Loading...
2003-01-28 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 28, 2003 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Plauning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 28, 2002 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Friel, Betlej, Hesse, Dolan, and M. McManus. City Staff present were Public Works Directar Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. APPROYAL OFMINUTES Chair Lorberbaum asked to have the agenda changed to review the minutes of November 26, 2002 after the public hearings. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #03-01 James Dzik & Joy Rude 906 Nina Court VARIANCE FOR A GARDEN SHED Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for a variance and shared a map of the location, which is a corner lot and zoned R-1. Mr. Grittman said the request for a variance is to allow placement of an existing accessory structure, which has been identified as a garden house, located on the southwest corner of the properly along Diane Road. The structure is currently approx. 20 ft. from the curb line of Diane Street, and the building is approx. 7 ft. from the property line, however, the requirement for the setback from the street is 30 ft. The resulting variance request is for a reduction in the setback by 23 ft. Mr. Grittman said the applicant suggests that the current location on the properly for this building is better screened from the neighboring properties and in order to move it, the applicant would need to do additional excavation due to the topography of the property to meet setback requirements. According to the Planner's Report, a hardship is not found, as there are other alternatives for the location of the building that would be in compliance with 'the setback requirements. Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 Commissioner M. McManus asked Mr. Grittman if there have been any discussions with the applicant regardin� alternative locations. Mr. Grittman said he had the chance to meet with the property owners last fall, but the applicant has indicated a more likely place would be to locate the building in the southeast corner as it would be more pleasingly visible from the neighboring properties. Commissioner polan asked how this has come to the attention of the City. Mr. Grittman said it was reported by the Code Enforcement Officer, who was on the way to conduct another building inspection. There have been no neighbor complaints received. Commissioner polan asked if the building meets the setbacks on the south, as it seems close to the property line. Mr. Grittman said the map shown was not drawn to scale precisely, but it seems the setbacks have been met. Commissioner Friel said this seems to meet the requirements of the suggested changes to the ordinance regarding hardships he has been proposing for a long time. Jim Dzik and Joy Rude, applicants, reside at 906 Nina Court. Mr. Dzik said the neighbors have no problems with the location of the structure and in fact, the neighbor directly behind the applicant's property offered to write a letter of support to the City. Mr. Dzik said the neighboring properties sit higher and look down onto his property, and it seemed better to locate the structure in the corner and not directly in the middle of the yard, which then would have meet the requirements. Joy Rude passed out pictures of the structure for the Commission's review, and explained how the landscaping ( was done. Chair Lorberbaum said an identification of a hardship is needed. Mr. Dzik said the only hardship that could be found would be for the consideration of the neighbors. Ms. Rude explained how the neighboring properties affect their property in regards to the slope of the 6 ft. hill and the terracing/landscaping that was done. Ms. Rude said it is not desirable to have the structure located in the middle of their properiy, as the neighbars would then be looking down on the metal roof. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the applicant has done the terracing. Mr. Dzik replied that was correct. The terracing was done to replace an old, rotten retaining wall, and the applicant built a retaining wall that runs down to the street. Commissioner M. McManus said she agrees there needs to be a precise hardship presented. Ms. Rude said all the neighbors are very interested in what is happening to the yard, and are very pleased with the gardening and landscaping Ms. Rude has done. Commissioner polan asked who the neighbors directly to the south were, and was told they were Leonard and Carole Levine, and Stewart and Tiffany Hafix. Commissioner polan said he wants to make sure these neighbors have no objections to this location. Chair Lorberbaum said she viewed the site and commented that it was beautiful, and had not previously noticed it as it is tucked away from view. Chair Lorberbaum said she also talked to the neighbors and was told they 2 Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 were happy with the applicants work. However, a hardship is still needed to be found. Ms. Rude said the hardship would be the hill. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. There being no one present wishing to speak, a motion will be asked to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMl��IISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMNIISSIONER M.MCMANUS, TO RECOMNN�ND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE TOPOGRAPHY CREATES A HARDSHIP. Further Discussion Commissioner Friel said that far a long time, efforts have been made to persuade the City Council to adopt a � ;hange to the ordinance, which would allow, but not require, the Commission to recommend approval without a hardship, so long as neighbors are in full agreement and showing no objections to a variance. Commissioners Betlej and Dolan expressed their thoughts that legally speaking, there is not a defined hardship in this case, but agrees with Commissioner Friel's comments, that in situations such as this when the neighbars are in agreement, it would make sense to approve as requested. Commissioner M. McManus said she seconded this motion because "a condition creating a hardship must be the uniqueness of the property. Commissioner M. McManus said that based on what was discussed at this meeting, the request makes sense as it would alleviate the need far additional excavation and is currently utilizing the natural landscape. 4 AYES (Commissioners Friel, Betlej, Dolan, and M. McManus) 3 NAYS (Chair Larberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus and Hesse) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-02 John V. Goebel 1293 Delaware Avenue CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for a variance and shared a map of the location. There is an existing ( single family home, which the applicants are seeking to expand, as well as constructing an additional detached garage on the properly. The detached garage requires a conditional use permit and because of the existing home being located very near to the side property line (currently about 3.5 ft.), there is a need for a variance as the home would be partially within the required setback from the north property line. Variance Request Mr. Grittman said the variance has been requested to keep the addition to the home the same distance from the north property line as the existing house. The proposed expansion would bring the house into conformance with the floor area and dimensional requirements. Mr. Grittman said it is possible to extend behind the structure that would meet setback requirements of 10 ft.; however this would not correct the non-conformity of the depth of the structure. Mr. Grittman said a hardship could be found that by granting a variance, the house could be put in conformity by including the addition of the structure within the setback on the side. Conditional Use Permit Mr. Grittman said the proposed location of the garage would make reasonable use of this portion of the lot. According to the plan, the proposed location of the garage would not have any negative impact on the neighborhood, as all the neighboring houses have detached garages, and the proposed garage would fit well into the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner B. McManus said once construction starts on the existing building, in order to be in compliance, ,. one would have to lop off the end of the existing house to keep within the existing setback. Mr. Grittman said � to be fully in conformance, the existing structure would have to have a portion demolished or the house be entirely moved. Mr. Grittman said if portions of the building were not removed, it would continue to exist as a non-confornung structure. Commissioner B. McManus said once the process of remodeling begins, this would then become an issue with the Ciiy. Commissioner Betlej said this lot is not typical in width. Mr. Grittman said this lot has a width of 75 ft., as opposed to the standard of 100 ft., and was created before the current ordinances went into effect. Commissioner Betlej said in such cases where lots were created befare the current ordinances, a hardship could then be found. Chair Lorberbaum asked for clarification of the layout of the driveway, and asked for discussion on the share driveway with the neighbor. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has a shared driveway easement, of the proper width, with the neighbar Commissioner polan said the deck meets the standards if it does not extend above the ground floor level of the house. Mr. Grittman said this was correct, and that the deck is allowed to be 3 ft. from the properly line. John and Kim Goebel, applicants, reside at 10174 70th St. So., Cottage Grove. The Goebels recently purchased this home in order to renovate. Mrs. Goebel said the only work done on this home so far as been to install new windows. Plans to renovate include new roofing, siding, and add volume to the extremely small home. Mrs. Goebel said the neighbors who share the driveway are in favor of these improvements. � 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 Commissioner B. McManus asked where the maple trees were located. Mrs. Goebel pointed them out on the map. Commissioner B. McManus asked what the design of the garage would be. Mrs. Goebel.said the exterior would look like the home as far as materials and color. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Goebels had the easement of the shared driveway. Mrs. Goebel said they did have a hand-written easement between them and the neighbors. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. There being no one present wishing to speak, a motion will be asked to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMNIISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. CONIlVIISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED SY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE OF 6 FT. 5 IN. TO ALLOW FOR THE 3 � FT. 7 IN. SETBACK FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE. Further Discussion Commissioner Betlej stated the hardship is the lot width being smaller and narrower than current ordinance requirements. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED COD�INIISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED �7 Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 PLANNING CASE #03-03 Frank Nemeth 2455 Delaware Avenue PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for a PUD and Preliminary Plat approval to divide a 2.5-acre parcel into two lots. The Planning Commission has reviewed a concept plan previously in November 2002. The plan has been revised based on comments from the Plannuig Commission and City CounciL Mr. Grittman reviewed the new plan and changes from the concept plan. • Lot lines previously created showed zero setback issues for the existing shed which raised questions about lot width • Current plan shows a jogged lot line along the proposed driveway to comply with the 100 ft. required street frontage with a depth of a 30 ft. setback, narrowing the lot to 70 ft. This was done to accommodate the existing shed and the proposed building location on the area. Because of the shape of the lot, and the setback rules as to what the front yard, side yard, and rear yard would be designated; a PUD would be better choice. • Planner views the building width reasonable with 100 ft. width along the back line and a long driveway extending to Delaware Avenue. • As this property is being processed as a plat, Staff received information in regards to the driveway, that Da.kota. County has noted their Plat Commission may raise some issues with the location of the driveway cuts. If this was processed as a minor subdivision, or a RLS (Registered Land Survey), this would not go through the Plat Committee and the Commission would not therefore, be reviewing the driveway location as closely. • All PUD requirements have been met. The use of the PUD would preserve the existing structure, gardens, and landscaping as well as providing an additional building lot. Commissioner M. McManus asked to see the location of the driveway. Mr. Grittman referred to the site plan and showed the location of the driveway. Commissioner M. McManus asked what would happen should the County not approve the location of the driveway. Mr. Grittman said the applicant would have to find a way to share the existing driveway cut. Commissioner M. McManus commented that this was an odd shape, and is concerned about what would happen to it in the future. Mr. Grittman said these conditions are not typically encouraged because over time, jogged property lines on interiar lot can become disputed by neighbors. Mr. Grittman said the applicant said the reason for the lot line is to preserve the existing landscaping. Commissioner polan expressed his concern regarding the neighbors to the west and how this would affect their back yards. Commissioner polan asked about the interpretation of the lot lines. According to the Planners Report, the subdivision is consistent with City standards if the yards of Lot 2 are interpreted as follows: • Side yard setback requirements are from the east and west property lines, • Front yard setback requirement is from the south property line • Rear yard setback requirement is from the north property line. � Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 In addition, • Proposed house would be set back 30 ft. from the west property line to provide a separation from the neighboring back yards. • All structures on Lot 1 are in conformance with setback requirements. Commissioner polan asked if the property is registered land. Mr. Grittman said he cannot confirm that at this time. Mr. Danielson said that on certain roads, and on county roads, there are spacing requirements between driveways and streets. In this case, Delaware Avenue's spacing, according to the County's guidelines, is not met by the new driveway. If the City desires to have a driveway there, there would be need for debate with the Plat Commission (comprised of a number of staff members that review proposed plats). If this is just a lot split, ar RLS, there in only one person that reviews the driveway and that person may be more easily persuaded. Commissioner Betlej asked what the required dimensions were. Mr. Danielson said he believes about 1/4 mile between driveways. Chair Lorberbaum said it's a combination of both a) the distances between existing driveways and b) driveways are preferred to be across from each other. Commissioner Hesse asked if there were any correspondence from neighbors. Chair Lorberbaum said she talked with the neighbor immediately to the west, as they would be the most impacted. Chair Lorberbaum said the neighbor stated they were comfortable with a new home placed there. '�'hair Lorberbaum said that if the yard setbacks are identified, a building could be placed without variances because there is a PUD in place. Mr. Grittman said this was correct, in that the PUD allows the City to define the setbacks. Chair Lorberbaum asked for clarification of the jog along the driveway, and that it is there to allow for a 100' frontage. Mr. Grittman said that was correct and was done to meet technical rules. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Fire Chief had any concerns. Mr. Grittman was not aware of any. Mr. Danielson said the Fire Chief could look at the property if it was the desire of the Commission. However, there are a number of homes in the city with similar driveways and there have been no issues with those in the past. Commissioner Betlej asked if all the requirements of the Fire Department have been met, by either going with a PUD or a lot split. Mr. Grittman said all requirements would be met. Commissioner Friel said the applicant has done an excellent job in preparing this information based on the comments of the Commission's November meeting, and due to the fact this property was previously designated PUD, this project is becoming a blessing in disguise. Frank Nemeth, applicant, resides at 2455 Delaware Avenue. Mr. Nemeth responded to some of the points raised by the Commission. He said that the process is actually getting simpler, and because of the area of the lot ( low, there are more options. � Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 � I Mr. Nemeth acknowledged the help he received from Commissioner B. McManus in the redrawing of the plan. Mr. Nemeth said he was pleased with the way the driveway was laid out, allowing him to keep some major trees. Mr. Nemeth reviewed the site plan, pointing out emergency easement trails for the new home site. Mr. Nemeth contacted the Highway Deparhnent and was told that the desired spacing of driveways on a highway such as County Road 63, with traffic levels of an excess of 3,000 vehicles per day, is 1/8 of a mile. Commissioner M. McManus said the driveway was laid out well, taking consideration of the trees. Mr. Nemeth said he would be willing to share the driveway if all else fails, but would prefer not to given the nature of his lifestyle and desire for privacy. Commissioner Hesse said he appreciated the applicant's efforts in redesigning this property. Chair Larberbaum asked if the existing shed would remain. Mr. Nemeth said he would prefer to keep it, and shared pictures of the shed. Mr. Grittman said this does not seem to be a problem. Chair Lorberbaum asked if Mr. Nemeth anticipated any problems with the moving of the barn. Mr. Nemeth said he was concerned and said that it could be moved as a single story structure. He would prefer to keep the height as is on the access (garage) side and will work with professional house-movers to accomplish this. j. Commissioner Friel commented on the unique lot shape and that it is interesting that this is not to be laid out like a box. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Nemeth what his fmal resort would be should the County deny the location of the driveway. Mr. Nemeth said the shared driveway would be the alternative. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Joan Lynch, 2484 Canton Court, and Jill Monk, 2494 Canton Court, both live to the north of Mr. Nemeth's property. Ms. Lynch and Ms. Monk asked for pictures of the barn and expressed their concerns regarding the visibility of the barn from their homes. Mr. Nemeth explained how the barn would be situated, and offered to both residents to come and look at the barn to get a better idea of what the view may be. Mr. Nemeth also offered that additional landscaping and trees could be planted to provide a better screen. Commissioner Hesse asked Mrs. Lynch and Mrs. Monk if they were totally against the relocation of the barn. They replied that they would be willing to discuss this with Mr. Nemeth. CONIlVIISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMIVIISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 � I AYES �� 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. CONIlVIISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY CONIlVIISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMNNI�ND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD AS PRESENTED. Further Discussion Commissioner polan asked if anyone felt this was similar to the flag lot concept that was previously denied on Victoria at the November meeting. Several Commission members responded that they do not. Commissioner Dolan said that this lot is somewhat similar, but different in that there is a 100' required frontage, and it is zoned MUPUD, which was not the case with the request on Victoria. Commissioner Friel said this was not a flag lot, as it does not need to meet the flag lot requirements. Commissioner M. McManus asked if this will come back should there be problems with the driveway. Mr. Grittman said the site arrangement may need to be changed, and as a result, it would have to be reviewed again by the Cominission to amend #he actions taken by the Commission. :'ommissioner B. McManus reminded the Commission that Mr. Nemeth is willing to use the shared driveway concept as a last resort. Chair Lorberbaum suggested adding an amendment to the motion that the PUD should designate which lines are side, rear, and front areas so there is no dispute in the future. Commissioner Friel asked if it was true that there are already setbacks on a11 sides, and any limitations are already contained in the ordinance, and furthermore with a PUD, there are no setback requirements, and in this case, they are being met anyway. Mr. Grittman said it is the expectation that the proposed setback lines would be drawn on the plats and would make it clear to any future applicant. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #02-44 Stanley R. Genadek 716 Third Avenue WETLANDS PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION OF MARSH LAND Mr. Hollister introduced this request far a wetlands pernut which was tabled at the November 2002 meeting, by reading his memo to the Planning Commission dated January 23, 2003. This case was tabled and the Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 Commission granted a 60-day extension to the 60-day review period to allow Mr. Genadek time to consult with� an expert to provide further information on his application. Mr. Hollister said that at this point, with the consent of the Genadeks, the 120-day review period lasts until March 4, 2003, which happens to be a City Council meeting. Mr. Hollister said that technically, this could be tabled to the Planning Commission meeting in February if after this evening's discussion, the Planning Commission determines that there are still some unresolved issues or additional information is needed. Mr. Hollister asked that, as a practical matter, to not impose on the City Council the burden of having to decide this in one evening, and there are options available to the Commission and if the Genadeks would be willing to state this evening they would consent to an additional extension to the time period, that would be fine. Mr. Hollister said the Planning Commission should make some form of recommendation to the Council at their next meeting to allow more than one evening to deliberate as they see appropriate. Commissioner B. McManus said the Commission would probably be hearing from experts with a variety of backgrounds on whether the excavation and open water is beneficial or negative, and whether there has been enough planning and information provided. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the City has done anything further since the Commission last met to discuss this that would help the Commission at this time. Mr. Danielson the City has been relying on the expertise of Mr. Brian Watson of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District. Mr. Danielson said Mr. Watson has not been able to look at this. Commissioner B. McManus said that except for the expertise, which will come forward on behalf of the applicant, the Commission has no further information from the last time this was discussed. Mr. Hollister referred to a letter that was handed out to the Commission (from Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, dated — January 28, 2003). Commissioner Betlej said this letter basically says they can do nothing because they do not � have enough information. Mr. Hollister said that was correct. Commissioner B. McManus said the letter does say that perhaps opening up a pond might be beneficial, however unless the proper information is provided, Mr. Watson cannot pass judgment on it, and so the Commission may have to accept the expertise of the consultant that is acting on behalf of the applicant. Commissioner Friel said he is troubled as he noted the last paragraph of the letter, as well as the last paragraph of Mr. Watson's letter of June 17, 2003, which states that the applicant may need to get approval from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Commissioner Friel says that this approval, as well as the process, may take a miniinum of 30 to 60 days upon receipt of adequate information ... and would most likely catch the municipality between a rock and a hard place because the Genadeks have not made their application at this point, as he is required to, and a recommendation should not be made. If it is decided to defer, pending this requirement, the City will be caught in the bind of having approval opposed upon us because we haven't acted within so many days of the date in which the application has been submitted. Mr. Hollister said this analysis is correct. Mr. Hollister said if the City ultimately decides that as far as within the City's preview, expertise and knowledge, that Mr. Genadek's plans are acceptable and in fact, official, but the City must defer to the opinion of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and Dakota County, and the wetlands permit for this project could be approved contingent upon review and approval by both those two bodies. Mr. Hollister said the City may not want to do that because review by those other two bodies might indicate that we've learned something that we may have wanted to work in to the original approval. Mr. Hollister said a second option would be to get consent from the Genadek's for an additional time extension if they were for example, to give us three more months. Mr. Hollister said that with the current weather conditions, they would not be able to begin this project right � lo Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 � now even if they could. Therefore, the Genadek's could give the City a substantial time extension long enough to allow us to take care of those things. Mr. Hollister said the third thing he has seen happen here at the City, on occasion, is that when something like this reaches the City Council, it has actually been denied by Council, but then what Council has done, is to waive any mandatory waiting period before reapplying and on occasion, they have even waived any second fees for applying. Mr. Hollister said from a practical standpoint, this is similar to a time extension except that it leaves us assured that the clock is not going to be a problem. Commissioner Friel said that is something the Council has the autharity to do, and our alternative at that point is to recommend deniaL Chair Lorberbaum asked if the applicant owned the land or is it adjacent and the applicant wants to work to improve it. Mr. Hollister said as the applicant has presented this application, the body of water sits entirely on his properly, and the City has some corrobarating evidence from Dakota. County that shows the same. Chair Lorberbaum asked for clarification as legally, this needs to be documented in the case the applicant does not own that portion and may wish to claim ownership after putting all the time and money into this work. Mr. Hollister said the applicant does in fact own the portion that will be improved. Chair Lorberbaum asked if it is the case that the owner does own the parcel, and after the ponds are created, would it be possible that the applicant may later decide to subdivide the area that will no longer be wet. Mr. Hollister said if the applicant reconfigures the wetland, and leave a portion of the property dry, and if all approvals from the City and other bodies necessary are obtained, if the applicant would then come in to apply for a subdivision to sell the other lot, and if the new lot line was within 100 ft. of what remains as a wetland, and it is the consensus that this is a wetland, a wetlands permit would be required to subdivide. Mr. Grittman said he doesn't know whether the land could be subdivided or not because the information provided is sketchy. Commissioner Betlej said the applicant implied at the previous meeting that they had no intent to develop any portion of this land. Commissioner Hesse referred to the second paragraph of Mr. Watson's letter which talks about a wildlife improvement exemption, which seems to be the strategy taken here, he is assuming there are certain conditions that have to be met. Commissioner Hesse asked if the City is aware of any particular conditions that are required to be met. Mr. Danielson said Mr. Watson has taken care of those requirements. Commissioner Friel said that if the exemption hasn't been granted before they get here, does it make any difference? Commissioner Hesse said he plans on asking the applicant the same question, but that if the City knew the answer, it may or may not be required to ask the applicant. Commissioner Hesse said he is interested in this as he is a little familiar with modifications of wetlands and the requirements that go with them. Commissioner Hesse said he does not get any impression that the wetlands will be destroyed such that any wetlands will have to be replaced, which is his understanding of the wetland conservation act, and is not familiar with the wildlife improvement exemption associated with the wetland conservation act, and is trying to get some clarification of that. Commissioner Hesse commented on the drainage concerns of the Wirts, and he believes this pertains to how the modifications affect the drainage. Is the City going to be looking at this to verify there are no problems created with this work? Mr. Danielson said the City has not yet looked into this, but will be doing so. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification on the requirements of approvals by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Dakota. County Soil and Water Conservation District. Mr. Danielson said Mr. Watson states in the letters that the applicant may require a letter of approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 Commissioner Friel said that information will never get back to the Commission unless there is a consent to �j defer because by the time a decision is made by the Commission, the decision from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers may not come for another 60 or 90 days. Commissioner M. McManus asked who was supposed to make the fmal determination. Commissioner Betlej asked for clarification that when modifying a wetland to this extent, does it not have to then to get approval by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers? Mr. Danielson said Mr. Watson is the expert and keeps using the word "may", and Mr. Danielson has not asked him if the applicant "has to". Commissioner M. McManus said the process is missing one letter of information from the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. and Mrs.Genadek were present at this meeting, along with their consultant, Mr. Paul Schmonski, KDH Consultants, Oakdale. Mr. Genadek provided the following information in response to some of the questions stated from the Commission: • Ownership of property — wetlands property was closed on at the end of October. All land in question is owned by the Genadeks. • Drainage pattern — Mr. Genadek pointed out on the map the drainage flow, which ends into Wentworth Park, and explained how the ponds will be positioned. • Dakota County and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers — it was the Genadek's impression that they were to come to the City first before going to the other bodies of government. • Wildlife Exemption — Mr. Watson wants to see a wetland delineation. Applicant's consultant will take � care of this in the spring. • Existing contours — the applicant shared a map outlining the proposed contours, and as a professional excavator, he will be preparing a final contours map. • Seeding and maintenance specifications — will be preparing final report as was requested. • Property boundaries with scale — working with Mr. Watson. • Proposal of location of excavation — will be taken care of when finalizing the contours map. It is estimated that approximately 275 cubic yards of dirt will be relocated on the property to allow for proper bedding locations for wildlife. � Possible subdivision of lot — Mr. Genadek said the purpose of purchasing the lot was to protect it, not to develop it. Mr. Genadek said the properly could be left as is if that is the determination of the governing bodies, however the Genadeks would prefer to improve the land as proposed for the benefit of the wildlife, and assured the Commission that this area would remain a wildlife area. Mr. Schmonski said he was hired to help with this project last week and have a few telephone conversations with Mr. Watson. Mr. Schmonski referred to the letter from Mr. Watson, and said this project has a lot of clarification that needs to occur before any decisions are made. Mr. Schmonski said in Mr. Watson's letter, fourth paragraph that refers to the wildlife exemption, there are items here that need to be addressed prior to approval of the project. Mr. Schmonski said he would be taking care of the approval process with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Commissioner Betlej asked what would trigger their need to get involved in the process. Mr. Schmonski said most likely it would be how busy they are, and most likely there will be just a cursory review and would then defer it back to Dakota Couniy ar the City. Mr. Schmonski said Mr. Watson is 12 Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 `:ommissioner Friel asked Mr. Schmonski for confirmation that he has more information that could be provided co the City, although not with him at this time. Mr. Schmonski said this was correct. Commissioner Friel asked if Mr. Schmonski was willing to extend the time for action by the Planning Commission as suggested by Mr. Hollister. Mr. Genadek said he has no problem with that. Mr. Schmonski said the extension would be required as the delineation portion will not be completed until things start to green up. After further discussion as to when information would be available, and timeframes that will allow extensions, Mr. Hollister suggested that the applicant withdraw his application, and upon receiving more information that is needed, re-submit his application at a later date without any further wetland permit or application fees. This will then get onto the agenda for the City Council at their September 4, 2003 meeting. This will then give time for applicant to have all the information necessary and be on the agenda for the Commission's July meeting. Mr. Schmonski said this will be agreeable to him. Mr. Genadek said he is in agreement with this. Mr. Hollister asked for a written withdraw request witliin in next three days in order ta have the request be presented to the City Council at their next meeting. Chair Lorberbaum and Commission M. McManus asked Mr. Genadek to review the minutes of the November, 2002 meeting and January 28, 2003, as well as all concerns addressed by the Wirts in preparation to gather the necessary information to answer the questions that were presented by the Commission. Critical Area Ordinance Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to table as the red-lined version is not available at this time and will be �rthcoming in the near future. CONIlVIISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CONIlVIISSIONER FRIEL, TO TABLE THIS DISCUSSION 7 0 AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED APPROYAL OF MINUTES It has been requested by Becki ShafFer, Recarding Secretary, to have all changes submitted to her for creating a red-lined revision for the Commission's approval at the next Commission Meeting. VERBAL REVIEW Mr. Danielson reported on the following actions taken at the last City Council Meeting. Planning Case #02-46: Mark Olson, 1217 Victoria Court � nlamiing Case #02-47: Dave Drake, 837 Park Place Dr. 13 Request for subdivision approval and variance withdrawn by applicant Request for variance withdrawn by applicant Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 2003 Planning Case #02-48: Russell Rider, 790 Wentworth Ave. Planniug Case #02-50: Ron Clark Construction, Acacia/Garron Property � Request for variance for front yard setback \ approved for 30 ft. It was the consensus of the City Council that if housing was to be there, it would be a good one, however there was a request from the Native American Community for an EAW that was granted by the City Council. Ron Clark has agreed to fund the EAW and the Planning application is put on hold until the EAWprocess is complete. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:00 PM Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 14