%z- ft. with the air conditioner and satellite dish on top, and he would need a 12-ft. door to get it into the garage. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant to identify his hardship. Mr. Stoven said he always had an RV, even before he moved to this location. He said his hardship is that he has always owned an RV and wants to keep it in good condition. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mark Weirkes, 2335 Dodd Road, said he lives directly across the street. Mr. Weirkes said that 25% of the windows of his home look out toward the RV, and although it is not a hideous site, a garage would be a majar improvement to his view. Mr. Weirkes said the hardship is related to his property value and the salability of his property. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS U_�__�\ :::__1 Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS PRESENTED BASED UPON THE HARDSHIP DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE VARIANCE. 14 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 4 AYE S 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-44 Cliff Kirchner 737 Cheyenne Lane REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Mr. Grittman introduced the request a variance of 6-ft. from the front yard setback to allow for the expansion of an existing attached garage toward the front of the lot. The ordinance allows a single family home with a garage within 440-sq. ft. to 1,200-sq. ft. The current garage is approXimately 400-sq. ft. The applicant has noted difficulty in maneuvering in the garage. The expansion to the front and side would also incorporate a covered passageway to the front of the house. Mr. Grittman said a hardship has been identified, as the reasonable use of the property is not being made as the garage is of substandard size and there does not appear to be any other alternative to expanding the garage. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission looks at each case on its own merits, and not on precedence. Chair Lorberbaum said that historically, some variances have been given to smaller lots in that area for encroaching into setbacks, and has the city also included instances where the addition would jut out more, and not keeping within the site line of the neighboring houses. Mr. Grittman said he does not know of any specific history of this neighborhood. Mr. Danielson said there have been such instances. Mr. Kirchner, 737 Cheyenne Lane, said he has no further comments as the planner did an excellent job in presenting this case. Commissioner polan asked how big the garage will be after the addition is built. Mr. Kirchner said the garage would be about 27'/z-ft. deep and 29-ft. wide, and approximately 700-sq. ft. Commissioner Betlej asked if the intent was to park three cars in the garage. Mr. Kirchner said he intends to park two cars and have some room to move around. Commissioner Betlej said it would be hard to park three cars in the proposed garage. Commissioner Miller said he appreciated the direction of this extension as opposed to a variance request for the side yard. Commissioner Miller cautioned the applicant on the details of burying the existing fireplace, and to be careful. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYES 0 NAYS ls Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 MOTION CARRIED Chair Larberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THE DIFFICULTY OF BRINGING THE CURRENT GARAGE UP TO THE STANDARD REQUIREMENT. Further Discussion Commissioner polan said he supports the motion based on the square footage being within the amount allowed under the ordinance, being consistent with the neighborhood, and the variance is not overly significant. Chair Lorberbaum said this would also bring the garage into conformance. 4 AYE S 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-45 Dakota Communities 2031 Victoria Road REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Mr. Grittman introduced the request for approval of a conditional use permit to construct a dumpster enclosure to surround the existing dumpster currently on the property. The proposed structure is approximately 140-sq. ft and is to be constructed of brick, with a concrete pad. Mr. Grittman said a variance is required, as the zoning ordinance requires all detached accessory structures be located no closer to the front lot line than the principal building. In this instance, another location on the property would probably be more visible than the current location, which is reasonably out of the way. With the variance, the property would therefore be put to reasonable use as the dumpster would be screened. Commissioner polan asked if there were two dumpsters, a blue on and a green one. Mr. Grittman said there were. Commissioner polan asked if there were any restrictions on the number of dumpsters in a parking lot. Mr. Grittman said he was not aware of any. Commissioner polan said the dumpsters were an eyesore. Geargia Peters, representing Dakota Communities, which is based in Eagan, said there are actually three dumpsters. Two of them belong to Dakota Community, and one belongs to the church next door. Ms. Peters said the dumpsters are creating an eyesore and wish to beautify the area. Ms. Peters said both dumpsters would fit inside the enclosure Commissioner Miller suggested having trash enclosure doors added if the trash hauler is agreeable to that. This would screen the dumpsters from the applicant's property as well. Commissioner Betlej asked who owns the shed. Ms. Peters said the shed belongs to the church. � Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 Chair Lorberbaum asked if there would be screening around the enclosure. Ms. Peters said the rest of the property belongs to the church, and is willing to wark with the church to provide some landscaping. Commissioner polan asked if there were setback issues. Mr. Grittman said that was part of the variance request. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Further Discussion Mr. Grittman said the site plan shows some room around the dumpster, about 3-ft. from the property line, so there may be some room for plantings. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Larberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BEING A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WITH THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT ADD SOME LANDSCAPING IN THE AREA THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE SCREENING EFFECT TO MINIMIZE THE VISIBILITY AT THIS LOCATION, WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THAT IF THE STRUCTURE WAS PLACED ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE PROPERTY, THE DUMPSTER WOULD BE MORE VISIBLE. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-46 Andrew Krenik 2360 Pilot Knob Road VARIANCE REQUEST Mr. Grittman introduced the case where the applicant is seeking a variance to construct a monument sign on a property, which houses an industrial building. This building was recently reviewed for a remodeling project for turning a portion of the building into an office use building. One of the conditions of that approval was that the site plan comply with the city's code requirements. The applicant is proposing to install a second sign to indicate the main entrance for the remodeled portion of the building. There is already a freestanding sign on the property at the entrance off of Pilot Knob Road. The second, new sign would be ]ocated on the northeast corner of the site along a separate frontage. The zoning ordinance accommodates one freestanding sign per l7 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 property, and a variance would be needed to a second one. It is the Planner's opinion that multiple frontage on large industrial buildings are common conditions and therefore not unique to this property. While understanding the applicant's interest is providing additional signage far tenants and users of the building, staff does not believe a hardship is not found in this case. Chair Lorberbaum said there are currently two signs; one at the entrance of the driveway to the right, and one further back to the left. Chair Larberbaum asked if the applicant could have a wall sign. Mr. Grittman said they could. Commissioner polan asked if there are two separate entrances. Mr. Grittman said there is. There is one sign adjacent to an entrance off of Pilot Knob Road, and one off of Waters Drive, sharing with another driveway entrance to the adjacent property. Commissioner polan said it seemed obvious from loolcing at the plan, that when driving down the street, a person would not be able to see the sign on the other side of the building. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner Betlej asked if there is more flexibility with directional signage. Mr. Grittman said there are some allowances for directional or informational signs. Andrew Krenik, Tushie Montgomery Architects, 7645 Lyndale Avenue So, Richfield, MN gave an overview and shared photos depicting what the signage would look like. Mr. Krenik reviewed the site plan and referred to the location of the Gateway Commons Office/Warehouse/Distribution Center in the southwestern part of the property. Mr. Krenik said the hardship is the difficulty of traffic coming from Waters Drive having no visibility to the Pilot Knob Distribution Center. Amy Melchoir, Project Manager with CB Richard Ellis, said one reason the variance is being requested is for overall beautification of the building, taking away the "industrial" look and wanting to present a more "office" use. Ms. Melchoir says the signage is a way of doing this, and to direct people into the location. Ms. Melchoir said this is the largest multi-tenant property in the southeast quadrant, and is a significant piece of property, and the applicant is trying to not make it the largest vacant one. The proposed signage will give the building mare of a corporate identity. Chair Lorberbaum asked if a wall sign was considered. Ms. Melchoir said the size of the wall sign would be fairly small, and most likely the tenant would want this above their door. Mr. Krenik said it was his understanding that the wall sign would be the same size as the monument and believes the monument would give the property a sense of stability. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the truck traffic. Ms. Melchoir said there is truck traffic along Waters Drive, and there are also dock doars along the side of the property as well. The goal is to take the industrial edge off the building and encourage large users to place their offices in this building. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the two signs. Ms. Melchoir said there was a leasing sign there as well as the monument sign. The leasing sign is a permanent, tombstone styled sign. Mr. Krenik said their application is far a"second" monument sign. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance has a separate provision to allow for real estate signs, which states, "a sign item of less than 15-sq. ft. may be placed within the front yard of the property to be sold or leased". 1�:3 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 Commissioner Betlej said the proposed sign has no verbiage about leasing, however there is a CB sign. Ms. Melchoir said their name and number is listed on the tombstone. Commissioner Betlej said there is a lot of flexibility in directional signs and the applicant may want to consider that kind of design. Commissioner Betlej asked what the true intention of the sign is. Mr. Krenik said the idea behind the proposed placement is to give better visibility and still be within the ordinance requirements. The monument sign is used to list the tenants in the building, as well as a marketing tool. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant to identify the hardship. Ms. Melchoir said the hardship is that the building is eXtremely large, and because of the "dead corner", it is hard to get people in that area. Mr. Krenik said the address is 2360 Pilot Knob Road and the tenant is on the far southeastern corner that is only accessible from Waters Drive; no one will ever find them there without the proper signage. Commissioner Miller asked why those tenants can't be listed on the Waters Drive signage Ms. Melchoir said this particular sign does not have reader board capabilities. Having two separate properties share the same signage is not common. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYE S 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR ONE ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGN, WITH THE HARDSHIP IDENTIFIED AS HAVING AN EXTREMELY LARGE PROPERTY AND THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE IDENTIFICATION OF TENANTS ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE VARIANCE WOULD MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. Further Discussion Commissioner polan said he seconded the motion, as the Commission would be denying a reasonable use of this property if the applicant could not adequately identify their tenants with the signage as proposed. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED �] Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 PLANNING CASE #03-47 LCS COMPANY 1480 Sibley Memorial Highway REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Mr. Grittman introduced the request from LCS Company, 1480 Sibley Memarial Highway, for an expansion to their industrial property. The applicant is requesting a variance that would allow encroachment into the front yard setback along Sibley Street. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has forwarded information regarding their company, suggesting that the manufacturing process they employ requires a configuration of this size and this location, which is imperative to allow them to continue eXpanding their business. The encroachment into the setback is significant resulting in an approximately 50-ft. setback where the requirement is 40-ft. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has also supplied an alternative plan that provides adequate amount of space for them to conduct their business expansion, but they would not only encroach into the setback, but also onto Highway 13. Therefore, the applicant implies that they do not have a reasonable alternative to the expansion except by encroaching into the setback. Mr. Grittman said this request raises a very unique circumstance where in reviewing the variance criteria, which is to define a hardship that is unique, the Planner feels that in this case, the applicant is putting the property to a reasonable use, and what is the reasonable expectation of future expansion. Mr. Grittman said this building has been on this property, in conformance, for many years. Mr. Grittman said the question to the city would be to continue to accommodate expansion on the site, or hold to the setback requirements and tell the applicant to find an alternative site to expand. This would be a policy-type reasonable use question. Mr. Grittman said it's clear that the existing building is putting the property to a reasonable use, and because of that, this does not meet the test for finding a hardship, therefore the Planner does not recommend the variance. Mr. Grittman said if the Planning Commission and City Council believes that it is reasonable to accommodate the expansion the applicant is requesting, and that the variance is granted, there are some recommendations regarding the landscaping on the site that would enhance the site plan and help mitigate some of the impacts of the encroachment. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there was a taking of land on this property so that if the taking has not been made, there would be appropriated room to put something in the back. Mr. Grittman said construction on Highway 13 did take some land. Chair Lorberbaum said that could be the hardship. Mr. Grittman said there is another finding in support of the variance as this is a relatively shallow lot given the street privileges on either side. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there is a need for variance because the building is currently much forward than anything else, or does the variance far the setback cover it? Mr. Grittman said the variance for the setbacic covers it. Russ Karasch, Miller Architects & Buildings, Inc., St. Cloud, MN gave some background on the business. The business started in 1959. Susan and Jerry Stotts purchased the business in 1980 with about 39 employees. Mr. Karasch explained how the new piece of equipment, which has already been purchased, will be placed in the new addition, and eXplained why the extra room is needed. Mr. Karasch said the Stotts are requesting the variance so they can continue to operate their business, which will add about 25 new jobs in the area. Mr. Karasch said LCS' products are sold throughout the world. 20 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 Mr. Karasch said he feels the hardship has been created with the construction of Highway 13. Constructing an additional separate building is not an option as the materials used in the business cannot be exposed to weather and be transported back and forth between two buildings. Mr. Karasch said the building is located under a flight path, and any other use would not be desirable other than industrial. Commissioner Miller commented on the alternative plan and said that would not work, as the slope is so steep in the back that the expansion would basically be underground. Commissioner Miller asked if there were still a loading dock around back that is being used. Mr. Karasch said there was. Commissioner Miller asked if the limits of the expansion would fit in the concrete pad currently there? Mrs. Stotts said she would have to take the cottonwood trees down and follow that line. Commissioner Betlej asked if the location of the addition was considered for the south of the building? Mr. Karasch said the reason for the chosen location is to place a loading dock where trucks could access them. Mrs. Stotts shared photographs of the equipment her company uses, and explained some of the processes used that mandate the large space they are requiring. Commissioner Betlej asked about the noise levels from the flight path. Mrs. Stotts said it is very noisy. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the noise could be heard above the machinery. Mrs. Stotts said they can hear the noise, and that they cannot carry on a conversation by an open window. Mrs. Stotts presented a letter she received from her neighbor, James A. Hudson, Hudson Company, dated August 22, 2003 who is in support of this expansion. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there would be sufficient parking for additional employees. Mrs. Stotts said she owns the property towards the triangular section where sufficient parking could be added. Chair Lorberbaum suggested having the plan show the additional parking and landscaping when this comes before the City Council. Chair Larberbaum asked if the applicant has been before the Commission previously. Mrs. Stotts said she had and that her request was denied. Mrs. Stotts said it was denied because she was not properly prepared. The previous plan was similar to the one discussed at this time. Commissioner Betlej said at that time, there were a lot of issues that could not be answered. Commissioner Betlej said the previous plan was not a big as the new plan being presented. To explain why she needs this expansion, Mrs. Stotts said she just purchased a new press that weighs 350 tons, therefore she needs the room. Chair Lorberbaum said it seems that the previous plan was not denied because of the design, but because of the lack of information and preparation at the time, which speaks to the need to be better prepared for the City Council now. Chair Lorberbaum said staff would need to supply the minutes of this meeting to the City Council so they have this information. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 2l Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 4 AYE S 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THE TAKING OF THE LAND. 4 AYES 0 NAYS VERBAL REVIEW • Planning Case 03-33 — Delta Environmental- SuperAmerica, Amendment to Conditional Use Permit: Approved as recommended. • Planning Case 03-34 — Ralph and Kathryn Jewell, Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Request: Approved as recommended • Planning Case 03-35 — Melvin and Margaret Koppen, Lot Split: Planning Coinmission recommended for approval, it was denied by City Council due to concerns about the driveway access to the lot and authorized the Koppens to work on those concerns and return at a future date. • Planning Case 03-36 — Patrick and Elizabeth Donahue, Conditional Use Permit: Approved as recommended. • Planning Case 03-37 — Michael Roddy, Request for Variance: Motion Failed at Planning Commission, approved by City Council. • Planning Case 03-38 — Timothy Lynch, Conditional Use Permit: Approved as recommended. • Planning Case 03-39 — Thomas and Susan Grojean, Request for Variance: City Council approved a variance citing dual zoning as the hardship. • Planning Case 03-26 — Robert Fink, Request for Variance and Subdivision Approval: Planning Commission recommended for approval, it was denied by City Council. OPEN DISCUSSION Chair Lorberbaum asked the Commissioners present if they would like to have a joint workshop with the City Council to get some guidance about the specifications far a hardship. Chair Larberbaum said that for many years, Commissioner Friel had said that if neighbars approve something, that should be sufficient even if there is a lack of a hardship is demonstratable. Chair Lorberbaum said if the City Council feels the same way, perhaps some changes should be made. Commissioner Betlej asked what interpretation of the law that the City Council would like the Commission to use, lacking a Supreme Court ruling on a variance would require a hardship or using the Appellate Court decision, which would allow a variance on the basis of a reasonable use of the property. 22 Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2003 Commissioner polan said he would be happy to have a joint meeting, although he does not feel strongly that it is necessary. Commissioner Betlej said the City Council could at least discuss this and give the Commission some direction. Commissioner Miller said he was agreeable to this as well. Chair Larberbaum asked when the court date for the Par 3 Golf Course would be held. Mr. Danielson said it was scheduled for August 27, 2003. Mr. Danielson will report back on the findings. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:45 PM. 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 23