Loading...
2003-09-23 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting September 23, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23, 2003 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 in the Council Chambers at Ciry 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, Dolan, Hesse, and M. McManus. Those excused: Commissioner B. McManus. City Staffpresent 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 August 26, 2003. The following corrections were made: Page 6, 2°d paragraph: "Chair Larberbaum said that she was very glad to receive thcse questions, and if Mr. Chaput had mare questions, he could ask the city council next �� Tuesday. Page 17, the followin� motion and Further Discussion: COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION 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 TffiS LOCATION, WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THAT IF THE STRUCTURE WS PLACED ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE PROPERTY, THE DUMPSTER WOULD BE MORE VISIBLE." "Further Discussion" should be deleted in its enrirety. Page 19, Sth paragraph, first sentence: "Commissioner Miller askcd ��a� why those tenants can't be listed on the Waters Drive signage." Page 21, 4`� parag�raph from bottom, third sentence: "Mrs. Stotts said it was denied because she was not �}�properly prepared." Page 21, 3`d �arag_raph from bottom: "... Mrs. Stotts said she just purchased a new press that weighs 350 � tons ..." Page 23, lsr paragraph should be deleted in it's entiret, a�placed with thc following; "Commissioner Betlej asked what inteipretation of the law would the Council like the Coinmission to use: lacking a Supreme Court ruling on the variance would require a hardship or if using the appellate court decision, which would allow of a variance on the basis of a reasonable use of the property." Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 2003 COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2003 AS CORRECTED. 4 AYES 0 NAYS 2 ABSTENTION (Commissioners Hesse and M. McManus) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #03-48 Steven and Jennifer Mager 729 Mohican Court VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE EXPANSION Mr. Grittrnan introduced the request for a variance of 6' from the side yard setback to allow for the extension of an exisring attached garage. Mr. Grittinan reviewed the site map showing this proposed expansion, which would encroach into the 10' required setback. Mr. Grittman said the city has considered variances in this nature where reasonable expansion of a building on a smaller than normal lot size creates the hardship, that being the narrowness of the lot. Commissioner Hesse asked if odd shaped lots were common in this neighborhood. Mr. Grittman said most of the lots in this area (Friendly Hills) are quite uniform in shape, but most are below the typical single-family standard in both width and area, and it has been the city's practice to be somewhat liberal with expansions of those properties. Mr. Danielson said the lots in this neighborhood are smaller due because they were planned and developed when Mendota Heights was a township. Mr. Steven Mager, 729 Mohican Court, said the Planner's Report presented this proposal very clearly. Mr. Mager said these are older homes and it's virtually impossible to park two vehicles in the garage and he would like more garage space. Mr. Mager said the space alongside the existing garage is unbuildable. Mr. Magers said he believes that city owns this parcel of land, which used to have a water tower on it. Mr. Danielson said the water tower was there before the homes were hooked up to St. Paul's current system, and has since been removed. Commissioner Miller told Mr. Mager to take extra precautions with the drainage due to the extra sloping. Mr. Mager said he would most likely have to cut into the slope and build a retaining wall, therefore he had submitted a letter to the city asking that the property be given or sold him. Mr. Mager reviewed the site map and talked about the corner of his properry. Mr. Danielson said the city would be willing to cooperate with Mr. Mager with the drainage issues. Commissioner Miller asked about the power pole in that corner. Mr. Mager said he will look into that and work with the ciry as well on that issue. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR 4 FEET INTO THE 10-FOOT SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE AS PRESENTED, WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOT. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 2003 AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Mr. Hollister said the next City Council meeting is scheduled for October 7th PLANNING CASE #03-49 Patrick Caruso 675 Wesley Court LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Mr. Grittman reviewed the request to adjust a lot line between Lot 12 and Lot 13 off of Wesley Court. The applicant owns both properties, and currently resides in an existing home on Lot 13, and wishes to construct a new home on Lot 12. The proposed lot line adjustment would increase the square footage of Lot 12 by roughly 1,600 square feet. Mr. Grittman said this adjustment would allow for both properties to comply with all lot size requirements. Commissioner M. McManus referred to the Planner's recommendation which indicates the need for a condition to the request that there be conformity to all setback requirements. Commissioner M. McManus asked how the conformity would be tracked and put in place. Mr. Grittman said that would be a function of the site review. Commissioner polan asked if the reason this was being done is to meet the setback requirements for Lot 12. Mr. Grittman said it is his understanding that the applicant wishes to construct a new home on Lot 12 and to have a larger lot for that new home. This lot would be conforming. Commissioner polan asked about the cul-de-sac setbacks. Mr. Grittman said the setbacks are 30' from the cul-de-sac with a 100' width. Mr. Patrick Caruso, 675 Wesley Court, offered to answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Hesse asked the applicant if there were any future plans for Lot 13. Mr. Wesley said he would be meeting with the designer and builder in the upcoming weeks to discuss their plans. Mr. Caruso said there was already an existing home on Lot 13 where he lives. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. There being no one present wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARR�ED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MiLLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNER, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ON LOT 12 TO CONFORM TO ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-50 Tim Gillespie 1062 Wagon Wheel Trail VARIANCE FROM THE 100' PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT AND MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 2003 Mr. Grittman introduced the request to allow a lot with public street frontage of under l 00', and a minor subdivision. Mr. Grittman said this parcel has been before the Commission before, and the applicant is proposing an alternative to those previous plans. Mr. Grittman said most of those plans consisted of 4 lots or some other arrangement; the current proposal consists of 3 lots. Mr. Grittrnan said these 3 lots would be served by a private street, and the third lot would be identified as a flag lot; depend solely on the private road connecting up to Wagon Wheel Trail. With this private street arrangement, Lot #3 would require a variance from the 100' frontage requirement. The other two lots would, however, meet the frontage requireinents along Wagon Wheel, but driveways would access onto the private road. Mr. Grittman said there are a number of complicating factors with the subdivision of this property, one being a gas line easement that runs along the northwest corner of the site. It was also discovered that MnDot owns the right of way access along Wagon Wheel Trail. Mr. Grittman said the city has worked on a couple of design options. One design offers the option of having a public street come in from Wagon Wheel and end in a cul-de-sac. This option is not possible because of Minot's control of the access along the east side, and because of the gas line running along the west side. Mr. Grittman said if the property was split into two and come in with a cul-de- sac running south down the middle, there would no longer be adequate frontage for the two lots. Mr. Grittman said all these factors would make it impossible to develop 3 lots with a public street. In looking for a hardship to allow for the variance, Mr. Grittman said it was possible to divide this property into 2 conforming single- family lots without a variance and as a result, Staff does not recommend a variance. If the Planning Commission feels that 3 lots, because of the size and coniiguration of this property, is the reasonable use of this site, then a variance could be recommended with that iinding. Commissioner Betlej asked if anyone has consulted with the iire department to see if there would be any concerns with accessing a private street. Mr. Grittman said he has not, and is not sure of other staff doing so. Mr. Danielson said the fire department has not been consulted. Commissioner Betlej asked if there were any thoughts as to how the iire department might interpret this. Mr. Danielson said there are other long driveway accesses in the ciry that were allowed because of the size of the driveway. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the frontage would be if this property were divided into 2 lots. Mr. Grittman said there would be about 257' of frontage along Wagon Wheel which would give each property approximately 120' to 130'. The actual division would probably be more like 100' and 150' because of the configuration of the angle of the side lot lines. Chair Lorberbaum said if there is 250', and each one has to be 100', then there is 50' to play with to construct a street. Mr. Grithnan said the typical street is 60' with the right of way, and the applicant is slightly short of that standard. Commissioner polan asked why MnDot allows the street to access through their right of way. Mr. Grittman said he did not know for sure, but would imagine it relates to the site lines over the bridge and the bridge construction in itsel£ Commissioner polan said this would be less unique as there are a lot of situations where that occurs. Commissioner polan confirmed that this would be a 25' private road, but ii it were a public road, it would have to be at least 30' wide with an additiona160' total of right of way. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Commissioner Hesse said this is a piece of property that the Commission has dealt with very recently. Commissioner Hesse said that, other than the shifting of the private drive due to the right of way and easement, he is have a difficult time seeing any other differences in Yhe two proposals. Mr. Grittman said the previous proposal had 4 lots. Commissioner Hesse said the Commission had s�►ggested 4 lots. Mr. Grittman said it was the Council's resolution that this would have been considered if it had a public street, and because the applicant was not able to do that, it was denied and the applicant has since dropped interest in the property. Commissioner Hesse said he was in favor of the proposals in the past, which were denied. Commissioner Hesse said the difference might be in the size of the larger lots in the current proposal versus the smaller ones previously proposed. Chair Lorberbaum said she believes the lot lines were also adjusted to eliminate any flag lots. Coinmissioner Hesse recollected some previous discussions regarding the fire deparhnent's reacrion to accessing a private road and he believes there was no letter received from the fire chief on that and it is assumed that the fire department sees no issues with the street, as there are numerous accesses similar around the city, therefore having no comment on this property. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 2003 Commissioner Betlej said some issues with the fire department have included adequate drive up and turnarounds space for emergency vehicles. Commissioner Hesse questioned page two of the Planner's Repart regarding the proposed subdivision requirements in relation to frontage on the street. Mr. Grittman said Lot 2 would not require a setback variance, but it is recommended that the buildable area be moved back from the private street to allow more driveway space. Mr. Grittman said the report misstated this information. Commissioner M. McManus said there has been a lot of redesign on this property and has basically gone from 41ots to 3 lots, and then to 1 or 2. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the next proposal would be for 2 lots with the driveway down the middle. Mr. Grittman said that could be done with no private road issues and the single-family lots would both access off Wagon Wheel Trail. Cormnissioner M. McManus said that the options would be to split the property into two lots and not needing a variance, or into three with the variance granted. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Tim Gillespie, 1064 Wagon Wheel Trail, owns the property west to the proposed property. Mr. Gillespie said the proposed property is a nice, high piece of ground. Mr. Gillespie said he has warked with the Metropolitan Council and tried to utilize some of the property that they have proposed to different cities. Mr. Gillespie referred to the developer that wanted to purchase the property and split into 4 lots, and said that he has tried to deter the developer from doing so as he did not want to see 4 lots in there, and would not sell him the property with those plans. Mr. Gillespie said he discussed this proposal with the Assistant Fire Chief, Jim Kilberg, who had no problems with the proposed layout. Mr. Gillespie said he had received some interest from people wishing to buy some of the property should he decide to split it, and feels that the 3 lot split would be the best way to utilize the property for everyone's concern. Commissioner Miller asked if there have been any inputs from the neighbors. Mr. Gillespie said his neighbor, Mr. Manthy, had a concern about the trees along the line and if people would be building down that line and facing his property, but never actually approached Mr. Gillespie to voice his concerns. Mr. Gillespie said another neighbor, Terry Hobbs, would not have any objections as well. Chair Lorberbaum asked if any signatures from the neighbors have been gathered. Mr. Gillespie said he never approached anybody about it. Chair Lorberbaum suggested these signatures be obtained and submitted at the City Council meeting. Chair Lorberbaum said there are some flag lots in the city and long private drives. Chair Lorberbaum said a lot of flag lots have been turned down and she is concerned as flag lots are difficult to work with in general. Mr. Gillespie commented on Highway 35E and the apartments in the area, and that the only property this would touch would be his own and Mr. Manthy's (being about 400' feet away from his place). Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission cannot find a hardship if the property can be put to reasonable use, hardship cannot be based on economics, and the Planner says this can be divided into two lots without any variance. Mr. Gillespie asked if Chair Lorberbaum believes that would be putting this property to good use, as he does not. Commissioner M. McManus said some of the redesign recommendations suggest two parcels with two homes rather than one. Mr. Gillespie said he does not know of any other way to design this, and if Commissioner M. McManus owned the property, she would probably think it best to go with 3 lots, and a hardship would then be created by going down to 2. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 2003 Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THE ODD SHAPED LOT WITH NUMBEROUS EASEMENTS THAT RESTRICT WHAT COULD BE BUILT ON THIS LOT, AND SETBACKS FROM THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY WHICH MAKES TffiS A DIFFICULT LOT TO BUILD UPON. THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO LOTS BUILT HERE CREATES A CONCERN THAT NO ONE WILL MAINTAIN THE BACK PORTION. THE SUGGESTION THAT THE USE SEEMS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPERTY. THIS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THIS IS A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY AND MUST BE BUILT TO THE TYPICAL CITY'S STANDARDS (CURB AND GUTTER). THE REQUIREMENT OF THE FULL 60' RIGHT OF WAY IN THIS SITUATION BECOMES A HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF THE LOT WHEN WORKING BETWEEN THE EASEMENTS AND SETBACKS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED THERE WOULD BE SOME ISSUES WITH HOW THIS PARCEL GETS DEVELOPED. Chair Lorberbaum asked if Commission Betlej is talking about surface materials and underlying materials such as curbing, and asked for more specific explanation regarding the city standard. Commissioner Betlej said he will go with the recommendation that would be a typical street with curb and gutter. MOTION HAS DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION BASED UPON THE FINDINGS THAT A REASONABLE USE CAN BE MADE ON THE PROPERTY, AND THERE BEING NO HARDSHIP 1DENTIFIED, AND CAN BE DNIDED INTO TWO LOTS AND CONFORM TO ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS. Commissioner polan said his reasoning for this motion is that he is sympathetic to the applicant for wanting to develop the land and it does not make sense to limit it to two houses, however, the mere size itself should not be a determination to how many lots should be made on the property as it still has to conform, and this one doesn't. These conditions have been there for quite some time and based on the fact the hardship has not been met, he recommends denial of the variance. Further Discussion Commissioncr Hesse said he is struggling with the fact there have been proposals coming before the Commission with very similar types of hardships that have been denicd, and the Commissioner has even askcd the previous proposers to come back with a different idea at one point. Commissioner HEsse said he is in favor of getting this lot developed he has a hard time approving one that has been denied in the past and doesn't see the consistency here. Commissioner Miller said the Commission recommended approval for the 4 lots but the City Council denied it, and the current proposal has a better geometry to it. Commissioner Betlej said the 4 lots would not work because of the easement that State has. Commissioner Betlej said this current proposal is probably as good as it gets and the city would get some tax value from it. Chair Lorberbaum said she parrially agrees, but has some problems that there may be an issue with the maintenance of the back of the properry. Chair Lorberbaum said her issue is that the Commission is saying this properry has to be subdivided to make the best use of the properry, but in fact, the Commissioner does not have to guarantee that is subdividable. This property is subdividable by 21ots, although the applicant wants 3 lots. Commissioner Hesse said he agrees with the applicant that it would be hard to sell a properry that is 100' wide and 800' deep, and believes that reason should go toward being a reasonable use of the properry. Commissioner Hesse said he believes this comes down to an economic issue. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission cannot allow the hardship to be economics. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 2003 Commissioner Betlej said these things should be based on what's right, and not what the strict interpretation of the law is. Commissioner Betlej believes that if the strict interpretations were follows, this properry would then result in a couple of odd lots. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification on the driveway width requirements. Commissioner Betlej said there have been situations where there have been private streets creating disagreements amongst the properry owners regarding maintenance of that street, thus having to have city ends having to step in. The question then is who pays for it. Chair Larberbaum said that was the major reason the City Council turned it down, because they did not want to deal with issues concerning private roads. Commissioner Betlej suggested that the street be built to city standards in the case the city may want to take over this parcel of land. The city would then have something to work with versus a lesser quality of road. Commissioner M. McManus asked for a definition of a city standard far Mendota Heights. Mr. Danielson said private driveways are not to be greater than 25', and must be made of bituminous or concrete. Mr. Danielson said city streets are to be 30' of bituminous with curb and gutter. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the difference in cost would be in building a private street versus a city street. Mr. Danielson said that city streets need to have curb and gutter, which drives the cost up dramatically as starm sewers have to be installed at the same time, and there are also additional engineering costs. Commissioner Miller shared an alternative layout for the driveway to preserve the two-lot theory, and eliminate the 100' x 800' lot. Mr. Grittman said this alternative would be possible. Commissioner Miller believes this alternative would create two very attractive lots. Chair Lorberbaum said a variance would not be necessary. 4 AYES 2 NAYS (Commissioners Betlej and Aesse) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-51 Victor L. Smith 1085 Mary Adele CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FENCE Mr.Grittman introduced the request approval of a conditional use permit for the construction of fence along the rear and side portions of the properry, which is adjacent to the frontage road directly behind the SuperAmerica on Highway l 10 and Lexington Ave. Mr. Gnttman said there are two applications: l) Conditional Use Permit to allow a fence to encroach into the rear and side yard setbacks. The CUP has been applied for to avoid the need for a defined hardship. 2) Variance from the 30% open requirement for fences to allow for additional screening from public streets and differing uses. The applicant wishes to construct a solid fence to further deter from noises and activity from the commercial property to the north. Mr. Grittman feels that the CUP is justified as this property meets the requirement for fences encroaching into the setback area, but does not find a hardship to justify a variance to construct a fence less than the 30% open fencing standard. Additional landscaping has also been suggested for more screening. Commissioner M. McManus asked if a design of the fence has been submitted by the applicant. Mr. Grittman said there is some information on the location and the applicant will provide further information regarding design. Commissioner Hesse said the requirement is that a 6' high fence has to be set back from a public road 30' or greater. Mr. Grittman said this was correct. Commissioner Hesse said a CUP can be obtained to allow for encroachment on that 30' if the openings on that fence are 30% or greater. Mr. Grittman said that was correct, and this applies to properties with two street frontages. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 2003 Commissioner Hesse said the CUP allows for more flexibility of the strict interpretation of the ordinance, and that the applicant is then asking for additional flexibility to that by requesting a variance. Commissioner Hesse said in previous instances, in dealing with such properties, variances have been granted for additional height because they were corner lots, and it was a very standard thing to do. Commissioner Hesse sees no difference in this case as the issues (i.e., line of sight, noise, etc.) seem similar. Mr. Grittman said, prior to the amendment made to the code, the city dealt with all those fencing encroachments as variances, and the concern was raised that a hardship must be defined, thus granting the CUP's instead to give the flexibility to the fences. Commissioner Hesse asked for the definition of a shadow box fence. Mr. Grittman explained the design where the boards are staggered. This type of fence is within the requirement of 30% open fence. Commissioner polan said the reason for the openness in the fences was a result of neighbor arguments. Commissioner polan feels that the openness issue does not apply here and this property should be totally enclosed to block out the commercial gas station to the north. Commissioner polan said that if the applicant is required to construct the open fence and add landscaping, this seems to be excessive as this will be a fairly long fence and will need a significant amount of landscaping. Commissioner polan said he doesn't believe it makes sense to construct a fence that enables someone to look into a yard here, as opposed to fences between neighbors. Chair Lorberbaum said there has not been a lot of information provided, such as the height of the proposed fence, or exactly how far it is from the street. The map is hand drawn and there are no pictures provided. Mr. Grittman said that the information that was provided from the building supplier indicates that the fence would consist of 6' x 8' panels. Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to have further information be provided by the applicant. Chair Lorberbaum said she stopped by the applicant's home to ask the applicant to bring more information to the meeting. Chair Lorberbaum asked if Mr. Grittman knew exactly where the fence would be placed. Mr. Grittman said the hand drawing is a sketch at best, and there is no precise definition of the location. It appears to be approximately 5' set back from the rear lot line. Commissioner M. McManus said she does not recall a discussion about a fence height requirement for a property next to a commercial property and asked Mr. Grittman if he has any instances where a residential property is close to a commercial property like this proposal. Mr. Grittman said the ones he can think of are primarily to adjacent streets, but not to a commercial property. Chair Lorberbaum asked about anything close to a public trail. Mr. Grittman said there is some that are close to a trail. Commissioner Miller asked if there was a variance granted for the property next door for a solid fence. Mr. Grittman said he did not know. Mr. Danielson said that fence was constructed before the ordinance was changed. Commissioner Betlej asked about the residence around the corner. Mr. Danielson said he is not aware of that one. Chair Lorberbaum said the ordinance is fairly recent. Victor L. Smith, 1085 Mary Adele, referred to the handout they were given at the meeting. Mr. Smith said there is a better sketch (the Certificate of Survey) and reviewed. Mr. Smith showed where the fence would run along the back of the property and then south along the west side of his property. Chair Lorberbaum said the application does not seem to be complete as the Commission is just learning of some details. Commissioner Hesse asked Mr. Smith to confirm that the property line is 15' back from the curb. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Hesse asked if the fence would be placed 3' inside the property line, or 18' back from the curb. Mr. Smith said that was correct, and would also be placing some rocks along the outside of the fence. Mr. Smith said he thought he had complied with all the requirements as far as the application, point number 3 that says, "you may use the map of the property included in this letter as your base map". Mr. Smith said he was not compelled to bring pictures ar an additional map. Mr. Smith outlined the exact location of the fencc and the gates into the yard. Mr. Smith does not undcrstand what is requircd in relation to the distance from the street. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission is aslcing for the distance from the street, the height of the fence, and what is the design and color. Mr. Smith said as far as the street, he would have to wait far that. The dimensions are taken froin the Home Depot estimate Mr. Smith has that states there are two different types of materials used, that being the shadow box and each fence is 6' by 8'. These panels are made out of pine instead of cedar because cedar has an adverse reacrion to concrete. Mr. Smith read the esrimate item by item with the estimated cost. Mr. Smith said the fence would be stained to match the existing deck and shared a picture of the shadow box fence. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 2003 Commissioner Miller said this is not the same kind of fence that the neighbor has. Mr. Smith says the shadow box will be an eyesore in relation to the solid fence of the neighbor. Commissioner Betlej asked Mr. Grittman if it has been interpreted that the shadow box sryle fence complies with the 30% openness. Mr. Grittman said this would meet the 30% requirement. Mr. Smith said privacy is still an issue and the privacy fence would be better if it were a solid fence. Mr. Smith said over the past several years, he has had things stolen from his yard, as well as trash that have been strewn along the frontage road. Mr. Smith said the shadow box still allows people to see into the yard and that would compromise his privacy. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification that the proposed fence is not a solid fence, but that the applicant is proposing a shadow box fence. Mr. Smith said he was proposing the solid fence, but to make matters simple, the shadow box is an acceptable alternative. If the variance is granted, that only gives Mr. Smith the option to choose which fence he would prefer. Commissioner Hesse said the alternative fences are made that it's difficult to see through, and suggested that Mr. Smith look at some of the existing fences in the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said he noticed a few of them and they are pretty good. Commissioner Hesse said that he believes the applicant will come out OK regardless of getting approval for the variance or not. Commissioner polan asked for clarification on the map of the location of the fence. Mr. Smith outlined the placement of the proposed fence, and explained how the fence will abut up to the neighbor's fence. Commissioner polan said the Commission needs to look at the trail licensing agreement to see if putting a fence within that easement area is permitted. Mr. Danielson said the city was initially granted an easement, or license, from Mr. Don Curley, to put a trail along the lot line (running along Lexington Avenue), and as part of that license, the city agreed to remove it upon Mr. Curley's demand and when the Curley property was developed, the trail was moved. Commissioner polan asked if the license agreement was terminated of record. Mr. Danielson said he did not know, but that it has no effect on this issue. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARR�ED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS OF THiS THROUGH LOT, NOT FURTHER THAN THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT THE FENCE IS STAINED TO MATCH THE EXISTING DECK, AND RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE 30% OPEN REQUIREMENT AS THE SHADOW BOX IS THE APPROPRIATE USE. Further Discussion Commissioner M. McManus asked if landscaping is included in the motion. Commissioner Betlej said it was not. Commissioner polan said he is going to vote for the approval of the variance as he believes that given the location, and given the fact that the neighbor's fence is totally enclosed, Mr. Smith should be able to put up a more completely blocking fence than the proposed alternative fence. Chair Lorberbaum told Commissioner polan that he is entitled to vote for a variance, but the motion on the floor is for not giving a variance. Commission Betlej asked if the motion should separate the two items. Chair Lorberbaum said if the motion passes as presented, it would be a non-issue. Commissioner Betlej said to go with the motion on the floor. Commissioner M. McManus said she would also support the variance. Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 2003 Commissioner Betlej withdrew his motion. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT ffiGH FENCE TO ENCROACH INTO TAE REAR AND SIDE YARDS OF THIS THROUGH LOT, NOT FURTHER THAN THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT THE FENCE IS STAINED TO MATCH THE EXISTING DECK. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, AND RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE 30% OPEN REQUIREMENT AS THE SHADOW BOX IS THE APPROPRIATE USE. AYES NAYS (Commissioner polan and M. McManus) MOTION CARRIED Chair Larberbaum said the recommendation will be presented at the October 7`�' City Council meeting, and suggested that Mr. Smith have a clear design which will idenrify where the fence will be in relarion to the property line. VERBAL REVIEW • Planning Case 03-06 — Revised Critical Area Ordinance: Tabled until the October 7`" meeting. • Planning Case 03-41 — Ciry of Mendota Heights — Conditional Use Permit for Wetland Fill and Wetlands Permit: Ciry Council approved in a different design. The part approved was the to removing the. fzll and only provide for the culvert installation at its full length, but no fill was recommended for approval. The Ciry is going ahead with plans to install a new culvert and excavate around the ends to provide for safe fish passage from the north lake to the south lake. • Planning Case 03-42 — William St. Martin — RequesY for Variance: Approved for a front yard setback for an expanded garage. • Planning Case 03-43 — Dan Stoven — Request for Variance: Denied as recommended by the Planning Commission. • Planning Case 03-44 — Cliff Kirchner — Request for Variance: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. • Planning Case 03-45 — Dakota Communities — Request for Variance: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. • Planning Case 03-46 — Andrew Krenik — Request for Variance: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. • Planning Case 03-47 — LCS Company— Request for Variance: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. OPEN DISCUSSION Chair Lorberbaum reminded the Commissioners of the Joint Workshop with the City Council on Tuesday, September 30`" at 7:00 pm. Mr. Hollister said information would be provided to all Planning Commissioners and City Council Members by Friday, Septcmber 26th. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Hollister to copy and distribute a copy of a document given to the City Council at a workshop on Septcinber 2"d meeting with the City Attorney which talks about hardships and land use. Chair Lorberbaum said it would be helpful for the Commissioners to read prior to the upcoming workshop. It is not known whether this information will be discussed, but it will be helpful as it is relevant to the same issues. Commissioner polan asked if thc City Attorney would be at the workshop. Mr. Hollister said that City Attorney, Dan Schleck, would be at the workshop, as well as Jim Danielson, Kari Lindberg, Steve Grittman, and himself. � Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 2003 Commissioner Hesse said the three items on the agenda would be the variance issues, the road planner, and the Infill Development information. Mr. Grittman said that the Infill Developinent is development that occurs within a community on either remaining undeveloped lots or lots that may have potential for re-subdivision. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:15 PM. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary �