Loading...
2000-11-28 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 28, 2000 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 28, 2000, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Duggan, and Commissioners Betlej, Friel (arrived at 8:30 p.m.), Lorberbaum, McManus, and Vitelli. The following Commissioner was absent: Commissioner Koll. Also present were Public Works Director Danielson, Planner Steven Grittman, Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister and Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Duggan requested the addition of the following agenda items: 5a. Consider December Meeting Schedule 5b. Commissioner Terms of Office APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Duggan reviewed changes made to the second edition of the meeting minutes as requested by Commissioner Friel. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked that the changes made to the previous month's minutes be itemized in the minutes so there is an accurate historical record. Chair Duggan concurred and asked that the corrections be delineated in a legal fashion with the words added to be underlined and the words removed to be strikethrough. The following changes were made to the October 24, 2000 Planning Commission minutes: Page 4, 1st paragraph, "Chair Duggan asked if AT &T had considered any other additional site locations were sought after. Page 6, 5th paragraph, "Commissioner Vitelli moved to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and variance to add 30 feet to the existing 95 -foot monopole tower at 1168 Northland 1 11/28/00 Drive for AT &T Wireless Services and requestediiv a needs assessment report from AT &T as this item goes before the Council." Upon his arrival later in the meeting, Commissioner Friel requested the following correction: Page 7, 4th paragraph: "Commissioner Friel indicated he felt the screening within the commercial zoning district might be discriminatory Faiseeffeeizn due to the fact it is not required within the residential zoning district. He added that he was having difficulty understanding why the ordinance Genif&i.914 was so focused on residential and commercial TV antennas when the problem is with amateur radio antennae." Commissioner Betlej moved to approve the minutes of October 24, 2000 meeting as amended. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. #00 -42: DICK BJORKLUND ON BEHALF OF STEVE AND VERNA NICHOLS HEIGHT VARIANCE 1858 ORCHARD HILL Chair Duggan explained this was a public hearing for the purpose of discussion on a height variance for a new single family home at 1858 Orchard Hill by Dick Bjorldund on behalf of Steve and Verna Nichols. Planner Grittman reviewed the Planning Case with the Commission and noted the applicants have applied for a variance from the height standards to allow the front, right side of the house to have a lookout lower level, with two windows that are approximately 41/2 feet in height. He provided a description of the proposed house, which was designed with a multi -level hip roof. The proposed house height on the front, right side of the house is 21/2 stories or 291/2 feet. The maximum allowed is 2 stories or 25 feet, whichever is less. The rest of the house is compliant with the height standard. Planner Grittman explained how the house height could be redesigned into compliance, however, noting staff recommends approval of the variance with the condition that evergreen trees be planned southeast of the house to filter the view of the house from Orchard Hill. He noted that while the applicant has worked with the existing topography by stepping down the roof line of the house, the house is still unable to meet the building height limitation because of the slope of the land. He advised that it may be argued that in this case compliance with the building height standard would be technically correct, and that it would not affect the impact of the house on the public or sounding properties. 2 11/28/00 Chair Duggan asked if the house is about 41/2 feet higher than permitted by the ordinance. Planner Grittman stated that is correct and described the topography of the subject lot. He displayed the front elevation of the proposed house and explained how the building height measurement is taken. Commissioner Betlej asked if the ordinance does not consider the average grade of the house front. Planner Grittman explained if the ordinance is interpreted to be from the lowest to the highest point, that would change this measurement. He advised that staff relied on the Building Official's interpretation. In response to Chair Duggan, Public Works Director Danielson explained that the Code Enforcement Staff measures the two front corners of the house to determine the average height of the house front. Chair Duggan stated his preference to consider the variance rather than require the area to be filled. He stated he accepts staff's analysis and acknowledgement that it may actually be less than the requested 41/2 feet depending on the interpretation of the ordinance. Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. Dick Bjorldund, representing Steve and Verna Nichols, presented a copy of the survey, noting the unusual changes in grade. He reviewed the building footprint and impacted elevations. Mr. Bjorklund identified the location of existing pine trees and corner of the house in question. He stated this is an unusual situation and suggested that changing the grade would result in the house looking out of place. Commissioner McManus asked how the average grade is calculated and whether it is actually the mean grade. She also asked where the trees are proposed to be placed. Planner Grittman used the survey to point out the planting locations that would filter the view of the home and soften the height. Commissioner Betlej noted that two drawings are being presented which depict different treatments, one identifies a slope and the other a retaining wall. Mr. Bjorklund explained that one drawing was completed by the designer who did not have the final grade elevations. He noted the location of the front door and retaining wall that is needed to create the sidewalk area. Mr. Bjorklund also noted the location of another large tree and stated they are willing to plant trees as suggested by staff. Commissioner Betlej read a portion of the Zoning Ordinance related to the calculation of building height. He stated it appears there is a change in grade of six feet so he would measure the height using both corners of the house and the average, which results in no need for a variance. Chair Duggan clarified that this calculation would result in the need for a 11 /2 foot variance. 3 11/28/00 Commissioner Vitelli stated his concurrence with that calculation for the mean elevation and supported the plan as presented. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that Mr. Bjorklund has been a builder in Mendota Heights for many years and that this house has already been designed and construction was started before it was realized that the height was a problem. She suggested this is a problem of their making and stated she was surprised that they learned about this height restriction from staff and decided to raise the grade on that corner of the house and eliminate the windows so a variance would not be needed. Construction of the house was started but then the buyer decided to request the variance. He noted the property is unique in nature. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the variance is being requested due to the uniqueness of the lot and if they are unable to build a house that would meet the ordinance requirements. Mr. Bjorklund stated this is a very unique lot with an 18 foot drop in elevation form one corner of the lot to the other. He stated he wants the house to look right and he does not think the appearance of the house would be as good with the elevation change needed to eliminate the need for a variance. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the variance request is being made due to the uniqueness of the lot. Mr. Bjorklund answered affirmatively. Commissioner Vitelli commented on the excellent reputation of Mr. Bjorklund in Mendota Heights due to his high quality work and good working relationship with the City and community. He stated that if the City insisted the ordinance be met, he is sure Mr. Bjorklund would raise the elevation. However, he supports consideration of the requested variance. There being no further questions or comments, Commissioner Betlej moved that the hearing be closed. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Duggan asked for recommendations from the Commission members. Commissioner Vitelli moved to recommend approval of Case No. #00 -42 a building height variance not to exceed 41/2 feet to construct a new home at 1858 Orchard Hill, based on a finding 4 11/28/00 ( That a hardship exists which restricts reasonable use of the property without the variance and that the unique topography of the site contributes to the height issue and subject to conditions to ensure consistency including a condition that evergreen trees be planted southeast of the house to filter the view of the house from Orchard Hill. Commissioner McManus seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CAO #00-04: GEORGE AND SUE SPANJERS SITE PLAN WITHIN THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT 1223 KNOLLWOOD LANE Chair Duggan explained this was a public hearing for the purpose of discussion on the request for approval of a site plan within the Critical Area Overlay District, which is adjacent to the Mississippi River, in order to construct a new home and swimming pool at 1223 Knollwood Lane. Planner Grittman reviewed the Planning Case with the Commission and noted the applicants have applied for site plan approval to construct a house that is 11/2 stories in height with a walkout basement and attached three-car garage. The lot contains steep slopes that exceed 20 percent in some areas. The house has a foundation size of approximately 2,500 square feet and meets all property setback requirements. Planner Grittman displayed a drawing identifying the footprint of the proposed home and grading of the site. He stated the property is relatively open with some trees, sloping to the north and northwest. He stated the average slope of the building site is 12 percent with an overall acreage of 22 percent. Planner Grittman stated the ordinance regulates development of 12 percent to 40 percent grades and prohibits development of lots over 40 percent in grade. Chair Duggan noted the Comprehensive Plan addresses not building on slopes greater than 18 percent and inquired regarding those differing standards. Public Works Director Danielson stated the Comprehensive Plan has not yet been adopted and the ordinance, as it stands, addresses 40 percent grades as opposed to 12 percent to 18 percent grades. Planner Grittman pointed out the location of a retaining wall, up to eight feet in height, behind the house and pool area to accommodate a back yard area. He explained the Critical Area Overlay District restricts the height to five feet and requires construction of native materials. He recommends the proposed grading be amended to meet those standards. Commissioner Vitelli asked if two separate five foot retaining walls would comply. Planner Grittman answered affirmatively. 5 11/28/00 Planner Grittman noted the need for a tree preservation plan and specific review of the grading and drainage by engineering staff to assure it meets the Critical Area Overlay District and other requirements of the City. Planner Grittman indicated that the application appears to be generally consistent with the Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance; however, staff believes some additional information and review is necessary. Therefore, he recommends that the site plan be approved with three conditions as indicated in his staff report. Commissioner Vitelli noted the only issues raised are for City Engineer approval of the erosion and drainage control. Planner Grittman stated that is correct and would be done as a staff function. Chair Duggan asked if a DNR review is needed of the drainage. Public Works Director Danielson stated a DNR review is not needed since a variance is not involved. Chair Duggan asked if the area of impervious surface needs to be considered with the drainage calculations. Public Works Director Danielson explained the City Engineer looks at every building permit submitted to the City to address grading and drainage issues. Commissioner Vitelli stated he would like to ask the applicant if two five -foot retaining walls could be used and if he has any issue with the trees. Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. George Spanjers, applicant, stated the retaining wall is on the west corner of the lot. He stated if the site grading cannot be lowered to four feet in height, he would consider two retaining walls since he has two young children and is concerned for their safety. He advised of their intension to create a boulder retaining wall. Chair Duggan stated there is a small fenced area in the back of the property with some vegetation. Mr. Spanjers explained that the homeowner to the west has been using that area. Mr. Spanjers stated the trees in the area of the building pad are poplar and cannot be saved. However, the larger pine trees in the area of the garage will be relocated to the east side of the property to provide privacy around the pool area. Commissioner McManus asked if this is his proposal as opposed to staff recommendation. Mr. Spanjers stated that is his intention. There being no further questions or comments, Commissioner Vitelli moved that the hearing be closed. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. 6 11/28/00 ' AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Duggan asked for recommendations from the Commission members. He stated his concern about the location of other buildings down the hill from this building site and requested the use of silt fence to protect those properties. Mr. Spanjers expressed no objection to that request. Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to recommend approval of the site plan within the Critical Area Overlay District to construct a new home and swimming pool at 1223 Knollwood Lane that is 11/2 stories in height with a walkout basement and attached three-car garage based on a find that the proposal meets the requirements and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance and subject to the following conditions as recommended by staff to ensure consistency: 1. The retaining wall may not exceed a height of four feet, and it must be made of native stone. 2. The pine trees to be removed and preserved must be indicated on the plan, and the trees that will be preserved must be surrounded with protective fencing to avoid soil compaction by construction equipment or materials. 3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control issue are subject to City Engineer review and approval. 4. Appropriate use of silt fence. Commissioner Vitelli seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 FENCE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Chair Duggan explained this item is for the purpose of discussion on the Fence Ordinance Amendment and asked the Commissioners if they have further questions. Commissioner Vitelli expressed concern should this type of fence be constructed on every corner lot. Commissioner Betlej stated he shares that concern and hoped the ordinance forwarded to the Planning Commission would have incorporated the recommendations they have made when issuing variances historically. He noted one of those recommendations was to require a fair amount of landscaping between the fence and the public street. Commissioner Vitelli reviewed two fence requests that were previously considered by the Planning Commission. He felt those two requests were reasonable, however, he remains concerned should there be a proliferation of this type of fence. 7 11/28/00 Chair Duggan asked if the term "thoroughfare roads and county roads" could be used instead of "major roads." Other than in a hazardous area, he also supported that a minimum of 30% opacity be required. However, if there is a hazard, the CUP process allows the consideration of a solid fence. Planner Grittman noted that the discussion during several fence variance requests addressed being adjacent to major, arterial, or collector status roads as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated a more streamline ordinance had been recommended with the suggestion that by making it a CUP, the City would have some discretion on the design, addition of landscaping, etc. Commissioner Vitelli recommended this ordinance amendment be "shelved" and not considered at this time. He noted two fence requests had been considered previously and were approved with requirements. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if this was drafted due to the two past cases or at the council's request. Administrative Assistant Hollister stated this ordinance revision effort derived from one of the fence requests when the Planning Commission recommendation included examination by the Council of, perhaps, revising the ordinance. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated since the Planning Commission suggested this amendment, they could also set it aside for now. Commissioner Betlej agreed. Commissioner McManus stated concern with removing the Planning Commission's responsibility in being able to consider the aspects of the request and making that decision based on those specifics. She stated she may want to reconsider this amendment depending on the number of request before the Planning Commission. Chair Duggan noted it is the consensus of the Planning Commission to shelve consideration of a Fence Ordinance amendment and requested that if it is considered in the future, the previously mentioned wording revisions be included. Commissioner Friel arrived at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Vitelli moved to take no action on the Fence Ordinance Amendment at this time. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. Commissioner Friel asked if the issue is not liking what was seen or wanting more. 8 11/28/00 Commissioner Lorberbaum stated the motion is to not take action at this time and to shelve the issue. Commissioner Vitelli summarized the discussion held related to this issue and concern expressed to not "leave the barn door open." Commissioner Vitelli moved to withdraw the motion on the floor and to not change the ordinance language at this time. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Duggan noted the fee for a fence permit is $10 but the fee for a CUP is $350. Should this ordinance amendment be considered in the future, he suggested that consideration be given to lowering a fence CUP fee. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — PRIVATE ACCESSORY ANTENNAS Chair Duggan explained this is for the purpose of discussion on the Private Accessory Antenna Ordinance Amendment. He stated in the past three discussions, issues were raised including safety and height of the dish. He asked if the Commissioners feel these issues have been adequately addressed. No concerns were expressed. Chair Duggan asked if concerns remain relative to size or diameter of the dish being proposed. Commissioner Friel stated he remains concerned about the size. Chair Duggan stated a CUP permit application process is available to request a larger size dish. Planner Grittman stated that is correct. Chair Duggan noted the exclusion of television antenna and size limitation and asked if there are concerns related to those issues. No concerns were expressed. Commissioner McManus inquired what the screening would be like. Planner Grittman stated screening of the entire antenna apparatus would be required, whether roof mounted parapet walls or ground fence. He stated this is determined from the adjacent property or right-of-way. Chair Duggan stated future technology and addressing remedials were discussed and asked if removal should be required at some point. Commissioner Friel noted some structures still have old television antennas and suggested if it becomes an issue, it could be discussed at that time. He asked about a stack or chase on a roof that is eight feet in height due to requirements which results in obscuring the ability for antenna 9 11/28/00 Reception. Chair Duggan stated that the antenna would have to be relocated on the roof or on the chase. Or, they could demonstrate a hardship. Commissioner Friel stated his perception this ordinance will create more problems than it is designed to solve. He stated the focus of the problem was an amateur radio antenna but that is no longer the focus. He stated the focus has become television antenna throughout the community. Chair Duggan asked if a larger size dish type roof antenna should be addressed. Commissioner Friel stated the issue before the Planning Commission was amateur radio antennas, not television antennas. Commissioner Vitelli stated he believes the proposed ordinance language also addressed amateur radio antennas. Planner Grittman stated he did not try to prepare a new ordinance since this is the third discussion held and the focus of the ordinance remains an issue. He requested direction so language can be drafted more in the line with the Planning Commission's desires. Planner Gri ttinan stated amateur radio antennas originally spurred this discussion and the city Attorney's view is that some of the issues are related. Commissioner Friel stated the focus is what the Planning Commission has experienced rather than how this is dealt with elsewhere. Planner Grittman stated he first started with several antenna ordinances drafted from other communities. Then he tried to import the Mendota Heights issue into that framework. Commissioner Betlej stated his support for the proposed language since it provides some parameters the Planning Commission can use when considering requests for amateur antennas. Commissioner Friel stated his concern that some will put ordinary television antennas on their homes that become involved with this ordinance and expenses to obtain a CUP, which is not the focus of the Planning Commission's concerns. Chair Duggan suggested the most recent language be referred to the City Council for their deliberation and decision or possibly referral back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vitelli stated he would support a recommendation for adoption and ask if the City Attorney is supportive of the ordinance as drafted. Planner Grittman answered affilmatively. Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Commissioner Vitelli moved that the hearing be closed. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. 10 11/28/00 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Vitelli moved to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment as mitten, based on a find that the regulation of accessory antennas is necessary to ensure access to communications for private citizens, but to avoid unnecessary proliferation of antennas in residential areas. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1 (Friel) CONSIDER DECEMBER MEETING SCHEDULE Chair Duggan noted the meeting schedule for December 26, 2000 and the holiday schedule. Administrative Assistant Hollister advised that at this time no items have been submitted for consideration at the December meeting. However, if an urgent issue were to arise, staff will contact Chair Duggan for direction. Chair Duggan requested Planning Commission and cable television staff notification after the application deadline as to whether a meeting will or will not need to be scheduled in December. COMMISSIONER TERMS OF OFFICE Chair Duggan congratulated Councilmember-elect Vitelli who will no longer serve on the Planning Commission after December. He stated he looks forward to having a friendly Planning Commission voice on the city Council. Chair Duggan stated his and Commissioner Lorberbaum's positions expire at the end of the year. Public Works Director Danielson asked the Commissioners to submit a let of interest in reappointment, should that be the case. Chair Duggan stated his enjoyment in serving on the Planning Commission and intention to submit a letter of request for reappointment to the Planning Commission. VERBAL REVIEW Chair Duggan requested a verbal review of the matters, which were submitted to the City Council for their consideration. Public Works Director Danielson informed the Commission of Council action taken on recent planning cases. 11 11/28/00 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission, Commissioner Betlej moved to adjourn its meeting at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 12 11/28/00