Loading...
2002-07-23 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 23, 2002 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 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: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Betlej, Dolan, and M. McManus. City Staff present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Excused: Commissioners Friel and Hesse. Chair Lorberbaum informed the Commission of material provided by the Community Development Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The following corrections were made and should be reflected in the minutes of June 25, 2002: Page 6, 7th sentence, change "it" to "if'. The new sentence should read "Mr. Grittman said the ordinance does not allow for two garages on the property, and if the new structure were to serve as the garage, there would have to be some relocation of the driveway, and the existing attached garage would have to be addressed." Page 9, middle of page where it says: "Chair Lorberbaum said there is no need to a sign that large in order for people to find St. Thomas Academy." This sentence should read "Chair Lorberbaum said there is no need to have a sign that large for people to find St. Thomas Academy." Page 9, last paragraph, first sentence should read: "Commissioner Friel said that the existing sign, which complies, creates a safety hazard." Page 13, first paragraph, :Family Hills" should be changed to "Friendly Hills ". Page 13 — add to the motion "considering this as a private academy." The motion should read: "COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVAL THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE EXISTING B1 ORDINANCE, CONSIDERING THIS AS A PRIVATE ACADEMY, WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAGE PLANS THAT DEMONSTRATE MINIMAL IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY." 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 Page 14 — add to the motion "that if the Council feels this use is not currently listed ", and change "many" to "may ". The motion should read: "COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, THAT IF THE COUNCIL FEELS THIS USE IS NOT CURRENTLY LISTED, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY MAY AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE "Marital Arts Studios and Academies" TO THE B -1 CONDITIONAL USES, IF THEY SO DESIRE." COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2002 AS CORRECTED. 3 Ayes 0 Nayes 2 Abstentions (Commissioners B. McManus and M. McManus) Motion Carried. PLANNING CASE #02 -25 SHEILA AND JIM ROTHMAN 778 HAVENVIEW COURT WETLANDS PERMIT Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a wetland permit for a dock that extends over the wetland. The dock has already been constructed prior to any permits being granted. The city's wetland ordinance requires special permitting for any construction or alterations to the land within 100' of the wetland. Mr. Grittman reviewed a drawing of the cantilever dock, which shows the dock extending over the pond by 6'. Mr. Grittman said that although the applicant has done significant landscaping work around the property in connection with constructing this dock, the visual impact of the dock counters the intent of the wetland ordinance. Mr. Grittman said the recommendation is to approve the dock, with the condition to restructure the dock so it does not extend over the edge of the wetland. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there were ordinances specifically denying any docks. Mr. Grittman said he is not aware of any ordinance that does not allow docks. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Danielson for any history in relation to docks. Mr. Danielson said there was one that was denied, and he would have to research the reasoning of this denial. Chair Lorberbaum asked if this was a pond or a wetland. Chair Lorberbaum said that in looking at the information provided, it seems the land is owned up to halfway into the wetland by the homeowner. Mr. Grittman said the DNR defines water body by distinguishing between lakes and wetlands, many wetlands having standing water that are commonly called ponds. Mr. Grittman said this area is considered a wetland, and 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 can exist partially or entirely on private property. In this case, the private property extends into the middle of the wetland. Commissioner Dolan asked for clarification that the City does not have an ordinance that prohibits docks, but that the wetland ordinance prohibits any construction within the wetland and wetland buffer. Mr. Grittman said yes. Commissioner Dolan asked how this issue came before the Commission. Mr. Danielson said the City received a complaint. Commissioner M. McManus asked why it was allowed to have a dock inside the 100' buffer area. Mr. Grittman said the City has the authority to grant permits for these types of structures within the 100' buffer, and the City is required to review each application to make sure construction is done according to the intent of the wetland ordinance. It has been viewed by the Planner that the improvements made by the Rothmans have been sensitively done with natural materials and is not abusive to the environment. Commissioner M. McManus asked Mr. Grittman if he has discussed with the applicant how this dock could be restructured. Mr. Grittman said no. Commissioner M. McManus asked how the dock could be restructured. Mr. Grittman referred to the drawing to show how this could be done. Commissioner B. McManus referred to another dock on this wetland. Mr. Danielson said the City has not been notified that the homeowner applied for a permit in that instance. Commissioner B. McManus said the dock appears to have been there for a length of time, and is located to the east of the Rothman's property. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the City made an exception in this case. Mr. Danielson said the only case he recalls pertaining to a dock issue on another pond was denied. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there were any prohibition on changing the land within the 100' boundary. Mr. Grittman said the ordinance recommends the use of natural plant materials, but there is no specific prohibition. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there were any direction in history to talk about use of wetland regarding visual aspects versus actual use of the wetland. Mr. Grittman said there is nothing in the wetland ordinance that addresses recreational use. Mr. Danielson said the use of non - motorized watercraft is allowed in the wetlands. Commissioner Dolan asked if this dock could be moved back without further damaging the wetlands. Mr. Grittman said that during construction, there is an impact on the ground surrounding the structure. It is then required to restore that ground area to protect from erosion and replace with natural materials. Jim Rothman, 778 Havenview Court, apologized for not obtaining a permit because he was not aware he needed one. Mr. Rothman said a lot of buckthorn and vines choking out trees were removed. The Rothmans have planted sumac and tall grasses, adding to the existing honeysuckle and other plants have since regrown. Mr. Rothman said his structure was not considered a dock as it has no piers going into the water. Mr. Rothman spoke on preserving the natural aspect of this pond. Mr. Rothman compared the visual aspects of his dock against the bridge that currently crosses the pond, and asked what his dock was hurting. Mr. Rothman referred 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 to pictures of his property that he shared with the Commission. Mr. Rothman said he would shorten the dock, but not to the extent that is recommended, as he feels the dock would not be visible from any angle except directly across the pond. Mr. Rothman referred to the existing dock nearby and said this dock extended further than his dock. Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Rothman why he would not consider moving the dock as the Planner suggested. Mr. Rothman said this dock is used to put their canoe in the water, as well as having his grandchildren playing on the dock. Commissioner Betlej said that dragging the canoe along the ground to get it into and out of the water might cause some damage. Mr. Rothman referred to the drawing to show how the dock is anchored to the ground, with nothing actually touching the water. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there is a homeowners association for this body of water. Mr. Rothman said there is an informal pond committee. Commissioner B. McManus asked what the nature of the complaint is. Mr. Rothman said that during a pond committee meeting, there was a gentleman who lived across the pond who has expressed concerns that the pond is not the way it used to, the water level being higher and the shoreline being different. Mr. Rothman feels that once permission is granted to develop that area, it will not look the way it used to be. Commissioner M. McManus said she is concerned about a complaint that has been directed toward one individual and not the other homeowner with the existing dock. Commissioner M. McManus said it is possible that a complaint could be issued against the other homeowner regarding that dock as well. Chair Lorberbaum said this is something that needs to be considered. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Jeff Domler, 772 Havenview Court, said there is not a homeowners association, and this other dock on the pond has been there for over one year. Mr. Domler finds the Rothman's property to be a very natural setting and the Rothmans have done an exceptional job. Mr. Domler says he is concerned about having the dock set back as the water levels vary from year to year. Mr. Domler said he sees nothing intrusive about the Rothman's dock. CHAIR B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS PRESENTED. Further Discussion Commissioner Betlej said the logic behind his motion is that the Rothmans have done a good job in their willingness to remove weeds and replace with plantings, giving adequate screening. Commissioner Betlej said the nature of the property slopes down, allowing run from the street into the back yard before it runs into the lake. This site does not impact the lake to a big degree. Commissioner M. McManus expressed her concern for other applications, and asked how far should the ordinance allow a structure to extend into the wetland. Commissioner M. McManus said she feels the Rothmans have acted in the attempt to protect the wetland and improve the natural environment. Commissioner M. McManus was previously in support of the request, but is now concerned that this may generate other questions regarding standards. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission tries to look at each request individually. Commissioner Dolan said he shares Commissioner M. McManus' concerns. Commissioner Dolan expressed his concern regarding the "after the fact" variances, when the applicant applies for the permit with the structure already in place. Commissioner Dolan is concerned about setting precedence by allowing docks since the trend has been contrary to that. Chair Lorberbaum said there needs to be some standards applied for docks, as there are a lot of issues being raised. Chair Lorberbaum said the Rothmans have done a beautiful job in their yard, but is concerned about the length of the structure extending over the pond. Commissioner M. McManus said if this request is denied, she would not want to see the applicant have to remove the structure. Commissioner M. McManus would like to see a way to restructure the existing dock. Chair Lorberbaum said the motion could be amended to add the recommendation to the Planner to recommend the dock be shortened to avoid extending over the pond. Commissioner M. McManus said there needs to be a standard set for the length of docks. Commissioner B. McManus said he does not like the "after the fact" requests, but cannot find any discernable impact on this dock hanging out a foot or two over the waters edge. He sees no impact made on the area. Mr. Grittman said the Planner's standard has been to allow structures with a maximum of zero encroachment. Commissioner B. McManus said he is willing to raise the issue as to where the shore really is, as it varies from year to year. Commissioner B. McManus said the other dock extends about 15' into the water and that is definitely an encroachment. It is possible the Rothman's dock could be hanging over sand next year. Commissioner Betlej said he supports the cantilever structure as no part actually sits in the water. 2 AYES (Commissioners B. McManus and Betlej) 3 NAYS (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners Dolan and M. McManus) 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 MOTION DEFEATED COMMISSIONER DOLAN, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION TWO OF THE PLANNER'S REPORT, THAT BEING TO MOVE THE DOCK BACK TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZERO ENCROACHMENT. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus asked who will discern what encroachment is with the varied water levels. Commissioner Dolan said the engineers measure that all the time and believes it is based on the average water level. Mr. Danielson said the DNR has established this pond to be relatively high on a normal basis. Commissioner Betlej said the neighbors have commented that the level has been down on occasion. Chair Lorberbaum said there has been no discussion regarding payment of double fees, and the Commission is not recommending this issue. 3 AYES (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners Dolan and M. McManus) 2 NAYS (Commissioners B. McManus and Betlej) MOTION CARRIED This case will go before the City Council on Tuesday, August 6, 2002. PLANNING CASE #02 -26 ROYAL REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH VARIANCE FOR FENCE HEIGHT Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a 12" height variance for the construction of a 48" fence around a new play area to be constructed. The ordinance currently requires a 36" maximum height. Mr. Grittman said the applicant indicated a recommendation that fences serving this type of purpose be 48" in height, but there are no specific state or government requirements. Staff feels there is no hardship, and it may be appropriate to add a condition regarding the materials used in the construction of the fence. Commission M. McManus asked about the location of the new playground. Mr. Grittman referred to the site plan showing where the playground would be located. Mr. Grittman said because of the layout of the property, the new playground would be located away from the current one. Commissioner M. McManus said the type of fencing was not previously discussed. Mr. Grittman said the assumption was that the fence would meet the code if it is proper height. 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 Commissioner Dolan asked if there was a fence currently around the area. Mr. Grittman said there was currently a 36" chain link fence around the area. Chair Lorberbaum said the question is whether the church wishes to replace a 36" section of fence with a new 48" fence. Commissioner Dolan asked what type of material would be used. Mr. Grittman said an option would be to coat the fence, paint it, or landscape around it. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman if he has reviewed the Minnesota Childhood Guidelines. Mr. Grittman said no. Chair Lorberbaum said she has a copy of the guidelines, which do not recommend a specific height. Chair Lorberbaum said she spoke with state officials as well as a childcare provider in the area, and finds nothing that would take precedence over the city's zoning ordinance. Chair Lorberbaum said the childcare provider she spoke to said it is assumed the rules would follow the current city ordinances. Mr. Grittman said the recommendation is to not approve the variance due to the lack of hardship, however if the Commission desires to be more sympathetic to the church's request, an alternative could be in place to lessen the aesthetic impact. Mary Moore, Administrative Secretary for Royal Redeemer Lutheran Church, 1960 Lexington Avenue South, said when the daycare started, it was assumed that a new fence to match the existing fence would be installed. Ms. Moore said the church received approval from the Mendota Heights City Council and the Planning Commission to construct a 48" fence for the first existing fence as well as the fence around the existing playground. Ms. Moore said a higher fence would deter children from climbing over. Commissioner B. McManus asked if it was necessary to locate the proposed playground away from the existing one. Ms. Moore said the attempt is to separate the two playgrounds in order to separate the children by age, and the location for the proposed playground was larger. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the fence, which is located closer to the road, had a special variance requested. Mr. Grittman did not know as this happened before he worked with the City, but assumed that was the case. Chair Lorberbaum referred to her meeting with the childcare provider, and that the childcare provider said it is the teacher's responsibility to watch her students and keep them from climbing over the fences. Chair Lorberbaum asked Ms. Moore if she felt there is a safety hazard. Ms. Moore said the children are supervised very well, but it was the parents who expressed their concerns. Ms. Moore said the church also wishes to match the existing fences. Chair Lorberbaum said a hardship needs to be defined. Chair Lorberbaum said she could not find a hardship and asked Ms. Moore if she could. Ms. Moore said she cannot find a hardship. Commissioner Dolan said it is intuitive that a higher fence would be safer than a shorter fence, given the location. Commissioner Dolan is in support of this request due to the safety issue, and a short fence makes no sense. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED UPON THE LOGIC THAT IT IS A REASONABLE USE GIVEN THE LOCATION AND THE OPERATION ON THE SITE TO HAVE A 48" FENCE RATHER THAN A 36" FENCE. Further Discussion Commissioner Betlej said that with the amount of traffic along Victoria Road, it seems to be more logical to go along with the recommendation of the motion made. Chair Lorberbaum said she will be speaking against it as she finds no hardship. Commissioner M. McManus said the hardship could be related to a "special condition" because of the location of the playground, from the aspect of medium traffic area, and the safety issues for the children in the area. Chair Lorberbaum asked Commissioner M. McManus if she feels this way even though the church chose the location and it's a condition of their making. Commissioner M. McManus said yes. Commissioner B. McManus asked Chair Lorberbaum if she feels it is okay to have the playground located were the church has chosen. Commissioner B. McManus said an extra 12" will not stop balls from flying, but it seems that in addition to any hardship, the Commission has an obligation to consider the situation as a whole. Because the precedence has already been set by someone on the Planning Commission some time ago, it would seem to be common sense to have a higher fence for children slightly older, located in an area which is near traffic. It may not be a hardship, but it may be prudent. Chair Lorberbaum asked for a definition of a hardship as one needs to be identified. Commissioner M. McManus said it could be a special condition related to child safety. Commissioner Dolan said it makes sense to try to make the chain link fence look nicer than it is. Commissioner Dolan said he would amend his motion to look into making the fencing more pleasing to the eye by painting, or any other suggestions that could be made. Chair Lorberbaum asked Commissioner Dolan to be more specific in adding the amendment "to be more pleasing to the eye ", or rather to make it a separate motion. Commissioner Dolan amended the motion to include painting of all the fencing to match. Commissioner B. McManus said he would second the motion if painting were changed to planting. Commissioner B. McManus withdrew his second as Commission Dolan will stay with the painting. 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 Chair Lorberbaum said the motion has been made and second, and amended with a second. The amended motion is as follows: COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED UPON THE LOGIC THAT IT IS A REASONABLE USE GIVEN THE LOCATION AND THE OPERATION ON THE SITE TO HAVE A 48" FENCE RATHER THAN A 36" FENCE, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL FENCING BE PAINTED TO MATCH. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #02 -27 SARA AND TODD HULSE 754 WOODRIDGE DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INTO THREE PROPERTIES Commissioner Dolan excused himself from the discussion of this case due to being a friend of the applicant. Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a lot split of residential land located along Highway 13. Mr. Grittman recalled discussion of this property being addressed a few months ago with a request for subdivision for the southmost triangle, which was conveyed to the adjacent neighbor. The lot split would contain three parcels: Parcels A and B to be owned by Sara and Todd Hulse, and Parcel C would be purchased by Terry Russell. Mr. Grittman said the existing home is on Parcel A, and a new building pad would be located on Parcel B. Mr. Grittman said both these parcels are well in excess of the minimal requirements for the sizes of the lots. Mr. Grittman said the existing home on Parcel A has a driveway easement across the neighbor to the north, Mr. George Tesar, 731 Woodridge Drive Mr. Grittman said the driveway for Parcel B would not have direct frontage to Woodridge Drive and would require a 259' driveway easement acquired across Parcel A. Because of this, there is issue with having two separate parcels using Mr. Tesar's easement. Commissioner B. McManus asked where the driveways would intersect. Mr. Grittman said that needs to be worked out with the property owner. Mr. Grittman referred to the site plan and pointed out how the driveways could be located. The site plan shows a proposed driveway from the cul -de -sac into Parcel B. Commissioner B. McManus said the driveway going onto Parcel B will be cutting close to the residence on Parcel A. Commissioner Betlej asked if Parcel C will be a lot created without access. Mr. Grittman said this parcel was approved previously and was not considered part of this discussion. 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 Commissioner Betlej asked what the slope requirement is in the Critical Area. Mr. Grittman said structures have a 40' setback from the bluff line, and the requirement is a 40% slope, which will be changed to 18% in the near future. Mr. Grittman said the house that will be built on Parcel B will be considered in the Critical Area. Mr. Grittman said Parcel B has legal frontage along Highway 13, but a driveway coming from Highway 13 is impractical due to the slope. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there are two garages (one attached, one detached) located on Parcel A. Mr. Grittman said yes. Chair Lorberbaum said with new ownership and the ability to put the parcels in compliance, the applicant could be asked to remove the detached garage thus giving more room to accommodate a driveway onto Parcel B. Mr. Grittman said this could be recommended. Commissioner M. Manus said the recommendation creates a combined access to the driveway because of the potential problems accessing the cul -de -sac directly from Parcel B. Mr. Grittman said there is limited opportunities in plowing snow on the cul -de -sac, as well as mail delivery and visitor parking. Mr. Grittman said the Commission may grant the access to be on the cul -de -sac, as there are no regulations prohibiting more curb cuts. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Tesars should have any input as to having another family accessing their driveway. Mr. Grittman said that depends on the language in the easement. Chair Lorberbaum asked how the Commission could make a recommendation when that information is not available at this time. Mr. Grittman visited with the applicant today and she does not have a copy of the easement agreement. Mr. Grittman will have to do some research with Dakota County. Chair Lorberbaum said this issue may be tabled due to lack of information provided at this meeting. Connie Villari, from Loucks McLagan, is the representative for the Hulses. Ms. Villari gave a summarized review of the layout of the parcel as a whole and the progress made for the splits. Ms. Villari also reviewed the survey information. Ms. Villari said the setbacks along the bluff have been set at 18 %. Ms. Villari said the tree preservation of the site has been considered to remove minimal trees, and there have not been any significant changes to the drainage pattern. Ms. Villari asked if anyone approached Public Works to see what the snow removal issues were. Mr. Danielson said Public Works would like to keep as much of the cul -de -sac for snow removal and storage as possible. Chair Lorberbaum said there is a safety concern with distance between driveway curb cuts on the cul -de -sac. Ms. Villari said it is estimated to be 15' between the proposed driveway and the Tesar driveway, and then about 20' to the next driveway. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. George Tesar, 731 Woodridge Drive, said he shares the driveway with the owner of the home located on Parcel A. Mr. Tesar said there were people who tried to develop this acreage. Mr. Tesar said the City Council has disapproved another road into that property. One of the reasons for this denial was lighting of the homes for security reasons. Mr. Tesar said the existing homes have to be well lit in the evening. Mr. Tesar said it would be detrimental to all the neighbors to have another road placed off the cul -de -sac, especially with the snow removal. Mr. Tesar said if a new private road were installed, there would be more parking along the cul -de -sac 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 and would cause problems. Mr. Tesar said there have been numerous break -ins to the homes in the area. Mr. Tesar said he would recommend constructing another driveway parallel to his driveway. Chair Lorberbaum said that because Mr. Tesar owns the driveway, he should have the easement documents. Mr. Tesar said he does and that he only allows one lot to share the driveway. Mr. Tesar asked to see how the proposed driveway would be laid out. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan with Mr. Tesar. Chair Lorberbaum said that because Mr. Tesar's driveway allows only one other residence for the shared driveway, the driveway for the residence to be built on Parcel B would have to use a separate driveway as proposed on the site plan. Terry Russell, 716 Maple Park Court, is the purchaser of Parcel C. Mr. Russell said request for the subdivision for Parcel C has been approved by the City Council. Mr. Russell said he does not wish to see anything placed on Parcel B, as it is a beautiful open space. Regardless of this, Mr. Russell said his concern is drainage and how the runoff will be directed if a new home is constructed on Parcel B. Ann Kamika, 734 Havenview Court, expressed her concerns. Ms. Kamika said snow removal would be limited and she is afraid of the plowing of the snow onto some of the landscaped areas around the cul -de -sac. She is also concerned about having trees removed. David Bolander, 711 Maple Park Court, has no objection to a proposed building on Parcel B, but would like to know how the building pad is locked in. Chair Lorberbaum said the drawing depicts the area as being a buildable lot, and the Commission cannot lock in a specific location for the building as that is up to the owner. Ms. Villiari said the trees shown on the plan to be removed have a circle and "X" around them, and they are in the vicinity of the house pad. Ms. Villiari said the plan is keeping the driveway within 5' off the property line be laid out to minimize the impact of the removal of the trees. Ms. Villari referred to the site plan to further explain how the trees would be affected. Commissioner Betlej referred to the grading lines on the site plan, and that it seems the grading will be going right through the trees. Ms. Villari said the grading will be going around the trees, and that this is a field design issue. The grading can however be brought back further. Ms. Villari said a more detailed design of the house would better show how the trees would be affected. Ms. Villari said she cannot promise that some of the trees will not be removed, but a great effort will be taken to retain as many as possible. Commissioner Betlej said he has a hard time voting on this without the knowledge of intentions of the owner. Ms. Villari said the driveway is coming through the trees as best as possible. Ms. Villari said an arboretist can be brought in if so desired. Commissioner Betlej said removal of trees change the feel of the neighborhood. Commissioner Betlej says he sees about 4 to 5 trees along the lot line may be removed. Ms. Villari said that is possible, but does not think it would have a great impact. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the owner of the property was present. Sara Hulse, owner of the property, said Ms. Villari know more about the design issues and this is the reason Ms. Villari is representing Mrs. Hulse at this time. Ms. Villlari said the drainage on the site would follow the same pattern as it has in the past. Ms. Villari pointed out some of the slight swails that will be constructed, and explained the direction of the water. 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 Chair Lorberbaum asked Mrs. Hulse to approach the podium to answer questions. Ms. Hulse said the house and property is scheduled to close on September 13, 2002. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mrs. Hulse how the driveway would be granted through Parcel A to access Parcel B. Mrs. Hulse said it is her intention to live in the existing house on Parcel A, and to sell Parcel B to her parents for future building of a one level home. Mrs. Hulse said there could also be some deed restrictions added. Mrs. Hulse said the neighbors would not like to share the driveway with another family in addition to her own, and is looking for a different way to lay out the driveway. Mrs. Hulse expressed her willingness to work with the neighbors to lessen the impact. Mrs. Hulse is willing to allow more of the driveway to Parcel B to encroach onto Parcel A if necessary. Mrs. Hulse said the proposal can be changed to accommodate different lot lines as well. Mrs. Hulse said she does not see having so many guests at one time that the cul -de -sac would be greatly affected. Mrs. Hulse said she would also defer to the City on the snow removal issues. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mrs. Hulse if she would be willing to remove the detached garage, as this would bring the property into compliance as well as offer an alternative for another driveway. Mrs. Hulse said the detached garage has been built partially underground. Chair Lorberbaum explained that the removal of the detached garage would bring the property into compliance with the ordinance. Chair Lorberbaum said she does not like having another curb cut in the cul -de -sac for safety and snow removal issues, although this was not the issue as the easement would not allow for another property to access the driveway. Mr. Tesar said he would be more than happy to share the driveway with the new owner of the house, and suggested that if a new driveway is constructed, there will be more in the future. Mr. Tesar said there have been developers wanting to develop that area and the City Council has always denied those requests. Rich Kamikar, 734 Havenview Court, referred to the map to show the location of his driveway. Mr. Kamikar asked to have a 100 -year old white pine to be identified on the site plan. Ms. Villiari explained to Mr. Kamikar how the trees were laid out in the plan, and how it will impact his property. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO TABLE THIS CASE UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW FOR MORE DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO RESOLVE ISSUES INCLUDING CURB CUTS, LOCATION OF DRIVEWAY, OBTAIN BETTER INFORMATION ON TREE REMOVAL, LOCATION OF BUILDING PAD AND DRAINAGE. 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 4 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #02 -28 DAVID NAPIER FOR THOMAS IRVINE DODGE NATURE CENTER 656 HIGHWAY 110 CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT Mr. Grittman showed a map showing the location of the Dodge Nature Center and reviewed the request for a Conditional Use Permit to add an additional accessory building to the property. The applicant has proposed to move an existing barn structure from the Ridder property three miles to the proposed new site at the Rachel C. Lilly Preserve, which is located within a R -1A, one - family residential district. Mr. Grittman said the property is a very large parcel and the barn would be consistent with the settings and surroundings. Planner's recommendation is to approve the conditional use permit with the condition that the applicant work with city staff to ensure consistency with the timing and route of the move. Commissioner Betlej asked to see the location of the barn on the map. Mr. Grittman identified the location on the plan, which would sit on the property line between two parcels, both being owned by the Dodge Nature Center. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification of the moving of the barn. Mr. Grittman said the building might be used for any particular occupancy, and the building inspector may ask to inspect the building before it is moved to identify any issues that could arise after the building has been moved. Issues are primarily those that need to bring things up to code prior to granting an occupancy permit. Dave Napier is the Director of Building and Grounds of the Dodge Nature Center. Mr. Napier said the City Council has approved moving the building to the site, and would now like to have the final footprint approved by the Planning Commission. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman if there would be any problems with knowingly putting this structure on two different parcels. Mr. Grittman said there may be a coding issue as building codes requires certain separation from property lines. Mr. Grittman said given the use of this building, there should not be a problem. Chair Lorberbaum asked if, under a conditional use permit, a recommendation needs to be made that the building not be located on the property line. Mr. Grittman said that was an option, and an alternative would also be to combine the two parcels. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, 13 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MOVE THE ACCESSORY BUILDING BARN TO THE DODGE NATURE CENTER WITH THE CONDITION OF RESOLVING THE LOT LINE ISSUE BY PUTTING THE BUILDING ON ONE PARCEL, OR TO COMBINE THE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE. Further Discussion Commissioner Dolan asked why the condition needs to be considered, unless the Dodge Nature Center wishes to sell that parcel. Commissioner Betlej said it is a technical issue where the setback requirements would not be met. Mr. Grittman said because the line exists, technically there would be setback requirements, and it may be good to encourage removal of the lot line. Commissioner B. McManus suggested to include the wording that they permit inspection by city authorities, as well as coordinate the move with city staff Chair Lorberbaum said that would not be necessary as the Planning Commission is not permitting the move, but allowing the applicant to have a second accessory building on the site. Mr. Danielson said the applicant needs a permit from the Code Enforcement Officer, which falls under a different zoning ordinance. Commissioner B. McManus withdrew his suggestion. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED This case will go before the City Council on Tuesday, August 6, 2002. 14 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 PLANNING CASE #02 -29 DENNY AND CHRIS MATYKIEWICZ 2131 AZTEC LAND VARIANCE TO EXPAND GARAGE Mr. Grittman reviewed the request to build an expansion to an existing attached garage. Mr. Grittman said the setback for the existing garage is 10' from the property line. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is seeking a variance to expand the garage toward the side lot line by 2' in width. Mr. Grittman said the current garage is substandard by area. The ordinance requires 440 sq. -ft. for attached garages, and the existing garage is 390 sq.- ft. Mr. Gritlman said the existing garage is 19.5 -ft. in depth and the standard is 20 -ft. minimum. Mr. Grittman said that while 20 -ft. is the minimum standard, it is more common to have garages 22 -ft. or wider. It is the recommendation of the planner to increase the garage size to 22 -ft., rather than the 21.5 -ft. that is currently being proposed. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is planning to expand their home with another addition in the future, and the garage extension would be a part of that project. The hardship that was identified is that the existing dimension of this garage, both width and area, is under the minimum, and the variance would allow the garage to be brought closer to compliance, and there is no other practical way to expand except to go into the side yard setback to make reasonable use of this property. Chris Matykiewicz, applicant, said she made a mistake when measuring as she measured from the exterior of the wall instead of the inside dimensions. Mrs. Matykiewicz said she would prefer to have the variance extend to the rear of the property to allow continuation of the expansion of the home to the rear. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification of the request from the applicant for the additional square footage being requested. Mrs. Matykiewicz said she originally asked for 21.5 -ft., but would happily take 22 -ft. increase is width. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Gerald Hanson, 2137 Aztec Lane, said he was not in favor of this request as it will bring the Matykiewicz garage closer to his home. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Hanson what impact this would have on his property. Mr. Hanson said that the houses would be closer together. Commissioner Dolan asked if Mr. Hanson's garage was on the side toward the Matykiewicz's. Mr. Hanson said the two garages were next to each other. Mr. Hanson's garage is the same in dimension as the Matykiewicz garage. Mr. Hanson said he could park only one vehicle in his garage. Mrs. Matykiewicz shared pictures of the two garages to show their current distance from each other, as well as a view from the back yard. Mrs. Matykiewicz said there was 10 -ft between the two garages. Mrs. Matykiewicz said in the nineteen years they have lived there, they have never seen Mr. Hanson have a vehicle in his garage. 15 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO APPROVE THE 2.5' VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE GARAGE SIZE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY ORDINANCE, WITH SAID VARIANCE TO BE EXTENDING INTO THE DEPTH OF THE REAR YARD, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE MATERIALS MATCH THE EXISTING HOME. Further Discussion Mr. Grittman said the Commission has the right to limit the extension on the variance into the rear yard if they so desire. Commissioner Dolan said he wishes to include this into the motion for approval. Commissioner Betlej said this is consistent with previous minor variance requests that have been allowed in the Friendly Hills subdivision. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED This case will go before the City Council on Tuesday, August 6, 2002. Verbal Review — Jim Danielson • Planning case #02 -21 - Thomas Scott - House construction in critical area outlay district has been approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. • Planning case #02 -22 - John Heyn - Conditional use permit and variance was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. • Planning case #02 -24 - Elements, Inc.; St. Thomas Academy - Variance for a monument sign was approved. • Planning case #02 -23 - Greg Bolton - Zoning district amendment and conditional use permit was approved. 16 Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 2002 COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 PM. Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 17