Loading...
2001-09-25 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 25, 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 Betlej, B. 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 M. McManus arrived late. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Lorberbaum asked for corrections to the minutes of August 28, 2001. Chair Lorberbatun referred to page 5, under "Further Discussion ", and asked Commissioner Hesse to clarify his statements. This paragraph should therefore read as follows: "Commissioner Hesse stated this house he added that Mr. Pagnotta's interest is in making this look quite a bit nicer. There is certainly more than the average person's property as the house is closer to the street. Commissioner Hesse believes the hardship is: 1) that the option to build in the backyard would remove the attractive open space, and 2) if he has to completely demolish the building, it would be a cost hardship. He is in agreement with Mr. Pagnotta." Chair Lorberbaum referred to page 2, third paragraph from the bottom, second sentence which should read: "Since the deck is at ground level, the plan would be to plant shrubs and place bark around it to hold moisture." Chair Lorberbaum referred to page 8, third paragraph, first sentence which should read: "Commissioner Dolan commented about Mr. Jessen's letter which stated that some of the neighbors would be able to see the poolhouse from their backyard ...." Chair Lorberbaum referred to page 9, first paragraph, second sentence that should read: "She thanked Commissioner Betlej for chairing the last meeting and commended him on an excellent job." Page - 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 2001 Commissioner Friel referred to page 6, fourth paragraph, first sentence, which should read: "Commissioner Friel stated that the Commission is not in a position to do what the City Council..." Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister reported a change to the minutes from Commission M. McManus, referring to page 6, fifth paragraph, first sentence which should read: "Commissioner Marina McManus expressed her concern that the character of the neighborhood has been altered from when the current house was built." COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO ACCEPT THE REVISED MINUTES FROM AUGUST 28, 2001. AYES: 6 (It was noted that Commissioner M. McManus was not present at this time) NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #01 -32 DS OF CENTRE POINTE, LLC 1110 CENTRE POINTE CURVE VARIANCES TO REPLACE TWO (2) EXISTING MONUMENT SIGNS Chair Lorberbaum introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Mr. Grittman presented the site plan showing the site of the fomier "GNB" building and reviewed the application for an amended application for sign variances from a previous application. The applicant had originally requested some changes to their existing sign package on the property. The new application is asking to replace the signs along the east side of the building with monument style signs. There are two signs, each 70 sq. ft. per side, the two sides totaling 140 sq. ft., or 280 sq. ft. in aggregate, and constitute about the same as the amount of signage that is currently along that side of the building, and is in the allowance of the zoning ordinance based on the amount of linear footage of the lot. The variance comes into play in regards to the setback requirement. This lot is zoned B -1A, and sign setbacks are required to meet the building setbacks, in this case is 100 ft. from the right of way line. All the existing signs are in violation of this requirement. The surrounding properties have signs much closer to the roadway because they are zoned B -1, which has a looser allowance for signage. The applicant is seeking sign variances for the setback for the proposed signs and reducing the setbacks from 100 ft. to 18 ft. Commissioner Friel asked for clarification in regards to whether the proposed signs would meet the area requirements, which is 70 sq. ft. And no individual sign is to exceed 50 sq. ft. Mr. Grittman stated that there is no 50 sq. ft. limitation and that the wording in the proposal is misleading. Commissioner Friel stated that the current setback is worse in terms of violation of Page - 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 2001 the ordinance then what the proposed setback would be, and so with this proposal, there is a lesser violation. Mr. Grittman stated this was correct. Commissioner Hesse asked for clarification of the setback requirements. Mr. Grittman replied that B -1A is 100 ft. and B -1 is 40 ft. Commissioner Hesse asked why this property is B -1A in this area. Public Works Director Danielson replied that GNB owned the entire piece that is surrounded by Resurrection Cemetery at one time. They split off a portion and sold it for development. It went into tax forfeit, and Roseville Properties now owns it and is developing it. When this new developer acquired the property, they rezoned it to B -1. GNB was zoned B -1A as was all the properties, and no one ever requested to have that piece rezoned. Commissioner B. McManus referred to a small -scale map, where marked in red, depicts a sign on the north side that will be closer to the street than it was previously. Mr. Grittman replied that according to the applicant's materials and drawings, the intent is to make an 18 ft. setback. Commissioner B. McManus stated it was indicated that the new signs will reduce the variance rather than increase it, and yet it appears the sign will be closer to the street. Mr. Grittman replied that it was his understanding that the existing signs were 5 ft. and the proposed signs would be 18 ft. Commissioner Dolan asked for clarification of the interpretation of the ordinance, Section 21.5(13)a in calculating the amount of signage an applicant is entitled to on the entire site. It is assumed that there are three frontages on the site and is that the way the ordinance is intended to read? The ordinance says that the aggregate square footage of signage per lot may not exceed the sum of one square foot per front foot of the lot. Can a building have more than one front for those purposes? Mr. Grittman replied that it was interpreted to mean all of the frontage on public streets and not necessarily the front yard. John Pilgrim, Rosewood Construction, approached the Commission to answer any questions and give any further information. He stated that by making an average setback of 18 ft., one particular sign would move closer and the other sign would move back. He believes the south side sign would move closer. Chair Lorberbauun stated there seemed no change to the pedestal sign, and asked if it was staying. Mr. Pilgrim replied that this sign would be staying in the existing location, and sometime in the future, the owner may discuss with the City Council and the Planing Conunission refurbishing that sign. Conunissioner Betlej asked what the materials would be for the base of the sign. Mr. Pilgrim replied that it would be made of a rock -faced or brick block snatching the building as close as possible. Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 2001 Commissioner Friel referred to Ordinance Section 21.5(13)a. He feels the calculation could not be as Mr. Pilgrim suggested. He would like to have it looked at again. He feels there is only one front to the building. Commissioner B. McManus asked about the 2 small signs that currently exist. There is a sign that currently exists on the south side of the north entrance drive (Main Lobby, Visitor Parking), will that be staying and has been calculated as far as the square footage was concerned. Mr. Pilgrim replied that this sign, as well as one on the south entrance, is 21.6 sq. ft. and has been taken into consideration with the three existing signs that are to be replaced and will therefore be removed. Commissioner Dolan asked if the existing sign to the south of the building was part of the Mendota Corporate Center. Mr. Pilgrim stated he did not think so. Chair Lorberbaum stated that this was a public hearing, and that the last application was denied by the City Council, and this was a new one. Chair Lorberbaum then opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED Administrative Assistant Hollister gave a brief history of the previous application, where Mr. Trooien was asked to come back with a revised site design that was more in line with the surrounding area. A modified site design was presented. Regarding front footage sign area calculations, Mr. Hollister stated that when there is a lot that is either on a corner, or a "thru lot ", or a lot which is surrounded by public right -of -way on three sides, whether residential or commercial, for setback purposes, the setback is always the same against any street. Mr. Hollister added that often such cases are referred to as having multiple front yards. The ordinance actually recognizes only one front yard and in some cases, the property owner has the right to choose which front yard that is. There is a clause that says that on a side yard that is against the street, the setback shall be the same as the front yard. Commissioner Friel stated that the ordinance seems to talk about front yards and define them and deal with them in a much different way than the sign ordinance deals with front yards, which deals with front foot of building. A building seems to only have one front, no matter how many streets there are, so the square footage should be calculated by the one front side of the building. Mr. Grittman stated that the language in the sign ordinance does not say front yard, it says front footage. The only other place front footage is used is in assessment proceedings. In those cases, Planning Conimission Meeting September 25, 2001 all of the footage is counted whether it's the side or fi-ont, thus giving some calculation guideline in this case. Commissioner Friel stated this discussion could be rhetorical because even after any adjustments to the calculation, it could result in being well within the 280 sq. ft. Commissioner Dolan added that theoretically, there could be 40 to 50-sq.ft signs in that area. Mr. Grittman stated that could be possible. Commissioner Betlej asked if there was any discussion at the last Council meeting in how this should be interpreted (the size limitations of the signs), and if so, are we being consistent with it. Mr. Hollister replied that it seems to be everyone's understanding that the GNB building is so large that, numerically, either way it is interpreted; there is no danger of violating the limit on aggregate square footage of signage. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE OF SIGN SETBACKS FOR THE TWO SIGNS AS STATED IN THIS PLANNING CASE. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbatun made clarification that the pedestal sign will stay and the three existing signs will be taken down. Commissioner Friel stated the issue of hardship has not been discussed. He does not find a hardship in this case. Chair Lorberbaum stated that the planner suggested the hardship has been demonstrated to justify approval and the denial would not grant the applicant privileges afforded to the other properties in the area. A reasonable attempt has been made to meet the intent of the sign ordinance given the property and the surrounding sides. Commissioner Friel stated that the Chair's interpretation implies that just because this means there may be additional violations that makes this a hardship. Chair Lorberbatun added that this is granting the applicant nothing more than the adjoining properties have. Commissioner Dolan said he sees this as a re-zoning issue rather than a variance issue, and in this case, the variances are diminishing. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1 (Commissioner Friel) MOTION CARRIED (It is noted that Commissioner M. McManus is not present at this time) Page - 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 2001 Commissioner B. McManus asked if it would be fair and reasonable to recommend to the Council to rezone this property. Chair Lorberbaum stated that this recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Commissioner Betlej stated that the next case is a discussion of a CUP for a fence. The last case of the evening is in regards to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Fences. Should this discussion take place before the CUP discussion so that there is nothing conflicting? Commissioner Friel stated that the applicant is entitled to the terms of the ordinance that now exist when the application was made, and should not be influenced by any changes that will be made in the future. Commissioner Dolan stated his agreement. It was the consensus of the Commission to leave the agenda as is. PLANNING CASE #01-33 PATRICK CONROY 952 STRATFORD ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A 6-FOOT HIGH FENCE Chair Lorberbatun introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Mr. Grianian presented a map of the applicant's property, which is a single family home located next to the Burrow's Farm. The applicant wishes to construct a 6 ft. fence within 30 ft. of the street right of way. The ordinance is written to allow fences that exist within 30 ft. of the right of way to be just 3 ft. in height. The ordinance was recently changed to accommodate these types of requests, particularly on corner lots where a fence may have some justification of being higher for privacy reasons. The applicant maintains that a taller fence is necessary to protect the property from the neighboring farm activities, such as the horses on that property which may cause a potential threat to the Conroy children. A lower fence would provide some protection, but the Conroys feel that will not be adequate separation. There is also an existing barbed wire fence, which also does not seem to be adequate separation. It would be possible to build a lower fence that is set back from the property line, but that would leave a strip of land between the barbed wire and the 3 ft. fence that would leave a vacant and useless gap. Commissioner Hesse asked if this was the only property where there may be a conflict between horses and residents. Mr. Grittman stated there are some other properties abutting the farm. Chair Lorberbaum stated there was a possibility that other residents may request a similar CUP to construct a higher fence. Mr. Danielson stated that the other properties don't abut a street, so they can put a 6 ft. fence on their property. Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 2001 Mr. Grittman stated that the property falls away from the road dramatically and the impact of a 6 ft. fence would not be seen because of the topography. Commissioner Dolan stated that the only factor being discussed is how much of that fence is going to be in the 30 ft. portion, and does it meet the 30% open requirement. Mr. Grittman stated that currently does not apply to rear fences. Commissioner Friel stated the barbed wire fence would serve the same purpose. Pat Conroy, 952 Stratford Road, stated that the primary motivation for the fence is his three small children. The fence would be cedar, with alternating boards. He stated that the 3 ft. fence would not work. It would stop the horses, but it may not deter his children from going to the horses. The barbed wire fence also creates a safety concern. The Conroys have lived at this residence for approx. 6 years, and they have had three children in the last 24 months, thus prompting the need for additional protection. The fence would run along the entire property line. The property line abuts the trail with a steep drop-off on the comer. The fence would run along the entire property line, stopping after the incline. Chair Lorberbaum suggested stopping the fence before the incline. This would keep the fence from being visible from the street. Mr. Danielson stated that the property does not extend up to the trail, but lies actually 8 ft. west of the trail. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 (It is noted that Commissioner M. McManus is not present at this time) NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO APPROVE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6 FT. FENCE WITHIN THE SETBACK AS SUBMITTED AYES: 6 (It is noted that Commissioner M. McManus is not present at this time) NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED Page - 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 2001 PLANNING CASE #01 -34 MIKE KLEHR 528 ANNAPOLIS ST. W. VARIANCE TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING FRONT ENTRANCE WITH A WRAP AROUND PORCH Chair Lorberbaum introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Mr. Grittman presented a map of the applicant's property. The address is Annapolis, but the frontage is actually on Fremont. The applicant wishes to remove a portion of an existing covered porch area, which is over a bay window and entryway, and replace with a larger open porch that wraps around the home. This request raises a setback violation from Fremont Avenue. The current setback is 29 ft., measuring from the curb. The prior setback is approx. 16 —17 ft. away from the property line, so the existing setback is in violation. The new structure would encroach one more foot toward the right of way. The neighboring properties show a variety of difference setbacks. The adjacent property is closer to the requirement. Staff recommends denial of the variance, as the proposed porch could be located on a different side of the building, which would not require a variance. (It is noted that Commissioner M. McManus is now present at this time and will be involved with further discussion during the meeting.) Commissioner Betlej asked if the concept of the wrap around porch on both sides violate any setback requirements? Mr. Grittman stated they would if they are within 30 ft. of the street, and doesn't impact anything on the sides of the house. In this case, only a violation would be seen on the south. Commissioner Friel stated that if the wrap around extended only 1 ft. less in the front, it would not be extending the existing use. Mike Klehr, applicant for the request for 528 Annapolis, stated that there is a hardship in this request as the current structure over the entryway and bay window is leaking, the posts are not supporting correctly. The building inspector informed Mr. Klehr that he would need a permit to even repair the porch. He would like to bring the setback out an additional foot by the bay window in order to place a walkway there. The home has an Annapolis address, although it fronts on Fremont, which makes Fremont the main street. Chair Lorberbaurn asked if Mr. Klehr would consider changing to a Fremont address. He stated he would be willing to do that if necessary. Commissioner Betlej commented that when variance requests are brought in from these neighborhoods, the zoning ordinances are not written to deal with homes at thus end of town. Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 2001 This is an undersized lot, as well as other homes along that street that also do not meet the current setbacks. This may be an opportunity to have someone spend some money and upgrade a house that is in significant disrepair. For the minimal amount of variance that is being requested, the Commission should support this applicant's request. He also questions the term "setback" as there really is no setback from the right of way in this area. Chair Lorberbaum visited with some of the neighbors and found their setbacks to range from 17 ft. to 21 ft. from the curb. She also asked how big this lot was. Administrative Assistant Hollister confirmed that this lot is 9, 598 sq. ft. (or .22 acres). Commissioner Friel stated that there might be a hardship due to the property not being put to good use. Commissioner B. McManus stated that this is a regenerating street, with homes being upgraded. He asked Mr. Klehr when construction would be started. Mr. Klehr stated he would like to start immediately. He does not currently live at this address, and the home is not deemed livable in its current state. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there were other recommendations made to the applicant from the planner besides just being put to reasonable use? Mr. Grittman stated there were no specific recommendations other than recommendation to deny the variance, as it is impossible to build a porch that meets the setback requirements. Commissioner McManus is in agreement with the Commission's feeling that this would constitute a reasonable use in reclaiming an older home. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no present, COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED Commissioner B. McManus visited the street and noticed several garages that have been built previously, sitting right on the street. He questioned who approved those variances and if those were so easy to give, why is there so much discussion to give someone a foot. There are also eight houses on that street; six are closer to the street than Mr. Klehr's. He feels that the character of the neighborhood should not have those kinds of setbacks, and should improve a reasonable approach to the requirements. Commissioner Friel added that this should be consistent with the manner used in other older neighborhoods. He believes the hardship will be that the property will not be put to :good Use in Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 2001 the future because of the lot size, and should permit the rebuilding even if setback requirements are not met, and the home is consistent with the other setbacks in the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER FRIEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST WITH THE HARDSHIP AS STATED AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Friel referred to a previous discussion where Commission B. McManus suggested the Commission should recommend a change of zoning on the GNB property so it's consistent with the other zonings in the area. Commissioner Friel reviewed a section in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 572 — Initiation of Re-Zoning. Normally, a Council or individual has to initiate actions under this ordinance, however, there is a unique opportunity for the Planning Commission to take charge in this case as this section authorizes the Planning Commission to institute a re-zoning on its own recommendation. This means that the Commission could institute the process by motion to call a public hearing. Commissioner Betlej commented that although the Commission has that right, it's the owner's prerogative and they should be consulted. Conu-nissioner Betlej added that unless there is a reason to do so, he is not in favor of doing so. Chair Lorberbatun echoed her agreement. She feels it would be better to talk to the owners first. Commissioner Hesse added that there might be a reason, being that they have already had problems with the zoning the way it is, that rezoning would provide them more options and flexibility with the property. The commission could investigate, whether or not changing the zoning allows them more flexibility and more freedom with the property. Commission Betlej stated a simple use of a variance as currently stated in the ordinance could also solve that same problem. Mr. Hollister stated that rezoning in Mendota Heights of private property is almost always initiated by the property owner. Commissioner Dolan asked if rezoning would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as well. Mr. Hollister replied that the Comprehensive Plan designation B covers both B-1 and B-1A. Page - 10 Planning Commission Meeting September 25, 2001 PLANNING CASE #01-35 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - FENCES Mr. Hollister gave his report of the fence ordinance amendment, which was initiated out of Council discussions. Those discussions were a result of the Nelson application for the variance of the 6 ft. (plus a few inches) fence. They had installed a white vinyl solid fence on the interior lot line, which had two features to it, which necessitated variances. One of them was the undulating ground underneath the fence and the other one was the end-caps on top of the posts. Because a neighbor complained, the Code Enforcement Office was compelled to measure the fence and determined that in some places, it is in violation, at a maximum of 6 in. because of the terrain underneath and end-caps. The Nelsons were then instructed to apply for a variance. The Nelsons also removed the top caps and applied for a variance regarding the terrain. Mr. Hollister answered questions from the Commission. The Commission was informed of a workshop meeting to be held on October 3011)• One of the topics on the agenda will be fences. It was noted that this topic would also be on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hollister stated that when the Council voted to send this draft ordinance to the Commission, the Council did not want the Commission to presurne unanimous support of the Council behind this draft ordinance. Staff was instructed to gather corrunents and draft amendments to be presented and discussed at the workshop meeting. Mr. Hollister asked the Corrunission to forward any suggestions they may have. Mr. Hollister informed the Commission that sandwiches will be served at 6:00 pm and the workshop will begin at 7:00 pm. An agenda will be sent in advance and will cover garages, recreational vehicles, fences, and antennae. VERBAL REVIEW — JIM DANIELSON 1. Warren and Patricia Rush, Wetland Permit — was approved 2. Vincent Pagnotta, Variance for Building Addition — was denied 3. David and Jan Jessen, CUP for Poolhouse - was approved COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIEL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:15 PM. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MOTION CARRIED Page - 11