Loading...
2002-04-23 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2002 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 23, 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: Vice -Chair Betlej, and Commissioners B. McManus, Hesse, and M. McManus. City Staff present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Becki Shaffer recorded minutes. Excused: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioner Friel, and Commissioner Dolan APPROVAL OF MINUTES Revised minutes of March 26, 2002 Commissioner M. McManus referred to page 17, fourth bullet which reads "North -bound traffic is very platooned from the traffic signal with the exception of the west -bound right turn." Commissioner M. McManus made a comment at the last meeting that was not recorded. For the record, Commissioner M. McManus stated that she questioned what would constitute a long delay because of the left turning option and does this present a concern in the future. The response she received was that there was not a concern regarding heavy traffic backups. Commissioner B. McManus referred to page 15, last paragraph, which states, " Commissioner B. McManus said that it's been indicated where a number of areas that differ from the planners that revised the plan ". This sentence should read "Commissioner B. McManus said that it's been indicated where a number of areas are different from the revised the plan ". Commissioner B. McManus referred to page 18, first regular paragraph, first sentence, should read " Commissioner B. McManus asked if it is the opinion of Mr. VanWormer that he feels there is adequate amount of space provided for parking." Commissioner B. McManus referred to the same paragraph, "Mr. VanWormer stated it was his opinion that this not true. He added there are some things that need to be considered, and compared to other developments with shared parking. He said he did not have a detailed enough study completed to be as confident with the parking as he is with the traffic study." The sentence should read "Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. VanWormer if he is suggesting that the Planner, contrary to some of the concerns that have been offered here now, and is it Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 Mr. VanWormer's opinion that the planner has adequately provided for parking spaces there. Mr. VanWormer said that these are some pieces to think about, and the developer points out where the shared units are. Mr. VanWormer said the Commission should think about the particular development and how it reflects on other developments where there has been some shared parking. He said he did not have a detailed enough study completed to be as confident with the parking as he is with the traffic study." Commissioner B. McManus referred to page 22, third paragraph, first sentence, should read " Commissioner B. McManus said that he is disappointed that this development seems to not to have play areas for children living there." COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2002 AS AMENDED. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. PLANNING CASE #01 -39 INHERITABLE WORLD LLC 1744 DODD ROAD VARIANCE, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RIDDER PROPERTY CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chair Betlej asked the applicant to update the Commission on the status of this project. Mr. Paul McGinley, L.S. Principal Surveyor, stated that they are ready at this time to make a full presentation of the development. Vice Chair Betlej said that when this project was tabled the last time, there were discussions with an adjacent landowner to work out some concerns with the easements. Mr. McGinley said that it was his understanding that the discussions have been concluded this afternoon. Mr. Chris Moeller, 1730 Dodd Road, said that, as of this afternoon, agreement has been made on many of the points. Mr. Moeller said that they still aren't at the end of discussions and do not have a written agreement at this time. He said there needs to be more time to resolve issues. His understanding from the City Council is that it is reasonable to go ahead to present to the Commission and that the Commission may give conditional approval subject to the successful conclusion of the easement discussions. Mr. Larry Severson, attorney for Loucks and Associates, said that he met with the Moeller's attorney and believes to have basic agreement on all points. Written agreement still needs to be made and there is some time until the City Council meeting, Mr. Severson believes that there will be a signed agreement before then. Mr. Severson has no problems with the outstanding issues at this point except that they need to be documented. 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 Mr. McGinley gave an update of the project. He said all the plans were submitted on February 19, 2002 to the Commission for review. There is one small change regarding Pine Creek being an open swale alongside the street rather than a storm pipe. Vice Chair Betlej asked Planner Grittman if he had any comments at this time. He replied that he did not, and that this change would not affect the planning site. Mr. McGinley said that Mr. Danielson was informed of this change. Mr. McGinley said that this is the site of the former Ridder home, which is 34 acres east of Dodd Road, north of Marie Avenue, south of the extension of Batchelor. It is zoned R -1 for approximately the westerly one -third of the site, and R -1A for the easterly two - thirds of the site. There is no request to rezone. All of the lots in the site exceed the larger zoning requirement, which is 40,000 -sq. ft. Some of the highlights include: • A significant natural feature in the center of the property, the existing Ridder home sits on a large hill, a prominence isolated by 30 -ft. slopes around to the south, southeast, and west of that site. The elevation near the home is about 964 -ft. and around the bottom, the elevation slopes at 935 -ft. That site is central because it figures in prominently with the road design, and the layout of the lots around the base of that hill. The eastern two- thirds of the site is wooded (oaks, elms, maples, poplars); the western third of the site is open meadow with scattered large trees. There are some small wetlands along Marie Creek in the south area, and Pine Creek flattens out into a depression in the west central area of the site. There is also a small wetland area in the northwest corner of the site. There are larger wetlands in the eastern area of the site and a small pond in the northeast corner of the site. • One major focus of the site is the preservation of the trees and having as little impact on the wetlands as possible. The goal is to create a desirable neighborhood with large lots and high quality homes. Each home will be custom designed by the two builders selected for the development and architecturally laid out in a design to fit each lot's topography and existing trees. The preservation goal has been accomplished by designing the development with very large lots. The initial concept layout of the property anticipated approximately 29 lots, the current proposal is now for 19 lots. • The owner of the property previously purchased the Grant house south of the existing driveway. This was to improve the safety of the intersection of the proposed road to match up with Stanwich Lane. • The Ridders have acquired a lot along Marie Avenue, referred to as Lot 10, and this will allow for a second entrance to the site in order to improve safety through the site and meet the cul -de -sac requirements. • Fences were initially proposed along the right -of -way of Dodd Road and Marie Avenue. These fences have been removed from the plan. • Mock guardhouse that was suggested for the entrance to Dodd Road has been removed from the plan. • Divided entrances at Dodd Road and Marie Avenue have been removed from the plan. • A cul -de -sac island that was proposed in the eastern portion has been removed from the plan. There will now be a standard cul -de -sac placed there. • Some small wetlands will be filled in the central meadow area where the driveway crossing is. These wetlands will be replaced by combining them with others on the site at a 2 to 1 replacement ratio. • Pine Creek currently flows into an open swale. The neighbors expressed a desire to continue this flow periodically through that area, and the developer will enhance the creek and direct the water to flow under the street and continue the flow overland. • The sanitary sewer will be served from Dodd Road; water service will be brought in from Dodd Road and Marie Avenue. • Utility easements have been provided throughout the lots for any future construction. 3 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 • Drainage easements around all wetlands have been granted to the City as scenic easements (wetland buffers), with various restrictions as stipulated by the City. • In regards to the flag lot issue (Lot 5, Block 1), which is the lot being created to encompass the existing Ridder home, the justification for this variance is to construct the roadway around the natural topography in which the Ridder home sits. If it were not for this topography situation, the road would have been able to be designed differently so that all the lots would be of standard shape, size, and frontage, as they are in the rest of the development. • Mr. McGinley expressed the developer's understanding of the variance requirements in the city code. Mr. McGinley said he addressed the cause and justification of the variance as being the topography, hill, existing house, isolation from rest of project, and the position of the road. Mr. McGinley said the variance cannot impair the intent of the zoning code, and the intent of the 150 -ft. lot width at the front setback is to maintain appropriate house separation in a 40,000 -sq. ft. area. In this case, the house on Lot 4, the existing home of Lot 5, and proposed house on Lot 6, will all remain in their same positions regardless if the variance is granted or not. This doesn't impair the intent of the ordinance, which is to keep separation among the houses. Granting a variance does not affect the position of the houses relative to each other. The variance will have no negative impact on the health, safety, welfare, traffic, light and air, and property values as the ordinance requires be looked at. Mr. McGinley said that it is their opinion that this would improve factors, such as property values and the reasonable use of the land. By adhering to the ordinance, the area by Lot 6 would need to be widened to 150 -ft., making a very large area below the hill part of the Lot 5. Mr. McGinley said that it is only reasonable this land be part of the land on Lot 6. • In regards to the Wetland Scenic Easements and Setbacks, Mr. McGinley said he consulted with the two builders in the development to see what the minimum rear yard space is in order to be suitable for the types of homes to be built. Discussions were also held with wetland preservation expert, Mark Kjolhaug, of Kjolhaug Environmental Services. Mr. Kjolhaug identified the type and quality of existing wetlands that will require preservation. Discussions were also held with City Staff. • The wetland setback requirement in Mendota Heights is 100 -ft. In order to be within the 100 -ft, a permit must be obtained that defines what can and cannot be done. The City has no specific criteria or guidelines specifying what can or cannot be done at what distances. This is considered on a development -by- development basis. Mr. McGinley said that the setbacks in this development are not a variance, but are portrayed on the plans what the developer believes to be the most acceptable setbacks from the wetlands for the structures. Specific setback data will be provided on the plans so the City does not have to review each site individually when permits are being requested for homes. • The Scenic Easement (wetland buffer) is a strip closest to the wetland where the owner is restricted engaging in activities in that area, and the City has the right to enforce those restrictions. The land and water in these areas must be left in its natural state. • Kjolhaug Environmental Services assured the developer that all plans are more than adequate in protecting all wetland areas. • Park land dedication versus the fee donation to the Park Fund: It has been suggested that a park be created in the eastern area of the development or create public trail access through the front yards of one or two of the cul -de -sac lots on the eastern end of the development. This has been viewed as a bad idea as the park area on this site was not designated on any comprehensive plan on the part of the City, and the landowner had no way of anticipating any demand for a park in this area. The City has no trail plan that proposes trail routes through the superblock area. A small isolated park parcel on this site has been deemed to have no or little use. The five properties that were platted in the vicinity of this property that border the same wetland 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 complex was not required to provide any dedicated parkland or trail routes when they were developed in past years. Due to the wetlands along the entire east end of the site, the plan is restricted to a street design that ends in a cul -de -sac. Mr. McGinley said these lots would be the more valuable and desirable lots, and putting a trail through the front yards would be very detrimental. Mr. McGinley reviewed a trail sketch showing two suggested trail routes. Mr. McGinley said that park trail access through this neighborhood is opposed by many of the residents. • Mr. McGinley said that the owner is willing to significantly increase the park dedication fee to $43,500 based on the maximum density of 29 lots (29 lots x $1,500 per lot fee = $43,500). • The entrances have been redesigned in a more natural state with a monument made of natural stone, with script brass lettering, similar to Southview Golf Course. • Mr. McGinley referred to the landscaping plan (Sheet C1 -2) and said it was requested to show more details to where the trees would be removed on the property. Landscape detail plans reviewed the entrances to the development from Dodd Road and Marie Avenue. A collection 5 -ft. to 6 -ft. pine and spruces trees, along with various shrubs and ornamental trees will be planted in these areas. Mr. Grittman said that the land at the bottom of the hill of Lot 5 is closely related to Lot 6, and the lot variance would be justified without showing a hardship, and Staff feels that this would be a more reasonable use of the land. Mr. Grittman said that in the areas where the landscape is to look more natural, it is suggested to plant a variety of material sizes, which would give a more natural look. Commissioner M. McManus referred to the 3.87 acres of designated wetland shown in the presentation. For clarification purposes, she asked if Mr. McGinley stated there would be an increase to this acreage. Mr. McGinley said he did not recall saying anything that would imply an increase. He said there is a decrease in acreage because of Pine Creek along the south side of the road, which was originally planned be put into a storm pipe. Revised plans will show Pine Creek and the surrounding footage was a wetland, so less of that will be disturbed by leaving as an open channel. Mr. McGinley said that all the wetlands that are disturbed will be replaced two to one. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the proposal will show the wetlands as being a total parcel, so there would be no requirements for a wetland permit from homeowners. Mr. McGinley said that whatever is decided upon at this meeting as the setbacks would be stipulated on the plans and future homeowners would have to apply to the City for permits for any deviation from those setbacks. Mr. Danielson said it is policy to consider wetland permits at the time of approval and very seldom has anyone come back for an extension. Commissioner M. Manus asked if the same procedure applies to tree preservation. Mr. Danielson said there is no tree ordinance in the City at this time. Commissioner M. McManus confirmed her understanding that without a tree ordinance, homeowners would have to submit any requests to the City that would deviate from the approved plan. Mr. McGinley said the plans show the tree preservation limits, and those would be staked at the time of construction. Commissioner M. McManus asked for confirmation that there is a secondary oversight to this process. Mr. McGinley said the individual lots could request the variations at the time of application for building permit. Commissioner M. McManus asked if any presentations were given to the Parks Commission. Mr. McGinley said that Mr. St. Martin, Civil Engineer, was present at the initial meeting of the Parks Commission, and this 5 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 was the only appearance made before the Parks Commission, prior to the initial Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner M. McManus asked if any other reports where submitted by the Parks Commission with recommendations. Mr. Hollister said there were no reports submitted. Commissioner Hesse said that is seems the City is now leaning towards being more in favor of the variance request. Commissioner Hesse asked Mr. McGinley if the driveway provides access to two other properties outside the development in addition to Lot 5. Mr. McGinley said it does connect to properties north of the development. Commissioner Hesse said that if that particular flag lot were taken out of Lot 5, how would access be provided to these properties? Mr. McGinley said there was never any proposal to eliminate the lot entirely and the variance would not affect this existing driveway. Commissioner Hesse asked if there are any details or suggestions pertaining to the wetland permits that would deal with the plantings and natural state of the wetlands. Mr. McGinley said that the requirement of the Scenic Easement is that there are to be no additional plantings, but to leave the natural vegetation as is. The setback requirement is to restrict any building on the property from encroaching on the wetlands. Mr. Danielson said that this is consistent with how the City has dealt with past incidences of this type. Mr. McGinley said that if the City desires to place monument signs along the scenic easement lines indicating the scenic buffer, the developer would incorporate this into the plans. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there were any changes from the original wetland plan showing drainage into Pine Creek with a culvert. Mr. McGinley said there were no changes, except for the one he commented on earlier in the meeting and he reviewed the layout of this drainage for clarification. Mr. McGinley said that feedback from the neighbors is to keep the creek running as people enjoy watching the creek flow. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there is a significant reduction in the amount of acreage in the wetland. Mr. McGinley said it was just a small area around Pine Creek. Vice Chair Betlej asked how the varied width of the wetland setbacks were determined. Mr. McGinley said that the setbacks are determined by the placement of the homes on the lots and establishment of backyard usage, as well as the type of wetland the property would adjoin. The larger setbacks were applied to the better quality wetlands on the east side of the side, with some backyards to the houses so that they are usable, and then have smaller setbacks were areas have little impact on the wetlands. Mr. McGinley commented on the NURP (National Urban Runoff Protection) ponds, which will be established to hold runoff flowing into the creek. Vice Chair Betlej referred to the November 20th Planners Report under the Preliminary Plat Section, Item H, pertaining to the tree preservation plan. The plan indicates that when roads and utilities are constructed, these spaces are not to be disturbed. There is nothing in there for development of individual lots. Mr. Grittman said that the tree preservation plan as presented talks about the preservation of the area taken by the developer in general, and is not applicable to the individual building site. There are no specific requirements and homeowners can clear their lots as they wish. Mr. Grittman said that it would be worthwhile for the City to clarify what kind of tree preservation is intended for the individual lots at the time of the construction of the home. Mr. McGinley said they are willing to discuss this, and does not believe the City of Mendota Heights has 6 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 formulas for tree preservations for lots. Commissioner Betlej said the concern is there is a significant number of trees that the City would want to have preserved. Mr. Danielson said there were two options: 1) let City Staff determine guidelines, or 2) bring each individual lot back to City Council for approval. Commissioner B. McManus said it is difficult to decide how to remove trees, and it is in the best interest of the homeowner to preserve as many trees as they can. Commissioner B. McManus said he has a concern with the NURP ponds, particularly the one in the central southwest corner on Drawing C2 -1, which depicts Marie Creek going directly into the pond. Commissioner B. McManus asked what would happen to Marie Creek in the middle of August, when there has been no rain for about three weeks. Is Marie Creek going to form a pond, or will it continue to run? Mr. St. Martin said that NURP ponds will capture any runoff coming from Marie Creek and from Pine Creek to the property, and these ponds will be lower than the existing creek bed. The creek bed will still be intact and will be widened. Under normal conditions, the pond will be full of water. In the case of rainstorms, which would cause the water to swell, the pond would rise up and flow out over time. Mr. St. Martin said that there would be a constant flow out of the pond. The pond surface will be the same elevation of the creek, but the base will be lower. Commissioner B. McManus asked if it was logical to assume that the creek will run into the pond, and the pond will turn into a small pond, and the only water exiting the pond would be when there is extra rain and runoff. Mr. St. Martin said this was not correct. The ponds will be lined with clay to limit any infiltration of those ponds and once these ponds go through a season and get their equilibrium, water will be filled to the top to the pipe and will flows out of the pipe. As soon as the water flows in, it raises the level and will go out the pipe. Commissioner B. McManus wants to insure that the creek not be disturbed as it flows southwest. He said he accepts the fact that the developer is indicating that the flow of Marie Creek will not be altered so that the creek will continually flow. Vice Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. The following are comments from various neighbors, which have been identified as Resident and their address. • Jim Fischer, 1758 Dodd Road Mr. Fischer asked if the developer is assuming there will be water in the ponds year- round. Mr. St. Martin said it would. Mr. Fischer asked where the water would come from in August when it's dry. Mr. Fischer said the last few years, it's been dry in that area. Mr. St. Martin said that with the change of the seasons, a dry pond now would be dry later. Mr. Fischer said that the ponds will cause more standing water, and asked what effect this will have with mosquitoes. Mr. St. Martin said there would certainly be more areas of standing water, which will present a breeding area for mosquitoes. Mr. McGinley said that the actual areas of open water would be the two small NURP ponds. 7 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 • Larry Goff, 675 West Marie Mr. Goff said he and his wife walked the creek before the meeting and found it to be dry up to the entry. Mr. Goff said there are three holding ponds and would like to know where the water is going. It is not going through his property, and if it's dry, he will end up with an 8 -ft. ditch. Mr. Goff said he was not contacted about this meeting. Mr. Hollister said all the notices were sent to all property owners within 350 -ft. of the rear estate based on computer data from Dakota County. If residents have not received a letter, there was either an error in the mail, or an error in the computer data received from the county. Mr. Goff asked how the developer has the right to put holding ponds in. Mr. Goff said that the developer could fill their ponds, and leave the neighbors with nothing. Vice Chair Betlej said that when a site is built up, there is a lot more impervious surface, and the concern being that there should not be too much water running off that site, and the developer is trying to control it. Mr. Goff said that there used to be running water in their area as it is in the proposed development, but now there is no water in her area. Commissioner Hesse said that it is his understanding that NURP ponds are required to control water and to deter any runoff from causing any downstream problems. Mr. McGinley said that the purpose of the NURP ponds is to restrict the flow downstream so there is no flooding as a result of additional roofs, streets, and driveways. Mr. McGinley said that there is currently quite a bit of brush and debris in the creek to the east of the proposed road to the extent that it's on the developer's property. This area will be cleared out. Mr. McGinley said that might be the cause of the obstruction of the creek. Commissioner B. McManus said where Marie Creek currently flows south and west of this property, there are ducks swimming in those areas. He said he doesn't understand how the creek could be dry in the middle. Mr. Goff said it was noticed just off the Marie entrance, the creek is marshland and the water disappears into that marshland. Mr. Goff said that there is also some concrete dumped into it. Commissioner B. McManus said that he understands the concern and it seems that in the dry season, the creek will be flowing into the NURP pond, and there will be enough evaporation to ensure that nothing comes out of it. • Betty Ellis, 726 Marie Ms. Ellis asked where the source of Marie Creek is. Mr. McGinley said the wetland area collects a watershed of about 198 acres upstream from this area. He believes this to the source of the water. Ms. Ellis said she has a concern that the ponds will end up with dry spring beds. Vice Chair Betlej said that the main issue seems to be that the flow of the creek shall be continued at the pace it's at right now. Vice Chair Betlej asked Mr. Danielson if this could be accomplished with the design that is proposed. Mr. Danielson said that NURP ponds are a required standard of all new developments, and that these ponds are to allow normal flow in and out, and the water level stay at the same elevation. He said that NURP ponds are created to protect from surging water due to large rainfalls and he believes the creek is able to handle it. Commissioner Hesse said that these NURP ponds would not guarantee flow in the creek at all times. If there is no flow now, the ponds will not create a flow later. The pond is to protect flooding from occurring 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 downstream, and to suggest the pond is there for anything else, i.e. to keep the water flowing in the stream, downstream, that' s not the case. Commissioner B. McManus said the flow of this creek is all the time, even if just a few inches. • 1768 Dodd Road RESIDENT said she was notified of the meetings prior to the October, but none of today's meeting. Her home is near one of the NURP ponds and asked what kind of treatments would be used in the ponds. She also asked about potential overflows. Mr. St. Martin said there are two processes used to treat the water in the ponds. One process is sedimentation, keeping the water still to allow sediment to drop to the bottom of the pond. The other process is to remove nutrients out of the water that contribute to algae. Mr. St. Martin said that as far as the overflow for the ponds, the water would go through the creek bed. Commissioner Hesse asked what the design standard is for these ponds. Mr. St. Martin said that it is typically a 100 -year runoff to match the 100 -year flood. Commissioner B. McManus asked for clarification on how the sedimentation process works. Mr. St. Martin explained how the treatment puts the sediment in one spot to allow for city maintenance workers to clean out periodically. This maintenance must be done on a regular basis to prevent any build up. Commissioner Hesse said that the lined portion of the pond is intended to make sure no water seeps out. Any water that seeps into the pond will not exit the pond other than evaporation. Any water that goes in will be retained in the pond, and the water will be built up until it reaches that outlet, and then it will start to flow out. As long as there are no excessive dry periods, and there is flow in that creek, the water level will be held at the outlet. The water will therefore flow out at the rate it flows in. Commissioner Hesse referred to a question regarding sedimentation in the base of the pond and the concern that it could build up to and block the outlet pipe. Commissioner B. McManus said that Commissioner Hesse clarified this concern clearly. Commissioner B. McManus said that in periods when the water does not satisfy the needs of the pond to get to a certain level, all the water is going to flow in that pond and nothing will be flowing out. Commissioner B. McManus said there might be some months were it doesn't rain much, and water will trickle down the creek, and sit in the pond. This will cause the pond to disturb the flow of the creek. Mr. St. Martin said this was correct. Mr. McGinley said that the size of the NURP ponds are smaller compared to the 198 acres of runoff that runs through this property, and if it were so dry that the ponds stayed below their normal capacity for any length of time, he would think it would be extremely dry anywhere else and very little creek flow. There is so much of a watershed into this area that if there was such a drought, and the pond level dropped, it would fill up pretty quickly compared to the amount of areas draining into there. Commissioner B. McManus said he was reassured by Mr. Ginley's comments. 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 • Jo M. Fairbairn, 1680 Dodd Road Ms. Fairbairn asked how deep the ponds would be, would water be coming into it, who maintains the ponds? Ms. Fairbairn said she would like to see more information regarding the culvert. Mr. St. Martin said that the wetland area in the northwest corner would be a depression and more of a grassy, vegetated area rather than a pond. The outlet will have a culvert where the water can be exited in the case of an overflow. These ponds are approximately 1 -ft. to 2 -ft. deep and contain cattails, aquatic vegetation. Ms. Fairbairn asked what would prevent the owner of the two lots to come back and saying it's just a depression and never wet, and would like to build into the easement. Vice Chair Betlej said that this is a Scenic Easement and Wetland Easement. The setbacks, which will be part of the plat and recorded, will prevent the homeowners from building in this area. • 1673 Delaware RESIDENT believes this is a good plan and encouraged the Commission to deny any plans of walking paths. RESIDENT said that in 1972, the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Ridders, showed strong sentiment that there be no walking paths through this superblock. RESIDENT said he feels the proposed plan is very sensitive to the neighbors and to the wetlands, and encouraged the Commission to accept this proposal. • 1758 Dodd Road RESIDENT asked where the city trucks would go to access the ponds for maintenance. Mr. St. Martin showed the easement for both ponds and said that the easement will run along the east side of the RESIDENT's backyard, as well as the easement that runs between Lot 2 and Lot 3. Commissioner B. McManus asked for clarification of the depth of the ponds. Mr. St. Martin said that the NURP ponds in the southwest corner will be 6 -ft. to 8 -ft. and the marshes to the north will be 1 -ft. to 2 -ft. deep. • Larry Goff, 675 Marie Mr. Goff asked what plans are in place to take care of the mosquitoes' growth. Mr. McGinley said that the standing water in the ponds would breed some, but should have an insignificant impact. • 1738 Dodd Road RESIDENT said he appreciates the work the Commission does, as he is the Chair of the Zoning Committee for St. Paul. RESIDENT said that the development is a good application of land, but would like to have the wetland setbacks and buffers be as proposed. RESIDENT said that the widening of the flag lot to 150 -ft. would narrow the other lots and that density would be less appealing. RESIDENT said that the sensitivity of the developer plays a key role in this development. He is also opposed to a park. 10 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 • 1759 Ridgewood RESIDENT said he thinks the developer is doing a good job. The mosquitoes are a concern, but the major wetlands are being sprayed to keep the population down. Commissioner Hesse asked if anyone from the Parks Commission was present. He said that if there were no one present from the Parks Commission, he would assume there is no interest to the Parks Commission. Commissioner B. McManus said that the absence of anyone from the Parks Commission indicates the current disinterest in the proposal. • 1707 Delaware RESIDENT said there is water that also comes from West St. Paul. RESIDENT said that if a trail were constructed, there would be people walking on private land • 1768 Dodd Road Ms. Farber said that some of the parks in the area would benefit from the park dedication allowing for upgrades and improvements for the parks. • Holly Farber, 625 Marie Avenue Ms. Farber would like to see a park in the vicinity in which the residents could walk to without crossing busy streets. Ms. Farber concurs it's not a practical use for this area, but would like to see the money spent on parks closest to them. Vice Chair Betlej said that anyone with concerns /suggestions about the existing parks should attend the Parks Commission meetings. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there were other NURP ponds in the area, and if so, does the city maintain those? Mr. Danielson said that there are lots of ponds that the City needs to maintain all through the city. NURP ponds are relatively new and the City has not had to maintain any to date. Sentiment problems are worst during construction and the ponds are monitored extensively, and necessary equipment such as silt fences are in place. Seeing no one else wanting to speak, COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. VICE CHAIR BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE , TO APPROVE: 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 1) THE VARIANCE FOR LOT 5, BLOCK 1 WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND AS IT EXISTS WOULD NOT BE A REASONABLE USE OF THIS PARCEL 2) THE HIDDEN CREEK PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON THE STIPULATIONS THAT ARE IN THE PLANNER'S REPORT, UNDER SECTION TWO: a. Item A b. Item B c. Item D d. Item E with the width specified as 80 -ft. e. Item F f. Item G as modified for landscaping plans for outlots A, B, C, and D being accepted as submitted g. Item I h. Item J i. Item K replaced by Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $43,500 3) THE WETLAND PERMITS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE SUBMITTED PLANS, AND TO MAKE THE SCENIC EASEMENTS AND WETLAND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE MADE PART OF THE PLAT 4) AGREEMENT OF THE EASEMENT ACCESS ISSUES TO THE THREE LOTS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. Further Discussion For clarification of the motion on the floor, Commissioner Hesse referred to Item H, which was originally put in to require tree preservation plans that are to be prepared for the development of individual lots. Commissioner Hesse said that if this were the case, would it be acceptable to ask for tree preservation plans for the review purposes on a per lot basis, or is this something that will be assumed the homeowner will preserve as many trees as they can. Mr. Grittman said that staff will be comfortable with the understanding the intent is to preserve as many trees as possible. Commission M. McManus said she would be comfortable with that as long as it's based on Staff `s approval. Vice Chair Betlej added that this is typical of the permit process. Commissioner B. McManus said that this is a very complex plan. He said that rarely does the Commission get involved with plans by developers that not only affect the immediate area that is being developed, it affects a large number of neighbors, as well as the quality of life and the value of their property. Commissioner B. McManus said that he is very content with the quality of work that has been put in to project. Commissioner B. McManus said that he is not satisfied that the developer has paid enough attention to the neighbors to the south and to the north, what will happen to the drainage, and as representing Commissioner Friel, he will not be voting for this. Commissioner B. McManus said that he does not believe the developer has intentions to hurt anybody, but he feels the developer does not care enough about the property values and the welfare of the property owners abutting on the north and south, as well as those along the creeks. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification of the park dedication fee as 29 lots @ $1,500 per lot to equal a total sum of $43,500, as opposed to the proposed 19 lots @ $1,500 per lot. Mr. McGinley said this was correct. Vice Chair Betlej said that the City also has raised the fee from $1,400 per lot since the last proposal was before them. 12 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 Commissioner M. McManus said that she understands the motion in regards to the wetlands, and shares some of the concerns addressed by Commissioner B. McManus regarding monitoring. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there were any previous monitoring processes used in past practices, to review the functioning of these wetlands for flooding. If not, how will the operations of the wetlands and ponds might be looked at in terms of some ongoing monitoring during and after development. Mr. Danielson said that storm water is always a work in progress. The City is constantly monitoring and maintaining the system. Mr. McGinley said that subsequent to the preliminary approval, and starting prior to and continuing through the final designs, the developer must do a hydrology study of the entire drainage basin. 3 Ayes 1 Nayes (Commissioner B. McManus) Motion Carried. Mr. Hollister said that this goes to City Council on May 7th, subject to resolution of the easement situation. Commissioner M. McManus asked that the individuals that were not notified of the meeting be located to make sure they are on the mailing list for upcoming meetings. PLANNING CASE #02 -08 JOHN AREHART 1305 KENDON LANE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Grittman introduced this case requesting a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a detached garage located at 1305 Kendon Lane. This case had been brought before the Commission at a previous meeting, but the applicant withdrew at that time to re- design his proposal, to relocate the proposed detached garage from what was previously on the east side, now being on the west side. Mr. Grittman reviewed the layout of the proposal. Mr. Grittman said there was an existing driveway slab on the west side of the home, and that conflicts with the east side location. Staff recommended that the applicant consider a design that would be similar to the house in terms of roof pitch, and those changes have been made. The proposed garage now being located on the west side has raised a new issue because of the distance between the house and the west property line, even narrowing the garage from the original would still result in some encroachment of the 10 -ft required sideyard setback. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and believes the applicant has done a design that is in keeping with the property and the neighborhood. Staff also recommends approval of a 1 -ft. variance to allow for a 20 -ft. by 26 -ft. garage. Commissioner Hesse asked for clarification if the request is to grant a variance along with the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Grittman said that was a case where during the redesigning, it was noticed that the variance would be needed, and therefore will be included. Mr. Hollister said that this practice was used before and that the Commission will be voting on both the variance and the Conditional Use Permit. 13 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 Vice Chair Betlej asked who established the measurements, and requested verification of its accuracy. Mr. Arehart said that these were the builder's drawings and that the builder had staked the measurements. Commissioner B. McManus asked if Mr. Arehart could decrease the size of the garage by 1 -ft, and increase by 1 -ft. on the end. Mr. Arehart said that the standard trusses determine whether it could be 20 -ft, 22 -ft., or 26 -ft. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Arehart each have a Suburban and need extra width in order to get in to the vehicle. Commissioner B. McManus said this would not be justified as a hardship, but a convenience, and that Mr. Arehart did the best he could to fit this in. Vice Chair Betlej said that if any street in Mendota Heights needed a garage, this would be it. He also recommends not making the garage narrower because of the space limitations in accessing the vehicle. Vice Chair Betlej said that the hardship could be due to the request of the City as Mr. Arehart was asked to respond to the Commission's comment to redesign, which Mr. Arehart had done. Vice Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY STAFF. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. Mr. Hollister said that this goes to City Council on May 7th PLANNING CASE #02 -12 JEROLD HOBBS 1065 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Mr. Grittman reviewed the request to subdivide a parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Wagon Wheel Trail. The existing parcel has a home on the very eastern portion. The parcel will be subdivided into two lots, one lot being approximately 16,000 -sq. ft. located at the intersection of Lexington 14 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 and Wagon Wheel Trail, and the other lot which contains the existing house is located east of that and is approximately 18,000 -sq. ft. Mr. Grittman said there are a few issues relating to the property and the subdivision would meet the standard of the lot dimension and would qualify for R -1 zoning. There are code violations on the property relating to fencing, accessory buildings, vehicle storage, and an existing driveway that is in excess of city standards. The fencing, driveway, and accessory building encroach on the neighboring property. Mr. Grittman said there are park dedication fee requirements that accompany a subdivision. The County may need to address any right -of -way concerns. Drainage and utility easements are to be reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr.Grittman said that some right -of -way would be requested as part of the subdivision along Wagon Wheel and the City Engineer's office has requested that a certain amount of Wagon Wheel Trail be dedicated in order to allow Wagon Wheel be aligned to a 90 degree intersection with Lexington Avenue. This would then raise setback concerns, and Staff will work with the applicant to make sure the required setbacks are satisfied. Vice Chair Betlej said that the report indicates the lot to be squared, giving a triangle of land from Parcel A and B to the City. Vice Chair Betlej said there may be a concern with the cars queuing up at the intersection. He said that it may not be necessary to have this triangle go across the length of both lots, but could be accomplished by using 100 -ft. through Lot A. This would give drivers turning onto Lexington Avenue a sufficient view at a 90- degree angle. Mr. Grittman said that is possible, and the intent of making this angle is to allow traffic from Wagon Wheel onto Lexington have better visibility. Staff will continue to work on this intersection to find the best alignment. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the requirements for right -of -ways of the County are known, and would these requirements supercede the City's. Mr. Grittman said he was not sure and is not aware of any County requirements pertaining to right -of -ways. Commissioner M. McManus said that the proposal of the City Engineering as to the safety and visibility concerns should be stated to be consistent with the County's requirement. Vice Chair Betlej asked if there were any requests during the building of other developments along Lexington Avenue from the County for more right -of -way. Mr. Danielson said that those were plats and the County has the right to take, but in a lot subdivision, it is unclear as to what the County can do. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the issue is that the intersection is not a perfect 90- degree angle, or are there other visibility issues? Mr. Grittman said the issue is related to the fact that the intersection is not a 90- degree angle. Mr. Danielson said the road is offset to the north and there is only 50 -ft of right -of -way on Wagon Wheel Trail. Wagon Wheel Trail requires 60 -ft. of right -of -way. Commissioner Hesse asked Mr. Grittman to illustrate the triangular portion of the property that is designated along the south side. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification regarding noise insulation requirements. Mr. Grittman said this was just information and that it is the applicant's responsibility to install the required insulation when they place a house on the lot. 15 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 Mr. Jerold Hobbs said there were discussions a few years ago with Mr. Danielson regarding the triangle. He reviewed the site map and explained where the City wants to change the lot lines. Mr. Hobbs said he currently has a house that is sitting on wheels on Dodd Road and is planning to move to Lot A. This home would be for his son, Dean Hobbs. A garage is planned to be attached at a later time. Mr. Hobbs said his accessory buildings and fences are over the lot line, but the neighbors have not complained. He is going to take the existing fence down and reconstruct a new one. Mr. Hobbs said that he never had any problems over the years with his neighbors. Vice Chair Betlej said that these issues are better handled by the Code Enforcement Officer, and the Commission is to address the subdivision issue only. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there is a water connection for the new building. Mr. Hobbs said the City told him that he would have hookups installed at the time the City put in the sewer and water along. Mr. Hobbs said he paid $365.00 for both the sewer and water hookups, and now he was informed that he only had sewer hookup. In regards to the vehicle storage issue, Mr. Hobbs said his vehicles are licensed and insured. He said he has some trailers on the property. Mr. Hobbs said that he doesn't have adequate room in his driveway to park all of his vehicles. Mr. Hobbs said it make no sense to him why the City wants to take away the triangle portion of his land. Vice Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Sheila and Dave Palme, 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail, shared pictures and commented on some concerns regarding the Hobb's property. Mr. Palme read to the Commission the City's Vision Statement. He said that he does not want to see an older home placed in the neighborhood, and would like to see some newer homes come into the area. While the Palmes have nothing against the Hobbs, the condition of the property is deteriorating. Mr. Palme commented on the practices on the family's racing activities. The pictures he shared have showed: • An existing auto repair business. Mr. Palme questioned this usage in an R -1 zoning district, as well as the requirements for the storage of hazardous materials on the site. • Auto demolition cars • Junk cars • Burning rubbish • A burning pit that have phone books, carpet, plastic, and other environmentally hazardous materials Mr. Palme gave a petition containing thirty -three names of people to Mr. Hollister for the record. Vice Chair Betlej said that these issues should be brought to the City Council, as the Commission's responsibility is to review the subdivision only. These items are better addressed by the City Council and the Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Palme asked the Commission to not grant this variance until some of the issues are resolved. 16 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 Dale Hobbs, the applicant's son, said that he grew up in this home. The cars are racecars, not demolition derby cars. The Hobbs family has been in auto racing for many years. Mr. Hobbs said that the fence is in place to encompass the junk. Mr. Dale Hobbs said that his son would be dealt with in concerns with his activities in racing and burning. Mr. Jerold Hobbs, the applicant, said that his son and grandson are in the process of trying to get a home on the property, and get it set up and the junk will be gone. Vice Chair Betlej said it is hard for the Commission to make calls on these issues. Vice Chair Betlej said tonight's discussion should be solely directed to the issue of the subdivision. Commissioner B. McManus said that the City Council does not get involved in these issues. Commission B. McManus asked if there are any standing rules and regulations, someone around to look this over, and do we have an authoritative opinion on these differences of opinions? Mr. Hollister said that there are various regulations that cover the situations that have been described, such as the fire codes, building codes, and zoning codes. The State and County have certain rules and regulations — environmentally and otherwise - -- so there are various bodies involved in enforcing these matters. It is Mr. Hollister's understanding that all of the issues described have had attention in one way or another to this property. Mr. Hollister said that, to his knowledge, there have never been any specific violations cited on this property despite the review of all those various authorities. Mr. Hollister said that the City Council does sometimes get directly involved as far as code enforcement matters when there is a matter of interpretation. Ninety to ninety -five percent of these things are handled on a Staff level, be it City, County, or State. Mr. Hollister said there are some cases where there are the City's specific ordinance and sometimes matters come down to matters of interpretation and sometimes the City Council is called directly intervene. Vice Chair Betlej said that Mr. Palme obviously has a petition, along with pictures, and had an issue that is within his rights to ask the City Staff to step in and take a look and enforce if necessary. Commissioner M. McManus asked about the condition of the house to be moved. Commissioner M. McManus said that, based on the analysis, the house will meet the standards. Commissioner M. McManus asked the question based on the size of the garage, and other measurements of structures to make sure they meet the required setbacks upon being placed on the land. Mr. Grittman said that the only items that Staff will comment on would be for concern setbacks and the size of buildings. Mr. Grittman said that the Building Inspector would have to review the condition of the building itself as well as any upgrades that may need to be made to meet code prior to occupancy. Commissioner B. McManus said that under the Analysis section of the Planner's Report, Item #5 states that "There are a number of code violations on the existing property that may be addressed with the subdivision." Commissioner B. McManus asked if this is legitimately a part of the Commission's deliberations? Mr. Grittman said that the Commission might add recommendations on those items as part of the review of the subdivision, that they be separate from the house issue itself because the house would be a separate permitting process. 17 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 Vice Chair Betlej said that his previous comments were based on burning, permits, dumping, etc., in order to separate from the issues that were solely based on planning zoning issues. Commissioner M. McManus said that the items that are addressed as code violations might be addressed as part of the subdivision. Commissioner McManus asked if the Commission would be considering those with the subdivision or not. Mr. Grittman said that these are items that have a zoning standard attached to them. Because of that, the Commission may choose to make a part of the planning review. Mr. Palme said that the connection he was trying to make is that the cars were parked down on the property, but were recently moved. Mr. Palme said that ethical standards should be applied to everyone, and asked if there are any other residences in the city where this kind of activity is occurring. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION AND THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT -OF -WAYS AS DISCUSSED WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 1) THE APPLICANT ADDRESSES THE CODE VIOLATIONS AS MENTIONED IN THE PLANNER'S REPORT 2) PAY THE REQUIRED PARK DEDICATION FEE 3) APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY, AND COMPLIANCE WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS MADE FOR LEXINGTON AVENUE 4) ADDITION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AS NOTED. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. This proposal will go before the City Council on May 7th PLANNING CASE #02 -13 ROYAL REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of Royal Redeemer Lutheran Church, and reviewed the applicant's request for seeking an amendment to its Conditional Use permit for an existing daycare facility. The 18 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 daycare facility wishes to relocate some equipment and construct a new playground area as well as a formal garden area along Victoria Curve. Mr. Grittman said that the garden does not require specific zoning approval. The relocation of the playground is before the Commission primarily because it affects the site plan. There appears to be no issues related to the location of the playground. Mr. Grittman said that because of the location of the playground, the fencing requirements stated that the fence needs to be no higher than 36 inches and at least 30% open. If there were any proposed different construction of the fence, this would need to be addressed as part of the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Jenn Moenck Feige, Coordinator, RRCCC Research and Community Services, is spearheading this playground project. She said she is working with the Rev. Connie L. McCallister with this project and feels this is clear -cut in terms of the plans. In regards to the fence, Ms. Moenck Feige said that is not an issue, and is not in the plans, as the supplier of the playground equipment does not do fencing. Rev. McCallister said that a fence will be installed according to requirements and would be chain -link. Vice Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wanting to speak, COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PROPOSED, AND WITH THE CONDITION THE APPLICANT VERIFIES THEIR STATE LICENSE. It is noted for the record that Ms. Moenck Feige gave the daycare's state license to Mr. Hollister. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. This will be before the City Council's May 7ch meeting. PLANNING CASE #02 -14 MENDOTA HEIGHTS UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST 680 HIGHWAY 110 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the church to operate a daycare facility for 30 children, and eventually increase to 60 children. Mr. Grittman said that this is an additional use of the site 19 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 and pointed out that daycare operations initiate increased traffic that would be concentrated at certain times of the day, and the way the parking lot is designed, it is conceivable that there may be some congestion. Mr. Grittman said that there does not appear to be adequate area for bus traffic on the site without having to modify the parking lot, which would be possible by expanding the northwest corner of the driveway to allow for a bus to turn around. The church has indicated that the daycare will also include a "latch -key" program for school children and there is a potential for some school bus traffic. Mr. Grittman said the location of the outdoor play area is located near an existing septic system, presumably a drainfield in that area. Mr. Grittman said that the church would need to verify that are not going to affect the operation of the septic system by placing the playground on or near it. Mr. Grittman said that this might be an appropriate time for look at hooking into the city sewer system. Commissioner M. McManus said that if there were not a city sewer hookup available, would this on -site sewer system accommodate increased use? Mr. Grittman said that the Engineering Staff or other appropriate staff would have to answer that question. Vice Chair Betlej asked if this was part of the process of licensing a daycare facility. Mr. Grittman said he is not aware of that. Mr. Hollister said that the applicant or the applicant's contractor would have to provide the City with insurance that the sanitary system that is currently on the site is adequate to handle additional use. Mr. Hollister believes that the State is also involved and would like to know about it. Mr. Hollister said that Pastor Townsend - Anderson told him that the church is perfectly adequate in all respects to handle this daycare facility, and in fact, will not need to make any modifications. Mr. Hollister said that the church would have to document this information as part of the process. Pastor Richard Townsend- Anderson, of Mendota Heights United Church of Christ stated his residence address as 1070 0 Zieglar Avenue, Brooklyn Park, MN. Pastor Townsend- Anderson said that in regards to the busing, the church was not intending to use that area of the parking lot, as it's restricted for the use of the choir. Pastor Townsend- Anderson said this was an access door, which is useful for a fire plan. The church was planning on having the children use the front of the church, and presently buses do come into the parking lot and circles the facility. Pastor Townsend - Anderson said that the church has a good relationship with their neighbor, the Dodge Nature Center. The church provides additional parking for buses that bring children to the Nature Center. He added that a few years ago, the Sanctuary was built, and a new drainage field and septic system was installed at that time. The system has proven to be adequate to the present usage, which is 2 church meetings (75 to 100 people), and Sunday Service (200 people), and 2 Sunday Schools that equal the kind of usage planned to during the week, Monday through Friday. The Sunday School, K -6, has approximately 20 children. The Hope Korean Presbyterian Church rents the facility and has a Sunday School of about 35 children, including up to high school students. Pastor Townsend - Anderson said there has not been Church Council approval received yet for the Latchkey program. The congregation will meet one more time to grant approval for this project. The Church Council will be meeting in 2 weeks, and it is anticipated there will be no problems. Pastor Townsend - Anderson 20 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 reviewed the site plan with the Commission. He said there will an addition of a large playset, and the outside area for the children to play is in a setting of natural plants and grasses. The children are closely supervised when outside. No other changes are anticipated. Vice Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Dave Napier, representing Dodge Nature Center, is the building and grounds director. Mr. Napier would like a copy of the plan to take back to the Nature Center to report. He is in favor of the proposed daycare. He asked what the setback on the south side is. Mr. Grittman said it's extensive according to the survey, and the church is a long way from the property line. Pastor Townsend - Anderson discussed additional layout of the property and landscaping. Mr. Napier said that the Dodge Nature Center is in support of this project. Reverend McCallister said that when the church begins their daycare, Royal Redeemer Childcare Inc. would be going for the first license and setting it up. The church has to have the building cleared first through the City, and then the Fire Marshall must get approval, and then Royal Redeemer Childcare, Inc. will go back to the State for the licensing. When the daycare is turned over to the Mendota Heights United Church of Christ congregation, then another license will need to be applied for. Seeing no one else wanting to speak, COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B.MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE CONDITION THE APPLICANT SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE STATE LICENSE. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. Verbal Review • Front yard setback variance on William Court was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. • Variance for a front yard width and subdivision of Roseville Properties was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission • Town Center PUD and other approvals were approved subject to the applicant, Carolyn Krall, answering all the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Danielson provided a summary of the conditions and Ms. Krall's response to them to the Commission. 21 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2002 COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO ADJOURN. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 22