Loading...
2003-11-25 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting November 25, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 2003 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 25, 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 B. McManus, Miller, Betlej, Dolan and M. McManus. Those excused: Commissioner Hesse. City Staffpresent were Ciry Engineer Marc Mogan and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittrnan. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Commission reviewed the minutes of October 28, 2003. The following corrections were made: Roll Call: Commissioner M. McManus was marked down as being excused, however she was at the meeting, arriving at 7:35 pm. Page 6, under further discussion, 2"d para�raph should read: "Commissioner Miller � commented on two different designs in the plans that were submitted. Commissioner Miller said he would recommend that the applicant continue to work with the architect and t-a� incorporate some of the suggestions from the City % into redesign. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2003 AS CORRECTED. AYES NAYS ABSTENTION (Commissioner polan) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #03-59 Timothy Aune 554 Foxwood Lane WETLANDS PERMIT Mr. Grittman introduced the request wetland permit to place a fence within the 100-ft. buffer area surrounding a wetland. Mr. Grittman said this fence is clearly within the 100-ft. buffer as shown on the map and the landscaping appears to be appropriate for the site, as does the fence itself. Mr. Grittman said according to the plat of the property, there is a drainage easement where the fence would extend into and it is recommended to have the fence relocated. Mr. Grittman said there is a setback area between the edge of the wetland and landscape Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2003 area, particularly in the southwest corner, and it is recommended that there be a wider buffer strip between the cultured landscape and the wetland edge. Mr. Grittman said he was unsure of the exact height of the proposed fence, and asked the Commission to be aware of the height requirement ordinance in their review. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there is a usual recoinmendation of distance between the culture lawn and wetland area. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance does not have any specific setback recoinmendations, and the common distance according to the DNR shoreland regulations would be a minimum of 25-ft. undisturbed buffer. Commissioner polan asked if the fence located in the very southern edge of the property was within the utility easement. Mr. Grittman said this is less of an issue on the sideline then that of the wetland buffer area, and it is actually not prohibited by ordinance. Commissioner polan asked if the proposed fence would be within the regulation of the 30% openness. Mr. Grittman said the fence would meet the requirement. Cominissioner Betlej asked if the property has been graded in this buffer area. Mr. Grittman said he believes some of it has been. Commissioner Betlej said the fence itself does not have any major impact and the main concern would be with the landscaping and grading of the land. Commissioner B. McManus referred to the drawing and asked what was located adjacent to the parking area on the north side of the garage. Mr. Grittman said it is a 10' x 14' shed on a 12' x 20' slab. Mr. Tim Aune, 554 Foxwood Lane, made the following clarifications: ♦ The sryle of the fence is called a California chain-link, where the posts are made of cedar. The chain link material is coated with black vinyl. ♦ There has been no grading in the buffer area, as grading is prohibited in the covenants of the neighborhood. ♦ The fence is needed to protect the applicant's child and dogs. Commissioner M. McManus asked for more information on the landscaping plans. Mr. Aune said the sod has been laid, and Southview Nursery recommended placing the prairie grass and wildflowers, which will take about 3 years to fully mature. Mr. Aune asked about the city's plans regarding the use of fertilizer. Chair Lorberbaum introduced Mr. Marc Mogan, who said the City must adhere to the state laws regarding phosphorous. Commissioner M. McManus asked the planner for his opinion as to how wide the buffer zone should be. Mr. Grittman said he was not clear on the width of the native grass area, but seems to be the right type of treatment. Mr. Aune said the narrowest spot was 20-ft., with the wider spots being about 40-ft. Commissioner polan asked how the fence will be located around the existing trees. Mr. Aune explained the layout of his trees and the relationship with the proposed fence. Mr. Aune shared a photograph of the area, and indicated the location of the native prairie grasses and wildflowers. Mr. Aune said the wetland boundary is approximately 40- to 50-ft. from the edge of the water. Mr. Aune explained how the fence would be weaving through the trees. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the height of the fence will be. Mr. Aune said it will be 4-ft. Commissioner Betlej asked for further clarification of the fence that is located in the easement and asked the applicant if he were willing to move the fence out of the easement. Mr. Aune said it would be his preference not to. Commissioner Miller asked which area the planner was concerned with the easements. Mr. Grittman said the concern would be with the west side of the property. Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2003 Commissioner polan asked if any trees would be removed. Mr. Aune said there will not be any trees removed. 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 CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A 4-FT. FENCE AS PRESENTED. It is noted the Planner's Recommendation, there were three conditions. This motion does not include any of those recommendations. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said all three conditions were addressed and to his satisfaction, have been resolved. Commissioner B. McManus said the Commission may want to add to the motion the condirions because they will most likely happen anyway. Chair Lorberbaum said item "B" will not happen. Commissioner Betlej said "B" as it's known will not happen. Chair Lorberbaum said that is because the fEnce will stay on the easemEnt. Commissioner B. McManus said he is comfartable with that. Commissioner Betlej said he was looking at fence in Yhat it presents a minimal impact and is also comfortable with the position of the fence as it is. Commissioner polan asked Mr. Grittrnan if he was comfortable with the location of this fence. Mr. Grittman said he thinks the landscaping quesrions have been answered, the location of the fence does not affect the quality of the wetland, and the reason the relocation of the fence was recommended was to protect the city's easement interest. Commissioner polan said if the ciry needed to do something in that easement area, they could require the owner remove the fence or relocate the fence. Mr. Aune said that is correct. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-60 Dwight Rabuse 2230 Bent Tree Lane VARIANCE REQUEST Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for a variance from the required 10-ft side yard setback to allow a 240 square foot (16' x 15') addition to the rear of the home. This addition would provide space far a home office and additional storage space. Mr. Grittman said there are other options for the applicant to expand the home and the expansion of the home is not necessary to make reasonable use of the properry. Mr. Grittman said even if the expansion would make reasonable use of the properry, it appears to be possible to narrow the structure in a way it would meet the setbacks. Commissioner B. McManus asked how much the addition would have to be shortened in length to meet the standards. Mr. Grittman said it would probably be a significant amount. Commissioner B. McManus said the roof line cannot be over the setback Mr. Grittman said the roof eaves are allowed to encroach into the setback by 2-ft, therefore the roof line would not be affected. Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2003 Commissioner Miller asked if the 9'1" is from the building, not the roo£ Mr. Grittman said that was they way Staff interpreted the plan. Commissioner Miller said the house does not set parallel to the lot line. Mr. Grithnan said the house currently meets the setbacks, but because of the angle of the lot, the house would not comply with this addition. Commissioner Betlej said this was one of those cases where it would be good to have some discretion. Chair Lorberbaum said the question would then be "is this reasonable use of the property". Commissioner Betlej said this addition would not be reasonable use of the property. Chair Lorberbaum asked the planner to illustrate the "narrowing" of the addition. Mr. Grittman said it was not uncommon to see staggered walls and there would not be a lot of space eliminated inside the addition. Commissioner M. McManus said the planner seems to be saying there is not a uniqueness to this property. Mr. Grittman said there are a number of houses built in this fashion, where additions have been built to comply with the setbacks. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the existing house was right on the 10-ft. setback line. Mr. Grittman said although they are reviewing a site plan, and not an actual survey, it may be a bit more than 10-ft. Mr. Dwight Rabuse, 2230 Bent Tree Lane, said when the house was originally sited, the corner of the property on the existing structure does appear to be 10-ft. from the properry line, so it does meet exactly the setback requirement. Mr. Rabuse said the house is not parallel to the property line, which was not his understanding. The intention of the addition was to create a new room to serve as an office that would be economically feasible and aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Rabuse said in the process of creating this proposal, he has consulted with his neighbors, whom have all consented to the addition. Mr. Rabuse explained how his home is lined up, and why he proposed the addition in this area to continue the line of the roo£ Mr. Rabuse feels there is no other position on the exterior of the home that lends itself to construction that would be compliant. If the addition were angled, it would interfere with the site line from the kitchen. Mr. Rabuse explained how the office is important to accommodate his wife's home business and much needed storage space, and to move his son into a larger bedroom. Commissioner B. McManus said he believes this addition would be an appropriate use of the land. Unfortunately, the solution chosen by the applicant requires a hardship to be proven. Mr. Rabuse said the hardship would be one of those things that would be in the eye of the beholder as his wife is currently using one of the two non-master bedrooms of the home to conduct business and now that his son is growing, he needs are to have more room. Mr. Rabuse said the hardship is the inability to provide his children with adequate sized bedrooms and to allow his wife to do what she wants to do as an at-home mother and professional. Commissioner B. McManus asked about the shallowing of the building with keeping the roof line as is. Mr. Rabuse said it is his understanding that the roof line does change when the wall is moved back. Commissioner B. McManus said it does not have to change. Mr. Rabuse said he was not aware of that. Mr. Grittman said the building could be built with the same roof and have a wider soffit. Commissioner Betlej said the applicant would have to have custom made trusses. Commissioner B. McManus said the neighbors seem to think the aesthetics would prove a hardship, but that does not apply to the requirements of a hardship. It would be nice to have this, but there is nothing that would make it impossible to live in the home relatively well. The square footage of the addition would be only reduced by about 15 sq. ft., which is minimal. Commissioner B. McManus said a solution could be to purchase some of the neighbor's property. Mr. Raduse said that was considered, however the neighbor's house is also right on their setback line. Commissioner Miller suggested to angle the addition. Mr. Rabuse said that the neighbors prefer to have a straight line view, as well as having the site line from the kitchen interfered with. Commissioner Betlej said to anglc the wall would make the home look weird. Commissioner Betlej said he hopes the City Council will understand that thc logical solution would be to grant the variance. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the applicant built the home. Mr. Rabuse said he did not. Commissioner M. McManus said she does not agree that a hardship has not been shown. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. There being no one present wishing to speak, Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2003 COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PROPOSED BASED ON THE FINDING THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN THE HARDSHIP IN COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING REGULATTONS THERE IS NOT REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE IS AVAILABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXPANSION OF THE HOME. Further Discussion Commissioner polan said the home was not built by the applicant, and given the way the home is situated differently than normal, a hardship could be that the applicant can't reasonably expand because of thc setbacks. Chair Lorberbaum asked if it were a reasonable use to expand. Commissioner polan said he believes it could be, and in this situarion, it is. Coinmissioner M. McManus said she thinks Yhis property has some uniqueness to it not of the applicant's making, and at different times, the Commission has approved variances to move fences for curvatures of roadways, as believes this is an opportunity to put this property to a reasonable use. Commissioner B. McManus said 11 inches is a very minor encroachment and is similar to a case in the past that had much different circumstances. The Commission must be careful before using that argument, and does not recommend that the Commission does. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant can build the addirion and make the angles, but he can meet the zoning rules. AYES NAYS (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioner B. McManus) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-61 David Langevin 1090 West Circle Court VARIANCE FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK Mr. Grittman introduced the request in which the applicant is proposing to expand the exisring garage. Mr. Grittman said the driveway access is from a circular roadway into an "L-shaped" structure. The applicant feels it is difficult, if not impossible, to get in and out of the interior garage space given the angle of the driveway, which in turn makes that parrion of the garage unusable for garage purposes. The ciry requires two-car garages for single family homes. Mr. Grithnan said the applicant clearly shows a hardship by not being able to make proper use of the garage. Commissioner polan asked if it were possible to use the garage by changing the direcrion of the driveway. Mr. Grittman said that would make the driveway unsafe when accessing the street. In addition, the main entrance of the home also interferes with the driveway. Commissioner Miller asked if the trees and utilities were taken into consideration when reviewing this case. Mr. Grittman said nothing was plotted but appears there may be some modificarions needed. Mr. David Langevin, 1090 West Circle Court, said he purchased the home two months ago. Mr. Langevin said there were some pine trees, but will try not to disturb any of them. Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2003 Commissioner M. McManus asked how this will affect the roof style. Mr. Langevin said the roof of the proposed addition will be about 2 feet lower than the rest of the roof, therefore avoiding a long roof line. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant if there are any plans to reduce the existing driveway. Mr. Langevin said the entrance will not be changed, but angling the part by the addition to be able to access the new garage. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant if he received a copy of the planners report. Mr. Langevin said he did not. Chair Lorberbaum gave the applicant a copy of the planners report. Mr. Hollister said this information is routinely mailed to the applicant, but he may not have gotten it in time. Mr. Grittman said if this variance is approved, it is suggested that the the door to the existing unaccessable partion of the garage be modified so that the home will only have two garage doors, making the unusable area acceptable as a storage space. Mr. Langevin said that would be acceptable and will redo the driveway and add green space. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant could also choose to have three garage doors if desired. Mr. Langevin said the current door is a double door. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED, WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE FINISHED MATERIALS MATCH THE EXISTING HOME, AND THE MODIFIED ROOF LINE BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said the hardship has becn identified as the applicant cannot properly access that portion of the garage, along with bringing the home in compliance by having the required two-car garage. Commissioner polan asked for the distinction of "match" and "compatible". Commissioner B. McManus said the applicant does not wish to extend the roof line and match it, as it will be a different alritude, thus saying this would be comparible. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-56 Richard Berg 645 Hidden Creek Trail CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FENCE HEIGHT Mr.Grittman introduced the request for a variance to allow for a fence that the applicant is proposing to locate at the entryway to the property, flanking each side of the driveway. The zoning ordinance permits fences in the front yard, but requires a maximum height of 3-ft. This parricular fence, which consists of two secrions, would extend from 3-ft. up to 5-ft. Mr. Grithnan said this fence would be strictly ornamental and would not extend to enclose the property. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance defines a fence as any parririon, structure, wall, or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier or enclosure. In the planners repart, it is noted that "some types of structures might be thought of as landscape elements, not subject to these regulations." Commissioner Miller asked if this would act as a fence to enclose the property. Mr. Grittman said it would not. Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2003 Commissioner polan said that according to the planners review, if the fence is moved by 50-ft., it would then comply with the height requirement. Commissioner M. McManus said if vines were planted to climb up the ornamental bars, would this not be a landscape element. Mr. Grittman said the Commission feels this structure should be identified as an ornamental element, it would be appropriate to do so by definition, and not requiring a variance. Mr. Richard Berg, 645 Hidden Creek Trail, explained how the gates would look and feels this is not a fence, but a piece of architecture as it is not dividing any property. Mr. Berg said this is simply a decorative, non-functioning gate. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO FIND THIS GATE TO BE AN ORNAMENTAL STRUCTURE, AND THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE VARIANCE. Further Discussion Commissioner M. McManus asked to amend the motion to say an ornamcntal device can be rcworded to "ornamental structure". Commissioner B. McManus said he accepts the amendment. Commissioner polan asked if there are any height and setback requiremenYs for ornamental structures. Mr. Grittman said there are not. Commissioner B. McManus said the fence ordinance is in place to assure the fence is not intrusive to the neighborhood and feels this structure should not be deemed as a fence. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED VERBAL REVIEW —Marc Mo�an Planning Case 03-53: Louis Eschle, 1844 Dodd Road • Variance and CUP for construction of an attached garage: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Case 03-54: Gareth St. John, 7 Mears Avenue • (Harrington property) Variance from Front Yard Setback: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case 03-55: John and Dawn Karas, 663 Maple Park Drive • Variance to Front Yard Setback: Approved as recominended by the Planning Commission Planning Case 03-56 — Dale Eberhardt • Condirional Use Permit for a Fence Height: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. CU1�li�/U6YK/J�XY[U��l Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2003 None COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:10 PM. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary