Loading...
1999-08-24 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 24, 1999 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 24, 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: Duggan, Koll, Betlej, Lorberbaum, Kleinglass and Tilsen. Commissioner Friel was excused. Also present were Director of Public Works, James Danielson, Planner Therese Greenfield, Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister and Senior Secretary Linda Shipton. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commission Kleinglass moved to approve the July 24, 1999 minutes with revisions. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYES: 0 PLANNING CASE NO. 99-27: ROSEVILLE PROPERTIES, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, CENTRE POINTE SOUTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LAND RECLAMATION Mr. Mark Rancone, Roseville Properties was present to ask approval for Land Reclamation for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Rancone stated that the project is already underway and should be completed by the time they got to City Council. Mr. Rancone stated there was some confusion as to what the proper procedure was and that he went straight to Council. After deciding what the proper procedure should have been Council then gave Roseville Properties a special Conditional Use Permit to begin the work but asked that Roseville Properties go back to the Planning Commission which would have been the normal procedure. Chair Duggan stated that he had asked Commissioner Tilsen to lead the discussion as well as the other Commissioners to lead discussions on other items. Commissioner Tilsen asked if the plan had been followed. He commented that the plans showed both sites having a rock construction entrance and upon inspection of the sites he did not see a rock construction entrance. He stated that that a lot of the silt fence was not operating properly, Commissioner Tilsen 1 added that the coverage for the storm sewer in the street had some protection in the street that had failed on it. He also expressed concerns of a stockpile of black dirt where the drainage was to go into. Commissioner Tilsen said that although the work is almost completed he would like to recommend that if the Planning Commission gives approval, that the stockpile needs to be moved and for the low area be restored and restore all the conditions of the plan. Mr. Rancone commented that the first three concerns were issues as results of construction going on and they would be taken care of as the project is completed. Mr. Rancone stated that whatever conditions the Planning Commission put to them, they would be willing to work with. Commissioner Koll asked how much of the work had been completed. Mr. Rancone stated the work would be completed by September 3. Chair Duggan asked if there was anyone in the audience to comment on this application There was no one in the audience to comment on this application Commissioner Betlej moved to close the public hearing on this application. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYES: 0 Commissioner Tilsen moved to recommend the Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for Land Reclamation with the following conditions: 1. A final grading plan be submitted showing the location of silt fencing on the site. 2. The preliminary and final grading, drainage and erosion control plans are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 3. The streets be kept clean of dirt and debris, and are swept regularly during construction. 4. The City's policy for hours of operation be followed. 5. For the remainder of construction the truck entrance be from the northwest. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. 2 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Duggan suggested Mr. Rancone go before the Council at their next meeting. PLANNING CASE NO. 99-28 NEXTEL, SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT Chair Duggan introduced the next Planning Case, a Conditional Use Permit for Wireless Telecommunication. Mr. Nathan Ward introduced himself and stated that NEXTEL wanted the Conditional Use Permit to provide better signal strength to NEXTEL customers in the central Mendota Heights area. Mr. Ward stated that the logical place to do that is from Sibley High School primarily because of the ordinance requirements the City has on placement of this type of communication facilities. Mr. Ward stated that the facility would be a 12-foot by 20-foot enclosure to store equipment in. Mr. Ward said that 6 of the 9 antennae would be attached to it and the other 3 antennae would be placed on the north face of the High School. Commissioner Kleinglass, heading the discussion, asked Mr. Ward if they got approval from the School Board. Mr. Ward commented that NEXTEL had approval from the School Board for the intent to locate their equipment there and would have final approval of the lease agreement upon their next meeting. Commissioner Koll expressed concern for the weight of the structure on the building. Mr. Ward stated that they look very carefully at the structural design and integrity of the rooftop and take into consideration not only the dead weight loading of the structure and wind loading but also the drift loading for snow. All of the calculation are looked at by a structural engineer, have been signed off, and the current design meets all the requirements for a safe and sound structure. Commissioner Koll commented that the building was relatively large and asked what was stored in it and if the building would service a wider territory than Mendota Heights. 3 Mr. Ward remarked that each location has its own building and that the 12 x 20- foot structure stores all radio and transmitter gear. Mr. Ward stated the electronics have to be environmentally enclosed, climate controlled and weatherproofed from the elements and that all of the space within the 12 X 20- foot enclosure is utilized with the equipment. Commissioner Betlej asked how tall the structure is going to be and if it would be visible from Delaware or Highway 110. Mr. Ward stated that only the upper portion of the building would be visible from Delaware and that it would be visible only from very far West on 110 and only for a short time because of the tree coverage on 110. Mr. Ward commented that it truly would be almost invisible from every direction. Commissioner Betlej commented that he would like to discuss at a later time how many antennae are too many antennae on the school building. Mr. Ward remarked that it's some of the earlier installations, that were not subject to the newer ordinance requirements, that are the ones that remain visible and are not very esthetic to the eye. The newer facilities are essentially invisible. Chair Duggan asked what the access was going to be for their engineers to repair equipment. Mr. Ward stated that access would be through the school, up the elevator, to the maintenance floor and then through the access door to the roof. Mr. Ward remarked because of recent happenings in schools, they would not have a key to the school and there would be limited access to the building. Only upon arrival of a contact person at the school would they be allowed into the school and escorted to the roof. Commissioner Tilsen commented that Mr. Ward mentioned that NEXTEL was looking at only two sites. Commissioner Tilsen stated that there were quite a few other sites available such as along the existing NSP electrical high-tension lines, which would be good options. Mr. Ward remarked they have utilized the high tension wires in some applications in other areas but what it actually comes down to is site specific location and where best you can solve the coverage difficulties. As your network matures your locations become much smaller. Mr. Ward stated that their network in the greater Minneapolis and St. Paul area are about 85% built out and everything that will be built from this point forward will mainly be improving coverage. As more people joint the network, you need to provide them with more access to the network and the only way to do that is to add additional sites. Mr. Ward stated that early on when you're launching a network you try to cover as much territory as possible with as few sites as possible until you have subscribers and the 4 location of those early on, are not as critical as they are when the network ( matures. Mr. Ward stated that Mendota Heights is a very difficult area to provide coverage to and Sibley High School being on a high spot, is very open to the North, West, South and very little coverage to the East. Strategically it is a very good site. Commissioner Tilsen commented that there has to be a limit as to how many towers can be constructed on the school and will have to start looking for some alternatives and still limit that they are not spread all over everywhere. Commissioner Kleinglass stated that this is a Public Hearing and asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on this application. There was no one in the audience that wanted to comment on this application. Commissioner Kleinglass moved to close the Public Hearing. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. Chair Duggan asked if NEXTEL or other companies are measuring the impact of cities adopting ordinances that ban the use of cell phones as people are driving their cars. Mr. Ward commented that from the sales and marketing end they do and that there are communities that have done so and will create an impact on primarily revenue. Mr. Ward stated that when driving from point A to point B, is the principal time that portable telephones are used. Mr. Ward also stated that part of that solution will be technology that will allow you to use your telephone in your vehicle hands free. Commissioner Kleinglass recommended approval for the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. All antennas and the building structure be painted to match aesthetically with the High School. 2. All other conditions in Ordinance 317 are met. 3. All required permits as related to the structural plan of the facility are obtained. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Asking for any further discussion Commissioner Betlej suggested that it be the last one to go up. 5 ( Commissioner Duggan commented that he didn't think that was in the Planning Commission's power because of the FCC regulations. Commissioner Kleinglass explained that because these companies need to put the towers up, they are always compliant and it is very advantagous to the owners of the building and also that this is the technology of the world. Commissioner Betlej questioned whether it is the Planning Commission's job or the High School's job to better patrol how many towers would be allowed. Commissioner Betlej stated he would let it go but that he just wanted it to be on record. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Duggan stated they would appear before the Council at the next meeting. PLANNING CASE NO. 99-29 JANIE BERG, 711 WOODRIDGE DRIVE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR FENCE Chair Duggan introduced the next Planning Case, a Critical Area Permit for a Fence, at 711 Woodridge Drive. Chair Duggan commented that Commissioner Lorberbaum would be leading the discussion. Janie Berg, 711 Woodridge Drive introduced herself and stated that she was requesting a Critical Area Permit to reconstruct a fence that was previously moved and that was grandfathered in before the Critical Area was designated, and for a Variance for the fence to be placed within the 40-foot setback. Mrs. Berg stated that the fence on the West Side is still there and the fence on the East Side was removed, Mrs. Berg said that she wants to put it back in exactly the same place it was. According to the survey drawing, provided by the city, the fence was not on the property line, and she had a survey done and would be putting it on the property line. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked how similar the fence would be to the fence that was there before. Mrs. Berg said it would not be similar at all. That the new fence would be a cedar fence and the previous fence was a steel fence. 6 Commissioner Lorberbaum asked how opaque it would be and if you would be able to see through it or if it would be much more of a private fence. Mrs. Berg said that you would not be able to see through it. Commissioner Koll asked for what reason the original fence was there and what it looked like. Mrs. Berg stated that the fence was there when they purchased the house in 1978. Chair Duggan asked if the fence that was removed looked the same, an off white metal, as the fence on the other side of the house. Mrs. Berg said that was correct. Commissioner Koll asked when the pool was built. Mrs. Berg stated the pool was built in 1978 and that there was no critical area in 1978. Mrs. Berg stated that the Critical Area Ordinance was passed in 1980. Mrs. Berg commented that her whole house was grandfathered in because half her house is in the Critical Area. Mrs. Berg stated that since 1985 they have lost 5 feet of the back yard because of erosion. Commissioner Koll commented it sounds as if that has pretty much stabilized now. Mrs. Berg stated that it has been stabilized at this time. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the fence would help stabilize the erosion. Mrs. Berg commented that she believed it would. Commissioner Koll asked how tall the original fence was. Mrs. Berg stated that the original fence was 5 feet but that they are asking for 6 feet. Commissioner Koll commented she has a real problem with fences in general especially fences in the Critical Areas. Mrs. Berg stated that the fence would be perpendicular to the bluff and no one would actually see the fence. 7 Commissioner Koll said the major issue is the sightliness or unsightliness to the neighbor as well as the obstruction of their view. Mrs. Berg remarked that prior to the fence being taken down, there were 6-foot bushes that were dying, so the view would be no different. Commissioner Koll commented that Mrs. Berg stated according to the new survey that the property had changed. Mrs. Berg stated that according to the survey provided by the city, the fence on the northwest corner was over the property line but according to the new survey the fence was .01 east of the property line. Mrs. Berg also stated that on the City's survey it showed that on the southeast corner of the property line the fence went well over the property line and on the new survey the fence is within the property line. Commissioner Betlej asked if Mrs. Berg had any pictures of the fence. Mrs. Berg said no, but it would be a standard cedar fence where 6-inch board alternated sides. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if Mrs. Berg knew what percentage of opacity the fence was. Mrs. Berg said she did not. Chair Duggan explained that because she was seeking a 6-foot fence, the City's Zoning Ordinance requires 70 percent opacity or less. Chair Duggan commented that as he understands it the neighbors property has about a 4 foot drop in level between houses and after the 6 foot fence is put up there will be a 3 foot intrusion in relation to their home. Chair Duggan asked Mrs. Berg if she had shared this information with the neighbors. Mrs. Berg stated that she had not talked to her neighbors about the fence but that they were in the audience and could be addressed. Chair Duggan asked if the official survey had been signed and submitted to the City. Mrs. Berg said it had been signed but that she hadn't submitted it to the City but that she would submit it. Chair Duggan asked Director of Public Works for verification that the type of fence Mrs. Berg wanted was acceptable, except in the critical area. 8 Director of Public Works, Jim Danielson commented that in the back yard one could have a board on board fence. Planner Therese Greenfield stated that in reviewing the Critical Area Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance she did not see anything that was specific about the type of fence in the back yard in the Critical Area, so that your general residential requirements for rear yard fences would also apply to the Critical Area. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that then it does not have to be 70 percent opaque. Planner Therese Greenfield answered correct. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if there was a height limit. Planner Therese Greenfield stated in the rear yard they would be able to build a 6-foot high fence, which would be consistent with our ordinance requirements. Chair Duggan asked what would happen if in the Critical Area a neighbor said their view was obstructed. Planner Greenfield said there are considerations for the view and it is open for discussion and there is not a specific requirement, at least to her understanding. Commissioner Tilsen reminded the panel that with the Critical Area Ordinance and in a fence situation that what they were really talking about was the view, and his only concern was the view other than it be placed on their own property. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if there was anyone in the audience to comment on this application. Amy and Gary Fabel of 709 Woodridge Avenue, neighbors who live on the east of the Bergs asked for clarification on height of the fence as well as the placement of the fence. Mrs. Berg stated that the fence would be six feet high and placed in the same place that the fence that was removed was placed. Mrs. Berg said the fence would not block any more view than what was blocked with the previous landscaping. Chair Duggan inquired whether there had been any erosion on the Fabei's property. Mr. Fabel responded that there had not been erosion. Commissioner Betlej moved to close the public hearing on this application. 9 Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to recommend approval of a Variance to the CAO allowing a fence to be constructed to the bluff line as proposed with the following conditions: 1. The fence have 70 percent opacity or less. 2. The fence be no greater than 5 feet in height. 3. Both fences match on each side of the house. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 2 (Koll, Duggan) Chair Duggan suggested that when they appear before the Council at their next meeting, they take a picture or a piece of fence with them, or possibly stake the property out. PLANNING CASE NO. 99-30 MICHAEL WANDSCHNEIDER, 1289 LAKEVIEW AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE Chair Duggan said that Mr. Michael Wandschneider of 1289 Lakeview Avenue was present at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss his application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a detached garage and that Commissioner Betlej would be leading the discussion. Mr. Wandschneider said he was proposing to put a 1000 square foot garage in front of the house on the other side of the lot. Mr. Wandschneider said he has an attached garage at this time that he would be making into living space. Commissioner Betlej stated that our ordinance allows a 750 square foot garage and asked what the need for the oversized garage. Mr. Wandschneidder stated he has a boat, canoe, camper, 3 cars, motorcycle and a snowmobile that he would like to store and that the extra 250 feet would provide for that. 10 ( Commissioner Betlej asked what the hardship would be. Mr. Wandschneider stated he didn't want the vehicles sitting outside. Commissioner Betlej asked if Mr. Wandschneider considered attaching the garaged to his current house. Mr. Wandschneider said because of the elevations and the contour of the property and because the house sits only 20 feet from the rear lot line, that would not be a consideration. Commissioner Betlej stated that because of where the house sits, he felt that would be a hardship to put the garage out front although it is not allowed under THE City's ordinance. Commissioner Betlej said that another part of the City's ordinance states that the setback from the street requires that a line be drawn between the houses on either side of property being built on, and the proposed building can not go in front of either of the two houses on each side. Commissioner Betlej asked if it would be feasible to slide the garage back a bit. Mr. Wandschneider stated that garage would be only about 5 feet in front of one of the houses and because of a tree he would not be able to slide the garage back . Mr. Wandschneider stated the siding would match the house and that he would rather go with a 4/12 pitch than a 6/12 pitch. Mr. Wandschneider stated that if he had to go with the 750 square foot garage he would like to have the driveway go out onto the existing driveway. Commissioner Betlej asked if the existing shed would be staying on the property. Mr. Wandschneider stated that if he was allowed the 1000 square foot garage, the shed would be taken down, but if he were allowed only the 750 square foot garage, it would stay. Commissioner Koll asked what the garage size would be in comparison to his house. Mr. Wandschneider stated that it would be almost the same square footage. Commissioner Koll asked what the timetable would be to have the garage completed. 11 Mr. Wandschneider stated that it would be completed by spring for sure and the slab would be laid by the end of September. Commissioner Koll commented that according to the city ordinance, that it is a problem when you have a garage building in front of a house. Commissioner Koll stated that she did have a problem with the size of the garage and asked if the garage could be moved back a bit or if he would consider moving the proposed garage up by the house. Mr. Wandschneider stated that the garage could not be moved back and wanted to keep the area by the house available in case he would ever add onto the house. Chair Duggan asked how he would get from the garage to the house. Mr. Wandschneider said that he would have only about 10 feet from the house to the proposed garage. Chair Duggan reminded Mr. Wandschneider to make sure to get a permit for the new driveway. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Wandschneider if the current garage is being used for anything. Mr. Wandschneider said he stores his motorcycle and some hand tools in it. Chair Duggan commented that the city recommendation is that the garage door on that structure be removed and that some sort of proof be provided to the city in the form of a bond that it is only used for living space. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the pitch of the roof. Mr. Wandschneider said that it would be 4/12, which is standard. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if there was reason why the garage couldn't be put east of the house. Mr. Wandschneider said no there was not. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if because there was no hardship, if the Planning Commission said he could have a 750 square foot detached garage, or a 1000 square foot attached garage, which would he prefer. Mr. Wandschneider said that because he did not want the garage near the house he would have to say a 750 square foot detached garage. 12 Chair Duggan asked City Staff if the footprint of the garage structure could be larger than the original home. Director of Public Works stated that there was a concern when the city put together the ordinance for the detached garage that there might be an event that the garage would be larger than the house but there was nothing in the ordinance that prevents a garage from being larger than the house. Commissioner Tilsen said he sees a definite hardship. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the house is placed on the setback line to the west and 20 feet from the rear line to the north, and he didn't see how the garage could be added to the house without a variance. Commissioner Tilsen stated that it is a small house and if he were going to add on to the house it would be to the east or to the south. Commissioner Betlej asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application. Mr. John Heyn who lives across the road from Mr. Wandschneider commented that he would like to see the Planning Commission give Mr. Wandschneider as big of a garage as possible and give Mr. Wandscheider an opportunity to clean up his area and get his vehicles out of site. Commissioner Betlej moved to close the public hearing on this application. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Chair Duggan moved to recommend approval of a conditional use permit and front yard setback variance for a 750 square foot garage with the following conditions: 1. The proposed garage be placed behind the line defined by the fronts of the neighboring houses or as close to that setback as possible. 2. The proposed garage match the color of the house. 3. The current garage door be removed from the home and that space be converted to living space. 4. That all grading and engineering concerns be met with the city. 5. The existing shed be painted to match the new garage and the house. ■ Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. 13 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Duggan instructed Mr. Wandschneider to appear before the Council at their next meeting to discuss the application. PLANNING CASE NO 99-31: GONZALO MARTINEZ, 905 NINA COURT 28-FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A 5-FOOT HIGH FENCE Chair Duggan introduced the next Planning Case, a Variance for Fence Height at 905 Nina Court. Chair Duggan commented that Commissioner Koll would lead the discussion. Mr. Gonzalo Martinez of 905 Nina Court stated there house is located on the corner of Nina and Diane Road, with Dakota Children's Home on one side and a park on the other which causes a large amount of traffic due to soccer games. Mr. Martinez stated the reason they were asking for the variance for a 5 foot fence was because they have a 2 year old, and he was almost hit by a car. Mr. Martinez felt that their asking for a variance was a safety factor and needed it addressed immediately. Mr. Martinez said he didn't want a privacy fence and they wanted to keep the openness. Mr. Martinez said the reason for the 5 foot fence was because their 2 year old can crawl over the 3-foot gate that is in his room, so they feel they need the fence 5 feet. Also because of the irregular lot, it makes it impossible to build the fence within the required setback. Mr. Martinzez stated that the fence will be an open fence and will not obstruct any of the neighbor's views. Commissioner Koll asked what material the fence would be. Mr. Martinez said it would be black wrought iron or aluminum. Commissioner Koll stated that as she drove by Mr. Martinez's house she noted that his back yard was very open and she understood his need for a fence especially with a two year old. Commissioner Koll said that Mr. Martinez would need two variances, one for the fence height and one for the setback. 14 Commissioner Koll asked Mr. Martinez when he would start building the fence. Mr. Martinez said as soon as the city council approved the variance they would begin the fence. Commissioner Koll asked if Mr. Martinez would consider planting some shrubs particularly on the street side. Mr. Martinez said they would like to do some landscaping. Commissioner Koll asked how much of a setback would be needed. Commissioner Tilsen stated Mr. Martinez would need a 28-foot setback variance. Commissioner Tilsen asked Mr. Martinez if the fence type would be changed in the wooded area of the property. Mr. Martinez commented that the fence would be the same color but that in the wooded area the fence would probably be chain link. Commissioner Lorberbaum said that because Mr. Martinez commented that some day there may be a possibility they may want to put in a swimming pool, would this type of fence fit the requirements for a swimming pool fence. Director of Public Works, Jim Danielson said that the requirements for a swimming pool states that the fence be a non-climbable fence and this type of fence is considered non-climbable but they would probably need to change the gates. Chair Duggan asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application. There was no one in the audience that wanted to comment on this application. Commissioner Betlej moved to recommend approval of a 28-foot front yard setback variance for a 5-foot fence with conditions: 1. The fence to be 5-foot wrought iron 2. The Northeast corner being of black cyclone. 3. A distance of 15-feet from the street. 4. Some shrubbery be added on the street side of Diane Road. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. 15 Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification of the hardship. Commissioner Betlej stated that the hardship was that Mr. Martinez lived on a corner lot. Commissioner Tilsen stated that Mr. Martinez lived on a odd shaped corner lot. Commissioner Lorberbaum said she would except the hardship that Mr. Martinez lived on an odd shaped corner lot but to say just say that Mr. Martinez lived on a corner lot would defeat the purpose of the ordinance. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1 (Duggan) Chair Duggan stated Mr. Martinez would appear before Council at their next meeting to discuss the application. PLANNING CASE NO. 99-32: COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT, 1352 NORTHLAND DRIVE SIGN SIZE VARIANCE Chair Duggan introduced the next Planning Case, a Sign Size Variance, and explained that Marriott has a pylon sign out by 494 and also has a sign in the front of the Marriott that they are wanting to reface. It was determined that the old sign face was larger than had been permitted and that is why they will need a sign size variance. Mr. Scott Griffin, the operations manager of the Courtyard by Marriott stated that the original permit was for a smaller sign than what was actually put up in 1985. When the sign was measured it was found out that the sign was actually larger than what it was suppose to be. The current sign face is 25 feet long by 10-feet 3 inches deep. Chair Duggan stated that the Planning Commission is here to determine whether they are going to permit the Marriott to reface the current sign or to require them to replace the sign with a smaller sign. Chair Duggan stated that the current sign is 27 square feet over the sign that was actually approved. Commissioner Tilsen commented that that is only a difference of 1 foot, or 25 square feet, and he felt that the sign should be left alone. Chair Duggan agreed with Commissioner Tilsen that cleaning the sign with a new ■ face on each side, the current size of the sign works. 16 Chair Duggan stated that the city ordinance requires that pylon signs are no more than 25 feet in height and that the Marriott's sign is 35 feet in height. Chair Duggan asked Mr. Griffin if that also was granted in 1985. Mr. Griffin said he thought there was a 25 foot height variance that had been granted. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the Marriott was granted a 20 foot height variance and so the only thing that they were talking about was the sign size. Commissioner Betlej moved to recommend approval of the Sign Size Variance as is. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 PLANNING CASE NO. 99-33: HEATH AND STACEY LANGAGER, 761 KEOKUK LANE VARIANCES FOR FENCE HEIGHT AND OPENNESS Chair Duggan announced that Mr. Langager had withdrawn his application. PLANNING CASE NO. 99-22: BUROW MANAGEMENT, 1875 VICTORIA ROAD SUBDIVISION (CONTINUATION) Chair Duggan commended residents on their community and civic spirit on this issue. Chair Duggan noted that as stated in a letter from Brian Smith that all options are open, after his home plan is approved, in reference to the rest of the property. Chair Duggan stated that City Council has indicated that they are not interested in providing a rezoning that is higher density than what is currently in existence which is R-1. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she had recused herself from the discussion the last meeting because Keith Heaver is currently building her home. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that although the Planning Commission has asked her to sit in on this discussion, she will be recusing herself from the vote. Mr. Brian Smith read a letter that he sent to the Planning Commission in response to three issues that were raised at the end of the last Planning Commission Meeting. 17 The first issue was ownership, in which Mr. Smith stated that Burow Management LLC is the current owner and the only one who has development right to 1875 Victoria Road. Burow Management LLC are Thomas Burow, Michael Cashill and Brian Smith all of whom are Mendota Heights residents. The second issue was what is proposed for the rest of the subdivision. Mr. Smith stated that Twin City Christian Homes was going to be allowed to present a Concept Plan, for senior housing, on June 15, 1999. Prior to the June 15, 1999 City Council Meeting the concept plan was withdrawn by Twin City Christian Homes. Mr. Smith stated that in the letter that Burow Management LLC is open to all options and suggestions at this time. The third issue was that a wetland delineation survey and report be submitted to the City in which Burow Management LLC did do. Chair Duggan stated that the Subdivision request requires Burow Management LLC to provide the Planning Commission with what the plans for the rest of the land is. Chair Duggan said that the community needs to know what Burow Management LLC plans to do with the land. Mr. Smith stated that, as stated in the letter, the remainder of the property would be open space or R-1, which is residential. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the Planning Commission needs to discuss the subdivision as a whole, to lessen the impact in the future. Commissioner Tilsen also stated that the Planning Commission is not given a choice, and that the Subdivision Ordinance requires the subdivider submit a sketch plan of he property. Commissioner Tilsen asked what criteria was used to delineate the wetlands. Mr. Smith said that a Wetland Delineation was submitted and didn't know why a copy of the report was not distributed to the Planning Commission. Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister said that the typical practice is to distribute the map which shows where the wetlands is and make the report available upon request. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he felt they needed a plan. Mr. Smith commented that no one requested a plan. Chair Duggan asked Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister if there was not a checklist in which a plan was required. 18 Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that there is an item on the checklist that indicates the developer is suppose to indicate their intent and Mr. Smith had maintained that he intends to leave the remainder of the land open. Chair Duggan asked if Mr. Smith's intent was to continue working with horses on just his piece of the property or on both pieces of property and if that will continue even if the rest of the property is developed Mr. Smith stated that there will always be horses there. Chair Duggan read two parts of the ordinance which pertain to the keeping of horses. Commissioner Kleinglass asked if there was a reason why Mr. Smith chose the placement of the home to be where it is. Mr. Smith stated the lot was cut out so that it was on the pond and to accommodate horses if someday they had to be moved over there if the rest of the houses were built along there. Mr. Smith said they were trying to contain as much of the pasture and low-lying land that can be used for the horses. Commissioner Koll asked Mr. Smith if he thought he would be selling lot two off if the price was right in the near future. Mr. Smith stated that Burow Management didn't have any plan for the rest of the property for at least the next year. Chair Duggan asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application. Mr. Mark Frenz of 1842 Rolling Green Curve stated his back yard is next to the back of the Burow Farm. Mr. Frenz stated that a couple of days after the last Planning Commission Meeting he called Brian's father, Mr. Ron Smith who is the Attorney for Burow Management. Mr. Frenz asked Mr. Ron Smith what was going to happen to the land that is referred to as lot 1. Mr. Ron Smith said that a house was going to be built on lot 2 for Mr. Burow to live in and then when lot 1 was developed into a Senior Housing in which Mr. Burow would be there first tenant. Mr. Fenz said there was a picture of the concept plan in the Sun Current. Chair Duggan stated that even if this is there intention they are entitled to pursue that intention. 19 Mr. Frenz stated that the Friends and Neighbors of Burows Farm would like to buy the Farm and it takes time to raise money and get appraisal. What Mr. Frenz proposed was that the entire issue be tabled until the neighbors have an opportunity to reach a reasonable purchase price with Mr. Ron Smith and Burow Management LLC which could take up to 6 months. Chair Duggan commented that maybe they could get an agreement with Burow Management LLC to leave the property as is for 6 months guaranteed with the idea that the group involved would raise funds to come forward with a fair market price. Brian Smith commented that the concept plan was never presented and the reason it was never presented was because it was not received well. Mr. Frenz commented that at the last Planning Commission Meeting, Burow Management LLC said that Brian Smith was going to live in the house and a couple of days after that meeting Mr. Ron Smith said that Mr. Burow was going to live in the house. Brian Smith stated that Mr. Burow is welcome to live in the house with him and that is what they are still planning on doing because Mr. Burow needs assisted living. 1 ( , Ms. Mary Roszack of 988 Stratford Road stated that she, Mickey Kieffer and a prominent attorney that lives in the neighborhood met with Mr. Ron Smith and at that time decided that they would need a master appraiser to come out because during the conversation she heard the figure of $850,000 based on a R-3 determination of the property. Ms. Roszak stated that it sounds like the City Council is not interested in rezoning the land to R-3 so they should not have an appraisal based on that. Ms. Roszak stated that there is a group that is trying to get going, calling themselves, Friends of the Burow Farm. Ms. Roszak said they couldn't really ask people for money until they had clarification of ownership and valuation. Chair Duggan stated that now they have clarification of ownership and a reasonable answer as to what was going to be done with the property especially if they could reach an agreement with Burow Management LLC to leave the property as is for 6 months. Ms. Roszak commented that they did not expect as neighbors from the same group that proposed a conservative conservation type of a location for them to go to a 2-story nursing home. Chair Duggan said that as the concept was explained to him, the concept was a reasonable concept, but possibly not a reasonable location. 20 Ms. Roszak asked Brian Smith if they could have 6 to 12 months to pursue funds and appraisals to purchase the property. Mr. Smith said that would be agreeable as long as he could go on with the subdivision of lot 2 and the building of his home. Mr. Pat Conroy of 952 Stratford Road stated that his home is directly South of the Burow Farm. Mr. Conroy wanted to know how Mr. Smith came about choosing the location of his home. Chair Duggan stated that Mr. Smiths home meets all the requirements for both front yard and side yard setbacks. Mr. Smith stated that after discussion with city staff that if lot 1 was not preserved and if houses did go in there that there would be roughly seven, 100 foot lots all entering off of Victoria. Mr. Conroy stated that everyone at the meeting tonight would like to see the property preserved but if Burow Management LLC planned to develop the land that he felt there should be a reasonable plan in front of them for the neighbors to see. Mr. Conroy said that he felt that 6 to 12 months should give Burow Management a reasonable amount of time to develop a plan in case the neighbors could not raise the money to preserve the property. Ms. Lois Chambers lives on the corner of Kay and Walsh streets. Ms. Chambers stated that there was a developer that came into Mr. Burows property and developed the land. Ms. Chambers said that that developer had plans and she doesn't understand why Burow Management LLC doesn't have a plans. Ms. Chambers said that this part of the land has more meaning and she would like to see a plan. Mr. Robert Momsen said he still was somewhat confused as to who was moving into the house. Mr. Momsen said he felt there were communication problems. Mr. Mitch Berg of 904 Strafford Road asked Mr. Smith if there was possibility of the neighborhood buying lot 2 as well. Mr. Smith said no there was not. Mr. Berg stated that if the plan is to build one house and to leave everything else as it stands is it reasonable for the Planning Commission to ask Mr. Smith to relocate the home to a better spot. 21 ( Commissioner Tilsen stated that it is nice to have an overall plan to see how everything is going to work out. Right now Mr. Smith says he has no other plan but to leave the land as is. Commissioner Tilsen said his overall preference is to see the land as is but by law a subdivider has the right to come in and subdivide under the ordinances. Mr. Mickey Kieffer of 1830 Rolling Green Curve stated he was in a meeting with Mary Roszak and a prominent real estate attorney who is also a Mendota Heights resident and Mr. Smith stated that Brian was going to build a house, Tom was going to move in with him, they were going to put in an assisted living facility and Tom was going to be the first resident there and that was as of a week ago. Commissioner Betlej moved to close the Public Hearing. Commissioner Kleinglass seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Lorberbaum) Chair Duggan moved to recommend approval of Subdivision with conditions: 1. The engineering concerns are met regarding construction, driveway, sewer and other utilities. 2. Concerns for wetland protection are worked out with City Staff. 3. Recognizing that it may not be legally binding, a moratorium on the rest of the land, for 6 to 12 months, to permit Friends of the Burow Farm to attempt purchase of the land at fair market R-1 residential value is made in that period of time as well as they attempt to raise funds. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. Commissioner Lorberbaum recused herself from the vote. AYES: 4 NAYS: 1 (Tilsen) ABSTAIN: 1 (Lorberbaum) Chair Duggan recommended Mr. Smith appear before the Council at their next meeting. Chair Duggan stated that reason for not adding the requirement of having a plan for the rest of the land was that it might jeopardize the moratorium. Chair 22 Duggan said that if he threw in a clause that Mr. Smith would have to come forth with a plan within the next 6 months and he didn't care to do that he would have an out. VERBAL REVIEW Mr. Danielson provided a review of the status of previous planning cases. ADJOURN Commissioner Betlej motioned to adjourn. Chair Duggan seconded the motion AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjourned at 11:56 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Linda L. Shipton 23