The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-11-26 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMNIISSION MINUTES November 26, 2002 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 26, 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, and Hesse. 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. Those excused: Commissioners M. McManus It is noted that due to the excused late arrival of Chair Lorberbaum, Vice -Chair Betlej will be chairing the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Corrections: Page 16, last paragraph, should read: "Commissioner Friel said there is a lot of difference between zoning where people are guided by what they can do with their property, and this kind of Critical Ordinance provision which prohibits building in an area, which in effect denies people any reasonable use of their property. Commissioner Friel said that if the Council adopts this, thus making the determination, although it's under the pressure of the DNR, the City becomes the condemning authority. Mr. Grittman said the City would be responsible for a taking of claim." COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22ND AS PRESENTED. 5 Ayes 0 Nayes Motion Carried. Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #02 -44 STANLEY R. GENADEK 716 THIRD AVENUE WETLANDS PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION OF MARSH LAND Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for a wetland permit to allow modifications to the existing property. The applicant wishes to remove vegetation, conduct some dredging and excavation to create more open water space, and replant new vegetation. City staff has contacted Dakota County Soil & Water, who in turn had suggested the applicant obtain professional expert engineering recommendations. Therefore, City staff recommended to table the hearing until this has been completed. Mr. Genadik, 716 Third Avenue, said he and his family are looking to create open water areas to allow for the establishment of habitat. Mr. Genadik said he spoke to Bryan Watson, of the Dakota County Soil & Water, who had suggested the Genadiks obtain his professional opinion and has offered to assist the applicant. Commissioner Friel asked Mr. Genadik if he had any objections to tabling this application. Mr. Genadik said he did not. Nicole Genadik, co- applicant, said there is currently a problem with the spraying of mosquitos. Mr. Genadik said that because of the wetlands having "pockets" in which the larvae exists, conventional spraying and pelleting practices are ineffective as the chemicals do not reach the areas it needs to. Mr. Genadik said that by having open water, there could be natural mosquito controls by having habitat that would consume the larvae. Commissioner B. McManus asked to see how the flowage would be directed. Mr. Genadik referred to his drawing and explained how the water would move. Mr. Genadik said the existing pattern of water flowage would not be changed. Commissioner B. McManus asked how the neighboring property owners would be affected. Mr. Genadik said he did not believe it would affect the neighbors, but was not sure how the water exiting his property would affect them. Commissioner B. McManus said he would like the applicant to research this concern and obtain some professional opinion. Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Grittman if, during conversations with the County, if this would be a good way to address the mosquito issue. Mr. Grittman said it was felt that the wetland was not very valuable, and seemed receptive to the idea. Commissioner Dolan referred to a letter submitted by the neighbors directly west of the property in that they had concerns about the water creating a roadblock Mr. Genadik said in talking with Mr. Watson, who said this would fall under wetland exemptions, there did not seem to be a problem. Vice -Chair Betlej asked for a definition of a wetland exemption, and Mr. Genadik said he did not know, but that Mr. Watson would have better knowledge of this term. Commissioner Hesse asked if Mr. Watson would be providing detailed information, drawings, and explanations on the requirements of the wetland ordinance, and if the applicant is in fact in compliance. Commissioner Hesse said that typically, it is the applicant's responsibility to provide this information. Mr. Genadik said Mr. 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Watson offered to come to the site and assist in setting up stakes, and in whatever other ways he could help out as Mr. Genadik is not financially able to contract a professional to do so. Commissioner Hesse asked what the standard application process is when a wetland is removed or enhanced, and how the mitigation would be conducted. Mr. Danielson said there would be very limited ways to mitigate, but feels Mr. Watson would be monitoring this process. Commissioner Hesse said he would like to have Mr. Watson attend the next meeting to talk about proper delineation of the wetland and what parts would be altered, and what type of vegetation would keep the classification as is, or improve it. Commissioner Hesse said he would also like to see if there is an issue of drainage, as it does seem that any alterations would interrupt any draining, however there is not a lot of detail on other concerns about water flowage. Vice -Chair Betlej said Mr. Genadik would be working with the water district, but did not wish to hire a professional engineer. Mr. Genadik said it was not that he did not want to, but that he could not afford it. Vice - Chair Betlej said that because the City is a regulator of the wetland districts, would any work be allowed without the assistance of a professional engineer. Mr. Danielson said it is important to have this assistance, and Mr. Watson would be able to sign off on this project as he sees appropriate, however Mr. Danielson does not know to what extend Mr. Watson is willing to help with. Vice -Chair Betlej asked if there were any plans to use this land besides that being open space. Mr. Genadik said there would not be any building on that parcel in the future. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Genadik where he obtained the topographical map that was reviewed, to which Mr. Genadik replied he drew it. Mr. Genadik said he is an excavator by trade, and works with these kinds of maps on a daily basis. Vice -Chair said this was a public hearing, and at this point, it is recommended to table until further information is available. Commissioner Friel said that would be the direction the Commission should take, and that there is need for public input at both meetings, and it would be better to wait until further information is provided by an expert so that the applicant has the opportunity to review that information. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO MOVE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION IN ANTICIPATION OF THE APPLICANT RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED, AND IN PARTICULAR, THE CONCERNS THAT WERE SET FORTH IN THE WIRT LETTER, DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2002. Further Discussion Mr. Hollister said that before this motion is adopted, it's important to know that the fourth Tuesday of December is December 24th, which is Christmas Eve, and staff is operating under the assumption, and are advising residents accordingly, that in all likelihood, the Planning Commission will not meet in December. Mr. Hollister said that if this case is tabled, it will be tabled until the fourth Tuesday of January. Mr. Hollister asked for the Genadik's to state, both orally and in writing, that they did not have any objection to this tabling, and to a 60 -day extension of the review period. Mr. and Mrs. Genadik said that they did not have any objection. 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #02 -45 STEPHEN P. McDERMOTT 600 POND VIEW COURT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FOUR FOOT HIGH FENCE Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan showing the proposed fence. Mr. Grittman said the zoning ordinance requirement is that the fences are to be within 30 -ft. of the street, and to be 30% open. The applicant is proposing to install a fence that is 4 -ft., which requires approval of a conditional use permit. Mr. Grittman said the proposed fence is designed to coordinate with existing fencing on the property. Mr. Grittman said the City had previously approved such fencing in the back yards for privacy. Mr. Stephen McDermott, 600 Pond View Court, said the reason for the 4 -ft. fence is primarily to follow the contour of the garage and existing fencing. Mr. McDermott said he also would like to construct this fence to deter his dog from jumping the fence. Vice -Chair Betlej asked if this fence would replace any existing fence. Mr. McDermott showed where there was currently a chain link fence, which would be replaced upon approval of the City. Commissioner Hesse asked for clarification in the planners report regarding a waiver of a major portion of the Conditional Use Permit fee. Mr. Grittman said the applicant asked that a portion of the fee would be waived as they feel the fee of $350.00 outweighs the value of this portion of the fence. The City recently changed it's ordinance to conform to these types of fences, thus removing the need for a variance for an encroachment in which a hardship would need to be identified. Vice -Chair Betlej said that the Commission has no power to make this decision, and the City Council would have to address the fee issue. Vice -Chair Betlej opened the public hearing, there being no one present wishing to. Vice -Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice -Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED. ( 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED This recommendation will go to the City Council Meeting on December 3, 2002. PLANNING CASE #02 -46 MARK OLSON 1217 VICTORIA COURT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL & REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Mr. Grittman introduced the application for a subdivision for an existing parcel, which is a large and deep parcel that is surrounded by single family developed property, and is zoned R -1. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is proposing to subdivide the lot into two parcels to allow for the building of two homes. Mr. Grittman said that because the rear parcel would not have a full 100 -ft. frontage on the street, the applicant need to receive aproval of a variance to have the subdivision go forward. Mr. Grittman said that the applicant's hardship seems to be financial in that the applicant feels that by subdividing and selling a parcel, this would help defray the costs of developing the land. The reason for consideration of this hardship must be determined by whether having two houses on the land is a reasonable use of the property, given the surround area land use. Mr. Grittman said that there would need to be a shared driveway between the two parcels and that the building sites are to be landscaped to provide screening to the existing surround neighbors. Commissioner Dolan asked if there are any similar "flag lots" in this area. Mr. Grittman said that in this particular area, there are not, although the City has previously approved some flag lots in other areas of the city. There are some lots in the general neighborhood that have less than 100 -ft. frontage, but the buildable area is deeper than normal. Commissioner Dolan asked if the City had any concerns with flag lots and safety concerns for emergency vehicle access. Grittman said that traditionally, concerns over flag lots are due to remote housing sites which may result in some difficulty in finding the homes in case of emergencies. Mr. Gritti.uan said the City's policy is to consider flag lots on occasion and are most likely subject to approval. In this case, Mr. Grittman said their recommendations are based on the size of the surrounding lots. Mr. Mark Olson, 832 Wagon Wheel Trail, said that when he initially purchased the property, he did not realize how large it was, and feels that this property is in excess of what his family needs at this time. Mr. Olson said he did not realize what the additional costs were to develop this lot. Mr. Olson said the lot does not actually abut to the road and a portion would have to be landscaped to create an access to the road. Mr. Olson said if he could subdivide the parcel, he could have more money to do the landscaping that would be necessary. Vice -Chair Betlej said that monetary considerations are not typically found as a viable hardship and asked if there are any other hardships that the applicant would have. Mr. Olson said that he wants to put the land to the best use, and that the land to the rear of the property is "trashed" as it is left undeveloped. Mr. Olson said that 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 by subdividing, that area would be able to be landscaped in a more aesthetic manner. Mr. Olson said this would\ be more appealing to the neighbors. Vice -Chair Betlej said there are quite a few trees on the lot, and asked Mr. Olson if a tree survey had been done. Mr. Olson said most of the trees are smaller and shrubby, and there are about 5 or 6 larger trees. Mr. Olson said he did not obtain any survey information, and would clear the smaller trees, leaving the larger ones in tact. Commissioner Hesse said asked Mr. Olson if he was unaware of the square footage of this lot when he purchased it. Mr. Olson said he knew how big it was, and was originally planning on placing one home on the property, however did not realize how deep it was until he further calculated the costs of developing. Commissioner Hesse asked if Mr. Olson would be occupying the home on the front or back parcel. Mr. Olson said he like to build on the back of the lot, and explained about the concerns of the power lines which run through the front portion. Mr. Olson said he was told that the neighbors are considering having the power lines buried. Mr. Olson said he was not looking for any variances except for the 100 -ft. variance he would need to access the city -owned property along the roadway. Commissioner Dolan asked how the extension of the driveway would coincide with the roadway. Mr. Olson pointed out where the curb cut was located, which comes off the frontage road. Mr. Olson said that he does not have any access to the roadway without having to access the city's property. Commissioner Dolan said the applicant would need city approval to construct the driveway. Commissioner Friel asked for confirmation that the distance between the applicant's lot and Victoria Curve is (. owned by the City, State, or County. Mr. Grittman said this area was owned by MnDOT. Commissioner Friel said this would then be a MnDOT right -of -way. Mr. Gritt►uan said Victoria Curve was built within the right -of- way. Commissioner Friel asked for confirmation that there was one other lot similar to the size of Mr. Olson's lot. Mr. Grittman said the property to the east was similar in size. Commissioner Friel asked Mr. Danielson if he knew of any history to the platting of this area. Mr. Danielson said they are very old plats and he does not have any history knowledge of how these plats were laid out. Commissioner B. McManus said he inspected the property and said he would not hesitate to condemn that back portion as it would need some trimming and removal, and that there are some good trees in there as well. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Olson to be careful so as to preserve some of those good trees. Vice -Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Greg Bolen, 1215 Victoria Curve: Mr. Bolen said the surrounding area property owners are not in favor of the subdivision and has submitted to the Commission, a petition signed by 45 people, which includes every household within the notification area, except for one house which is currently being renovated and is unoccupied. Mr. Bolen said the Commission needs to approve a hardship, and that his property directly east is the exact same dimensions, and was planned for a single family dwelling over 50 years ago. Mr. Bolen said these lots have been platted as such and is making reasonable use of the land. 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Ralph Jewell, 1948 Glenhill Road: Mr. Jewell said he is one of seven property owners which adjoin Mr. Olson's lot, and said that at the time he built his house, he also had to comply with the city ordinances, and feels that Mr. Olson should develop his the same as he sees no hardship to Mr. Olson. Mr. Jewell said he feels this would devalue the surrounding properties. Phyllis Karasov, 1954 Glenhill Road: Ms. Karasov said she built her home three years ago, and was provided a signficant amount of information relating to the platting. Ms. Karasov said that the lot which was purchased by Mr. Olson is designed for a single family lot. Ms. Karasov said Mr. Olson's lot, which was being sold by the same people that Ms. Karasov purchased her lot for, was being offered for the same price as the lot she purchased and was informed by the seller of the costs associated with developing that property. Ms. Karasov said she was surprised to find out that Mr. Olson's lot was suggested to have two lots and was disappointed in the consultant's report as it will cause a reduction in the value of the surrounding real estate, and the trees would have to be removed. Ms. Karasov said what Mr. Olson referred to as "shabby ", is in fact her back yard. Ms. Karasov said one of the reasons she purchased that lot is because there are a lot of trees and it's very pretty in that area. Ms. Karasov also pointed out the concern for increased traffic. Ms. Karasov said the financial hardship claimed by Mr. Olson should not be affected and wishes that this request is denied. Edie Bolen, 1215 Victoria Curve: Ms. Bolen shared a letter she had from an appraiser and quoting the letter to say that it is the opinion of the appraiser that if the site was subdivided, it would have adverse affect on the surrounding neighbors. Man Olestein, 1954 Glenhill Road: Mr. Olestein referred to his wife's (Ms. Karasov) comments previously and spoke about the environmental impacts. Mr. Olestein said that if the lot is denuted of trees, the habitat would be impacted. Mr. Olestein said one of the reasons his family lives in the area is because of their appreciation of the environment, and does not want to see a negative impact by having two homes on a lot that was designed to have one home. Jane McKay, 1949 Glenhill Road: Ms. McKay said there is a concern that a precedence would be set for high density housing in this area. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice -Chair Betlej closed the public hearin Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said he understands what the petitioners say, but he doesn't not see an undue hardship involved. On the other hand, the neighbors need to understand that Mr. Olson owns that property and if he wants to flatten every tree in that area, it's his right to do that. Commissioner B. McManus said that it is Mr. Olson's decision whether he wishes to subdivide the lot, and as far as the habitat, Commission B. McManus )aid he has a similar lot and have the same intense feelings to preserve that habitat. It's Mr. Olson's decision to 7 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 denute or let the primal forest remain, it's strictly up to him, and has nothing to do with the subdivision. (' Commissioner B. McManus said he still finds no hardship. Commissioner Friel said he would like to address the issue of flag lots. Commissioner Friel said there have been a number of them during his tenure on the Commission that have been approved. These lots have not always been, as someone has suggest, in connection with development of a subdivision (super block) that gains a couple of acres where there have been three lots on one flag lot, Commissioner Friel said that it also appears here that most of these lots abutting Victoria Curve are flag lots in one respect or another because access to the public street for most of them is over someone else's property, in this case the State of Minnesota. Commissioner Friel said he has a concern with the hardship and asked Mr. Grittman for his view on the basis of hardship keeping in mind that under the applicable zoning, both lots after a split would be of appropriate size in that zoning district. Mr. Grittman said he would not argue with that. Commissioner Dolan said he was concerned about flag lots in general, and he does not see a hardship in this case. COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MO'VED, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIR BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST OF SUBDIVISION DUE TO LACK OF HARDSHIP. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice-Chair Betlej said this case will go the City Council on December 31-d, and that Mr. Olson can again plead his case. PLANNING CASE #02-47 DAVID GORDON DRAKE 837 PARK PLACE DRIVE VARIANCE FOR FENCE HEIGHT Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for a variance to construct a fence less than the required 30% open. This fence will be approximately 180-ft. in length, and 16-in. in height, which meets the requirements of the fence ordinance. The requirement of the 30% openness is to allow for air circulation through the area. Mr. Grittman said that the applicant feels the nature of the surrounding land, as well as the landscaping on their property, the openness will have a negative impact on their landscaping. Mr. Grittman said the concern of protecting landscaping would not be a reasonable condition and the City Council discussed the 30% openness requirement and cited this was an important aspect of the ordinance. City Staff does not therefore, see a hardship in this case and does not recommend approval. Mr. David Gordon Drake, 837 Park Place Drive, asked for confirmation that a 6-ft. fence is allowable. Vice- Chair Betlej said that was correct. Vice-Chair Betlej said that on the agenda, the variance is stated to be for the fence height, and it is in fact, for the openness issue, and should be 30-ft from the right-of-way. 8 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Mr. Drake said he misunderstood the necessity of describing the hardship in the letter of intent and did not complete that process, and would like to stay after the meeting to fmish it. Mr. Drake said the fence will be built along one side of the property because the landscaping of the adjacent properties is different along the property line. Mr. Drake said the neighbor in that area is allowing the weeds to grow wild. Mr. Drake referred to the topographical map and said this was a steep area, and shared pictures showing this location of the property. Mr. Drake said the reason for the less than required 30% is to deter the neighbor's weeds from spreading into his lawn, as well as screening the neighbor's property from his own. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the neighbor was growing prairie grasses. Mr. Drake said they were just weeds, and that the owners do not maintain their property. Commissioner Hesse asked the applicant to state his hardship. Mr. Drake said a fence is built to either keep something in or something out, and he wishes to keep the neighbor's growth from spreading into his garden. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the applicant has considered planting evergreen trees, or some other plantings that would act as a impenetrable barrier. Mr. Drake said evergreen trees are not very effective, and did some research with a biologist from the University of Minnesota about the effectiveness of natural barriers. Commissioner Friel said it seems that under the ordinance, weed invasion from an adjacent yard does not give rise to a hardship. Commissioner Friel told Mr. Drake that he was obviously putting his land to reasonable use Without a variance for a fence, thus under the ordinance, no hardship exists. Vice -Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Linda Mohs, the adjacent property owner to the other side of the proposed fence, said she bought this property three years ago and have done $80,000 worth of landscaping. Ms. Mohs said she landscaped all around the house, except for the area in question. Ms. Mohs said the applicant's wife is very snotty to her and very picky about where the property line is. Ms. Mohs said when she did her landscaping, she stayed very close to the house. Ms. Mohs had her property surveyed in October, 2002. The survey shows that the Drakes built a gazebo without a building permit, which encroaches 6 -ft onto Ms. Mohs property. Ms. Mohs said all the weeds Mr. Drake presented is on her property, but said it was their property. Ms. Mohs showed pictures of her landscaping. Ms. Mohs addressed some issues concerning the city's ordinances: 1. Section 4.8 ... All fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the person constructing the fence, unless the owner of the adjoining property agrees in writing that the fence may be erected on the division of the line in respect to the properties. Ms. Mohs said the posts have all been installed and the construction of the fence has already been started. Some of the polls have been placed on the line, and some have been placed on Ms. Mohs property. Ms. Mohs said according to the building inspector, the polls must be placed 6 -in. from the property line. Ms. Mohs said her survey markers have also been moved. Ms. Mohs requested to have the Drake's hire a surveyor and take the posts off the line. Ms. Mohs said she has not given written permission, nor will she ever. 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 2. Section 4.8(1)b.... All fences shall be constructed in such a manner that no less than 30% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence be open. • Ms. Mobs requested the Commission deny the request for a variance as the type of fencing Mr. Drake wishes to install would cause a hardship of the type of plants Ms. Mohs has. Ms. Mohs said the purpose the Drakes wish to build the fence is for spite, and has nothing to do with the weeds. 3. Section 4.8(1)e.... No fence shall be installed in a location which would prevent fire hydrant from being immediately discernible, or in any manner that would inter or hinder a fire department from gaining immediate access thereto. • Ms. Mohs pointed out where there was a fire hydrant, and said she is concerned that the fire department may not be able to gain access to the sides and the backs of the homes. Vice -Chair Betlej asked for confirmation that the fire hydrant is located between the two lots. Ms. Mohs said she believes so. Vice -Chair Betlej asked why the fire department would have difficulty in accessing the rear of the lots. Ms. Mohs said she thinks they could get the fire hoses to the houses, but not to the back of the lot. 1. Section 4.8(2)f ... In no event shall such a fence be allowed be constructed on public easements for street, utility, or drainage purposes. • Ms. Mobs showed where there are easements for the utility company, as well as water and sewer. Ms. Mohs said that the area in which Mr. Drake is building his fence is actually a water and drainage easement. Ms. Mobs said she believes Mr. Drake has obtained a building permit under false pretense; Ms. Mohs said Mr. Drake applied for the permit, the City did not think he had a permit, the fence company applied for the permit, Mr. Drake was shocked the permit was issued before the fence was put up. Ms. Mohs said she feels this fence should not be placed along the easement. If the fence is going to be there, she doesn't want any variances granted. Ms. Mohs said she wants the posts off the line and to have Mr. Drake have a survey done as he moved the stakes. Ms. Mohs said the only reason she did not finish her landscaping was because Mrs. Drake argued where the line was. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice -Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS THERE HAS NOT BEEN A HARDSHIP ESTABLISHED. Further Discussion 10 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Commissioner B. McManus said he does not believe the Commission has the authority to address some of the allegations made from Ms. Mohs. Commissioner B. McManus asked if city staff can be in a position to handle and make decisions on them. Commissioner Friel said some of the allegations are private and would be a part of the permit process. Mr. Hollister said Ms. Mohs has articulated some private matters, however some of the allegations fall under the evaluations of the Code Enforcement Office and this homeowner did come in to the office to discuss these issues. The Code Enforcement Office is in the process of looking into these allegations. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED This recommendation will go to the City Council Meeting on December 3, 2002. PLANNING CASE #02 -48 RUSSELL T. RIDER 790 WENTWORTH AVENUE W REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for a variance for front yard setback to allow the applicant to construct an open porch cover to the roof over the front entrance of the home. Mr. Grittman said the setback is jipproximately 35 -ft. from Wentworth Avenue, and the homes on either side of the applicant is about 35 -ft. Mr. Grittman said that in this case, the ordinance allows the setback be regulated by the existing setbacks of the neighboring properties. Mr. Grittuan said the proposed open covered entryway would be 6 -ft deep by 8 -ft. wide, and would encroach into the 35 -ft. setback. Mr. Grittman said the city has reviewed other requests for open porch covers and has considered those to be a functional reasonable use of the property. Mr. Grittman said the hardship would be that the existing entryway is not protected from the elements, and the open cover would provide coverage. Mr. Grittman said the recommendation is to approve this variance request with the change that the applicant change the dimensions to a 5 -ft depth. Commissioner B. McManus asked if a variance is needed as the setback would only be 30 -ft. Mr. Grittman said that because the neighboring properties are 35 -ft. Mr. Russel Rider, 790 Wentworth Avenue W., was in agreement with the Planners Report and was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Hesse asked Mr. Rider if he had any issues with the 5 -ft. depth changeas opposed to the 6 -ft. Mr. Rider said he did not. Commissioner B. McManus said this would enhance the appearance of the home and neighborhood, and said hat adding a porch may be a benefit to the applicant. 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Vice-Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. One of Mr. Rider's neighbors, Mr. Ed Feeney, said he was in favor of the addition and feels this would be good for the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice-Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION TWO OF THE PLANNERS REPORT THAT STATES THE PORCH IS ALLOWED TO EXTEND UP TO, BUT NO FURTHER THAN 30-FT. FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE. Further Discussion Commissioner Dolan said he fmds the reasonable use to be as stated in the Planners Report regarding coverage on the applicant's home. Vice-Chair Betlej said he would add the safety factor would also be a reasonable ( expectation for a homeowner. 5 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED This recommendation will go to the City Council Meeting on December 3, 2002. It is noted that Chair Lorberbaurn joined the Commission at 9:15 pm. PLANNING CASE #02-50 RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION GARRON/ACACIA PROPERTY REZONING, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, STREET VACATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUD, PLAN APPROVAL, AND VARIANCE Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan for a proposed development located on the Garron/Acacia property, at Highway 55 and 110, at the end of Pilot Knob Road. The property is zoned B-1A on the northerly portion of the property and R-3 on the southeasterly portion of the property. The land use plan guides this property for a combination of high and medium density residential. The application is to re-zone the property to be consistent( 12 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 with this designation, however the higher density land use would be on the southeast portion and the northern density would be medium density. The applicant is proposing to utilize a PUD approach that would allow the development of this property be consistent with the land use, but generally allowed to move the land use around the perimeter boundaries with the intent of meeting the general land use plan, but with some flexibility with the zoning use standards. This project is currently in the preliminary stages. A variance is also requested to address the impervious surface requirement. Mr. Grittman said the overall density is approximately 6.1 units per acre gross, 7.3 units per acre net. The general density is consistent with the two zoning districts. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is looking for a significant amount of design flexibility and have requested the right of way from the public street be reduced from 60 -ft. to 50 -ft. As part of that, the applicant will be planting utilities outside the right of way to accommodate additional utility construction. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is also looking for some flexibility for perimeter setbacks, and the development is proposing to move buildings closer to the streets along the southern boundary and the border of the cemetery. Mr. Grittman said the impervious surface standard is 25 %, and the variance would be required to increase this to 40 %. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is also asking for flexibility to decrease the width of the minor streets from 60 -ft. to 50 -ft. } Mr. Grittman said that while there is no requirement for building separation, this design relys on the PUD to be able to put buildings closer than in the traditional zoning setbacks. Mr. Grittman stated some comments made by Staff in regards to the open space and cul -de -sac design. The concept is that Pilot Knob will provide a turnaround view from the cul -de -sac and the public street will branch from the edge of Pilot Knob into the west. Planning staff recommendation is to consider a slight alternative to that to allow for a larger public space and rely on that as the area to provide public area. The Park Commission's recommendations is that this portion of the right of way be maintained by the city and that a small public overlook fee be placed in that area. Commissioner Friel asked if this relates to the Planner Report on Page 4 that states "Quality green space is provided within the development to address the functional and aesthetic needs of future area residents as determined by City Officials." Commissioner Friel said that if green space requirements are not met, the fundamental concept is not met. Mr. Grittman added that the open space to the north end of Pilot Knob turnaround has provided a trail connection from the end of this public street to the Great Rivers Trail to the west. A part of that would be construction of an overlook area on the westerly portion of the property and would provide pedestrian connections. Mr. Grittman said the Park Commission has made some recommendations, which were provided in the Commissioners' packets, as well as the MAC recommendations that state residential use of any kind is not recommended for this site. Commissioner Friel asked what the proposal for the park dedication is. Mr. Grittinan said the applicant can address that question. Mr. Grittman said the Park Commission has stated in their recommendations that any use of areas that are public do not qualify for park dedication, that the developer should provided the entire park dedication in case; $1,500 per housing unit, for a total of $247,000. Commissioner Friel asked if the proposal 13 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 contained a position in respect to park dedication, as there is no language in the proposal that addresses this issue. Commissioner Dolan asked if there are any plans or requirements to upgrade Pilot Knob Road, .given the density levels. Mr. Grittman said he believes there will be some construction, but does not have any specific infoimation on that. Mr. Danielson said there would be some work done on the curb and gutter, and some widening in specific areas. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is also requesting vacation of a portion of Pilot Knob Road as well as Louisda Lane. Commissioner Dolan asked what was the purpose of putting in private streets. Mr. Grittman said the developer needs the private streets to minimize the amount of dedication area, and in some cases, private streets are allowed to be built closer than normal. Commissioner Hesse referred to the Planners Report, Page 4, regarding the proposed density. Commissioner Hesse asked if this says that based on preliminary numbers, it looks like this project falls within the general density requirements, but we need more information to verify that, and is that information available? Mr. Grittman said that was correct, and additional information was provided on the bedroom count which Mr. Grittman will share at a later date. Commissioner Hesse said he finds the calculations confusing, and asked what the density range be in the R -3 district. Mr. Grittman said the density range is up to 8.5 units per acre, however not all the sites are zoned R -3. Chair Lorberbaum asked where in the PUD are the attributes, such as open space, represented. Mr. Grittman said the design of this project, given what the comprehensive plan designation is, would not be apartments, and there is a trade off between open space and density. The intent of the comprehensive plan is to preserve as much open space as possible, but to arrive at a higher density that a typical townhouse development might be. Mr. Grittman showed on the plan where the open spaces are proposed to be. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the fact that one reason that areas are designated PUT) is to provide the flexibility to provide superior quality in design, but that in this case out of 154 townhouses, only thirty units will be designated as a "Classic" design of higher value and quality. Commissioner Friel referred to the Planner's Report, Page 6 to which it says it is possible to construct a multiple family project on the site that easily fits within the density and could meet the impervious surface standard, which Commissioner Friel believes would indicate that a reasonable use of the property could be obtained without a variance. Mr. Grittman said that would be the case, but it may not be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Grittman said the way the density could be reached on this site and save open space, a multiple family style development could be made, but this is not the intent of the developer, and the decision of what needs to be traded off must be decided. Mr. Grittman said that in a townhouse style development, it often means giving up the open space. Vice -Chair Betlej asked if the comprehensive plans significantly suggests townhome designs. Mr. Grittman said that would seem to be in intent. Commissioner Friel said when the criteria was discussed for the comprehensive plan, in dealing with this particular site, the Commission's position said these parcels could be placed into a holding zone for possible residential uses until after 2003, when the north -south runway and all Stage 3 aircraft are in operation, there is 14 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 potential the noise zone will shrink. Commissioner Friel said the area could be designated for residential uses in the future, with zoning to allow business uses. Commissioner Friel said at the time, it was also agreed it was a good idea to have a conflict between the comprehensive plan designation and the zoning, as the Commission was not sure at that time what to do with the property. Commissioner Friel said when the discussion was held regarding the uses in the noise zone, it was said that this property would be good for education and medical culture and entertainment, recreational, office, commercial, and retail services, as well as industrial and agricultural. Commissioner Friel said that by virtue of the noise zone, and the way this property is situated, at 110 time was there any invitation to the MAC for their input regarding their concerns about residential uses in that location. Commissioner Friel said the MAC has now expressed their concerns several times since then, and made it very clear that putting residential facilities is entirely, in their view, inappropriate. Commissioner Friel said that going back to the comprehensive plan, the mission of the City of Mendota Heights government is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in the community, and to plan and direct and implement orderly growth. Commissioner Friel asked if it were a good idea to put residential facilities in an area that going to be constantly subject to the aircraft noise. Mr. Grittman said he views his role in the City to interpret the City's comprehensive plan, and the land use plans. Commissioner Friel said that during consideration of the comprehensive plan changes, it was desired to decrease the noise impact and putting residential in this area is not consistent with decreasing those noise impacts. Mr. Grittman said it is obvious there is a significant noise impact, and the developer has addressed those issues with the construction materials and design they have presented. /Commissioner Friel referred to the Planner's report, Page 3, under impervious surface, it states that the ordinance imposes a maximum impervious surface coverage requirement of 25 %, and that this requirement is a standard that is listed in the PUD section of the ordinance, staff has taken the position that the PUD ordinance does not provide flexibility to vary this standard. Commissioner Friel said he takes that to mean there is no ability to grant a variance from that PUD requirement, and yet the applicant is applying for a separate variance. Commissioner Friel asked for the staff's rationalization of these inconsistent statements. Mr. Grittman said the PUD ordinance does not give the flexibility to include it as one of the design standards that would normally be dealt with. Commissioner Friel said that because a PUD provides a mechanism for variances from the other zoning provisions in the ordinance, it seems a variance is being requested from the provision on the ordinance that provides for variances, and it seems that everything is being ad- hoced. Mr. Grittman said he doesn't believe that in doing so would meet the intent, but while it may not technically comply with the city's land use goals, it needs to be factored in. Commissioner Friel asked if there are no other PUD's that meet the requirements? Mr. Gritiinan said their interpretation is the city's land use goals is to have relatively high density residential use in this area, and the city's objectives are not to have multifamily housing, so then townhomes seems to be the desired use. Commissioner Friel asked if the land use objectives on this site with this kind of housing would meet the impervious surface requirements. Mr. Grittman said to get to that high density, one could not meet the 25% requirement. Commissioner Friel said then the other requirements of the ordinance with respect to green space and clustering of homes would not be met. Commissioner Friel said staff has already suggested the houses are too close, and there is still not enough green space. Mr. Grittman said it is closer than what would be permitted under conditional zoning and setbacks, which is a function of a townhouse style design, trying to achieve the higher density project. Mr. Grittman said there is a basic conflict in trying to achieve a higher density residential development, but also try to stay within the impervious requirements. 15 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Commissioner Friel said the recommendation lists a number of conditions that ought to be put 011 this project if( it goes forward, and he believes some of those items really are not conditions, but matters that ought to be complied with, with information and evidence before this matter is submitted to the Planning Commission, so there is an opportunity to understand whether or not those recommendations don't have other impacts that will not be seen because they will not be before the Commission again before it goes to City Council. Commissioner Friel said the City Engineer has not provided comments and recommendations regarding the acceptability of the proposed a 50 -ft. right of way widths, which is something the Planning Commission should know about before a recommendation is made, and city officials should be providing comments and recommendations regarding the proposed 15 -ft. building separation to see if they comply with State code requirements, which also would be a matter of concern to the Planning Commission to allow them to make their recommendation. Mr. Grittman said staff's intent of these comments was to notify those staff members of those issues. Commissioner Friel said the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the maximum R -3 density bedroom count, which was submitted, however the Commission has not seen it, and it has not been reviewed. Commissioner Friel said this was something else that should have been provided to the Commission before they make their recommendation. Mr. Grittman said staff would rely on the comments and input from City Council and other staff members. Commissioner Friel said that would be equivalent to leaving the Commission delegate the duties they are required to perform as a commission. Commissioner Friel said the landscape details should be provided, and that would be something specifically called for the in PUD sections of the ordinance, and these plans should have been provided to the Commission at this time before a recommendation is made to City Council. Vice -Chair Betlej asked if the City Engineer has reviewed the plans for the grading, utility, and water quality. Mr. Danielson said that the water quality had not been reviewed, but the grading and utility has been done. There are no issues at this time from the City Engineer. Commissioner Friel asked if there would be any concerns about that as there may be building setbacks that are greater than what is now before the Commission, that could impact the drainage and grading issues. Mr. Danielson said staff is happy with the size for sewer and water. Vice -Chair Betlej said a letter was received from the Airport Relations Committee recommending that residential housing not be developed on this site. Also received was a letter from the Fire Chief stating no issues at this time, besides inspections and requirements that are critical to that. Commissioner Friel said it was his recollection that the Fire Chief had no concerns so long as Pilot Knob Road remained a public street, and asked if the cul -de -sac had any impact on the Fire Chiefs report. Mr. Grittman said he presumed the Fire Chief had the design that is before the Commission at this time. Vice -Chair Betlej said a letter was received from the Parks and Rec. Commission, stating their recommendations, which Vice -Chair Betlej shared with the audience. Mr. John Uban, a consultant with Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., reviewed some of the concerns that were expressed as well as gave an insight to the changes that were made since the last Commission meeting's presentation. 16 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Mr. Uban said the primary reason the developer is looking at this site is the view. Mr Uban said it is the views that really drive this site for residential property, and the noise is secondary in the desires of the homebuyers. Mr. Uban said all these townhomes will be insulated with compliance to the standards, and compared the noise levels to be less than Minneapolis. Mr. Uban shared the layout design which shows the higher end townhomes to be placed to obtain the maximum view. Mr. Uban said the density is based more on the medium- priced townhomes in the other areas of the development. Mr. Uban addressed the impervious surface concerns by showing the layout in a more non - regimented layout, and reviewed the trail connections and landscaping. Mr. Uban said the impervious requirement of 40% is not a strong issue when taking into consideration the open space (the "view") as well as the cemetery providing open space. Commissioner B. McManus said he has serious concerns about the habitability of this area. Commissioner B. McManus said he has spent a lot of time on this site listening to the airplanes and the general background noise of the airport, as well as Highway 55 which is more noisy at any given time than the airport. Commissioner B. McManus said the developer is proposing to develop a major portion of the development along Highway 55, and the issues of the people occupying those buildings were not discussed. These people will be overlooking the freeway and dealing with noise. Commissioner B. McManus said these homes are beautiful in design, but what about the quality of life of the people looking over the highway. Commissioner B. McManus asked if it was good for the City of Mendota Heights to have an area of high -priced houses with the lowest quality of life possible, and to have a development where residents could not enjoy being outside. Commissioner B. McManus said he did not have a concern about the developer who wishes to build, nor for the city who wishes to pack people in there to get their taxes, but would question whether this is a good idea because of the habitability of the site involved. Commissioner B. McManus said the views are wonderful from some of the spots, but not for some of the others, which have not been talked out. Commissioner B. McManus said he does not feel this is a habitable environment. Commissioner Friel said in support of Commissioner B. McManus' comments, he does not find that the noise levels of Highway 55 and the airport are acceptable as the developer has suggested. Commissioner Friel said that in the comprehensive plan, it is directed to modify land use plans to be consistent with the established aircraft flight corridors, and there was to be an Citizen's Airport Relations Commission established, which was established after the comprehensive plan was adopted, who would study airport issues and make recommendations to the City Council, and they have done so. This Commission also said that the City would continue to work with the MAC to accomplish airport noise reduction measures in land use matters of mutual interest to all parties. Commissioner Friel said it does not seem to him that this project, based on the input from the MAC and from the Airport Relations Commission, is consistent at all with those objectives set forth in the comprehensive plan. Chair Lorberbaum said that from the very beginning, she has concerns about putting residential housing on this property, and starting from this basis of not being happy with it, and trying to gain a neutral position, she has a lot of concerns such as setbacks that are questionable, and not seeing information needed on a timely basis in order to allow the Commission to make their recommendations. Chair Lorberbaum stated her concerns )egarding the focus on the high -priced homes versus almost non- existent focus on the lower -priced ones. Chair 17 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Lorberbaum said she agrees with the proposal in that she believes that Mr. Clark would be very successful with ( this project and she believes there is a market for these homes, however she does not believe it is wise to place it in this location. Chair Lorberbaum said there are some pieces of information missing that will not allow the Commission to make a good recommendation. Chair Lorberbaum said she was approached by someone who offered an alternative use of part of the property. Chair Lorberbaum asked the developer if there would be an interest to sell some of the more dense property, that would eleviate some of the Commission's concerns, and build something more multifamily where the residents, most likely senior citizens, would not have issues about the noise. Chair Lorberbaum said senior citizens would have less concern with noise as they are sometimes more hard of hearing, and they do not spent a great deal of time outdoors. Chair Lorberbaum asked if this would be a feasible alternative, and keeping the more expensive homes as planned. Mr. Ron Clark said he had telephone conversations from a senior citizen community representative suggesting assisted - living buildings, to which he responded that at this point in time, the developer already had an application underway, but would be willing to discuss. Chair Lorberbaum said this would address some of the density and impervious surface issues. Mr. Clark said he had a purchase agreement with some tight timelines. Vice -Chair Betlej asked Mr. Uban about his design calculations based on city ordinances which talk to bedroom count. Mr. Uban said he faxed this information to Mr. Grittman and did not have that infounation with him at this time. Mr. Uban said it is not known exactly how many bedrooms will be counted as the designs have not been determined, and the building determination differ the lot sizes as well. Vice -Chair Betlej asked Mr. Uban about the design based on sound contenuation and noted that on the design, (. decks are shown. Mr. Uban said decks do not have any sound contenuation, and the design is strictly based on the views. Mr. Uban said there is also a possible of offering enclosed decks. Mr. Uban said that if the Commission feels this is not a site suitable for residential, he would like to know now as he cannot move forward with plans. Mr. Uban said the real issue is that the Commission does not want to have residential on this site, and all the plans that have been presented were based on the comprehensive plan designation for multiple families. Mr. Uban said there is no sense in complaining about the details when in fact, this is not what the Commission is looking for. Vice -Chair Betlej asked what percentage of stone or brick materials would be used. Mr. Uban said all units would have a stonebrick component on the front entrances but does not know what the percentage of the total exterior would be, the rest would be composed of stucco and lap siding. Commissioner Dolan said that in addition to noise, another concern is density. Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Uban if he would consider lowering the density. Mr. Uban said perhaps a couple of units and they could be built cheaper, but the same roads and landscaping needs to be done, and that cost needs to be spread over the emits. Mr. Uban said this project works within the requirements, and the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Dolan asked what the prices of the veranda townhomes were. Mr. Uban said they range high $200,000's to low $300,000's. Commissioner Dolan asked if this would apply to the majority of the townhomes, Mr. Uban said that was correct. Chair Lorberbaum said that was about 80% of the units. 18 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Commissioner Hesse asked for clarification of the calculations for bedroom count. Mr. Uban said the density in the PUD, as described in the comprehensive plan, is about mid- point. Commissioner Hesse referred to Mr. Uban's comments regarding open space, that is included the "view" and the cemetery. Commissioner Hesse said he does not see that the "view", nor the cemetery, would be applicable open space for people to enjoy (ie, walking, enjoying the fresh air and sunshine, etc.). Mr. Uban said that open space is not necessarily for walking, but often times is for looking at. Mr. Uban, again, explained how the trail system would be laid out, and how it provides linkage to the open space. Mr. Uban said this proposal has alloted enough open space that would be necessary, and that if industrial/office were built in this area, the impervious surface could go to 70 %. Vice -Chair Betlej said that it seems most of the Commission members wish to table this item as there is a lack of certain information needed to make decisions. Vice -Chair Betlej acknowledged the time commitment of the audience in attendance that wish to speak to this issue, and that the applicant hears some of those issues raised . by the residents. Vice - Chair Betlej proposed to open the hearing to the public for a twenty minute time period to allow for residential input. Vice -Chair Betlej opened the public hearing at 10:30 pm. Bob Brown, 1016 Douglas Road. Mr. Brown is currently the tribal chairman of the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community. Mr. Brown said, for the record, his people are against any residential development on Pilot Knob. Mr. Brown said everyone understands what the view is all about. Mr. Brown said the people that could afford to buy a home and have that view would not be looking out the window 24 hours a day. But the general public in the State of Minnesota can enjoy that all the time. Mr. Brown said once those homes are in there, the people of Minnesota will not have many of these great views left. Bruce Hoyt, 662 Cherokee Avenue. Mr. Hoyt is a historian and shared a picture (circa. 1848) of what the view looks like from Fort Snelling, along with computer enhanced modern day roadways/bridgeworks, and described the historical aspect. Mr. Hoyt said this area is not just a point, but a whole block. Mr. Hoyt said this is not just a view from the proposed area, but a view looking upward toward the point and the proposed berming of the edge would further damage the historical character of the property. Mr. Hoyt asked to have this proposal reviewed with the historical aspects in mind, and not just the tax advantages to the City. Commissioner Friel said the comprehensive plan does recognize the historic nature of the site, but unfortunately did not couple that recognition with any zoning classification in which it might be preserved. Mr. Hoyt said that from this historical records, it is clear that in the past there have been efforts to consider Pilot Knob as a historical site designation, and because of the cemetery, it was assumed it would be protected. Mr. Hoyt said that with the cemetery selling this property, it will remove the protection of the status provided and will ultimately destroy what's left of it. John Simon, who is a resident of White Bear Township, said he works across the river at US Bank and said he enjoys the view of this area from his place of business, and expressed his hopes this would be preserved. Mr. 19 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Simon said that if ever his city would be involved in something like this, he would hope the residents of Mendota Heights would come to his Board of Commissioners to help support the issues that would affect the community as a whole. Mr. Simon said many people not from the City of Mendota Heights look from afar and are proud of what they see, and it is truly hoped that this will be preserved. Tom O'Cider, a resident from Minneapolis, said he rides his bike through Mendota Heights regularly and very much appreciates the view. Mr. O'Cider said that as nice as these houses are, how will they look 80 years down the line. Mr. O'Cider said he lives near 35W and said that the houses near the freeway have, at best, a quarter of the value of the homes a block away. Mr. O'Cider commented on the smell of vehicle fumes from the highway. Jim Albrick, Mendota Dakota Community. Mr. Albrick reinterated his comments from previous hearings on this subject and believes this view belongs to the State of Minnesota. Mr. Albrick said there will be future articles coming out, and will be giving the point of views from other historians, as well as residents and other communities. Mr. Albrick said this area is in fact, the most historical area in the State, and for the Planning Commission and City Council to not recognize that, the City will not be looked on kindly in fifty years from now. Chair Lorberbaum said she hopes that if anyone sitting in the audience who is concerned about the historical nature of aspects of the city feels that either the City Council, this Commission, or any other body of the city are overlooking its historic value, they should feel free to bring their comments to the attention of the city. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO TABLE THE APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING \. COMMISSION ON THE GROUNDS AND SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE BEFORE THE COMMISSION A COMPLETED APPLICATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 22 OF THE ORDINANCE, SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT THE COMMISSION TO EVALUATE THE PROJECT TO MAKE A REASONABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. IN PARTICULAR, THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND /OR REPORTS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANNING REPORT UNDER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, SECTIONS B2 THRU B8, AND INFORMATION ON HOW THE PROJECT MEETS DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE OR HOW THE PROJECT WILL MEET THF, PARK DEDICATION OF THE REQUIREMENT. Vice -Chair Betlej said that because this motion is to table, there will be no further discussion. However, Vice - Chair Betlej asked for clarification of the time issues involved. Mr. Hollister said he owes to Mr. Ron Clark, the following statement: "Mr. Clark presented a concept plan to the Planning Commission and to the City Council last month. The intent of the concept plan was to solicit input on a preliminary basis from the Planning Commission and the Council before going to the expense of making his formal application. You have in your packet the minutes from the October concept plan discussion at the Planning Commission and a similar discussion was held at the City Council. When it got to the City Council, most of the discussion focused around the revisions that Mr. Clark had most recently made to his plan. Specifically, I think the most prominant of those was responding to the army barracks comment about the grid iron appearance of the Acacia Park property and replacing that with a curvalinear street, which he did. Most of( 20 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 the rest of the conversation at the Council was about Mr. Clark's timing issues, he is under a considerable amount of pressure from the owner of the western portion of the land, as part of his purchase agreement. And please understand, I am not advocating on his behalf, but I did tell Mr. Clark that it appeared that the Planning Commission was going to table this and I will impress upon you some of the timing of that decision. It's already been made clear earlier this evening that since the fourth Tuesday of December falls on Christmas Eve, that the Planning Commission has the intent of not meeting in December. So by tabling this matter, you are in fact, tabling to the fourth Tuesday in January, which puts Mr. Clark way behind the time limits that are imposed by the owner of the land. Please understand that I'm not advocating him and I'm not sympathizing with him on that point, but I just want you to understand the basis of what you are doing. When Mr. Clark met with the Council for first Tuesday in November, they talked about the curving in the street, they talked about some other details of the development, I'm sorry I don't remember them on the top of my head, and then they talked about the time pressure Mr. Clark is under. The Council instructed him to submit his preliminary development plat which you have before you, for the November Planning Commission meeting, with the idea that he would go to Council next Tuesday evening. Now, on the other side of that, I think the Planning Commission and the individual Commissioners, have made arguments that this planning application is incomplete, and that you are unable to responsibly deliberate and pass judgement on it, and that's way it appears that you are opt to tabling it, but I feel I owe it to Mr. Clark to at least particulate his side of this equation because I told him I would do that." Vice -Chair Betlej said he asked Mr. Hollister to procedurely see where the Commission is at with the actions that they make as a city, either approving or denying, the request. Chair Lorberbanm added "with regard to the 60 -day rule and timing issues ". Mr. Hollister said when a developer submits their application, which in this ,rase was submitted on November 4th, that begins the 60 -day process. Mr. Hollister said the City has the authority to unilateraly, without the applicant's permission, extend that 60 -day period for an additional 60 days, for a total of 120 days, which obviously puts this into January and even February, without the applicant's. permission. Mr. Hollister said any continuation of discussion beyond the initial 120 -day period requires the consent of the applicant, and if the Planning Commission chooses to table this issue, Mr. Hollister will issue a letter to the applicant saying that the Planning Commission has tabled his application, and that the City will hereby extend the 60 -day review period for an additional 60 days, tabling this discussion to the fourth Tuesday in January. Mr. Hollister said he will also report to his supervisor the events that occurred, and will have a discussion with the Council members to see if they do, indeed, want to take this matter up on December 3rd, as they indicated they were planning on. Mr. Hollister said he would suspect that when they review the comments made by the Planning Commission, they will probably not do that. Commissioner Friel said his understanding is that the clock begins to run on the day at which the completed application is submitted, based on the finding and the input received from the Planner, that 60 -day clock has not begun to run yet. Mr. Grittman said that under 15.99, the City has 10 days to formally notify the applicant that their application is complete for purposes of proceeding to the Council and Commission reviews. Mr. Grittinan said that it was the indication of the Planning Commission that additional information is necessary to fully review the project, nonetheless the 60 -day clock has been formally running since the day of application. Mr. Hollister said he seems to recall sending a completeness letter to Mr. Clark, indicating that Staff has reviewed his application and considers it to be complete, and therefore he is on the agenda for the Planning Commission. Mr. Hollister said when Staff reviews the application, and says it's complete, that is saying the applicant has 'provided enough information to be placed on the Planning Commission agenda. 21 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Commissioner B. McManus said he does not agree with Mr. Hollister's logic, in that Mr. Hollister states there i, enough material in which to make a decision. Commissioner B. McManus asked if it would be beneficial for the City and the applicant to have the Commission take a vote based on the material at hand and knowing how the Commission is leaning. Mr. Hollister said that Mr. Uban has said that if the Commission is really convinced that housing does not belong in the area, then he would like to have the recommendation to deny for the reason that housing does not belong there, rather than asking him to submit more and more material. Vice Betlej called for the question. 3 AYES (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioner Betlej, Commissioner Dolan) 3 NAYS (Commissioner B. McManus, Commissioner Friel, Commissioner Hesse) MOTION FAILED COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING POINTS: 1. Commission has not been presented convincing, detailed information in accordance with the proposal, 2. Commission has been informed of the historical aspect of the site, 3. Based on the basic limitations to the habitability presented by the site, particularly based on sound of both highway and airport. MOTION TO AMEND: COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, ACCEPTED BY COMMISSIONERS B. MCMANUS AND HESSE, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE FOLLOWING: 1. This Planning Commission specifically fords that there would be an adverse effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community that this will go forward because the project would subject a large number of residents to high volumes of air noise, which is inconsistent with the mission of the city government, which is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in the city. 2. This Planning Commission fords the requirements with respect to density have not been provided adequately to be evaluated. The density of the proposal before the Commission clearly violates the impervious surface requirements of our ordinance, and though the applicant sought a variance with respect to those impervious surface requirements, the basis for the variance is that it is not economically feasible to do the project without the higher density which he seeks, and it's that higher density which causes impervious surface requirements not to be met, therefore, the hardship requirement of not being able to put the property to a reasonable use is not met, and that the basis the applicant gives is economic and not a hardship within the meaning of the ordinance. Vice -Chair asked for clarification that this motion and amendment covers the resolving of the subdivision approval, street vacation, conditional use permit for a PUD and Plat approval. 6 AYES 0 NAYS 22 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 MOTION CARRIED OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of Mobile Home Ordinance Mr. Grittman said he provided comments on the ordinance that was compiled by city staff Mr. Gritiman said the ordinance was designed to regulate the size and location of recreational vehicles and to define what a recreational vehicle is, and basically allows the storage of such vehicles in regards to setbacks and to the extent they are allowed 011 driveways would require a city permit for a period of time. Mr. Grittman said there were some additions to the language with the intent to clarify some of the ways it could be structured. Mr. Grittman said beyond that, there have not been any specific recommendations and would ask to Commission for feedback. Commissioner Friel said it was his understanding that the Commission has made some recommendations with respect to this, sent it back to City Council, and the City Council, after reviewing the recommendations, said they were not going to do anything with what was proposed originally, and will send it back for a public hearing based on what was sent in the first place so the same comments can be reviewed again. Commissioner Friel said Mr. Hollister was kind enough to provide a memorandum setting forth the preliminary feedback that the Planning Commission gave to the Council with respect to this matter, and does not know any reason to again. recommend to the City Council the suggestions that were made on September 24, 2002, be incorporated into any ordinance adopted by the City Council, except for the purposes of providing this information to the public. It is noted a copy of the September 25, 2002 memo was presented to the audience and the following are the comments from the Commission: • Item #1 - language has been changed in that the ordinance will apply to all residential zones in the city, and not just the R -1 zone. • Item #2 - questions were asked if this should apply to the Town Center project, which part of that would be included given the residential use proposed, including the residential facility areas within PUDs areas and would allow RV's be stored in the PUD area. Chair Lorberbaum said there is a concern in that the setbacks for Town Center are so small that putting RV's in there would be much more of an issue. Chair Lorberbaum said the question is whether applying this ordinance to Town Center is appropriate in regards to the PUDs. Commissioner Dolan said it was his opinion not to treat it any differently. Commissioner Friel said that the wording should be changed so that it applies not only to all residentially zoned districts, but all residential areas within PUD districts. Vice -Chair Betlej said that would be correct. • Item #3 - language pertaining to Subdivision 2 with reference to "side yard" should be changed to "side yard or rear yard ". • Item #4 - language pertaining to Subdivision 3A - should be changed to specify that the ban on parking or storing of RV's applies only to outside parking or storage. 23 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 • Item #5 - language pertaining to some concerns regarding the size of the vehicle, and the suggested languag4 change should require that RV's adhere to a 10 -ft. height limit, and a 23 -ft. length limit. This would apply to vehicles parked in a driveway. • Item #6 - language pertaining to the outside storage parking of the vehicle on grass and the proposed ordinance should specify that the vehicle must be parked on a paved surface other than a typical driveway, and to be permitted in the side or rear yard. • Item #7 - language pertaining to vehicles parked in driveway must be placed 15 -ft. from roadway to allow for visibility of traffic, and vehicle must have a permit. • Item #8 - language pertaining to storage of outside vehicles must be licensed and operable. • Item #9 - in the case of a residential subdivision surrounding a lake or pond, restrictions should be in place to prohibit rear yard storage where neighbors can see it from across the water. • Item #10 - language for screening of RV's • Item #11 - cost of permit be a nominal fee (example: $10.00) Vice -Chair Betlej said there needs to be a clear definition of mobile home versus a recreational vehicle is needed. Commissioner Dolan said from a drafting standpoint, is there a need to have two separate definitions if they will be planned the same way. Comments from the Commission: (it is noted that the following comments are gathered in a summary style to allow for clarification of the proposed suggestions for language changes /ordinance drafting.) • There is one of three areas that a recreational vehicle can be parked, either the driveway, side yard, rear yard( • All vehicles need to be on a paved surface. • Permit fee would be for a vehicle parked in a residential district driveway. • In reference to Subdivision 1A, the definition of a recreational camping vehicle shall mean the include items A thru D of the Zoning Ordinance No. 401. Is it suggested then to remove the word "mobile home" in it's entirety? • Vehicles are to be no less than 15 -ft. from a curb or paved street. • Vehicles are to be adequately screened, regardless of being parked across from water or not. Vice -Chair Betlej opened the public hearing, there being no one present wishing to speak, Vice -Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Vice -Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE INCLUSION IN AN APPROPRIATELY DRAFTED ORDINANCE, ( 24 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 ALL THE SUGGESTIONS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN TFHS MEMORANDUM COMPOSED AND THE ADDITIONS MADE. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #02 -49 FRANK NEMETH 2455 DELAWARE AVENUE CONCEPT PLAN FOR PUD Mr. Grittman introduced the application for a subdivision for a large parcel consisting of approximately 2.5 acres, that currently contains an older, single family home. The applicant proposes to divide this property into two separate lots. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan that indicates the second lot being created in an "L" shape. Mr. Grittman said a PUD is employed here as the proposed subdivision would create a number of issues in regards to setbacks. From a zoning standpoint, the plan is below the allowable density at less than one per acre, as the lot sizes would be 1.4 and 1.1 acres. Vice -Chair Betlej gave a suggestion to having the lot split so as to make this parcel easier to work with. Mr. Grittman said there is not adequate width in regards to Vice -Chair Betlej's suggestion as there is also a barn in that location. Vice -Chair said this if this property would go through a re -plat, a PUD ordinance would not be necessary. Mr. Grittman said there would still be some setback issues. Various suggestions from the Commission were made in how the parcels could be laid out. Commissioner B. McManus said this project has so many setback issues, he does not know how it could be worked, and asked if it were possible to draw a diagonal line from east to west making enough room in the rear of that lot for a new house to be located, and the driveway then could be a shared driveway. Commissioner Friel said this project needs to be better planned out to address the setback issues. Chair Lorberbaum said she is not happy with an "L" shaped lot, and there are a lot of setback issues. Vice -Chair Betlej said that some of the issues are generated by the applicant's design. Mr. Frank Nemeth, 2455 Delaware Avenue, handed out photos showing the property. Chair Lorberbaum noted the address on the Planners Report application is incorrect (showing 2355), and should be changed to 2455. Mr. Nemeth said the issue of relocation of the property line as suggested, there is a problem as there is a berm .long the property line as suggested by the Commission. Mr. Nemeth referred to the comment regarding 25 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 moving the property line further north to stay in compliance with a 100 -ft lot width. Mr. Nemeth said he could( get it wider, but not as wide as the Commission suggests. Mr. Nemeth said he is trying to preserve the landscape and character of the existing home, and making Lot 2 more constructable. Mr. Nemeth said the major trees would not be removed, except for some shrubbery. Mr. Nemeth reviewed the layout and how the home on Lot 2 could be located. Mr. Nemeth referred to the comprehensive plan in regards to PUD requirements and explained how he would move an existing barn, and work the layout to make this project workable. Mr. Nemeth said he would prefer to keep the privacy of his own driveway as he has a special needs child who plays in that driveway, and one of the main reasons that the barn will be moved, as the child enjoys playing there. Commissioner Dolan said he assumes there will be comments made from neighbors. Mr. Nemeth said there may be one neighbor that may have issues, otherwise, there doesn't seem to be a problem. Mr. Nemeth said there are two reasons for doing a subdivision: 1) economical factors, 2) too large of lot to maintain. Mr. Nemeth said the agreement drawn for a potential buyer would include some covenants that the style and architecture, as well as the maintenance of the property, be acceptable to the Nemeths. Mr. Nemeth said he was approached previously by interested parties to purchase some of this property. Vice -Chair Betlej addressed the concern that there would be two accessory structures, that if the barn is left as is, it would be grandfathered in. Mr. Nemeth said his property was a residual from a previous subdivision of a 45 -acre subdivision. Chair Lorberbaum stated her concerns with the zero lot lines and potential home builders in the future. Mr. Nemeth said it seems that the Commission would like to see surveyor use geometric simplicity when plotting and not use an "L" shape. Mr. Nemeth said this could be done, but not very easily due to the driveway, however he has an issue because of his son. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission has compassion on this issue, but she is looking at this long term which may present issues in years ahead. Commissioner B. McManus said if the applicant can handle the setback issues, and move the lots lines as suggested, this project could be accomplished. Commissioner B. McManus said he does not like "L" shaped lots, but there are ways this could be done. Commissioner B. McManus met with Mr. Nemeth after the hearing to suggest some other drawing layouts. Vice -Chair Betlej opened the public hearing, there being no one present wishing to speak, Vice -Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED 26 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Vice -Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. Critical Area Ordinance Revision Discussion Vice -Chair Betlej said there is no red -line document available to work with. Mr. Grittman said the document was completed, however he did not have a copy with him, and would like to address some major issues instead as the red -lined document may be somewhat confusing at this time. Mr. Gritluian referred to his memo, dated November 21, 2002, for discussion. Mr. Grittman said stated in his memo there are three common conditions to deal with in upcoming Critical Area permits: 1. New construction on undeveloped lots 2. Additions or other accessory building construction on developed lots 3. Reconstruction of existing buildings destroyed by fire or other catastrophe Mr. Grittman reviewed the processes that have been suggested and asked for consensus from the Commission. Commissioner Friel said this is an acceptable process, but he is concerned about discussion with DNR about retaining these issues. Mr. Grittivan said not in the Critical Area but have had other discussions with them about environmental issues elsewhere. } Vice -Chair Betlej said his understanding was that the DNR don't want anything about 18 %, and if the ordinance gives leeway, would this be contradictory to state laws. Mr. Grittman said the rules are that the City has to adopt a local ordinance that the Commissioner of the DNR finds to be consistent with the state regulations. Mr. Grittman states in his memo that Staff's objective is to create an ordinance that would have as little impact on such owners as possible, while being enough to satisfy the DNR that the river is being protected. Commissioner Dolan asked what would happen if the City did nothing. Mr. Gri llrnan said the DNR will be contacting the City. Vice -Chair Betlej asked what other communities have done that area affected by this. Mr. Gri t(ivan said every ordinance he reviewed has had variations in the text, and special conditions. Mr. Grittman said they do seem to be as dramatic as the changes proposed by the City. Commissioner Friel asked what kind of sanctions do the DNR propose, and what if the City does not want to comply as the DNR wishes. Mr. Grittman said there would likely be a lawsuit that the City is out of compliance, and he is not sure what kind of sanction comes along with that. Commissioner Friel asked if there are any reasons why other communities in the same area that the City could partner with. Mr. Grittman said he is not sure any other communities are thinking about this. Commissioner )riel said that there is strength in partnering with other communities that use similar laws and similar point of view. Mr. Grittman said he could make some calls to see if there is any interest. 27 Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2002 Commissioner Dolan commented on the issue that addresses new subdivisions not being allowed at all, where the slopes are greater than 18 %. Mr. Grittman said that the DNR's position may be that subdivisions incurs additional building rights. Commissioner Dolan said conditional use standards should be applied for these as well. Chair Lorberbaum said she believes it is the intent of the City to allow something based on the CUP, which is clearly indicated to the DNR that to be opposite. Mr. Grittman said that if someone would be subdividing land, they would have to show they can create new building sites on land flatter than 18 %. Mr. Grittman said if the zoning changes, the City can change the standards as a result, which the City is legally entitled to do, and the DNR's intent is to prohibit all new development in those areas. Chair Lorberbaum said it seems from this discussion, that there are no longer any large parcels that could be subdivided left, but there are still some smaller sites that are still available. Commissioner Friel commented on the possibilities of legal issues, and the benefits of partnering with other communities to deal with any potential lawsuits. Mr. Grittman summarized the discussions by saying the main concern relates to subdividable land, and will include comments and suggestions in the red -lined document, to be distributed at the next meeting. VERBAL REVIEW - JIMDANIELSON • Planning case #02 -38: Thomas Marks - variance for garage expansion - approved as recommended. • Planning case #02 -39: Keith Heaver - variance allowing two garages - approved as recommended. • Planning case #02 -40: Ronald Karnmueller - variance for front yard setback - approved as recommended. • Planning case #02 -41: RSP Architects - request for CUP, Subdivision, Wetlands permit - approved as recommended. Commissioner Friel said the plans were changed to comply with the impervious surface requirements. VICE CHAIR BETLEJ ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 12:35 AM, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary 28