Loading...
1992-05-26 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1992 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 26, 1992, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following Commission members were present: Koll, Friel, Dreelan, Dwyer, Duggan and Tilsen. Commissioner Krebsbach was excused. Also present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planning Consultant John Uban, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Duggan moved approval of the April 28, 1992, Minutes with corrections. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Duggan moved approval of the March 28, 1992, Special Meeting Minutes, with corrections. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 MICROPHONE ETIQUETTE FOR LIVE TELECAST The 'Planning Commission acknowledged a memorandum submitted by Administrative Assistant Batchelder regarding microphone etiquette for live telecast of Planning Commission meetings. TARGET ISSUES FOR 1992 The Planning Commission acknowledged a memorandum submitted by Administrative Assistant Batchelder regarding Target Issues for 1992 as adopted by the City CounCilat their May 5, 1992 regular meeting. Chair Dwyer inquired as to when the Dodd Road/Highway 110 redevelopment project will be before the Planning Commission for their review. Public Works Director Danielson responded that this item will be before the Planning Commission at their June meeting. May 26, 1992 Page 2 JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE CITY COUNCIL At the request of Chair Dwyer, Administrative Assistant Batchelder explained that the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council will be conducting a joint workshop scheduled for June 9, 1992. He informed the Planning Commission of several issues that will be discussed at the joint workshop. He further stated that the Planning Commission is welcome to attend the meeting. Batchelder suggested that the Planning Commission may want to conduct a separate workshop with Council to discuss specific planning issues. Commissioner Friel stated the Planning Commission should meet separately with the City Council to discuss specific issues such as Zoning Ordinance amendments. He suggested that the Commissioners should come prepared for the June Planning Commission meeting with specific ideas for discussion with the City Council at a workshop. He suggested that at that time, the Commission could then suggest a meeting date and time, such as in late July or late August. Chair Dwyer directed the Commissioners to come prepared for their June 23, 1992, meeting with a list of ideas which could be discussed with the City Council at a joint workshop to be held possibly in late August or September. CASE NO. 92-12: SPANJERS WETLANDS PERMIT Mr. John Spanjers, of 786 Marie Avenue, was present to discuss his request for a wetlands permit to allow the construction of a chain link fence in the back yard of his property. Mr. Spanjers informed the Commission that Spring Creek runs along the south and west property lines. He stated his intention for installing the fence is to help prevent his young child from entering the creek. He further informed the Commission of the items he submitted for their review, i.e., site plan, signatures of consent and a quote from Sterling Fence Company. Chair Dwyer confirmed that Mr. Spanjers had received signatures of consent from his surrounding neighbors. In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Planner Uban stated that construction of the proposed fence should AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 May 26, 1992 Page 3 have no detrimental affect on the environment. Commissioner Dreelan moved to waive the public hearing. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. Commissioner Koll stated she had visited the property. She inquired as to where the fence will be placed with respect to the trees located on the southwest quadrant of the property. Mr. Spanjers responded that there is a small cluster of trees located on the southwest quadrant of his property. He stated that at this point, he is unsure as to the exact placement of the fence with respect to the trees. He stated the fence company is fully aware of his intentions to not affect the trees in any way. He stated the trees will not be removed and that the root systems will not be affected with the digging of the footings. Commissioner Koll stated that this particular area has neighbors who have chosen to go with natural landscaping. She stated that it would be nice to keep that natural atmosphere of the area but that she understands the need for installing the fence. Mr. Spanjers responded that there is extensive foliage as you come down Valley Curve and that there are several willow trees that will block the view from Marie Avenue. He stated that he does not feel there is a great visual impact with the installation of the fence. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City Council grant a twenty-two foot (22') Wetlands Permit to allow the construction of a chain link fence at 786 Marie Avenue. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1, TILSEN Commissioner Tilsen stated his opposition to the request is due to the fact that the applicant has not proven hardship and that the proposed fence is being constructed too close to the natural area. He stated that he can understand Mr. Spanjers' need for the request but that the fence should be placed further away from the creek. Chair Dwyer pointed out that a Wetlands Permit does not require proof of hardship. May 26, 1992 Page 4 CASE NO. 92 -14: BRENGMAN - VARIANCE Mr. Larry Brengman and Mr. Otto, attorney representing Mr. Brengman, were both present to discuss Mr. Brengman's request Mr. Otto explained that the Brengmans have lived in Mendota Heights for five years and that their intentions have been to construct a swimming pool. He stated that the Brengman's lot is a corner lot, which requires extra setbacks and that is why they are before the Planning Commission for the requested variances. Mr. Otto explained the applicants can show undue hardship in that the property is unique and that the uniqueness of the property was not created by the landowner. He stated the house is located on the corner of the cul -de -sac and that two other houses in the neighborhood have pools. He explained the Brengman's lot to be 107 feet wide. He stated the Brengmans would be at a disadvantage should they be required to move the fence back thirty feet (30') from the street as it would leave only 70 percent of the parcel as useable land. Mr. Otto stated that had the Brengman's pursued their desire to construct a swimming pool last year, a Conditional Use Permit would have been required at that time. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance has changed since a year ago. Mr. Otto reviewed Planner Malloy's comments within the Planner's Report. He concurred with Planner Malloy's assertion that there would be no problem with visibility. He stated Planner Malloy pointed out that there could be possible problems with noise and aesthetics should the board fence be constructed. He stated the Brengman's will install shrubbery along the exterior of the fence facing the street. Mr. Otto submitted pictures to the Planning Commission showing examples of neighborhood homes with fences and pools. Chair Dwyer stated he had visited the site. He noted that there are posts in place in the back yard along the rear lot line. Chair Dwyer briefly summarized the number of variances being requested. He stated that there is a proposed May 26, 1992 Page 5 accessory structure that exceeds the 144 square foot maximum allowance in size within an R-1 District. He stated a variance is required for this structure. Mr. Otto responded that at this point in time, the Brengmans are not asking for a variance for the accessory structure. Mr. Otto further noted that Mr. Brengman does have a building permit for the posts that are in place and that that portion of the fence area is not under consideration as it meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Otto explained that the alternative plan Planner Malloy suggests within his report indicates altering the placement and grading of the pool area. He stated that the Brengmans do not believe that it is possible to relocate the pool as it could cause a steep slope and a possible drainage problem. He stated the Brengmans would like a gradual incline to their pool. Mr. Otto pointed out that the Brengmans have received signatures of consent from all the surrounding property owners. He stated that the neighbors directly behind the Brengmans, the Zurns, have not expressed an opposition to the proposed pool and fence. He stated the Zurns have welcomed the opportunity as they will be able to do more landscaping to their property. Commissioner Duggan moved to exempt the applicant from the required public hearing. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Koll stated she had visited the site and that she has a difficult time in accepting an opacity of 70 percent for a corner fence. She stated that the fourteen setback of the fence would obstruct view on the corner. She stated that the fences in the neighborhood are open and the opaqueness of the fence is not in "character" with the neighborhood. Mr. Brengman responded that there are some wood fences in the neighborhood and that there are two homes in the neighborhood with pools. Commissioner Duggan stated that because this lot is a corner lot, the board fence will stand out and take away from the openness character of the neighborhood. Mr. Brengman responded that the Zurn's house faces the opposite of his lot and that they will be unable to see the fence. He stated that he had personally sat down and May 26, 1992 Page 6 discussed with the Zurn's his proposal for a wood fence. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan, Mr. Brengman stated he would be installing more trees on the property. Commissioner Koll stated her concern is that the board fence will not be aesthetically appealing. She stated her concerns for setting a precedent. Mr. Otto responded that there is a uniqueness to the Brengman's request in that their lot is a corner lot that is smaller than most corner lots in the City. Commissioner Friel stated his concern about the proliferation of variances. He questioned if the alternate layout, as suggested by Planner Malloy, would require a variance. Planner Uban responded that the alternate plan prepared by Planner Malloy was only showing the flexibility on the parcel which would allow the requested pool and fence to be constructed within the parameters of the Zoning Ordinance. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan, Planner Uban stated that no information had been given regarding grading and drainage. He stated that it is hard to determine whether using an alternate plan could increase grading and drainage problems. He explained that in reviewing the alternate plan, as suggested by Planner Malloy, it seems to work in that the pool house could be smaller and the setback of the fence could be placed on a site with a flatter surface. Mr. Brengman responded the grading would be a problem in that there is a thirty foot (30') grade change and that the alternate plan would not work as the pool would be above ground about eight feet (8'). Commissioner Dreelan stated she is opposed to putting a different type of fence along Diane Road as the existing neighbor's fence. As requested by Chair Dwyer, Administrative Assistant Batchelder briefly explained that the Zoning Ordinance was recently amended in August of 1991. Batchelder stated that the old Ordinance treated a fence abutting a public right-of-way as a Conditional Use requiring a Conditional Use Permit, a $350 fee, obtaining a Certified Abstract listing all property owners within 350° and a public hearing. He stated a few Councilmembers felt this to be too burdensome for residents and the requirement was changed to a variance. Batchelder stated the new May 26, 1992 Page 7 Zoning Ordinance may have inadvertently made it more difficult, given that a variance requires a proof of hardship. Mr. Brengman stated he would prefer a board fence but that he would really want the pool. Commissioner Tilsen stated his concerns for aesthetics and the setting of a precedent. He stated the fence should be placed at the setback line. Chair Dwyer stated he has no concerns for the requested variances in that Mr. Brengman's neighbors have given signatures of consent. He stated there has been no contour information submitted for an alternate plan. He suggested the consideration of the request should be held over until the Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 1992. Commissioner Duggan recommended that the topographic information be reviewed during the meeting so that Mr. Brengman could continue on with his proposed pool in a timely fashion. Public Works Director Danielson responded that staff does not have enough topographic information to review efficiently during the meeting. Commissioner Duggan stated that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation based on the alternate plan and that staff review the contour plans prior to the next City Council meeting. Commissioner Tilsen moved to recommend that the City Council grant the height variance of 6' and the opaqueness of the fence but to deny the extension of the fence into the front yard. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 3 NAYS: 3, KOLL, FRIEL, DREELAN MOTION FAILS Commissioner Friel moved to table the consideration of the variance requests to the next meeting in order to have the applicant redesign his request. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Commissioner Friel stated it is not the Planning Commission's job to redesign a proposal. He stated the Planner's Report indicates that a new design could be drawn that complies with the ordinance requirements. He May 26, 1992 Page 8 stated that he has indicated that he has concerns about granting unnecessary variances. Mr. Otto responded that if the concerns of the Commission are centered around the opacity of the fence and the setback of fourteen feet (14'), if the fence is open would the setback be allowed. He questioned if a chain link fence setback at fourteen feet (14') would be a problem. Commissioner Tilsen stated that screening by vegetation is preferred. VOTE ON MOTION: AYES: 1 NAYS: 5, KOLL, DREELAN, DWYER, DUGGAN, TILSEN MOTION FAILS Commissioner Dreelan moved to recommend that the City Council approve the location and height of the fence but that the applicant use some other type of fencing such as chain link or vinyl clad fencing. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Brengman, Commissioner Dreelan stated that a fence along the northern property line can be wood. AYES: 3 NAYS: 3, KOLL, FRIEL, TILSEN MOTION FAILS There was a brief discussion as to whether a chain link fence around the property would be more appropriate than a chain link fence around half of the property with the wood fence located at the rear of the property. Chair Dwyer moved to recommend that the City Council grant a variance to the height requirement in a front yard to allow a six foot (6') fence at the fourteen foot (14') setback, as proposed, with the condition that the fence be chain link around the whole yard. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1, FRIEL CASE NO. 92-13: MORIN - WETLANDS PERMIT AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 May 26, 1992 Page 9 Mr. Mark Morin, owner of Lot 3, Block 2, Guadalupe Heights Addition, was present to discuss his request for a Wetlands Permit to allow the construction of a single family home. Chair Dwyer stated the proposed house is to be located at 530 Simard Street. He stated, as per the Planner's Report, that a City sewer project has removed the Wetlands in that area and the style of house is proposed to be a rambler walkout. Commissioner Duggan noted a comment from Ms. Barbara Dunn that was included with her signature on the consent form, stating that she does not waive any rights to any claim she may have against Mr. Morin if his construction causes any run-off or drainage to her basement. Commissioner Duggan inquired as to whether more detailed information on grading is needed. Chair Dwyer inquired if Ms. Dunn was present. It was noted that Ms. Dunn was not present for the discussion. Commissioner Duggan moved to exempt the applicant from the required public hearing. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. In response to a question from Commissioner Koll, Public Works Director Danielson stated the proposed basement elevation is at the minimum required three foot (3') separation from the invert of the storm sewer outlet pipe. Danielson explained that a low area was created when Simard Street was constructed. He stated that during some of the heavy rain storms, some basements in the area were affected. He explained that Mr. Robert Morin petitioned the City to install a storm sewer system to help correct the problem. He stated that the storm sewer system was installed 2 1/2 years ago and there have been no problems since that time. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council grant the requested Wetlands Permit. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. Commissioner Tilsen stated that several properties in the May 26, 1992 Page 10 area may or may not be wetlands. He stated that the Planning Commission had received a report from the Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District explaining why the Arndt parcel is no longer considered a wetlands. He inquired as to whether it would be a good idea for the City to receive information from the Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District regarding the Morin request. Commissioner Tilsen proposed a friendly amendment to place a condition on the motion to require that proper erosion control methods be installed. Commissioner Friel stated he his troubled with granting a Wetlands Permit without some report prior to Council review determining whether or not this property is considered a wetlands. Public Works Director Danielson responded that the Department of Natural Resources and the Fish and Wildlife Agency does not indicate on their maps that this area is considered a wetlands. Commissioner Tilsen moved to amend the recommendation by directing staff to consult with the Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District to make a determination as to whether the City's Wetland designation is correct in this area and that the City Council make a determination on the status of the wetlands at their June meeting. Commissioner Tilsen further conditioned that the installation and maintenance of proper erosion control methods before, during and after construction be conducted. Commissioner Koll accepted the amendment and the condition. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Dwyer noted that Mr. Morin should understand that the retaining wall is being constructed in an easement and that more detailed grading plan should be submitted regarding the retaining wall. Mr Morin stated that he is aware of the easement. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that should the City Council determine that this area is not a Wetlands, the Council should consider a refund of the Wetlands fees. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IN THE SOUTHEAST AREA (PUTNAM SITE) AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 May 26, 1992 Page 11 Chair Dwyer moved to recommend that the City Council formally initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Putnam site and refer the same to the Planning Commission for a public hearing to be held at the June 23, 1992, Planning Commission regular meeting. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. Commissioner Duggan stated that a Southeast Area Study should be provided to the Planning Commission prior to their June 23rd meeting. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated the City Council will review the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the amendment to the southeast area at their June 2nd meeting and at that time, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban will propose to prepare a planner's report which will be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review. Chair Dwyer called a recess at 9:00 o'clock P.M. Chair Dwyer reconvened the meeting at 9:09 o'clock P.M. CONTINUED HEARING - CASE NO. 92-09: ARNDT - SUBDIVISION Chair Dwyer briefly summarized last month's Planning meeting regarding the Arndt Subdivision. Chair Dwyer stated that the subdivision request was met with some resistance regarding the proposed through street. He explained that the Planning Commission had continued the hearing so that the applicant could have an opportunity to possibly redesign the project using cul-de-sacs. Chair Dwyer informed the audience that the applicant has provided the Commission with a new design showing a cul- de-sac on London Road. He stated this new design shows thirteen lots, all sized at 15,000 square feet or larger. He stated that the plan dedicates park land for the potential use of creating more parking spaces for the existing Ivy Park, Commissioner Koll stated that aesthetically, she likes the cul-de-sac design. She stated that she is still May 26, 1992 Page 12 uncertain as to whether or not the residents of the London Road area would really notice an increase in traffic should London Road be extended. In response to a question from Commissioner Dreelan, Mr. Paul McGinley, representing the Arndt's, explained that access to Lot 9 will have thirty feet (30') of frontage on Kirchner following the proposed vacation of Kirchner. In response to a question from Commissioner Dreelan, Mr. McGinley stated that he assumed the walkway would be bituminous. Public Works Director Danielson informed the Commission that the walkway would be constructed in conjunction with the public improvements. Commissioner Duggan questioned if there is sufficient room within the cul-de-sac for fire truck turnaround. Public Works Director Danielson explained that the cul- de-sac would be constructed according to City standards. Commissioner Duggan stated that he would like to see the park dedication not only used for parking spaces but also incorporate tennis courts. He further stated that the park dedication is not quite the required 10 percent donation of land. Mr. McGinley responded that the Arndts are giving up one parcel of land that they could use to sell. He stated that the land is much more valuable to the City than a cash donation. He further stated that there will be a walkway easement within the development. Commissioner Tilsen expressed his concern for parking next to Lot 13. He stated he would like to see more green space in between the parking lot and Lot 13. In response to a query, Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated the 100 ' lot width requirement may be measured at the 30' yard setback, for cul-de-sac lots. Commissioner Tilsen inquired the same as to Lot 9 and further question whether there would be a drainage easement for every lot line. Mr. McGinley stated that the easement lines are shown under the legend within the map. In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen regarding right-of-way, Public Works Director Danielson explained that sixty feet (60') right-of-way is standard within the City but that fifty-five feet (55') of right- of-way has been accepted in other developments within in the City. He further stated that safety equipment have not had a problem in these developments with right-of-way designated at fifty-five feet (55'). Mr. McGinley responded that this has been done in a number of cul-de- sac streets within the City and that the length from May 26, 1992 Page 13 Downing Street to the cul-de-sac is 330 feet. Public Works Director Danielson stated that a standard size street will be constructed within the 55° right-of-way. Commissioner Tilsen stated the lots would benefit from a sixty foot (60') right-of-way. He stated the houses would be 3 1/2' further back. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting for public comments. Mr. John Markert, 1017 London Road, complimented both the Planning Commission and the Arndt's for designing a more workable plan. He questioned what happened to the Wetland issue. Chair Dwyer responded that the City had a representative from the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District make a site visit and they have made the determination that this area may be eliminated as a wetland designation. Chair Dwyer read the letter rom Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District. Mr. Markert further commented that he likes the suggestion of creating more open space between Lot 13 and the parking lot. Administrative Assistant Batchelder explained if platted, the land designated as park land would not necessarily be completely used for a parking lot. He stated that this matter would be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission for the appropriate park uses and greenery will likely be considered. Mr. Tom Junnila, 1024 Downing Street, stated the new plan is well done. He stated that the proposed walkway by his house is acceptable as access to the park. He stated he is not concerned about the proximity of the walkway to his property. Mr. Mike Newman, 1006 Downing Avenue, thanked the City for fixing the pothole in front of his house. Mr. Newman questioned the procedure of constructing the walkway in conjunction with public improvements. Public Works Director Danielson explained the walkway would be constructed when the streets and utilities are constructed. Mr. Newman further questioned if the issues of density, grading and soil analysis have been researched. Mrs. Ann Blechinger, 605 West Butler, questioned if the wooded area would be removed since it is no longer considered a wetlands. Mr. McGinley responded that fill needs to be placed and that some woods will be removed. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 May 26, 1992 Page 14 Mr. Blechinger stated she likes the wooded area along Butler as it will provide a natural barrier between her neighborhood and the new neighborhood. She further questioned if there will be any new assessments for the surrounding neighborhood. Public Works Director Danielson explained that a feasibility study will be done and that he does not anticipate any assessments except within the Arndt subdivision. Danielson further explained that it is anticipated that the City will be improving London Road and Downing in conjunction with the Arndt subdivision. Danielson further stated that the City is planning the improvements for either late summer or fall depending on the platting •process of the Arndt property. Mr. Bill Menke, 1017 London Road, stated the plan is a substantial improvement. He questioned if there has been any consideration given to a walkway to the west and south through Brompton Place. Mr. McGinley responded that he had reviewed three options: 1) a walkway at the end of the cul-de-sac which was disregarded; 2) a west option that affects four adjoining land owners, three outside the Arndt subdivision; 3) and what is proposed - two adjoining rear yards within the Arndt subdivision. Ms. Carol Menke, 1017 London Road, stated that the walkway seems to be going east to get to some place west and south. Commissioner Tilsen stated that a more direct route would be at a much steeper grade. He suggested that the Parks and Recreation Commission could research looking into paths along Butler and Kirchner. Public Works Director Danielson stated the trail way would be placed in the right-of-way. Commissioner Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. Chair Dwyer stated that the plan is a vast improvement and that it is a very workable plan. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that City Council approve the preliminary plat as proposed on the revised plan Option Design A dated May 18, 1992, with the condition that City Council should make a determination that this property is not a wetlands. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. May 26, 1992 Page 15 Chair Dwyer offered a friendly amendment stating that a walkway along the northern right-of-way of Butler Avenue and along Kirchner Avenue be a part of the public improvement process. Commissioner Friel accepted the friendly amendment. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Danielson provided a verbal review for the planning items at the previous City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned its meeting at 9:55 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary