2002-05-28 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
1
I••
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 28, 2002
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 28, 2002 in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners 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 Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer.
Excused: Commissioner B. McManus
Chair Lorberbaum thanked Vice-Chair Betlej for conducting the April 23rd meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Revised minutes of April 23, 2002
COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO POSTPONE
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2002 UNTIL THE JUNE 25TH MEETING.
5 Ayes
1 Abstain (Chair Lorberbaum)
0 Nayes
Motion Carried.
PLANNING CASE #02-18
STEVEN PROVOLNY
1120 ORCHARD PLACE
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
Chair Lorberbaum announced she had received a letter from Mr. Provolny withdrawing his application.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
PLANNING CASE #02 -19
TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT, INC.
GARRON /ACACIA
PRELIMINARY PUD CONCEPT PLAN
Mr. Grittman introduced this proposal for a PUD. The site is well known as being at the end of Pilot Knob
Road, along Highway 110. The site is zoned a combination of B 1 -A and R3, and is guided in the
Comprehensive Plan for high and medium density residential use. Mr. Grittman reviewed a site map (for the
record, this plan is identified as "Tollefson Development, Acacia /Garcon Concept Plan, Hoffman Homes, 76
units, 3.1 units per acre) showing 76 units of residential, containing 38 twinhome buildings. The site consists
of approximately 24 acres of property overlooking the river to the northwest and adjacent to Highways 55, 13
and 110 along the east and north. Pilot Knob is the local street access to the property and terminates at the
Acacia Cemetery located to the west.
Mr. Grittman said this project had previously been proposed with approximately 200 units. Following feedback
from the City, Tollefson reworked the proposal with a lesser density. The 76 units calculate to about 3.8 units
(net) and 3.1 units (gross) per acre. Mr. Grittman reviewed the layout of the proposed development's streets.
He said this concept is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation plan for medium to high- density
residential use.
Mr. Grittman suggested there needs to be greater visual access to the park area, with attention to the view at the
end of Pilot Knob Road, where currently a proposed twin home sits, and the trail is forced to squeeze around the
building. This could be done by eliminating that particular twinhome, or rearranging them elsewhere on the
site. Another suggestion Mr. Grittman gave pertains to the cul -de -sac, which serves the southeast portion of the
property. Mr. Grittman suggested that the developer reconnect the loop with Pilot Knob Road and eliminate the
need for the cul -de -sac. This would help integrate the neighborhood in keeping that area less isolated from the
other homes.
Mr. Grittman said the R -3 district requires 50 -ft. setbacks from the street and 40 -ft. setbacks from the side and
rear lotlines. The proposed concept plan uses 40 -ft. setbacks from Highway 55 and Acacia Blvd., and other lot
line setbacks are 30 -ft. Mr. Grittman suggested that these setbacks be rezoned to R -2, Medium Density
Residential District, which requires a 30 -ft. setback from the roadways and a 10 -ft. for side yards. Mr. Grittman
said the density in the proposal is consistent with the R -2 requirements.
Mr. Grittman said this proposal is a concept only and does not require a decision at this time. The developer is
seeking feedback from the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Commissioner Friel said he sees nothing in the Planners Report that addresses noise issues. Mr. Grittman said
this development is in an area that is impacted by air noise. The Planners Report did not address this issue
because the comprehensive plan from a land use standpoint which deals with this area and recommends
residential uses having full recognition of the impact of air noise just like any other zoning or building standard
)would apply. Commissioner Friel asked what the noise zone this property was in, which Mr. Grittman replied
2
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
Zone 3. Commissioner Friel asked what the characteristics of buildings in Zone 3 were. Mr. Danielson said he
believes the development located across the street from the proposed site is also in Zone 3. Mr. Danielson said
there are certain noise mitigation standards, and multi- family use is allowed under certain conditions.
Commissioner Friel asked if the zoning classifications are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Mr.
Grittman said the current zoning classifications are not entirely consistent, as it calls for medium high density
residential. The R3 Zone would be consistent with high - density residential recommendation, as the B 1 -A
would not be.
Commissioner Betlej asked what the impervious surface calculations were. Mr. Grittman said he did not have
the paperwork with his, but he believes the proposal appears to be well within the requirements. The previous
proposal has impervious surface in excess of the requirements. Mr. Grittman said more detailed calculations
would have to be done. Commissioner Betlej asked if it was a requirement that this property be rezoned in
order to accommodate the PUD. Mr. Grittman said a portion was rezoned B 1 -A and will have to be rezoned to
an R -2 or R -3, which would allow multifamily units because the density standards and setbacks are currently
different in each district. Staff recommends rezoning to the R -2 class.
Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman if the property would be rezoned to B 1 -A if a proposal for a business
came to the City. Mr. Grittman said the comprehensive plan does not recommend a commercial class and the
comprehensive plan language would have to be reviewed and possibly changed to allow this to be rezoned.
Chair Lorberbaum said that the developer previously proposed a plan with a much higher density, and the City
was quite sensitive to an individual who was both a resident of the community and works for the MAC, saying
this property should not have a residential zoning to it. Nothing has been done to change that. Mr. Grittman
said the Commission might need to recommend the undertaking of a revision to the land use plan.
Commissioner Friel said that at a previous workshop that was held with the City Council with respect to this
matter, there was no input from the MAC.
Commissioner Dolan asked if the City is bound by the setbacks dictated by the classifications when approving a
PUD. Mr. Grittman said setbacks are applied toward the exterior of the project next to public streets, respecting
the setbacks of that zoning class would require. The PUD gives some flexibility to deviate from the standards.
Commissioner Hesse asked what the City's exposure would be if this land was developed residential and people
purchased homes, to find out there is too much noise and the City would end up with a lot of empty units. How
long would the City be responsible for this, and how long would the developer have to maintain the property
and the financial responsibility. Mr. Grittman said the City's responsibility would be to apply the ordinances
that exist, such as insulation requirements. Commissioner Hesse said the City feels this is a very important
piece of property and is viewed as the "gateway" to the city. Commissioner Hesse said he wants to be sure that
this project will continue, in the coming years, to retain its value and not have to be torn down later to make way
for commercial use that may have been a better choice in the beginning. Mr. Grittman said there is no guarantee
that residents will not complain about the airplane noise, regardless of what precautions and building code
requirements are made. Commissioner Hesse asked if people would be attracted to high -level homes that will
be insulated to the maximum, and the noise would not allow them to be outside their home enjoying the
3
1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
scenery. Commissioner Hesse said there is a long -term issue here in that the City should not commit to
something that may not survive over the next five to ten years.
Commissioner Betlej said the land use designation under the comprehensive plan is for residential land. When a
landowner previously came to the City with an office development, it was denied because it was residential
land. Now the landowner is coming in with a residential plan and the City is saying no because it's not
residential land. Is the City getting into trouble with this? Commissioner Friel said he doesn't believe the
Planning Commission denied the proposal for the American Lung Association, but the City Council did.
Commissioner Betlej said a decision should be made by the City Council to go one -way or the other. Mr.
Grittman said cities have the right to plan and zone for land use, and are able to make changes, and must do so
in a reasonable amount of time.
Mr. Matthew Weiland, representative from Tollefson Development, presented a revised site plan (this site plan
is identified at Tollefson Development /Hoffman Homes, Acacia Cemetery Concept Plan, 52 units, 3.7 units per
acre). Mr. Weiland said that the site plan was changed because they were unable to come up with a feasible
way to develop the Garron properties based on the City's feedback. Currently, Tollefson Development is
working with Hoffman Homes, who also built the Augusta Shores project. Mr. Weiland said that because
Hoffrnan Homes constructed this project, they are aware of the noise impacts of this area. Mr. Weiland referred
to the Planner's suggestion of connecting the street to the south into the area of the cul -de -sac, and said the cul-
de -sac is placed, as it is to allow for more separation between the buildings.
Commissioner Hesse asked how homebuyers would be attracted this site. Mr. Weiland said they would be
attracted because of the great location and access, and this would be a private neighborhood. People sometimes
make tradeoffs — noise versus price range, access, etc. Mr. Weiland showed an aerial view of the existing land
and reviewed the layout of the highways in the area. Commissioner Hesse said that without the homes on the
Garron property, the river view from the development would not be as much of an impact.
Commissioner Dolan asked why the Garron property was pulled. Mr. Weiland said Tollefson could not come to
an agreement with the property owner, as it would not be financially feasible without the higher density homes.
Commissioner Dolan asked if the homes would be all the same. Mr. Weiland said there would be some
differences in materials and some having a side garage instead of a front garage. Some will also be slightly
bigger in square footage as others, and some having an additional third garage. The price range for these units
start at $400,000.
Chair Lorberbaum asked if the Augusta Shores development currently has some homes available for sale. Mr.
Weiland said he doesn't know if they do, but they are planning to start another project in the spring. Mr.
Weiland said Augusta Shores was a financial success. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the trail and park system.
Mr. Weiland said there are no plans for trails, as this was a tradeoff for lower density.
Commissioner Betlej agreed with the comments made by Mr. Grittman in tenns of being more creative of the
layout and townhomes and would like to have some consideration made to find a way to make this area utilize
the natural topography and views as much as possible.
4
)
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
Commissioner Friel asked Mr. Weiland to verify the location of the cemetery, airport, and highways
surrounding the area.
Mr. Jeff Hamel, Executive Director for MAC, made the following comments:
1) This property is located within the 1996 65-DNL-noise contour. This means the federal government does
not believe residential development within the 65 zone is appropriate for a development. This is an
inconsistent land use based on federal criteria of the Environmental Protection Agency and the FAA.
2) The MAC continues to strive toward reducing the noise footprint with different procedures such as hours of
operation, trying to modify airline equipment, etc. This property will still be located in the 65-DNL noise
contour zone. The MAC has already agreed to provide mitigation to existing properties in this area, but will
not provide any mitigation to new developments after 1998. Aircraft will continue to frequently fly over
these properties within 1,000 to 2,000 feet of ground level, exposing these sites to a minimum of 95 to 100
decibels. It has been determined that 65 decibels are unaccceptable exposure for noise, and every time the
decibel is increased by 5, the noise energy has been doubled. As an example, Mr. Hamel said when noise
energy level goes from 65 to 70, the noise is doubled; from 70 to 75, that noise is doubled again; 75 to 80,
that noise has been doubled again; and so on. Residents will be exposed to a continuous level, with a single
event reaching the 95 to 100 decibels. Annualized averaging of noise is unacceptable high noise levels.
Residents of Mendota Heights currently living in the 64 / 63 contours researched incredible amount of
information to encourage MAC to include their zone in the mitigation package. MAC feels they cannot do
that because there is 150 miles of lines around the airport.
3) This is an opportunity to use preventative action to avoid spending an additional $150 million to
accommodate the existing landowners around the airport. The proposed development is viewed by the
MAC as inappropriate use of the property. Homebuyers will not realize what they have purchased until they
actually move into the home and live there. These homeowners will not be able to enjoy their homes, as
they will not want to open windows, or walk outside in the yards.
4) The airport will continue to grow toward its capacity levels. The airlines are working to acquire regional jets
(50 to 70 passenger twin-engine) that will make shorter terms and take off in less distance, flying more often
over these properties. They will not be as noisy, but there will be a higher frequency of traffic.
5) This development will be putting people on substantially noisy properties.
Commissioner Friel said that Mr. Hamel, or any of his staff, was not present at the original workshop to develop
the comprehensive plan, and asked Mr. Hamel if he was aware of the city working on the plan. Mr. Hamel said
he was not aware of this workshop, but had he been, he would have attended. Now that they are aware of it,
they feel it's important and will be more involved. Mr. Hamel said that prevention is better because correction
will ask that the airport move it's flight tracks and that is absolutely impossible. There is already not enough
airspace as it is.
5
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
Commissioner Friel said there seems to be some disagreement or inconsistencies between the MAC position
and that of the Met Council. Met Council seems to think that multifamily residences in noise zones 3 and 4
make good sense, making it possible that more people are exposed to noise than less people. Commissioner
Friel asked Mr. Hamel to explain or rationalize this. Mr. Hamel said he cannot speak on the expertise of the
Met Council zoning property guidelines, but the proposed property is currently in zone 3 and is extremely
disappointed that the Met Council has determined that some sort of multifamily is appropriate. Mr. Hamel says
he frequently receives phone calls during the summer months from residents with their concerns on the noise.
Mr. Hamel said that as a resident of the city, he couldn't believe the impact when people realize what they have
done by purchasing property in this area. Mr. Hamel feels it does not make any sense to have more
development brought into an area that already is being mitigated for existing owners.
Commissioner Betlej stated that as a resident that moved out of the south end of the Mendota Heights because
of those deviations from the standard flight path, he does not feel that it is acceptable that more flights can be
sent over parts of Mendota Heights. The State of Minnesota downzoned a lot of the land in that corridor
because more planes fly over that area. It is not acceptable that certain parts of Mendota Heights and Eagan will
have to accept more noise just because Northwest wants to fly a different type of plane. Mr. Hamel said there is
a program where the large jets must fly in a very specific corridor, but always permitted the smaller passenger
planes to make different turns to allow for better clearance in airspace around the southern area of Mendota
Heights and into Eagan. The new planes are in that smaller category and will be quieter and less offensive, but
this has been consistent with the MAC policy over the last 25 years. Commissioner Betlej said the MAC should
work harder to enforce that the larger jets stay on the paths they are supposed to. Mr. Hamel said they follow all
the correct procedures. Commissioner Betlej said they did not when he lived in that area.
Chair Lorberbaum said that when this area was zoned, a clear vision was never formally written by some of the
City Council members, and that vision was to have a box -like building with underground parking, where people
do not use outdoor space as often. That vision is not what is seen today. Chair Lorberbaum asked if Mr.
Hamel's opinion would be any different if this kind of development would be happening. Mr. Hamel said when
people live in an apartment -like complex; most of the noise is generated by interior noise. If the buildings were
properly insulated, the outside noise level exposure would be less. Mr. Hamel said that a residential area is a
residential area, and when coming across the Mendota Bridge, one will see these developments as being similar
to other residential developments in the city. He would like to see this land used in a unique fashion that would
give people a different message when coming into the city, and not seeing "just another development ".
Commissioner Dolan asked what the City Council's reaction was to his presentation to them. Mr. Hamel said
they were quite responsive and felt very strongly that this development was highly suspect, and they re- directed
the developer to modify some plans to take a look at what else could be done. Mr. Hamel said he believes the
general sentiment was to include the residential sensitivity. Chair Lorberbaum said that they did not do
anything beyond that to instruct the Planner. Commissioner Dolan asked if there was any movement to change
the comprehensive plan. Mr. Hamel said they did not change the comprehensive plan, but clearly opposed the
use of this site for residential usage. Commissioner Dolan asked if the residents would act to have the flight
patterns changed. Mr. Hamel said they could request it, but it could not be done. Mr. Hamel said MAC has no
liability but this has been a visibly, publicly exposed issue. Mr. Hamel said the federal government, along with
the FAA and the Environmental Protection Agency states this 65 -DNL zone is totally unacceptable for
6
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
residential use. Mr. Hamel said that if the City approves this development, and has the support of the Met
Council, they would have to deal the residents voicing their concerns about the substantial noise.
Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Hamel if in his opinion that a commercial site could be developed here. Mr.
Hamel said yes.
Commissioner Hesse asked what the exposure to the City would be if this was approved residential, as there is a
federal and legal issue saying a residence cannot be put in this area. Mr. Hamel said the federal government
does not tell the cities how they can or cannot develop properties, but based on scientific and health standards,
this is a highly exposed piece of property, and the federal government recommended that this property not be
used for any residential development. If the City decides to overrule that, there will virtually be no liability to
the public sector on this. Mr. Hamel said there was a development where residents pursued a lawsuit in which
they stated that they were not aware of the noise factors when they purchased their property. They could not,
however, sue the MAC or the Met Council. Mr. Hamel said he is not sure what they could do with the City.
Commissioner Hesse asked if there are any legal avenues where a resident or the City could come after MAC
with issues. Mr. Hamel said they could not because of public disclosures made on MAC's behalf.
Commissioner M. McManus asked if MAC has obtained any infoiniation of other communities that may have
been in this same situation and that have made any regrettable decisions. Mr. Hamel said that he did not, but he
is willing to try to gather some of that information if requested to do so.
It is noted that the following are the paraphrased closing comments from the Planning Commission members:
Commissioner M. McManus
"Since this came up before us, I've spent some time looking at the comprehensive plan and trying to understand
the concept behind the concepts that were received, trying to get a feel of the vision that the Planning
Commission had and the Council did ...I just want to quote from a couple of places because what I'm seeing
here does not seem to fit with the background that I've read about [regarding] the care and attention that has
been taken for many, many years in the development of Mendota Heights. Under Natural Features, it says ` the
City of Mendota Heights considers it paramount to protect and enhance the natural living environment for its
residents.' I think this speaks to something in terms of the prevention concept we've just heard about. Another
point under Development History talks about the airport policy plan and it states that `the State has had to and
will continue to diligently work to protect the quality of its neighborhoods from the negative influxes of aircraft
noise'. I won't read every item that came to my attention, if you will allow me one more, and this has to do
with the land use plan under Goals and Policies and Attention to the Focused Areas ... `the city will continue to
protect the quiet secluded feel of its mature neighborhoods by preserving natural features and environment from
wanting high quality and well functioning developments and continuing to combat the presence of increasing
airplane noise over the southern part of the city'. I don't know how they are going to combat the noise, but my
point, is that if by seeing this come forward, I don't see the vision that was here before; the documents that were
put together and all the comments and narratives that were made about the protection of the environment and
maintaining the nice quality of Mendota Heights. I have a vision of what a gateway to Mendota Heights would
look like, and it doesn't meet what I've seen in coming forward in this residential use development. Frankly, I
don't see how we got to high - density residential development from the ideas contained in this document. And
with all due respect to the developer that's tried to pay attention to what the Planning Commission and City
7
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
Council said, I just don't see the vision for that area in the way I see it coming before us. I liked the Lung
Association proposal and for what it's worth, it didn't pass. I am not sure exactly what would be unique and
creative, but I don't think this is it."
Commissioner Hesse
"I think it was very well put what Commission M. McManus said, and add that again, my concern. I think there
is a lot of frontier that the City is exposing itself to potentially. The only thought that keeps going through my
mind is that I haven't gotten all of my questions answered on what that exposure is, whether it be legally,
financial, or whatever it is. Ultimately, I still feel like we are kind of tempting fate here with this high price
residential development in an area that is highly suspect. As far as a physical and view standpoint, it's very
attractive, but we are all very well aware that there is a major noise issue, and I don't understand why we go this
route. I say that with the understanding I was not around to hear the arguments when we developed the
comprehensive plan as to why residential was chosen as a way to go."
Commissioner Dolan
"I'm kind of torn here. On one hand, I don't know if it does the Planning Commission much good to question
decisions that the Council has made less than one or two years ago. It seems as though the decision has been
made that this should be residential development. We've had an office developer in front of us that was
rejected, and now we are thinking about rejecting a residential developer. I share Commissioner Betlej's
concern that we are giving the owner no direction on this property. Given those thoughts, I think that we should
be striving to get the best residential development that we can in accordance with our concerns about noise.
)Whether that is a large apartment building, I don't know. I am uncomfortable with the amount of noise, but I'm
not willing to say that it actually can't be residential development. I'm kind of on the fence here, but that's
what I'm thinking."
Chair Lorberbaum
"That's kind of where I am because I was in support also of the Lung Association building, and if the City
Council is determined to make this residential, then I have no power to stop them. If it's going to be residential,
let's look at this and make comments, but my hope would be that something would be changed and it wasn't
residential. Again, everything that I feel has been stated. This is a spectacular view, this is a gateway, and we
want something really special here. I think the applicant has gone out of his way to improve what he gave us
last time. Has he improved it enough? Is this spectacular? Is this taking advantage of the view of wanting the
trails, the parks, and the historic piece of this land being maintained? I'm not sure because of the way it's been
redesigned at the last minute, taking out the Garron site. Again, this is better, I think we can do even better, I
hope we won't have residential there in the future."
Commissioner Betlej
"If we were to look at this development in light of what the collective wisdom decided that this was to be
multifamily residential, I think that what's been proposed here is substantially in line with what we had
considered for that site at the time under the multifamily designation. With some tweaking, I think there are
some improvements that we suggested here, but I think that's probably it. I was not one of those folks that
thought that this was a great residential piece of land. Landowners have rights to use their land in accordance to
the laws and you've got to give them the rights to do that, if they are coming up with something that is
8
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
reasonably acceptable. My recommendation is to let them do this, or make the change to the comprehensive
plan. It's just that simple to me."
Commissioner Friel
"I've never believed it's necessary to pursue an erroneous objective because you've reached an erroneous
conclusion. I think we've reached an erroneous conclusion when we adopted our comprehensive plan that
committed this property to R-3. There were some of us who spoke about that at the time, and I think that
Commissioner M. McManus quite properly went back to basics in pointing out where we should be, how we
should be in our planning, and I think demonstrated planning on this site was not consistent with the statements
that give rise to developing these plans. I think we were deprived inadvertently of the input from the MAC at a
time we had our discussions about this site eighteen months ago. I daresay that had we had the kind of input
we've had from the MAC at that time, it's likely that we would have a significantly different conclusion with
respect to our comprehensive plan. I think that it's important to note that as far as the MAC is concerned, this
community has not had an opportunity to have any input from this until now. This is the kind of site that begs
to get some input from the Airports Commission, of this community, whose focus is on aircraft noise, when
aircraft noise is such a serious matter with respect to this site. I happen to live in an area where aircraft noise is
a problem. I moved into this site in 1957, when aircraft noise was not a problem. Aircraft noise became a
problem as a consequence of the change in the use of to the jet aircraft. I can remember it was often, in the 60's,
a curiosity to hear a jet, and one would look to see what kind if was. By the early 70's, there were a lot more
jets and it was beginning to be a minor irritation. By the late 70's, it became a major irritation. I learned the
telephone number of the MAC's noise line and met Mr. Hamel after frequent calls about the noise being less
;tolerable than it was back in the early 80's. I think that our noise event where I live is probably never more than
65 to 70 decibels, and maybe in the summertime, we get some more because the aircraft can't get altitude quite
as quickly. Ninety decibels is absolutely intolerable. To plan a residential community under that kind of noise
is unconscienceable. I think we should prohibit any kind of residential development on this piece of property."
Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Weiland if he received any sense of where the Commission is at this time. Mr.
Weiland replied that he did. Chair Lorberbaum thanked Mr. Weiland for his time. This case will be going to
the June 4th City Council.
PLANNING CASE #02-20
PAUL NAJARIAN
1480 CHERRY HILL ROAD
SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME
Mr. Grittman introduced the request for the proposed home expansion and reviewed the site plan. Mr. Grittman
said the owner currently has an existing single family home on the property. On the north edge of the home and
the north property line, the home encroaches into the sideyard setback by approximately one to three feet, and is
not exactly parallel, which will make it more of an encroachment at the front corner.
The applicant is seeking to expand the structure, constructing a master bedroom and bath above the garage. The
) proposed side wall will align with the existing sidewall and will also encroaching the existing setback, although
9
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
ao closer to the property line than the existing sidewall. The applicant has suggested that other alternatives to
expanding their home at this site are not feasible because of other improvements on the property or other
existing setbacks.
The variance criteria in the zoning ordinance look for unique conditions on properties that preclude reasonable
use or create some kind of hardship. It is the Planner's view that there are no other alternatives to expansion of
this home. The argument could be whether or not the expansion is necessary, but the applicant has appealed to
the City to agree that the expansion of the home within the current perimeter is a reasonable use of the property
and the only feasible way to do so.
Chair Lorberbaum said the proposed addition is keeping the same footprint. Chair Lorberbaum asked if a
person has the right to expand, and therefore to say there is nowhere else to expand so it's a hardship because it
can't be expanded any other way. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has no right to always make that claim. In
the Planner's opinion, that is where the reasonable use of the property is measured. Mr. Grittman said this is a
large home on a reasonably large lot although not overly so. The encroachment is minimal.
Commissioner Friel said the addition could comply without extending the grandfathered variance that already
exists by move the upper wall back only 3-ft. Mr. Grittman said that would be engineeringly impossible as
there was an existing swimming pool to the rear of the home, and that may affect whether this is a hardship or
not. Chair Lorberbaum said it is not known as to whether the pool was there before the current owner purchased
the home.
Mr. Paul Najarian, 1480 Cherry Hill Road, showed pictures of the house. Mr. Najarian said he purchased the
house two years ago and the swimming pool was there at the time of the sale. Mr. Najarian explained how the
roof line would be created and gave a brief description of how the addition would be built, noting the roof line
will not be raised any higher than it already exists.
Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing, seeing no one else wishing to speak,
COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
6 Ayes
0 Nayes
Motion Carried.
COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO APPROVE
THE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND-STORY ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING
GARAGE, AND PROVIDE FOR A THREE-FOOT ENCROACHMENT TO THE SETBACK.
6 Ayes
0 Nayes
10
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
Motion Carried.
This proposal will go before the City Council on June 4`h'
PLANNING CASE #02 -02
TIM CURLEY
1044 DAKOTA DRIVE / 1045 MARY ADELE AVENUE
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND REZONING
Chair Lorberbaum said it was her understanding that this case has been withdrawn.
Mr. Hollister said that Mr. Curley wishes to withdraw his application at this time and reconsider his options.
Chair Lorberbaum said Mr. Curley has a right to do so and encouraged the City that if Mr. Curley comes back at
a reasonable time with another plan or the same plan, that Mr. Curley will not have to pay the same filing fee.
Mr. Hollister said that if Mr. Curley comes back with an application that is substantially similar to the one that
he has submitted and withdrawn, presumably it will require less time for City Planner to analyze. It then could
be justified to reducing the second fee, however, it would have to be published and certain conditions will be
required to cover some of the costs. Chair Lorberbaum said that the City should recover their fees if there is no
loss, but make any reductions possible.
Discussion of Resident Survey Regarding Recreational Vehicle Parking and Storage
This was an informal discussion of the Commission to review and make suggestions to enhance a survey that is
planned to be sent to the community regarding vehicle storage and parking regulations. Mr. Grittman said that
there was a workshop held in the fall of 2001 regarding this issue. Mr. Grittman said one of the suggestions
that came from that discussion was to receive feedback from the Commission on how the survey should be
worded. Mr. Grittman said the feedback would be to provide ideas to identify what kind of things are
appropriate and what is considered inappropriate. The survey talks about the size of the RV's that may be
stored, and the duration of that storage. The survey does not however, speak in terms of location requirements.
• Commissioner Friel said the concern was storage of vehicles on homeowners' properties. This should not
reflect concerns on parking for temporary periods. The survey confuses by using, alternatively, "park /
store ". The information the City is trying to get is to find out what people think about storing on their
property. Commissioner Friel said it should be defined for purposes of the survey what is meant by storage
and define what is meant by parking. Commissioner Friel said he believes there is a problem of
enforcement, but that is an entirely different issue. Commissioner Friel said the survey should identify what
is permissible or not.
• Commissioner Dolan said the difficulty in the past was the distinction between the parking and the storage.
The effort should be to determine what people feel is acceptable parking and unacceptable storage.
Commissioner Dolan said that the worded may be better to say, "keep the vehicles ", rather than "park" or
"storage ".
11
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
► Commissioner Friel said that this would still be confusing. The survey should determine how the residents
feel about how long something can be stored on a property, if at all. The word "storage" should then be
defined for purposes for asking survey questions, and define "park ", and then answer that question.
Otherwise, the results will be meaningless.
• Chair Lorberbaum said there needs to be an understanding of what it is the survey is trying to achieve.
Those results may include identification as to what is considered "storage ", or "parking "; or if the purpose is
to put together an ordinance that is enforceable. These results could also identify a need to look at things
beyond recreational vehicles, or wanting to say how long should a boat be parked in a driveway; such as
'should a construction truck be allowed to be parked in a driveway ?' It must be decided on what kind of
results should come from a survey. Chair Lorberbaum received feedback from Commissioner B. McManus
asking why is the survey designed to address only recreational vehicles.
• Commissioner Dolan asked if this type of survey has been done before, and is this a unique issue that the
Commission should not simply consider as all other issues have been considered. Commissioner Dolan said
that this is not a unique issue in that other communities deal with the same thing. Commissioner Dolan said
people don't understand the distinction between parking and storage, that an RV located on a particular
portion of a lot for a certain duration of time maybe called "parking" by one and "storage" by another.
Someone may or may not object to it regardless of whether it is call parking or storage. It may be best to
divorce from this terminology and say if an RV is in a certain location for a certain location, and the RV is a
certain size, would a resident be objected as to this. Would it make a difference if it was moved to a
different place, or be a smaller size, or be there for a lesser amount of time. Is this vehicle in that location
because it is currently licensed and able to drive, or perhaps the owner is waiting until the next RV season?
The "parking" and "storage" discussion actually interferes what people don't like about RV's being kept on
properties.
• Commissioner Friel said it's the same thing by using the word "kept ", and put in a timeframe. That would
give a built in definition. Commissioner Friel said the problem with doing that is there needs to be a
consistency.
• Commissioner Hesse said that as a starting point, the terms could be defined in a way that to store
something is a site issue, and he feels that to store something is to put it out of site (in a shed or garage).
Commissioner Hesse said that by parking something, it is in plain view and should have a time constriction
on this vehicle. If the survey says the view is becoming offensive to people they are going to want to limit
that parking.
• Commissioner Betlej said that there should be a definition of storage and make a reference that there will be
some ability to park on a temporary basis.
• Chair Lorberbaum said that to place a covered vehicle in a driveway for several months is clearly being
stored; it would be "stored" as far as the owner is concerned.
• Commissioner Hesse said that this would by why it needs to be established that a stored vehicle must be
contained in a permanent structure.
• Commissioner M. McManus said she likes community survey, and recognized that this will not be an easy
one. Commissioner M. McManus said the Commission should go back to why the survey is needed, and if
there are not a lot of complaints being received, should a survey be done. Commissioner M. Manus referred
to Question #3 on the survey draft "Do you think residents of Mendota Heights should be allowed to
park/store their recreational vehicles for extended periods (three months or more)." Commissioner M.
McManus said this should be Question #1, and then go from there for an idea of what the community thinks
12
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
) about whether this is an issue to the community and will better direct the City to make a decision.
Commissioner M. McManus said that when people complete a survey, they expect that the City will take
action on the results of that survey. Then questions follow as to how many people will take the survey and
is it a valid survey to give a sense of what the community thinks. This will give direction on a way to
design the rest of the survey. Commissioner M. McManus said it is sometimes better for someone to take a
survey and edit it somewhat. Commissioner M. McManus said that if a survey is done, it needs to be
decided as to how to get the survey to the residents, and then determine what level of response should be
received to get a better picture of what the concerns of the community is. It would be better to separate the
questions and reformat. Time limitations should also be considered.
• Chair Lorberbaum said that the survey draft does not state any consideration for the number of vehicles on
the property. This may be added to the survey as well.
• Commissioner Friel said it may be appropriate to add some questions asking what residents think could be
changed in the ordinance for larger garages and storage facilities to provide for stored vehicles.
• Chair Lorberbaum said there are probably residents that would not want to see this kind of change to the
ordinance.
• Commissioner Betlej referred to a comment made earlier questioning the need for a survey because is
seemed to be there was not a significant amount of issues in the city. Commissioner Betlej asked if it was in
fact correct that there have been some issues but haven't had the ability to enforce because of the way the
laws are currently written?
• Mr. Hollister said that the City has received occasional complaints about recreational vehicles in Mendota
Heights and these complaints have minimal (about 2 per year). Mr. Hollister said that the ordinance is not
as precise as it should be. It was written with the best intent, but the parking versus storage question is
difficult to answer. Mr. Hollister said that his recollection of last October's workshop concluded that
discussion of the RV portion by saying there should be a survey put in the Highlites city newsletter to test
the waters and get a general sense from the community of what the level of tolerance is. At that time, the
discussion was focused on recreational vehicles, meaning campers and other large vehicles, not necessarily
ATV's and snowmobiles. Mr. Hollister said four newsletters per year are sent to the residents, and it goes to
every address in the city. This is a good opportunity to systematically get some feel for where the
community is on something. There needs to be some thought into wording this, and the next Highlites is
scheduled to come out in July. With the timing of this, there is an opportunity to bring this back to the
Commission and City Council for review before then. If there is no comfort level in July, the survey could
be postponed until the October issue. Mr. Hollister said there is a need for wording that is clear enough so
that a typical resident in Mendota Heights can understand what kind of feedback the City is looking for.
• Commissioner Betlej said that if there are only about 2 per year then maybe the City is stirring up the pot
when not necessary.
• Commissioner Friel said that the constant reference to the level of tolerance is inappropriate. The City
should deal with the proliferation of eyesores in the community and the adverse affects on property values
in the community. The level of tolerance may have something to do with it, but it is not the answer.
• Chair Lorberbaum said that any survey would need to be carefully crafted.
• Commissioner Betlej said if a survey is done, one thing to think about is what is important to the Planning
Commission to help create new ordinances such as screening, setbacks, upkeep of vehicle, number of non-
car items to be parked on the lot, should distinctions be made as to the size of the lot, or the size of the
vehicle. How far from the street should a vehicle be parked would be a safety issue. Some RV's are plugged
13
Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2002
in and there is a noise generated from there — would that be important to people? There have been some
instances in the community where RV's have been used for business purposes.
• Commissioner Dolan said there should be a concern about the number of questions.
• Commissioner Betlej suggested more open-ended questions.
• Commissioner Friel asked for better formatting use of the English language using plural subjects and plural
verbs instead of some of one and some of the other.
• Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Hollister if he has received enough infaanation to re-draft the survey. Mr.
Hollister said he did. A new survey draft will also be presented to the City Council along with the
Commission's comments and will most likely come back to the Commission at the June meeting for further
review. Mr. Hollister said that a survey is occasionally placed on recycling in the Highlites and has received
a good response from that. Mendota Heights has a population of about 11,000 and there are about 3,500
addresses that the Highlites go to. There were a couple of hundred returned, which considering the fact it's
not a marketing survey where there is no postage paid return envelop included, Mr. Hollister feels this is a
good response. Mr. Hollister said that one thing to look at is that if there is a cluster of zoning issues that
are closely related, an attempt could be made to incorporate some of these suggestions in them. Mr.
Hollister added that there is a need to keep the survey from getting too many topics, such as how people feel
about satellite dishes, into the survey. Mr. Hollister said that the survey will also be posted on the website.
Chair Lorberbaum closed the discussion.
Verbal Review — Jim Danielson
• Planning Case #01-39 — Ridder property subdivision was approved as recommended. Discussion regarding
the storm water raised concerns. A condition was placed on the developer that there will be a warranty for
drainage problems within a three-year period.
• Planning Case #02-08 — Arehart request for a freestanding garage was approved.
• Planning Case #02-12 — Hobbs subdivision was not approved. This was tabled until Mr. Hobbs can come
up with a plan to improve or clean up his lot before the proposal would be approved. Mr. Hobbs is agreeing
to do this.
• Planning Case #02-13 — approved.
• Planning Case #02-14 — approved.
COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. McMANUS, TO
ADJOURN.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary
14