Loading...
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