Loading...
1999-11-23 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1999 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Betlej, Duggan, Friel, Lorberbaum and Tilsen. The following members were excused: Koll, Kleinglass. Also present were Public Works Director Danielson, Planner Meg McMonigal and Senior Secretary Linda Shipton. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Friel moved to approve the minutes of October 26, 1999 meeting, revised to substitute Mr. Steve Grittman's notes (submitted at the November 9 workshop) in lieu of pages 7 -11 of the prepared minutes. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 Betlej Commissioner Friel moved approval of the minutes of the November 9, 1999 workshop with revision. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 99 -35, JOHNSON CRITICAL AREA SITE PLAN AND SETBACK VARIANCE Chair Duggan opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Mr. Mark Johnson for a critical area permit to allow construction of a new home at 1646 Mayfield Heights Road. Chair Duggan asked Planner McMonigal if there is a requirement for 30 day notice to the DNR for this application. Ms. McMonigal responded that in this case, notice is not required. Mr. Johnson reviewed his application for the commission and showed photos of the property to the commission and audience. He informed the commission that he needs to remove a number of boxelder and elm trees, primarily scrub trees, from the area where the driveway will be located. A 36" maple tree in the middle of the property will be retained at all cost if he can. He designed his plan to conform to the standard 30 foot front yard Page 1 11/23/99 setback but because the home to the south is set back at 39 feet and the home to the ) north is set back 23 feet, he needs a variance. Depending on the angle of the line between his neighbors' setbacks, his structure will extend between 6 and 9 feet into the setback. Commissioner Tilsen recollected that the property owners to the north owned the subject lot at one time and that the Commission considered an application for an addition to their home a couple of years ago. He was concerned that some conditions were adopted that would prevent construction on this lot. Public Works Director Danielson responded that there was a garage on the property, and his recollection was that the city required that the garage be removed before any building could occur on the lot. Mr. Johnson stated that there was a driveway and a small one-car garage on the property. The garage has been removed and the driveway will be removed. The action in 1995 required that the previous owner remove the garage and the driveway by September 1, 1996. He informed the commission that the majority of the driveway is on the lot he purchased and he will remove that part of the driveway. The people to the north are balking about removing the portion of the driveway that is on their property. Public Works Director Danielson informed the commission that staff will notify the property owner that she must remove the driveway and also that staff will ensure that she does. Commissioner Tilsen stated that one of the drawings indicates that there is some type of _ structure that crosses the lot line. Mr. Johnson responded that there is a decorative wooden structure (six by six timbers) that someone placed around a tree and that he does not envision removing it at this time, although it does not seem to serve any purpose. Responding to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Mr. Johnson stated that he agrees to the conditions recommended by the City Planner. The only problem he could see with the recommendation was that the third condition would require replacing all of the trees on the west side of the property. He stated that he will need to remove scrub trees from the driveway area, and because it will be a driveway he cannot plant trees in that location. He reviewed a drawing showing the trees that will be removed from the southwest portion of the lot and he also reviewed his landscape plan. Commissioner Friel asked about the comment in the planner's report indicated that the application meets all of the other requirements of the critical area ordinance. He stated that he would suggest that there are other requirements that were not met, but that he did not find any reference to them. Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. Page 2 11/23/99 Mr. Maurice Lazarus, the neighbor to the south, stated that he has no objection to Mr. Johnson's request for the variance. He stated that Mr. Johnson has done a very good job of working with the neighbors to present his proposal and to take into account elements that neighbors would typically favor. He also stated that the comments regarding the driveway were correct according to his recollection. When the commission considered the height and setback variance on the northerly most house in 1995, the installation of the new driveway and garage was expressed to the commission as including the removal of the old garage and the removal of the redundant blacktop. There being no further questions or comments, Commissioner Lorberbaum moved that the hearing be closed. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Commissioner Friel asked if there is a variance request before the commission. He pointed out that the variance is not covered in the planning report. Public Works Director Danielson responded that Mr. Johnson is trying to save the big maple tree that will be lost if the house is placed at the required setback. He stated that the hearing notice included consideration of the variance, but the variance request is not shown on the application or in the planner's report. He suspected that Assistant Hollister raised the variance issue after the application was submitted. Mr. Johnson informed the commission that the home to the south is set back 39 feet, so at worst he would need a nine foot variance. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend approval of the application for critical area permit as proposed with the following conditions: 1. All soil stabilization and fill recommendations in the Soil Condition report by Allied Test Drilling Company are enacted and inspected before foundation footings are poured. 2. A silt fence is properly installed and used to control erosion , and a Drainage and Erosion Control Plan is submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. 3. All trees removed from the west side of the property shall be replaced with landscaping on site. A landscaping plan is to be submitted before permit issuance. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Chair Duggan asked that Council be alerted to the need for the city to pursue removal of the driveway from the two properties. There was discussion over how the commission should proceed with respect to the variance. Page 3 11/23/99 Planner McMonigal informed the commission that she did not address the variance in her report because the variance had not been checked off on the application. Chair Duggan stated that the public notice did indicate a request for variance and the fact that it was not checked off on the checklist by staff, should not deny the commission the right to consider and make a recommendation on the variance. Commissioner Betlej stated that there is a hardship in that if the house were set at the setback line, the significant maple tree would have to be removed. He further stated that the community values significant trees and they should be protected. Commissioner Friel stated that protection of trees does not meet the definition of hardship by ordinance. Commissioner Betlej moved to recommend approval of a front yard setback variance, conditioned upon submission of all of the necessary paperwork for the variance before Council considers the variance and that all requirements for variance application be met. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Friel CASE NO. 99-36, SALMEN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Chair Duggan opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application _ from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Salmen for a conditional use permit and variances for a detached garage at 1694 Dodd Road. Mr. Patrick Brinkman, from Maun & Simon Law Firm, was present on behalf of the applicants. Chair Duggan stated that a conditional use permit is required for all detached garages. He reviewed the four variances that are requested, as follow: the garage is proposed to be placed forward of the house; the garage is proposed to be 1,292 square feet versus the 750 square foot maximum size allowed by ordinance; the proposed 16.5 foot height at the north elevation exceeds the 15 foot height maximum allowed in "R" Districts; two double- wide doors are proposed versus a double wide and a single wide door or three single wide doors, which are the maximum configurations allowed by ordinance. The proposal includes converting the existing tuck-under garage into living space if the detached garage is approved. Mr. Brinkman informed the commission that the lot is a heavily wooded 2.5-acre parcel that is accessed by a private easement. The garage would generally be visible only one from neighbor's property and can be characterized as not being visible to the public. Mr. Salmen presently has a three-story home with a three-car tuck under garage. There are three drivers in the family so there are three vehicles, and Mr. Salmen is finding that there is not enough room for Mr. Salmen to access a vehicle from his wheel chair when all three cars are in the garage. Mr. Salmen is a double amputee who has artificial legs but has need to get around in a wheel chair at times. He does not currently use a vehicle that will Page 4 11/23/99 accommodate a wheel chair, but that may happen in the future. Mr. Salmen is requesting a detached garage at this time because he does not know what will be required in the future to permit access from the garage to the living area of the house, so he needs to keep the space in between to keep the flexibility to install ramping or an elevator mechanism if necessary in the future. There is no intent to change the grade between the garage and the house except to level it where the garage will be. There is about a two-foot rise from the garage and the lower level of the house. The existing driveway will be utilized. Responding to a question from Chair Duggan, Mr. Brinkman stated that a double door is proposed to allow two vehicles on one side and a second double door to provide access for Mr. Salmen's car. If there were a double door and a single door and Mr. Salmen's car were parked in the double door area, Mr. Salmen would not have room to maneuver his wheel chair. Mr. Brinkman stated that the existing house is a three-story house and Mr. Salmen would like to construct a garage with a design that is compatible with the house. The garage would have a pitched roof that would be consistent with the roof on the house, and the garage would only be one foot above the height requirement. The garage roof would still be below the entry level of the home on the adjoining property. Chair Duggan stated that the materials submitted to the city indicated the possibility of eventually connecting the proposed garage to the home and this was in part an explanation for granting the variance to the height of the garage so that the garage would be more in line architecturally with the home. He stated that he would want to see some type of design showing a connection between the home and the proposed garage to support the discussion. Mr. Brinkman responded that no plan has been drawn yet because they still do not envision what method of accessibility will be needed to give Mr. Salmen access to the house in the future. Chair Duggan informed Mr. Brinkman that the city is very uncomfortable with the idea taller garages, and in this particular situation, the garage is proposed to not only have storage in the second level but potentially there could also be stronger flooring and a recreational use on the second level. Mr. Brinkman stated that at this time Mr. Salmen could stipulate that there would not be any improvement to the upper level. It may be at some time in the future that the access to the garage would be to the second level in order to give Mr. Salmen access to the same level of the house. He stated that he has received the staff report and the recommendation to deny was focused on the statutory requirement that there be a showing that there is a special condition that is unique to this property as grounds for the variance. Staff did find that all of the rest of the criteria for a variance were satisfied. He stated that there is a part of the state statute that suggest that the hardship criteria does not need to be satisfied when dealing with the needs of a handicapped person and Page 5 11/23/99 recognizes that the undue hardship of a handicapped person is something to be dealt with without having to find hardship unique to the property itself. Chair Duggan responded that the hardship is imposed by the proposed design that the applicant chooses to pursue, and it appears that they can use the property reasonably comfortably otherwise. Mr. Brinkman stated that Mr. Salmen does not have the ability to get comfortable access to his vehicle in his existing garage. With respect to the garage size, he stated that the 1,200 feet that is proposed would be allowed if the garage were attached, and the only reason it is not attached at this time is because Mr. Salmen cannot anticipate what will be needed down the road as his health condition changes. Commissioner Friel found it difficult to satisfy any hardship criteria in order to grant a variance. Mr. Brinkman stated that the height is not a hardship but it would seem that the city would like to see buildings that are compatible in the same area rather than building a garage that would be lower and out of place. Commissioner Friel responded that the undue hardship defined in the ordinance just deals with circumstances unique to the property, which means that the property could not be put to any reasonable use without getting a variance for a hardship. He did not feel that is met with respect to any of the requested variances. Also, he felt that the intent of MnStat 462 is to prevent a municipality from zoning a piece of property in such a way that handicapped persons would be excluded from being in that area of the city. Mr. Brinkman stated that MnStat 462.357 follows the area that talks about variances, he felt that it suggests that the city should recognize that there are situations involving handicapped persons that in themselves create undue hardships unless a variance is granted to permit them to enjoy their residence as others enjoy theirs. Mr. Salmen needs a large area to get access into the garage next to his vehicle to be able to get into the vehicle and someday may at some future time need to have a ramp that goes up to the side of his vehicle in order to get into the vehicle. Chair Duggan stated that he deals with handicapped individuals on a regular and daily basis, and the wheelchair lift on the vehicles they arrive in probably takes up four feet or less and does not take up 1 1/2 to 2 feet more than it takes for people to exit a bus. Mr. Brinkman responded that it would not work in a three-stall garage because there is not enough room in a three stall garage that would leave enough room between the cars for a mechanism that works. Chair Duggan felt that if Mr. Salmen used the smaller side of the garage, he would probably have enough room and if the other two vehicles were on the larger side of the garage, there could be one door for one stall and a double door for the other two stalls. He asked whether consideration had been given to a size smaller than 1,200 square feet. Page 6 11/23/99 Mr. Brinkman stated that if the garage were attached to the house, the proposed size would be permitted, but it cannot be attached at this time because Mr. Salmen does not know whether he will have to build ramping from the garage to access the living area of the house or whether some other mechanism will be needed. Responding to a question from Chair Duggan about whether there are various levels on the side of the home near the shed that make construction challenging, Mr. Brinkman stated that the lower level of the home is the garage level, the next level is the main living area, and there is a deck area over the existing garage that needs to be removed, and there is another level above that. Mr. Max Salmen informed the Commission that his father would be willing to have the commissioners visit his home so that he can show them the method he is using and get their ideas. He stated that although the lift mechanism may not take more room than Chair Duggan indicated, it does take a lot more room for maneuverability. Commissioner Betlej asked what options were considered and if all options have been exhausted. Mr. Brinkman responded that Mr. Salmen has attempted to work around getting into his car in the present situation, and with there being three vehicles now the conditions are intolerable. He cannot maneuver to get into his vehicle. He cannot expand the existing garage, so he has talked to an architect and the architect asked what would be needed in the future as Mr. Salmen's condition deteriorates. Since they do not know what will be needed for accessibility, a plan was developed that provides the flexibility to adapt to future needs. The recreation room would be at the same level as the new garage, and it is possible that Mr. Salmen may someday need an enclosure that goes from the new garage level up to the living area. The access at this time would be to the recreation room and then to the main level up the stairs by means of an existing electric chair, but the chair will not hold a wheel chair. Mr. Salmen's thought is to get access from the garage level up to the living area in the future either over the patio area or to the front door but he does not know what his requirement will be down the road. Commissioner Betlej noted that if the intention is to install a ramp between the proposed garage and the main floor (second) level of the home, there is probably not enough room between the structures to ramp up twelve feet from the garage floor level. If some other conveying system is used, the structures could be attached. Chair Duggan asked that Mr. Salmen consider providing additional drawings for the City Council meeting showing the design and/or placement of the ramp from the proposed garage to the home so that the Council can get an idea of the physical connection between the garage and the home. Commissioner Betlej stated that four or five feet that would be needed on the side of a car for maneuvering and about 20 feet of garage depth calls for about 100 square feet of Page 7 11/23/99 additional garage space, but the size of the variance being requested suggests that the applicant is trying to do more. Mr. Brinkman stated that this is a typical family that needs a 1,200 square foot garage for cars and for storage. Responding to a question from Chair Duggan about the existing sheds, he stated that the larger shed is used for storage and the other one is not really even a shed, but rather is a woodshed consisting of some lattice work on poles to hide wood. Chair Duggan stated that he could support most of the application for the following reasons: the property is wooded and well shielded; there is a hardship externally imposed on Mr. Sa !men; it makes sense to go a little higher to balance the architecture with the existing home. He stated that he is very concerned about setting precedent but each situation is unique to itself. His calculations on space needs for vehicle storage and space between and around them for maneuvering, 1,116 square feet would be needed. Commissioner Lorberbaum reviewed comments that health conditions cannot be anticipated at this time, comments about ramping or other mechanisms in the future and leaving options available and that they don't know what is necessary. She was uncomfortable with the idea of placing the garage where it is proposed and figuring out the connection and the needs later. If it were her home, she would figure out the worst case and make sure everything is covered and build the garage where it will work and in a way that it will work. She stated that she wants to see why it needs to be where it is proposed with the ramp. She also stated that she has a problem with the garage height and could see no hardship for the height. Mr. Salmen phoned in to say that he has planned the options. One of the options is that the ramping would not be to the east side but rather to the front door where the grade permits ramping. The other alternative is to have an elevator constructed on the east side of the house near the existing garage service door. The play was laid out to address those two alternatives. Chair Duggan noted that the city has not received letters of consent from the neighbors. He asked if they were comfortable with the proposal. Mr. Salmen responded that it his understanding that Mr. Salmen spoke to his neighbor and he is comfortable with the proposal. Commissioner Tilsen stated that it is clear to him that the purpose of the city's ordinance is to try to eliminate commercial use of garages in residential areas. Rarely does someone come to the city for a specific use but a large garage could be put to other uses in the future. He stated that the size of the structure challenges the size of the house. It is obviously more than a normal garage since it is a two-story structure, has stairs and a second floor storage area. It is obviously more than a normal garage. He was concerned about the size of the structure and the precedent setting affect that this application could have on future applications, but pointed out that the commission looks at every application on its own merits. Page 8 11/23/99 Commissioner Friel asked how it was determined that a variance is necessitated by being forward of the setback for the front lot line. Planner McMonigal responded that it is a difficult lot and staff erred on the strict side and had the applicant request a variance, presuming that the front lot line is in front of where the house faces. Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Commissioner Tilsen moved that the hearing be closed. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that approval of a conditional use permit that includes variances only for the size of the structure and the front yard setback. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 99-37, MENDOTA HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE Chair Duggan opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Mendota Heights Associates for subdivision of property located at the northeast corner of Mendota Heights Road and Lexington Avenue along with a front yard setback variance. It was noted that the variance would not be needed if MnDOT turns back 20 feet of right-of-way to the city and the city turns it back to Mendota Heights Associates. Mr. Tony Feffer and Mr. Bruce Haver ly, from Mendota Heights Associates, were present for the discussion. Mr. Tony Feffer responded to questions from the commission regarding the environmental assessment. The contamination was on the Turner's Gymnastic site. When the freeway was being constructed, MnDOT vehicles were parked there and probably dripped gas or oil. There is no contamination on the property being considered tonight to his knowledge. There is nothing on the site that would be hazardous to anyone's health. Public Works Director Danielson informed the Commission that drainage from the site heads towards MnDOT property and for that reason, his plat and drainage needs to be reviewed and approved by MnDOT. MnDOT will likely require ponding before they allow the surface water to enter their system. Mr. Haver ly stated that there is a culvert from the Turner's site exiting onto the 135E right- of-way without any treatment at all. What is planned for this site is a culvert that exits onto 135 right-of-way into a ponding area that would store an adequate amount of water at that Page 9 11/23/99 point and a simple weir structure would hold that water and store it for the required amount of time. Mr. Feffer informed the audience that the proposed development would consist of four office buildings that are similar in design to City Hall. There will be a covered garage at each end of each building. There will be common signage at the entrance to the facilities, and application for signage will be made at a future date. Mr. Feffer stated that he spoke to MnDOT representatives today with regard to the right-of- way. It appears that MnDOT will give back to the city all of the area "hatched" on the site plan, which is 20 feet wide by 225 feet long. There was discussion about whether there would be sufficient room for a trail in the right- of-way that would remain. Mr. Feffer indicated that he has no problem with a trail and stated that Mendota Heights Associates would not charge the city for a trail easement if an easement is needed. Commissioner Tilsen informed Mr. Feffer that the city has an ordinance regarding NURP ponding and asked Mr. Feffer to work with city staff to be sure those requirements are met. Although the applicants did not request signage at this time, the commission wanted it to be clear that since they are designing the buildings and locations the way they are, they cannot come back at a later date and say they need a sign setback variance because of the building locations. The signs must meet all requirements without variances, they must not interfere with the trail or blind people coming in and out of the entrance. Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. Mr. Kent Rinker, board member for Turners Gymnastics stated that Turners is aware that the property is proposed to be developed and that there is a common driveway involved, but Turners has not been contacted. During the construction process if the common drive is the egress to the site, Turners is concerned that it not turn into a reverse pothole from the dirt being hauled in and out of the site. He asked that it periodically be knocked down to an acceptable level. Also, there is a concern about whether all four buildings will be constructed at the same time or as they are sold. Mr. Feffer responded that they would like to build all four buildings at one time, but that is a condition of the market and financing. Commissioner Tilsen pointed out that where there is an existing drainage easement running through the property, there are other drainage easements over the top of that easement. Commissioner Friel stated that the plat does not show the joint driveway. There should be an instrument that goes along with the plat that evidences the right to use that driveway as access to the property. Page 1 0 11/23/99 There being no further questions or comments, Commissioner Lorberbaum moved that the hearing be closed. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to recommend approval of the subdivision based on the following conditions: 1. That a trail easement be included if one is needed by the city; 2. That the applicants submit the agreement that is being created for the association with regard to cross parking; that the final plat process be followed; 3. That consideration be given to minimizing the impact on Turners Gymnastics during construction given the common entrance; 4. That the applicants submit a park dedication fee in accordance with city requirements; 5. That all sign ordinances be met; 6. That the applicants, before presentation to Council, work with city engineering to make sure that the easements are properly shown on the preliminary plat; 7. That the applicants work with MnDot and city engineering to determine drainage and ponding needs And approval of 20 foot setback variance along Mendota Heights Road if MnDot does not vacate the right-of-way. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONTINUED HEARING — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chair Duggan opened the meeting for the purposed of a continued hearing on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Steve Grittman and Ms. Deb Garross, from NAC, were present for the discussion. Chair Duggan informed the audience that the comprehensive plan is the city's plan outlining goals and accomplishments of the last 40 years and a blueprint for the future. Because the city is surrounded by communities with whom the city works closely, the city must share some resources, share its plan and continue its efforts. The city's comprehensive plan is submitted to those cities for review and response. Responses have been received from Inver Grove Heights, MnDOT and Dakota County. Their responses provided the city with some adjustments, advice, recommendations and commendations. It is the commission's hope to complete its review this evening and refer the plan to the City Council. He acknowledged two letters from Commissioner Friel regarding his concerns over the approach to the legality of the comprehensive plan in relation to zoning and proposed changes to sites. At the last meeting, the commission worked on six focus sites. The Metropolitan Council has approved the recommendation of the city and the Planning Commission on one of those sites, site number 3, (Resurrection Cemetery/Hoffman Homes). Page 11 11/23/99 Chair Duggan asked for questions and comments from the audience. Mr. Grittman informed the commission that he has not delivered new documents to the commission but that he has carefully recorded all of the commission's comments so there is a faithful reporting of the commission's actions to the City Council. Responses to the original draft of the plan have been received from Dakota County and MnDOT. Dakota County's response letter was detailed, particularly with respect to engineering plans that the city has already adopted (water supply, sanitary sewer, storm water) and are in place. Those plans were adopted by reference in the comprehensive plan. Those comments will be referred to the engineering staff to see if there are any relevant changes to the planning documents that should be used to amend the plan. Chair Duggan asked that a one or two page summary of the technical plans can be included in the commission's draft copy of the comprehensive plan at the back of the technical plan (where there are now blank pages) so that the commission does not need to review the full technical plans in the future. Mr. Grittman stated that the county's comments were generally advisory in nature, and a review of what the impact would be on county systems. He did not believe the comments would result in any changes to the plan. Regarding the comments on the jurisdictions on roads, he felt that perhaps the county staff was confused because both a jurisdictional map and a functional class map were combined on the same map. It may be appropriate to separate those two maps to avoid confusion. Chair Duggan suggested that all or most of the maps in the document be in the large format so that they are easier to read. Responding to a question about the process, Mr. Grittman stated he will produce an updated draft of the comprehensive plan before it goes to the Metropolitan Council. Commissioner Friel stated that the commission feels it would be appropriate that the document the planners prepare for review by the Council be given to the commission before it is submitted to the Metropolitan Council. Once it goes to the Metropolitan Council, if it does not include something the commission would like included, the commission would not have a chance to ask the Council to include it. Commissioner Lorberbaum agreed, stating that she understands there is a deadline and the commission would be responsible to meet that deadline. If the commission members receive the document, they would have the opportunity, at least informally if not at a meeting, to have one last chance to see it to determine if what they said is what Mr. Grittman heard. Mr. Grittman stated that MnDOT raised a couple of questions in their response, including that the plan should identify traffic problems on metropolitan highways and propose solutions. He did not feel that this is a local government role. Page 12 11/23/99 Commissioner Friel stated that as long as MnDOT asked for city input, he felt it appropriate to provide something in the comprehensive plan that addresses some problems with state highways. He stated that he has prepared two pages of commentary regarding problems on T.H. 149 that he has been discussing with city staff for eighteen months. He reviewed those problems for the commission. Other highway problems that were discussed and that the commission thought should be addressed in the plan were the intersection of Delaware and T.H. 110, the intersection of Victoria Road and Marie, and the intersections of Victoria and T.H. 13 and 135E and T.H. 13 (because of new development under construction). They also felt that the traffic meters that MnDOT has installed have created traffic problems and should be addressed. Chair Duggan felt that it should be stated clearly in the comprehensive plan that Mendota Heights as a community suffers the indignities and all of the pollution from 1-494, 1-35E, T.H. 110, Highway 13, Dodd Road and all of the noise the airport dumps on the city. The city receives heavy through traffic and no benefits. There should be some consideration somewhere for the community in that these are impressed upon the city, not by the city's choice, and now MnDOT wants the city to somehow control the traffic that comes through the community. Commissioner noted that in its response, Dakota County cites that the development framework section of the plan does not contain a transportation element and that this is a serious void in the plan. MnDOT, in its traffic analysis, recommend solutions including alternate modes. He felt that, as he has stated in the past, the city should look at traffic demand management in the businesses that locate in the city's industrial park, including alternate modes of transportation. Regarding the commission's discussion on the focus sites, Mr. Grittman stated that the primary comment he had in reviewing the discussion on the open space was that it was very creative. It is kind Commissioner Friel stated that he attended a land use planning seminary a week ago and this is what many communities are doing it. Mr. Grittman stated that open space is ,a land use that occurs in any zoning district. To create a land use category to be inclusive gets around the issue of conflict but loses the directive nature of the plan. A lot of cities like the loss of direction because it provides flexibility. He stated that he understands the objective but has a serious concern that it would raise red flags at the Metropolitan Council. He stated that he would like to re-word the statements regarding open space as a designation. Commissioner Friel commented on his letter regarding the comprehensive plan. Wherever the comprehensive plan is changed in a way that is inconsistent with the zoning plan and results in down-zoning, when the city gets to final action on the comprehensive plan it should the city should change the zoning to be consistent with the plan. While no one has a right to zoning, they do have a vested right to constitutional due process notice of changes and that is what he wants the city to provide so that people have an opportunity to Page 13 11/23/99 ( speak to the change and the city is protected against claims that it has taken action without due process. Chair Duggan felt that it would be appropriate to have the statutory language in the comprehensive plan that imposed the requirement that zoning had to be made consistent with the comprehensive plan. The commission discussed the reference in the technical plan section, in the Livable Communities Act portion, that indicates that the facility was not yet constructed. It was suggested that to keep the section historical and updated at the same time, there could be a comment in parenthesis that construction has been accomplished. Commissioner Friel moved that the one and one half pages he prepared regarding traffic be included in the comprehensive plan as well as the other traffic concerns addressed this evening. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 There being no questions or comments, Commissioner Tilsen moved that the hearing be dosed. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Chair Duggan recommended that commission members send a letter to Mr. Grittman, through the city, if in further review of the document they find language they are uncomfortable with. He suggested that the following changes be made: that the name of the neighborhood in the housing goals and maintenance comments (page 5), be removed; that the language on trail connections be made more specific and add discussion about increasing trail connections; that additional park land area be identified rather than just saying an additional 40 acres of park land. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend the approval of the technical plan portion of the comprehensive plan with the changes that the commission has asked Mr. Grittman to make. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Commissioner Friel moved that the City Council provide the commission with updated copies of the comprehensive plan as the City Council receives it, when it is finalized for distribution to the Metropolitan Council. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. Page 14 11/23/99 Commissioner Friel stated that the intent of his motion is to permit the commission an opportunity to look at the document and if at that stage the commission finds an error or has a question, the commission can ask the council if they overlooked it or intended it. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Danielson informed the commission on Council action taken on planning cases, and updated the commission on the Baldinger critical area application. Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to recommend that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to work to bring the critical area ordinance up to date next year. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 DECEMBER MEETING It was the consensus not to conduct a meeting in December but that the commissioners should be available should there be a pressing issue that must be addressed. It was also the consensus that if any member would like to propose changes to the updated comprehensive plan, the members should submit their comments in writing to the City Council and copies should be provided to the other commission members. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the commission, Chair Duggan moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Page 15 11/23/99