Loading...
2001-08-28 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2001 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 28, 2001 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 and Commissioners Marina McManus, Hesse, Dolan, and Friel. City Staff present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman of NAC. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Commissioner Betlej arrived late. Excused: Commissioner Bruce McManus Chair Lorberbaum introduced Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Lorberbaum asked for corrections to the minutes of June 26, 2001. Commissioner Dolan, page eight, 6th paragraph. "Commissioner Dolan referenced their notes...", should read "Commissioner B. McManus referenced their notes... ". Commissioner Dolan, page thirteen, last paragraph, last sentence. Add ordinance to the end of sentence (after the word "existing "). Commissioner Dolan, page seventeen, last paragraph, second sentence, should read. "He stated that the Comprehensive Plan designations that we have must refer to zoning classifications. that even though it is not consistent, at least addressed the issue ". Chair Lorberbaum moved approval as revised. Seconded by Commissioner Hesse. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO ACCEPT THE REVISED MINUTES FROM JUNE 26, 2001. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Meeting August 28, 2001 Chair Lorberbaum asked for corrections to the minutes of July 31st as recorded by Patrick Hollister. Hearing none, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion. COMMISSIONER MARINA MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FROM JULY 31, 2001 AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED. CASE REVIEWS / PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #01 -27: WARREN AND PATRICIA RUSH 679 MARIE AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A DECK (It is noted that Commissioner Betlej arrived about this time.) Chair Lorberbaum introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Chair Lorberbaum asked to hear from the applicant. Warren and Patricia Rush were present to discuss their request. Mrs. Rush stated there will be no grass removal. Since the deck is at ground level, the plan would be to split shrubs and place bark around it to hold moisture. She added that they are not planning to remove any trees, and that the reason a walkway is planned is to save the trees and shrubs. What is in the creek already is natural vegetation that has been there for the fifteen years the Rush's have owned the house. She added that they maintain the trees and the creek. Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Grittman if the new deck constitutes a separate accessory structure. Mr. Grittman replied that it does not add on an addition to an existing structure. Commissioner Dolan confirmed then that the whole deck is one, and not two decks. Mr. Grittman stated that was correct. Commissioner Betlej inquired of Mr. Grittman that since the map provides contours, he was trying to figure out how long this slope was in the back yard and what the calculation of the steepness was. Mr. Grittman replied there were no calculations made. He referred to the topography map on the screen and stated he could make that calculation. Commissioner Betlej Planning Commission Meeting August 28, 2001 asked if they were 1 Ft. contours, or 2 Ft. Mr. Grittman replied that it was 2 Ft. contours. Commissioner Betlej estimated the slope steepness to be 6 Ft. Mr. Grittman stated that it was approximately 8 Ft. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present, she asked for a motion to close the hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONER MARINA McMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO APPROVE THE WETLANDS PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED BY STAFF THAT SHRUBS AND GRASS BE ADDED AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED. Chair Lorberbaum stated that the Commission recommended approval of this request and it goes before the City Council the next Tuesday. She also recommends that the applicants provide additional information regarding the shrubs and vegetation at the City Council meeting Mrs. Rush stated that the grass will not be affected, as the concrete pylons holding the deck will be set on the ground. She assured the Commission that they would be bringing back a better plan to the City Council. Mrs. Rush stated she might go to a nursery to get some help with layouts. PLANNING CASE #01 -28: VINCENT PAGNOTTA 650 BROOKSIDE LANE VARIANCE FROM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR A BUILDING ADDITION Chair Lorberbaum introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of this planning application Planning Commission Meeting August 28, 2001 Commissioner Hesse asked if there are any new non - conformities, extending into an encroaching setback along both Laura and Brookside. Commissioner Hesse stated he is struggling with the fact that this structure was an existing non- conformance and there really is no greater encroachment proposed. He then questioned whether this would require a variance. Chair Lorberbaum stated the house is non - conforming because it isn't in compliance with the current standards so in some ways, it would be brought into conformance. Mr. Grittman stated that there are some things about the proposal that brings it more into conformance. Commissioner Betlej asked if this was 1 lot? Mr. Grittman stated that it appears to be per the information they have. Chair Lorberbaum invited the applicant to address the Commission. Mr. Vince Pagnotta, 3939 Westburg Drive, Eagan, gave a brief background on his intentions. He wants to put an addition on a very old house, and try to follow the same lines and site as the existing house. That is the reason for the variance. He stated that he understands the required setbacks are preferred to keep homes from crowding the street. He feels that in this case, the house along Brookside is pushed far enough back and he doesn't see it as an unattractive addition. Commissioner Dolan asked what was the problem in changing this existing site line; it seems a priority to maintain the existing site lines. What is the drawback of creating new site lines? Mr. Pagnotta stated that the current ordinance requires 30 Ft. setback for a front yard and a side yard abutting a street, and in order to adhere to that, the addition would have to go back 12 Ft. To go 12 Ft., it's so far back and would look ugly and would require the removal of many mature trees. Commissioner Dolan asked if the address would be Laura or Brookside. Mr. Pagnotta stated he could do either. Commissioner Dolan asked Public Works Director Jim Danielson what the procedures are to change the address of a house. Director Danielson replied that any address changes would be done at the time of the application for a building permit. Commissioner Betlej asked how much of the existing house will be reused. Mr. Pagnotta stated he would reuse the structure. It's a one story and this addition will come up and over the foundation. The roof will come off. The foundation is very solid. Chair Lorberbaum asked if Mr. Pagnotta would be open to keeping the home a one story house, because looking at the structure, most people are more comfortable with it now because of its 4 Planning Commission Meeting August 28, 2001 size, and if you put a larger structure people would not be comfortable with it. Mr. Pagnotta stated that in order to get the home space he wants, a one story would have to have a larger footprint. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present, she asked for a motion to close the hearing. COMMISSIONER MARINA MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED. Further Discussion Commissioner Hesse stated this house was one of the first in the neighborhood. It's very small and old. He thinks there is a hardship. It is preferred to encourage people to brighten up areas that are less than attractive, and they should not be discouraged. He added that Mr. Pagnotta's interest is in making this look quite a bit nicer, but certainly more than the average person's property even if the house is closer to the street. Commissioner Hesse believes the hardship is: 1) that the option to build in the back yard, would remove attractive open space, and 2) if Mr. Pagnotta has to completely demolish the building, it would be a cost hardship. He is in agreement with Mr. Pagnotta. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARINA McIVIANUS, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED ON HARDSHIP ISSUES. Chair Lorberbaum asked for a clarification of the motions hardships — giving him the option to build without taking open space and the financial hardship of tearing down the house. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbaum stated that financial hardship is not a hardship under legal terms. Chair Lorberbaum, after extensive consideration, commended Mr. Pagnotta on his intent to live across from his parents, and or trying to spruce up the neighborhood by making a non-conformance conforming, but she does not find a hardship at this point. Commissioner Hesse offered to amend the motion. He asked Mr. Pagnotta if he has approached any of the neighbors. He stated his neighbors are in support of his plans. He disagrees with discouraging people to improve their property by restricting them to how they can build on it. Planning Commission Meeting August 28, 2001 Commissioner Betlej stated that part of his struggle is what a hardship is. He thinks on one side that eliminating existing non - conforming conditions is good but on the other side is the idea that we will encourage similar things to occur and variances will be needed. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Danielson about a case a month ago where people were looking for a hardship for a garage. Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister stated that the ordinance contains a clause about refurbishing structures that are dilapidated and in disrepair. The Council denied the planning application for the two variances but the Council authorized the Code Enforcement Office to issue a peiiiiit to refurbish her detached garage which is in bad condition with a new detached garage, in almost the same location, and same configuration. Mr. Hollister added that in the instance of this garage, the size difference was slight. In the instance of Mr. Pagnotta's case, the size is tripled. It is not known whether the City Council will feel that the teuii "refurbished" would apply in this case. Chair Lorberbaum referred to the definition of hardship: Hardship is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance may not alter the spirit of the neighborhood, economic conditions consideration shall not constitute a hardship of reasonable use of the property that exists. Commissioner Friel stated that the Commission is not in a position to do what the City Council does, and this isn't really a reconstruction of an existing house. This is a major construction project. Commissioner Marina McManus expressed her concern that the character of the neighborhood has been altered from when the current house was built. This is a major construction around a shell of a house. The lot could accommodate all the setback requirements, but it would be an economic hardship. Commissioner Hesse asked which trees would be affected if the option to stay within the setback ordinance were in effect. Mr. Pagnotta drew a sketch depicting them. He stated that this is a difficult construction project and he understands the ordinance requirements and will try to adhere to them. He also believes that the house is not very marketable as it stands right now, being a small one - bedroom home. Chair Lorberbaum stated that someone might come in and buy the property, perhaps because it's a little cheaper, and will tear down the house and existing garage to rebuild a structure that will meet all requirements. Mr. Pagnotta stated he was originally planning on doing that, but wanted to preserve the structure of the house. 6 Planning Commission .'Meeting August 28, 2001 COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARINA MCIVIANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE HARDSHIP THAT MR. PAGNOTTA HAS LIMITED OPTIONS TO BUILD DUE TO THE EXISTING LOCATION OF THE HOUSE. THE POSITION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE MAKES IT DIFFICULT AND IMPRACTICAL TO ADD ON TO IT IN A MANNER THAT WOULD CONFORM TO ALL SETBACKS. AYES: 2 NAYS: 4 (Friel, Betlej, Dolan and Lorberbaum) MOTION FAILED. Chair Lorberbaum stated a motion is needed to forward to the City Council. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO DENY THE VARIANCE. AYES: 4 NAYS: 2 (Hesse and M. McManus) MOTION CARRIED. Chair Lorberbaum stated this request will go to the City Council next Tuesday and wished Mr. Pagnotta good luck. PLANNING CASE #01 -21: DAVID AND JAN JESSEN 869 BLUFF CIRCLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING LARGER THAN 144 SF. Chair Lorberbaum introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Commissioner Dolan asked for clarification that this varies from the standards in the ordinance. As the maximum allowed is 144 Sq. Ft. without a Conditional Use Permit, the proposed pool house is two levels, with 646 Sq. Ft. on each level, bringing a total of 1,300 Sq. Ft., which is 10 times the proposed drawing. Commissioner Dolan referred to Section 4.52 of the ordinance, which says that no accessory building shall exceed 15 Ft. in height. Mr. Grittman stated the height of the proposed pool house meets the 15 Ft. standard, which is measured from the average grade at ground to the average of the roof. Chair Lorberbaum asked to hear from the applicant. Planning Commission Meeting August 28, 2001 Mr. David Jessen, of 869 Bluff Circle, approached the Commission to address questions. He referred to a neighborhood map, which also showed the NSP tank farm. Chair Lorberbaum asked for an explanation of the differences from the previous request. Mr. Jessen stated that originally, he had built a driveway down to the back of his home and 12 years ago, because he had anticipated building a garage. After he did that the ordinance changed in 1995. That structure was twice the size of the proposed pool house. He explained how the home has been added to and how the pool was situated, which was on the same grade as the house. The difference between that plan and this plan is now the pool is being moved down-to a lower grade, with steps leading to it. This new plan is approximately half the size of the original structure. Also, he stated that the original plan called for a structure strong enough to hold a vehicle on the top floor, but the new proposed building would call for a wood structure, which cannot accommodate a vehicle. Commissioner Hesse asked for confirmation that the pool is currently non - existent, and that it's construction is part of the major plan. Mr. Jessen replied that was correct. Commissioner Hesse then asked what else besides pool equipment would be stored in the pool house. Mr.Jessen replied that the patio and lawn furniture would also be stored there, as well as a lawnmower and snow blower. Commissioner Dolan commented about Mr. Jessen's letter, which said that some of the neighbors would be able to see the poolhouse from their back yard and asked Mr. Jessen if he obtained signatures from the neighbors in support of this project. Mr. Jessen stated that he did when he attempted the previous plan, but had not gone around for this current proposal. He feels it's not an issue as the neighbors supported the much grander plan, so he felt this would not be a problem. Chair Lorberbaum stated that this building would be closer to the neighbors than the previous requested one. Mr. Jessen stated that in fact this building is to be located in the same area. The only person that will be able to see it is the neighbor to the east, and they are fine with it as long as it matches the house. Chair Lorberbaum stated that the neighbors agree with Mr. Jessen, but have not formally submitted their approval with the new application and this application requires a public hearing. Mr. Jessen stated he would go around and talk to the neighbors again and make sure they see the plan before the City Council meeting next Tuesday. Commissioner Dolan stated that this would be a good idea, and that Mr. Jessen is not obligated, but because it's a fairly large structure, it could cause some neighborhood concern. Chair Lorberbaum asked for confirmation that the existing shed will be removed. Mr. Jessen replied that it would be. Chair Lorberbaum then asked for a proposed starting date for construction. Mr. Jessen stated he would like to begin immediately. 8 Planting Commission Meeting August 28, 2001 Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing,. Seeing no one present, she asked for a motion to close the hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING LARGER THAN 144 SQ. FT. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED. Chair Lorberbaum stated the public hearings were officially closed. She thanked Commissioner Betlej for Chairing of the last meeting and commended him on an excellent job. VERBAL REVIEW - JIM DANIELSON Mr. Danielson reviewed the disposition of the Planning, cases that went forward from the July meeting. OPEN DISCUSSION Chair Lorberbaum informed the Commission that the City Council has talked about having a joint workshop, as there have been a number of discussions regarding fences, garages and recreation vehicle parking /storage. The Council would like to increase dialogue with the Commission to see what direction to take. Chair Lorberbaum then asked if anyone would be open to have this workshop on October 30th. The consensus of the Commission is that this date will work. Commissioner Betlej stated that he has a particular item for discussion at the workshop. Mr. Hollister stated he would be happy to convey the Planning Commission's interest in adding that topic to the list of topics. 9 Planning Commission Meeting August 28, 2001 Chair Lorberbaum stated that the workshop agenda will have some flexibility in it and even though a particular topic is not officially on the agenda, the Commission should convey their interest at the workshop to discuss the kind of things they see going forward this year. Mr. Hollister pointed out that the City Council, at their last meeting, had asked him to pass on to the Commission that they would like to have a workshop. However, they had not mentioned any particular day for the workshop, such as October 30th. He informed the Commission that the Council will have to decide on a date at the next meeting. Staff felt that October 30th would be the most convenient date, and wanted to run it by the Commission before the Council makes a decision. Mr. Hollister will then, therefore, suggest October 30th as the preferred date for the workshop. Chair Lorberbaum asked Commissioner Friel to present infoimation submitted in regards to seminars on zoning and land use. He suggests these are excellent guides for city staffs and planning staffs to help them deal with concepts in planning and keep updated on changes. The next seminar coming_ up is November 27th. Chair Lorberbaum stated people can also check out the website for more infouniation. Commissioner Friel added that what people come back with is a lot of additional information that cover planning processes, the zoning processes, CUP's, variances, case law, etc. Chair Lorberbaum stated that if anyone is interested in attending any of the seminars to give them further education to help them be a better Commissioner, they are to let her know. Then the Commission will see if the City has budgeted any money for this. There being no further business, COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO ADJOURN AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer Recording Secretary I0