Loading...
1999-01-26 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 26, 1999 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 26, 1999, 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: Betlej, Friel, Duggan, Lorberbaum, Kleinglass, Tilsen and Koll. Also present were Planning Consultant Meg McMonigal of MFRA, Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Mr. Hollister took the minutes. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 22,1998 MINUTES Commissioner Friel moved to approve the December 22, 1998 minutes with no corrections. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Lorberbaum) CASE NO. 99-01: SCOTT THOMAS, VARIANCE Mr. Dean Madsen, Architect for Mr. Scott Thomas of 1442 Wachtler Avenue, introduced himself and the application. Mr. Madsen said that his client was applying for a front -yard setback variance for an addition to their garage. Mr. Madsen showed the plan and described the addition. Chair Duggan asked what the total square footage of the new garage would be. Mr. Madsen said that the total square footage would be 971 square feet, and showed the place on the plan where that figure was written. Mr. Madsen said that the addition was necessary in its proposed location because of the placement of the existing weight - bearing wall. Commissioner Koll said that she had visited the site and discussed the proposed addition with some of the neighbors. Commissioner Koll said that the neighbors are in favor of the addition and that it would enhance the value of the property and be an asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Friel asked Planner McMonigal to clarify what the front -yard setback variance would be. Planner McMonigal said that the application is for a 2.5 foot variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback. Mr. Madsen added that the house currently encroaches on the front -yard setback by 2.5 feet and that this addition would not increase that encroachment. Commissioner Friel said that this application would have a deminimus impact and therefore he wished that he could vote for the variance, but that since the applicant had not demonstrated a hardship he could not vote for a variance under the current zoning code. Commissioner Friel said that this application is another good example of why the current zoning ordinance should be amended to allow a variance with no significant impact even in the absence of a hardship. Commissioner Friel said that despite repeated requests to amend the ordinance in this manner, the Council has not seen fit to do so, and therefore granting this variance would force the City to violate its own ordinance. Chair Duggan expressed his agreement with Commissioner Friel regarding variances under the current zoning ordinance. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that she could also vote for this variance if the applicant could demonstrate a hardship, but that since none had been demonstrated, she would have to vote against it. Chair Duggan suggested that the applicant should attempt to find a hardship and cited design or topography as potential hardships. Mr. Madsen said that due to the location of the weight bearing wall, he could not push the garage back far enough. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Madsen if the garage could be put in a different location if the family were not also adding a sun room. Mr. Madsen said that this would not have an impact. Commissioner Tilsen asked Planner McMonigal if the rule regarding keeping houses back behind a line defined by the house on either side included any portion of the house being added on to. Planner McMonigal said that the rule was intended for new homes being built. Commissioner Tilsen asked where the variance should be measured from, whether it should be measured from the 30 foot setback or the line drawn between the two neighboring houses. 2 Planner McMonigal asked Mr. Madsen if he would be making any changes to the front most portion of the house. Mr. Madsen said that he would actually be making that portion smaller. Commissioner Tilsen offered to make a motion finding that no variance would be needed for this addition since it does not encroach any further into the front yard than the existing house. Chair Duggan asked for a second to this motion. There was no second to the motion. Chair Duggan asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment upon this application. There was no -one in the audience to comment on this application. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council approve a front yard setback variance for this addition as proposed, being a 7.5 foot variance if measured from the line between the two adjacent houses, or a 2.5 foot variance if measured from the 30' front yard setback line, or both, however the Council wished to interpret the situation. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 2 (Friel, Kleinglass) ABSTENTIONS: 1 (Lorberbaum) Chair Duggan instructed Mr. Madsen to appear at the February 2, 1999 Council meeting to discuss this application. CASE NO. 99-03: JAMES LAKE, VARIANCE Mr. Alan Kretman, planning consultant for Mr. James Lake of 630 Sunset Lane, presented his client's application for a front yard setback variance for a garage addition. Mr. Kretman said that his client's hardship derived from the shape of the lot and the location of his current garage. Mr. Kretman said that he agreed with Staffs recommendation on this planning case. Commissioner Tilsen said that he did not think that the need for a three -car garage posed a sufficient hardship. Commissioner Tilsen said that the lot was usable as it was. Commissioner Tilsen said that the owner is bringing this hardship upon himself. 3 Mr. Kretman said that today's standard is to have a three -car garage, and that his client was attempting to bring his house up to standard. Mr. Kretman added that although his client needs a 6.5 foot front yard setback variance, the average distance of the garage to the lot line would necessitate a 1.7 foot variance, although he understood that this did not count for the ordinance. Mr. Kretman said that with the design of the house and its location on the parcel, it made sense to add on to the existing garage. Commissioner Tilsen asked what the width of the right -of -way on Dodd Road was. Mr. Danielson said that he thought that it was 66 feet. Commissioner Tilsen said that this case was similar to the last case because this addition would have a minimal impact and Dodd Road had an unusually wide right -of -way, but that on the other hand the applicant had no demonstrable hardship. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that although she was very supportive of the substance of the request, she would abstain because the applicant had not demonstrated a hardship. Chair Duggan said that the house was not too far off center and that the addition would bring the house 13' closer to Dodd Road. Commissioner Duggan asked how old the pine trees were in the front of the property. Mr. Lake said that the pine trees were there when he bought the house, so he did not know their age, although he thought that they were fairly newly planted at the time he bought the house. Chair Duggan suggested that if the Planning Commission saw fit to recommend to the Council that they approve this variance request, they may wish to add a condition requiring continued screening of the front of the property by the pine trees, because the proposed addition would bring the house closer to Dodd Road. Commissioner Betlej said that he was in favor of the addition, but that he found no hardship sufficient to justify the variance. Commissioner Friel said that the definition of a hardship under state statute is quite strict. Commissioner Friel said that a hardship is defined as a condition inherent to the property not created by the landowner which prevents the owner from any reasonable use of his or her property without a variance. Commissioner Friel said that that threshold is clearly not met here. Commissioner Friel said that if the shape of a lot were a sufficient reason to grant a variance then almost any conceivable variance should be granted in the City. Commissioner Friel said that the Council should amend the ordinance to permit the granting of variances in cases such as these. Commissioner Koll said that she was concerned about the addition's potential obstruction of the northerly view from the neighboring house to the south. Commissioner Koll said 4 that the current view from the neighboring house is of the top third of the pine trees. Commissioner Koll asked what the height of the garage addition would be. Mr. Kretman said that the garage addition would be 25'. Commissioner Koll mentioned that there was currently an object under a blue tarp in the yard. Mr. Lake said that that was his duck boat, and that he didn't have time to take the boat to northern Minnesota this winter. Mr. Kretman said that the neighbors to the south, the Quicks, did sign off on the addition, but that they wanted to make sure that the landscaping would be maintained. Mr. Kretman asked the Commission to keep in mind that the third stall of the garage would step down to a single level on the portion closest to Dodd Road. Chair Duggan recommended that the applicant provide an elevation sketch to the City Council showing both the north and south faces of this garage. Commissioner Koll asked if Mr. Lake would be taking out any trees. Mr. Lake said that the current trees would be maintained, and that after talking to the Quicks, he would be willing to plant additional trees. Commission Koll asked if the new garage would be used to store items that are currently laying out in the yard. Mr. Kretman said that the new garage would be used to accommodate additional storage and to clean up the property. Chair Duggan asked if the garage addition would have windows. Mr. Kretman asked if Chair Duggan would like windows. Chair Duggan said that the garage addition would look better with windows. Commissioner Koll concurred with Chair Duggan's concern about windows, stating that the addition would look like a rectangular box. Mr. Kretman said that he would provide a sketch to the Council showing the exterior of the garage addition. Chair Duggan asked for a motion on this application from the Commissioners. There was no motion. 5 Chair Duggan moved to recommend that the Council grant the variance on the condition that the applicant submit north and south elevations to the Council showing the appearance and size of the addition. Commissioner Kleinglass seconded the motion. Commissioner Koll offered a friendly amendment that the applicant also add plantings that would break up the appearance of the garage. Chair Duggan and Commissioner Kleinglass accepted the friendly amendment. AYES: 2 (Duggan, Kleinglass) Chair Duggan declared that the motion had failed. Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to recommend that the Council deny the variance application. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (Duggan, Kleinglass) Chair Duggan instructed Mr. Kretman and Mr. Lake to proceed to the Council next Tuesday evening. Mr. Kretman said that he would provide elevations and infoimation on current and proposed landscaping to the Council for next Tuesday's meeting. Chair Duggan wished Mr. Kretman and Mr. Lake good luck. CASE NO 99 -04: TOM KOURY, VARIANCE Chair Duggan announced that Mr. Koury had applied for a setback variance for an addition to his home for a home business. Chair Duggan said that the plans that Mr. Koury had submitted were not to scale. Chair Duggan asked that the applicant provide better drawing to the Council. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Koury to describe his application. Mr. Koury said that he grew up in the house next door to his house, which is currently occupied by his mother. Mr. Koury said that he has acquired a disability which has forced him to re- locate his office into his home. Mr. Koury said that he has a hardship derived from his odd - shaped lot, and that he investigated other potential locations for this addition. Mr. Koury said that adding to the south would not work, would be cost 6 prohibitive, and would make the house look too huge. Mr. Koury said that he intends for this addition to be both a family room and an office. Mr. Koury said that he has also designed this addition for the future possibility of being confined to a wheel chair if his condition worsens. Mr. Koury added that putting this addition on the front of the house would require a variance from the road. Mr. Koury said that the entry way for the new addition would be easily accessible and that his livelihood depends on this project. Chair Duggan said that if Mr. Koury were using a contractor, that this individual would have to be licensed by the City. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Danielson to double -check the licensing of Mr. Koury's contractor. Chair Duggan asked if the Hertzog house extended to the property line. Mr. Danielson said that the Hertzog house actually extends over the property line. Commissioner Betlej asked Mr. Koury what other design alternatives he had contemplated. Mr. Koury said that he had thought of aligning the addition with the property line, but that the addition would then look incongruous to the rest of the house. Mr. Koury said that he had also examined the possibility of straightening out the property line, but that this would be problematic. Mr. Koury said that this addition represents the minimum space he needs for the addition to be useful and cost - effective. Chair Duggan asked if customers would be visiting him on a regular basis. Mr. Koury said that a visit from a customer would be a very rare occurrence and that he could accommodate that visit at another office location in Minneapolis. Chair Duggan asked where the future wheelchair ramp might go. Mr. Koury said that the ramp would be attached to the existing house. Chair Duggan said that Mr. Koury and his mother should readjust the property line between their houses and eliminate the need for a setback variance. Commissioner Lorberbaum agreed with Chair Duggan that Mr. Koury should move the property line between his house and his mother's house. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that this would fix a lot of problems. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that Mr. Koury should put the future wheelchair ramp on the front of the house rather than on the side of the house. Mr. Koury said that the front of the house is too steep for a wheelchair ramp. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that the wheelchair ramp should curve in front. 7 Mr. Koury said that he had not explored the possibility of a two -stage ramp, but that he would not like to build a structure that close to his front property line, and that he felt the ramp would be better in his original location. Commissioner Tilsen agreed that it would be better for Mr. Koury to readjust the property line between him and his mother. Commissioner Tilsen said that he had sketched some ideas on a piece of paper and that he would show them to Mr. Koury later. Mr. Koury said that he wished he had the time to readjust the lot line, but that he did not. Mr. Koury said that any further delays in approval of this addition would jeopardize his livelihood. Mr. Koury said that if he had the time, he would find a different way to achieve his goal. Commissioner Tilsen asked Mr. Danielson if Mr. Koury would need to replat, or just make a simple lot line adjustment between his property and his mother's property. Mr. Danielson said that in this case, since the two lots are less than 15,000 square feet and do not conform to the subdivision ordinance, they would require a replat. Chair Duggan repeated that Mr. Koury should provide a more accurate drawing to the Council. Commissioner Tilsen said that a lot line adjustment would be the solution, and that he could not support that current variance application for lack of a hardship. Chair Duggan asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. No one in the audience wished to comment. Chair Duggan asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Friel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Koll asked Mr. Koury if there was no possibility of a lot line adjustment. Mr. Koury said that in order to adjust the lot line to the point where he would not need a variance for the addition, the stake marking the new lot line would be right in front of his mother's house. 8 Chair Duggan moved to recommend that the Council grant the variance application as proposed on the condition that the applicant submit more accurate drawings to the Council showing the exact measurements. Commissioner Kleinglass seconded the motion. AYES: 2 (Duggan, Kleinglass) Chair Duggan declared that the motion failed. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council deny the variance request based on the fact that it would be a 70% encroachment on the side yard, and that the applicant had not demonstrated a hardship. Commissioner Friel added parenthetically that Mr. Koury's future plans for the wheelchair ramp would have required another variance, although he did not incorporate this into the motion. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Danielson if the City could override its own subdivision ordinance to allow a replat of these two lots even though they would not confoiiii to current lot requirements. Mr. Danielson said that the Council could grant a variance to the subdivision ordinance. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Koury if he would be willing to be tabled for a month instead of proceeding to Council in order to explore the possibility of a lot line adjustment. Commissioner Friel said that it would be better for Mr. Koury to go to the Council at this point. Chair Duggan said that he hoped that the Council would see fit to, apply his $50 application fee to a subdivision variance application if they deny the setback variance. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (Duggan, Kleinglass) CASE NO. 98 -29, MENDAKOTA COUNTRY CLUB, CUP Chair Duggan announced that Mendakota Country Club had re- applied for the Conditional Use Permit for a new maintenance facility at the golf course. Mr. Bob McKinney of Mendakota Country Club introduced himself. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if this application differs at all from the application that was previously withdrawn. 9 Mr. McKinney said that this application did not differ from the previous application, and that it had been withdrawn with the Walgreens application because without the Walgreens approval the club did not have adequate funding for this maintenance building. Mr. McKinney said that the club had now found an alternate means to pay for the building. Chair Duggan asked Mr. McKinney to review his application. Mr. McKinney said that the golf course's current storage building was too small and located in the center of the golf course. Mr. McKinney said that the proposed maintenance facility not only would be a larger building, but that it would be in a better location and permit the adjustment and improvement of some of the holes. Mr. McKinney added that this new facility would allow the golf course to shift the tee boxes west, off of Dodd Road, eliminating a blind area. Mr. McKinney said that currently a person on the tee cannot see a person on Dodd Road. Mr. McKinney added that the new building would allow him to move some equipment indoors that is currently sitting outdoors. Mr. McKinney said that he had no objection to any of Planner McMonigal's proposed conditions for the CUP approval. Commissioner Koll asked Mr. McKinney to define a "wall pack ". Mr. McKinney said that a wall pack was a type of halogen lighting mounted to a wall. Commissioner Koll asked if any landscaping changes would be made. Mr. McKinney said that some trees would be moved to the side of the shed. Commissioner Koll said that this addition would be a nice improvement. Commissioner Koll asked if there would be any utilities or other apparatus on the roof of the building. Mr. McKinney said that there would be nothing on the roof of the building. Commissioner Koll asked if there would be an outdoor trash bin. Mr. McKinney said that the trash bin would be enclosed on the west side of the building. Chair Duggan suggested that the location of the trash bin be shown to the City Council. Chair Duggan asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment upon this application. There was no -one in the audience wishing to comment upon this application. Chair Duggan asked for a motion to close the public hearing on this application. 10 Commissioner Friel moved to close the pubic hearing on this application. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council approve the CUP application by Mendakota Country Club subject to the conditions suggested by Ms. McMonigal. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 DISCUSS INVITATION TO JOINT CITY /COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Chair Duggan announced that the Planning Commissioners had been invited to a seminar on the evening of February 11, 1999 from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. Chair Duggan said that he was interested in going to the seminar. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that she was also interested in going to the seminar. Chair Duggan announced that at the February meeting the Planning Commission would be selecting officers. Chair Duggan invited anyone who was interested in serving as Chair or Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission to offer their name for nomination at the next meeting. VERBAL REVIEW Mr. Danielson reviewed the status of previous planning cases. Mr. Hollister said that there would be a banquet honoring former Councilmembers Smith and Koch and other City employees on the evening of February 11, 1999. Mr. Hollister added that although this unfortunately coincided with the joint City /County Planning Commissioners forum, he encouraged the Planning Commissioners to attend one or the other event. ADJOURN Motion made to adjourn by Friel and seconded by Lorberbaum. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Patrick C. Hollister 11