Loading...
2002-09-24 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COIVIVIISSION MINUTES September 24, 2002 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7 :30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Friel, Betlej, Dolan, Hesse, and M. McManus. City Staff present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grillivan. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Chair Lorberbaum thanked Commissioner Friel for chairing the meeting of August 27, 2002. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Friel referred to Page 2, second paragraph, second sentence — change the word "over" to "after ". This sentence should read, "Mr. Grittman said this ordinance was adopted after the previous owners application." Commissioner Friel said that when closing the public hearing, it should be stated that when there is 110 one wishing to speak, the minutes should read as follows: "... opened the public hearing, there being no one present wishing to speak, a motion will be asked to close the public hearing." Commissioner Friel referred to Page 4, ninth paragraph, first sentence - add the word "up ". This sentence should read, "Acting Chair Friel said that by putting up an attached garage and getting rid of the other garage door, Mr. Patton could have a 1,200 -sq. ft. garage." COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 27TH AS CORRECTED. 4 Ayes 0 Nayes 3 Abstentions (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioner Betlej and Commissioner Hesse Motion Carried. Planning Commission Meeting September 24,2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #02-34 ROBERT BONINE 688 3RD AVENUE WETLANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW FILL Mr. Grittman reviewed the application to fill the low area of land adjacent to applicant's single family home. The applicant has indicated that storm water from the street routinely overflows the edge of the roadway onto his property, making its way to the wetland area because of the street construction in this area Mr. Grittman said it was the Planner's recommendation to approve this permit with the condition to add some natural landscape buffering in this area to allow for filtering of the water from the street to the wetland area Commissioner B. McManus asked about the drainage pattern. Mr. Grittman said the engineering staff should look over this application. Mr. Grittman said the applicant indicated the water takes a short cut through his property to get to the wetland. Commissioner Friel asked if the area currently had a natural buffer. Mr. Grittman said this correct. Commissioner Betlej asked if any conditions should be added in terms of when this construction is to be performed, as well as having silt fences in place. Mr. Grittman said this would be a common requirement of this type of application. Commissioner Dolan asked about fertilizer from the rimoff into the wetlands. Mr. Grittman said this was a possibility and that is why a natural buffer, such as a cultured landscape, is needed to protect the wetlands. Commissioner Hesse asked if there were two separate wetlands in that area Mr. Grittman referred to the map showing the two different areas. Commissioner Hesse asked if the applicant would be filling in a wetland, or an extension of the wetland. Mr. Grittman said it was his understanding that the applicant had some confirmation of the boundaries of the wetland area Commissioner Hesse said he would like to add the condition that verification is made in writing, from whoever made the delineation, of these boundaries to avoid filling in of any wetland area Commissioner Hesse said the engineer should check to make sure there are no culverts coming into that area where any fill would back up the water. Commissioner Hesse asked for confirmation that the water would come east down 3rd Avenue and dumping through the grass area into the wetland. Mr. Grittman said that was so. Robert Bonine said he contacted Dakota County Water and Soil Conservation and was told this was not a trespassing issue with the county, and was referred to the City of Mendota Heights. Mr. Bonine said that the water that flows down 3rd Avenue past his house, through a culvert that goes underneath 3rd Avenue, and west into a wetland. Mr. Bonine said his intention was to build up the lot and place grasses on it. Mr. Bonine does not want to have water coming off 3rd Avenue because the lot immediately west of his was filled in about 25 years ago, and he would like to fill in the portion of his lot between his home and this other lot to even out the terrain. 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 Commissioner M. McManus asked if the applicant would be okay with putting in a lawn with some natural grasses for a border. Mr. Bonine said that would be fine, as he did not want a mosquito problem in that area. Commissioner M. McManus said the engineering department did not have an opportunity to look at the property and the concerns have been raised as to where the water will be directed. Mr. Bonine said he is confident in working with city staff to determine the water flow. Commissioner Friel asked Mr. Danielson about the curbing of the street. Mr. Danielson said the city is planning on upgrading streets, and this particular area has been identified for the upgrade. Commissioner B. McManus said he is concerned about the street intersection being low and the possibility of flooding of the street. Commissioner B. McManus asked for clarification of what is to be planted. Mr. Grittman said the recommendation is to have a lawn with a natural grass border. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, there being no one present wishing to speak, a motion will be asked to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED 1 <:hair Lorberbaum closed the public hearin COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS PRESENTED SUBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A STRIP OF APPROPRIATE GRASSES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNER, AND TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant to provide a natural landscape border plan to the City Council Meeting. 2. Subject to City Engineer's approval of the grading plan. 3. Applicant to provide a timeline as to when the work will be performed. 4. Verification from Dakota County and/or the City Engineer, that no culverts be affected by filling in this area that is very wet, however not considered a wetland. S. Applicant provides an erosion control plan during the fill. Further Discussion Commissioner Hesse asked to have some documentation of where the wetland areas are Mr. Danielson said the city has a map depicting the wetlands and that the applicant in this case is well within the 100 -ft. of the wetlands. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 24,2002 This recommendation will go to the City Council Meeting on October 1, 2002. Mr. Bonine said he was very impressed with the City Staff in general. Mr. Bonine expressed his appreciation of Linda Shipton, as well as the other staff members, who were helpful, cheerful, and very nice to work with. PLANNING CASE #02-35 DANIEL AND JENNIFER FRANK 999 CHIPPEWA AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE Mr. Grittman reviewed the application to construct a detached garage behind the existing single family home. Mr. Gritttuan referred to the existing driveway that runs along the property line and wraps around the back of the home. Mr. Grittman said the proposal for the garage meets the city's requirements. Mr. Grittman said there is an additional issue, which was raised by this request in that the existing driveway provides access to the property and the applicant has 'indicated an intention to replace the driveway to improve some drainage issues once the garage is constructed. Mr. Grittman said the existing driveway is not in conformance and the Planner's recommendation is to address this issue as a condition to approval. The driveway is about 13' in width and it appears that there would be adequate area for the applicant to reconstruct the driveway to be line conformance with the required 5' setback from the property line. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the reconstruct-ion of the driveway would entail actual removal of the existing driveway to construct a driveway that would be narrower. Mr. Grittman said he is not sure what the applicant has intended as part of their project, but it is his understanding that the applicant has drainage problems. Mr. Grittman said that by cutting some of the driveway off to create the setback, this might give the applicant the opportunity to address these drainage problems. Mr. Grittman said this would affect the neighbor's property as well Mr. Grittman said he had no discussions with the applicant up to this point. Mr. Grittman said the original proposal shows continuing the line of the driveway along the property line, back to where the proposed garage would be located, thus increasing the non-conformity. Mr. Grittman said that if the driveway were reconstructed, the applicant would have to obtain a variance to keep the current width of the driveway along the lot line as the applicant is proposing. Commissioner Friel said there is an ordinance that requires a home to have a garage. Commissioner Friel said the application before the Commission is for a garage, but there is no application with respect to a driveway. Commissioner Friel said that the driveway, however constructed, or reconstructed as there is one there now that gives the needed access, would require that something be permitted, not in conformity with the ordinance because otherwise, it would be required to rebuilt the house as there is not enough space to provide a driveway that's adequate and the setback needed to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Commissioner Friel said that in any event, there is was no application submitted regarding the driveway. Commissioner B. McManus asked Commissioner Friel if he is suggesting there is no need for a decision as the applicant is only asking to build a garage. Commissioner Friel said that was true as there is 110 application 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 )efore the Commission with respect to the driveway. Commissioner Friel said the driveway already exists, and should be grandfathered Commissioner Betlej said that with a conditional use permit, the Commission could attach conditions. Mr. Grittman said it is the opinion of the Planner's Office that this driveway issue is clearly related to the construction of the garage as it is the primary access, and this would be a reasonable condition. Commissioner Friel said he feels this would be inappropriate as there is no reconstruction plans for a non - conforming use at this time Commissioner Friel said he sees no application for anything to do with the driveway, but it is just a suggestion that in the future, the applicant might apply for a permit to reconstruct the driveway. Mr. Grittman said the zoning action the applicant is requesting is for a conditional use permit to build a garage. Chair Lorberbaum said the letter from the applicant states that in response to the drainage issue, the second phase of the project would be to replace the existing asphalt driveway in the spring of 2003. Chair Lorberbaum said that at this point, the applicant is asking only for the conditional use permit for the construction of the garage. Daniel Frank said he was not extending the driveway, but will be building the garage into the existing driveway and there would be no additional paving along side the garage. Mr. Frank said it is his intention to reconstruct the driveway in the spring. Mr. Frank explained his drainage issue and plans to raise the driveway up to divert water from entering his home. Mr. Frank referred to the map and said that to comply with a 5' setback with a dri ` 0' veway would not work in this case. Mr. Frank said the curb is at the property line, and if the driveway needs to be moved, it would not align well with the curb. Mr. Danielson said the driveway has to be 5' from the lot line, and the curb is out in the street and therefore, it not considered to be non - conforming in relation to the private property. Mr. Frank said that in all practicality, the curb would have to be moved over Mr. Danielson referred to the map and explained how the driveway could be constructed to adjoin with the curb cut. If using the scenario presented by Mr. Danielson, Mr. Frank said it would be extremely difficult to get a car through. Commissioner B. McManus asked about the curb on the side of the driveway away from the home, running the length of the driveway, and was told by Mrs. Frank that this curb was not owned by the Franks. Mr. Frank said he believes that curb is owned by the neighbor, and that the neighbor wants that curb to stay there. Commissioner Friel said it was clear to him that the Commission is obtaining information as it is presented, and that information should be provided to the Commission before the meeting. Commissioner Friel reminded the Commission that the application is for the garage, and not for a variance for the driveway. Chair Lorberbaum said Commissioner Friel should feel free to table the discussion until more information can be gathered. Commissioner Betlej asked if the existing shed would be removed. Mr. Frank said it would be removed. Commissioner M. McManus asked Mr. Danielson that if Mr. Frank did an overlay on an existing driveway that took care of his drainage issues, is that any concern of the Commission? Mr. Danielson said that if Mr. Frank would come in for a permit to overlay his driveway, he would be issued one as this is a considered a repair of an existing driveway. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 Mr. Rick Sal, attorney for Phyllis Carlson, the neighbor to the north at 995 Chippewa Avenue, said Ms. Carlson's property was the most affected. Mr. Sal said his client concurs with the recommendation of the planner that the conditional use permit to construct the attached garage add the condition for the reconstruction of the driveway to provide for a setback. Mr. Sal said the drainage problem that the applicant is experiencing should not become a drainage problem for Ms. Carlson. Commissioner Hesse asked Mr. Sal if Ms. Carlson owns the curb. Mr. Sal said Ms. Carlson is not aware to whether the curb in on her property or not, however may be the buffer to prevent water problems on her property, and would like to have the curb continue to be maintained. Commissioner Dolan asked if there are any particular concerns by Ms. Carlson of the current location of the driveway. Mr. Sal said that it was just the fact that the driveway runs up to the lot line and Ms. Carlson would like to some green space between her lot line and the Frank's property as appropriate. Commissioner Dolan asked if there was a way to keep the curb in place and follow the setback. Mr. Sal said he feels that the planner indicated that with reconstruction of the driveway, there would be not enough room. Ms. Carlson said she believes this curb has been there for approximately 30 years. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbanm closed the public hearin COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE WITHOUT CONDITIONS. Further Discussion Commissioner Betlej said that it seems like there is an issue where the existing driveway is causing a drainage problems, it if the driveway is sloped away from the home, where will the water go. Commissioner Friel said it would go against the curb. Commissioner Hesse said he is concerned that the applicant is not being allowed to build something that is in conformance, and is willing to do whatever is necessary as requested by the City, to get that design approved. Commission Hesse said he agrees with Commissioner Friel that the driveway is a different issue. Commissioner Hesse said that approving without conditions still gives the opportunity to deal with the design of the driveway in the future, in accordance with the city's processes. Commissioner Hesse feels the Commission should not deal with what the applicant might do with the driveway, and to address that issue later when and if the applicant desires to reconstruct the driveway at a later date. 7 AYES 0 NAYS C MOTION CARRIED 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 PLANNING CASE #02 -36 DAVID CHAPMAN 2506 HAVERTON CIRCLE VARIANCE FOR FRONT /SIDE YARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENT Mr. Grittman reviewed the applicant to construct a porch on the front of the existing home that would encroach into the front yard setback. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan showing the existing home in relation to the boundaries, and showing that the porch would require a 22' setback, whereas a 30' setback is required. Mr. Grittman said the porch is built to wrap around the front and side of the home, and is about 8' to 9' in width. Mr. Grittman said the hardship expressed by the applicant is that due to the elements, the applicant is having water damage to the front of the home, and the porch is intended to protect the home from further water damage. Mr. Grittman said the applicant also intends to use the porch for recreational purposes and as a result, the dimensions of the porch design would accommodate additional use than which is required. Mr. Grittman said this porch could be constructed within the setback, allowing 5' to 6' in depth in the area of the front entrance. Commissioner Dolan asked how functional would a 5' to 6' porch be Mr. Grittman said it would be relatively shallow, perhaps accommodating a small table and a few chairs. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the water damage issue could be dealt with in other ways rather than a porch? Mr. ittman said it is his understanding that the front of the house is being damaged due to lack of protection, which could be accommodated with eaves. Mr. Grittman said it is unusual that constructing a porch would be necessary to correct this type of water damage. Commissioner Friel said he believes this porch would also violate a second setback requirement that being that all the homes should comply with a standard front setback. Mr. Grittman said this is more difficult on a cul -de- sac. Commissioner Friel said that if the water problem were a drainage issue, than water running off the eaves onto a porch roof would divert the water further away from the home. Mr. Grittman said that if there were a reasonable use that the porch would protect the home from the elements, the larger size of the porch would not be necessary from a functional standpoint. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the applicant could have a porch that would intrude closer to the cul -de -sac if it were not extended so far to the west. Mr. Grittman said this would be possible. David Chapman explained how the water has damaged his home. Mr. Chapman said the damage is coming from the eaves, running down inside the front of the home. Mr. Chapman feels that the best solution would be to build a porch. Mr. Chapman said that he would like to have to porch large enough to allow the family to utilize the porch. Commissioner B. McManus said that a 3' to 5' porch roof would adequately provide protection, but that Mr. Chapman wishes to construct a larger porch to make it more habitable. Mr. Chapman said he did some research on the habitability of a 3', 5', and 8' porch, and feels that an 8' porch would be a more livable space. 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 Commissioner Betlej asked Mr. Chapman if he checked further up the house, perhaps finding he may need nevi, windows. Mr. Chapman said he will be pulling the roof and siding, which was damaged by hail, and will be able to see the extent of the damage. Mr. Chapman said he would be happy to work with Centex, the builder of the home, to address these problems. Chair Lorberbaum said Mr. Chapman seems to still be in the discovery phase, trying to discover the cause of the damage. Mr. Chapman said he knows how to fix it. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Chapman if he truly believes the porch would be the solution, and would like to have some expert opinion from a qualified source that says this porch will solve the problem. Mr. Chapman said this was the advice he received from four difference designers. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the city would stand by the designer's recommendations. Mr. Danielson said that Mr. Chapman should obtain some expert opinion, possibly an architect, and present the findings to the building inspector for review. Chair Lorberbaum said that without this expert advice, the Commission may be recommending approval of the variance while not being sure this will be the correct solution. Mr. Chapman said that Centex feels the problem would be solved by installing gutters, but that Mr. Chapman's authoritative source reports that would solve about 25% of the problem. Mr. Chapman said he has done everything that he deems financially reasonable other than taking Centex to court. Mr. Danielson said there are forensic engineers who are experts at solving problems of this kind, and suggested that Mr. Chapman consider consulting someone in this field. Mr. Chapman said he feels uncomfortable that the city would tell him how to spend his money on solving a problem that is pretty much black and white. Chair Lorberbaum said that there needs to be a hardship present in order to consider a variance approval. Mr. Chapman said that if he brings in an engineer who says this roof will solve the problem, would that give the Commission the confidence to approve recommendation. Chair Lorberbaum said that a larger porch would not necessarily solve the problem. Commissioner Friel said that the ordinance does not speak on how to solve the problem, but only to where there is a justification for a variance. Commissioner Dolan said his home is similar in design as Mr. Chapman's, and he can understand some of the logic in Mr. Chapman's request Commissioner M. McManus commented on the need to determine the uniqueness of this request, along with the identification of a hardship, thus requiring the need for some expert opinion. Mr. Chapman commented on the fact that his largest investment is slowly deteriorating, thus presenting a hardship. Commissioner M. McManus said that Mr. Chapman is referring to the entryway to the home that is suffering damage, and that Mr. Chapman is proposing to construct a porch across the entire front of the house, wrapping around to the side. Commissioner M. McManus said that Mr. Chapman has stated that he has not extensively investigated beyond that entryway, and to construct a cover over the entryway would take care of the issue without having to request a variance for an extensive county porch. Chair Lorberbaum said that the hardship could be addressed without have such a wide porch. Mr. Grittman said an 8' extension would only be available at the comer that is tucked in by the garage, but at the corner of the house closest to the street would only allow the porch to be 3'. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission would probably be in support of a porch to address the water issue, however the issue is the depth of the porch, as well as the wrapping around the house. 8 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 Commissioner B. McManus said Mr. Chapman has a problem with water, and he wants to put some sort of roofmg over the front of the home. Commissioner B. McManus said that if Mr. Chapman has to do this, why can the Commission not help him to make this porch more habitable and more useful, and is there anything wrong with allowing him to build the additional 3 feet. Commissioner Dolan said the Commission should not be forcing him to create an odd looking and undersized structure to meet the setback requirements. Commissioner Dolan feels that if Mr. Chapman designs something that is appropriate for the house, and a hardship is established, he will support Mr. Chapman. Ultan Duggan, 2331 Copperfield Drive, said that having experienced similar problems, there are three things that could be done. Mr. Duggan's suggestions included 1) have the foundation examined and install a drain tile if necessary, 2) installing gutters, and 3) hose the windows to check for leakage. Mr. Duggan said it would be better to find the causes rather than just covering up. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, there being no one present wishing to speak, a motion will be asked to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 1) NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearin COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BASED ON THE HARDSHIP THAT. WAS ESTABLISHED. Further Discussion Commissioner Friel said the applicant's problem it can be solved without a variance, therefore he fmds no hardship. 3 AYES (Commissioners B. McManus, Dolan, Hesse) 4 NAYS (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners Friel, Betlej, M. McManus) MOTION FAILED Further Discussion Commissioner M. McManus said she would make a motion for denial due to lack of hardship identified and proof that a full porch extending out 8' would make reasonable use of the property. Commissioner M. McManus said this does not address the issue of the problem to be solved, however if expert recommendation ;e made that the entire front of the house would need to be covered to the extent beyond the 3' to 5', the 9 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 proposal could come back with conditions. Commissioner M. McManus said that a partial porch that would keep within the required setbacks could also come back for reconsideration. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THERE IS NO HARDSHIP BEING PRESENTED. 4 AYES (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners Friel, Betlej, M. McManus) 3 NAYS (Commissioners B. McManus, Hesse, Dolan) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #02 -37 PAUL WILD 813 HAZEL COURT WETLANDS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DECK Mr. Grittman reviewed the applicant to construct a deck in the back of the home, and which is within the 100' buffer area of a wetland. The setback would be approximately 70' from the edge of the wetland. The existing home also is partially within the wetland buffer as well Mr. Grittuian said one of the requirements of the ordinance is to provide a natural landscaped buffer. Mr. Grittman said there are a number of homes around this particular wetland that encroach within the buffer area. Commissioner Betlej asked if there is a concern that the improvements are going to increase the run off across the back of the lot. Mr. Grittman said the run off would be increased because there will be more hard surface, but the buffer will act as a protective resource. Commissioner Friel asked if there was a patio in that area. Mr. Grittman said a part of this area was covered with a patio, and would be recovered by the deck. Commissioner Dolan asked if the City Council granted variances to allow for the encroachment of the surrounding homes. Mr. Grittman said he was not sure, but these would require wetland permits and not variances. Commissioner Dolan asked if this request was consistent with other applications that were granted by the city. Mr. Danielson said it is consistent. Chair Lorberbaum said this proposal must be judged on it's own merits. Commissioner Dolan said his question was to get some general guidelines of what has been approved and what has not Paul Wild shared photographs of his property, showing the natural vegetation in his yard and the proximity of the neighbor home. Mr. Wild said he was not planning on planting any more vegetation, as the existing seems to be sufficient. Mr. Wild said there was a brick patio and is starting to settle toward the house. The retaining wall closest to the patio is falling apart. Mr. Wild feels a deck would help keep the ground from settling more. Mr. Wild said there should not be any additional run off. C 10 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 lommissioner B. McManus said construction of the deck has already been started. Commissioner B. McManus found that the patio was already poured, and the framing of the deck was in place as well as all the materials needed. Mr. Wild said he was not aware he needed a permit, and that the work was stopped when he was informed. Mr. Wild said it was ridiculous that he needs to get a permit to replace something he already has. Chair Lorberbaum said that although construction has started, the Commission needs to recommend approval, and if approval is denied, the deck will have to be taken down. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, there being no one present wishing to speak, a motion will be asked to close the public hearing. v COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMIISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLAND PERMIT AS PRESENTED. l rurther Discussion Commissioner Dolan asked for clarification that the motion on the floor include the conditions stated in the Planner's report. Chair Lorberbaum said that was correct. Commissioner Betlej commented on the landscaping plan and that it will be indicated the existing vegetation be left undisturbed. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED OTHER BUSINESS Proposed RV Ordinance Mr. Hollister presented a proposed RV Ordinance amendment submitted by Cari Lindberg, City Administrator, dated September 16, 2002. For the benefit of the audience, Mr. Hollister read the memo to the Commission. Chair Lorberbaum said the proposed ordinance is a draft and asked the Commission to review and edit as --)ecessary in preparation for presentation to City Council 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 Comments from the Commission Subd. 4. Exceptions — (Commissioner M. McManus) - refers to temporary permitting and no more than 4 permits per year may be issued. Is there a cost for the permit? Mr. Hollister said this is an administrative detail that has not yet been worked out. Mr. Hollister said he would imagine there would be a cost, similar to most other permits or fees for various things of this nature. The cost is to cover administrative costs to monitor and keep track of things. Mr. Hollister said he does not know what the cost would be, but it would be nominal. Mr. Danielson said there are permits for planning applications or building permits, and a typical nominal permit would be a fence permit, which is $10. Mr. Hollister said there are also other fees such as liquor licenses, dog license, etc. Cathy Swanson, City Clerk, is the main contact person for the fee schedules. Commissioner M. McManus said that $10 seems it may be a reasonable fee to cover all the administrative costs. — (Commissioner Betlej) — hopes to not set up some sort of bureaucracy that would justify a higher fee. Mr. Hollister said that there needs to be some administrative services to keep track of these permits to make sure they are in compliance. There are three things that need to be tracked: 1. 10 day clock start 2. Enforcement issues 3. Minimum of 4 per year 4. 14 day time period between permits — Commissioner M. McManus said the permitting practice should not be a money making proposition. Chair Lorberbaum said there are some higher fees for permits because it does take additional time and energy on( the part of the staff. Commissioner M. McManus said that the idea behind this is not to be like a park fee where you pay once and get so many times in which to access the park facilities. This would be a fee per request per permit. Mr. Hollister said there are a lot of people who have relatives visit in RV's. These people could probably predict when during the year they will have an RV in the driveway. Mr. Hollister said these people could then come in a purchase all four permits at once in advance. Mr. Hollister asked the Commission if this made sense to balance the issue between those who own RV's and those who don't. — Commissioner M. McManus asked what would happen if someone parked without a permit. Mr. Hollister said the police or the code enforcement officer could ticket them. That person would have to be designated. Mr. Hollister said there could be a fine right away, or a warning and fine on second offense. In the case of — any violations, the costs could go up to $700.00. Commissioner Friel said the cost for violations should be set at some future time and should be greater than the cost of the permit. - Commissioner M. McManus said that during the course of discussion, has there been any other input from Mendota Heights residents saying not to enter into discussions regarding RV ordinances, or that they would like to see further "discussions to create an RV ordinances. Mr. Hollister said it is more likely to have people objecting the RV's than those that own them. — Mr. Hollister said this was a first draft and informal preliminary discussion over this language. Mr. Hollister said it is envisioned that after tonight, -unless the Commission wishes to table this until the next meeting, the draft will be ready to present to City Council for preliminary discussion. Then, there would be a formal hearing at the Planning Commission Meeting, then onto the City Council for formal adoption. Commissioner Hesse asked why this is being restricted to R -1. Mr. Hollister said it doesn't have to be restricted to R -1, but R -1 has the vast majority of residential property. There is one parcel of R -2 and a few, . spots in R -3, and of course a large part of Somerset area that is R -1 a. Mr. Hollister said most of the calls ( 12 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 have been received from the R -1 areas. Mr. Hollister said the other zoning areas can be included if the Commission thinks it would be appropriate. — Subd. 2 — Permitted Parking / Storage — Mr. Hollister said that this article states the outside parking and storage of mobile homes and recreational camping vehicles is permitted in one side yard only in all residential districts, making it inclusive. However, Subd. 3 — Unlawful Acts says R -1 district. Commissioner Hesse said there is a consistency issue here, and suggested to have it all residential districts. — Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Hollister is this is not necessary something that would have to be actively enforced, but gives the Commission the power to do something if someone complains. Mr. Hollister said the City enforces the ordinance when there is a reported violation. Commissioner Hesse asked about the storage of vehicles in a garage. Mr. Hollister said there was no attempt in Subd. 3.A to ban somebody from putting one in the garage. It was also suggested to change the height requirement from 8 ft. to 10 ft. The draft would then read as follows: "Except as permitted in 21.4(3) Subd. 2, it is unlawful for any person to park or store a mobile home or recreational camping vehicle outside in an R -1 district that is greater than 10 ft. in height, ..." — Commissioner Dolan said that in looking at Subd. 2, would rear yard storage be acceptable if it were adjacent to a street? Mr. Hollister said that would be a through lot, which is where there are streets on opposite sides. Mr. Hollister said one yard must be designated as a front yard and the other as a rear yard, however there is a clause in the ordinance that says that when a rear yard or side yard abuts a public street, the setbacks should be the same as the front yard. Mr. Hollister said language could be added that says. Striking the word "side ", the draft would then read as follows: "The outside parking and storage of mobile homes or recreational camping vehicle is permitted in one } side yard only or rear yard in all residential zoning districts, provided that any such side yard storage ..." — Chair Lorberbaum asked about the Town Center. Mr. Hollister said the entirety of Town Center is zoned MUPUD (Multi -Use Planned Unit Development), and because of this type of zoning includes but is not limited to residential uses, Mr. Hollister said he would consider this a residential area There could be a definition clause in the ordinance that "for purposes of this ordinance, a residential district would include the following" ... and then list the MUPUD in there as it allows residential use. Commissioner Betlej said it is his opinion that this be excluded as there are already some variances that have occurred in terms of setbacks. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission needs to address the Town Center as to whether it is included or not. - Other suggestions include: ® Language that would pertain to maintenance of vehicles. ® Parking of vehicles on paved surfaces. ® Distance from roadways. • Screening. ® Exclude permitted storage in rear yard of a lake or pond lot from this ordinance ® Special consideration for visitors that are staying only a few days, to allow them to park on the street or driveway for a relatively short period of time. Critical Area Ordinance Revision N(Ir. Grittman said the City, as part of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, had language relating to the <:ritical Area and changes in DNR requirements for construction in the Critical Area. Mr. Grittman said the 13 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 2002 City's Critical Area ordinance needs to be updated to comply with these changes. Mr. Grit an said he did not have the chance to present a comprehensive overview at this time, but will plan on presenting it at the October meeting. VERBAL REVIEW - JIMDANIELSON • Planning case #02 -26: Royal Redeemer Lutheran Church — Mr. Danielson made the statement at the last meeting that this was approved, however he informed the Commission that he reported this information incorrectly. The City did not grant the variance. The City did not want to have the fence there in perpetuity, but granted a special use permit that expires when the daycare operation ceases. • Planning case #02 -30: Tim Walsh - request for conditional use permit was approved. It is noted that the fee was not discounted. • Planning case #02 -31: Philip Goldman — request for conditional use permit • Planning case #02 -32: Michael Patten - request for conditional use permit • Planning case #02 -27: Sara and Todd Hulse - applicant requested to remove their application. COMNIISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN. 6 AYES 0 NAYS (It is noted that Commissioner M. McManus was not present at this time) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 pm. Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 14