Loading...
1989-12-26 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 26, 1989 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 26, 1989, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chairman Morson called the meeting to order at 7:35 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Morson, Dreelan, Duggan, Koll and Krebsbach. Dwyer was excused and Tilsen absent. Also present were Acting City Administrator James Danielson, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder and Planning Consultant Howard Dahlgren. INTRODUCTION Chairman Morson welcomed new Planning OF NEW MEMBER Commissioner, Carolyn Dreelan, to the Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF Commissioner Duggan moved approval of the MINUTES minutes of November 28th with corrections. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 89-46 Mr. George Spanjers presented his father SPANJERS - John's case for their Wetlands Permit. Mr. WETLANDS PERMIT Spanjers stated that the existing house is closer than the new additions are to the Wetlands. Chairman Morson stated that this was in essence a grandfather action to bring the existing house into conformance with the Wetlands Ordinance to allow the construction of the addition. Commissioner Duggan moved to waive the public hearing and recommend to the City Council that they grant a Wetlands Permit bringing the existing dwelling into conformance and allowing a fifty-eight foot (58') setback to the Wetlands. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 89-45 BIRCH - SUBDIVISION (HEARING) Page 2 December 26, 1989 Mr. Brian Birch presented his request for a subdivision. He stated that he had two purposes in coming forward to the City for this subdivision. He stated that what he wished to do was enlarge Dr. Koepke's property so that Dr. Koepke can build an addition to his animal hospital and to straighten his land with the exchange of the triangular piece shown in drawing one. Mr. Birch stated that the subdivision was a simple transfer of land and that each party was exchanging a triangular piece. Mr. Birch stated that he was asking for approval of a subdivision to plat this land for transfer. Chairman Morson stated that he had no problem with the replatting. He asked Mr. Birch about the variance for the setback to Dr. Koepke's building that would be necessary if this exchange of land took place. His question for Mr. Birch was is this necessary to shave off this triangular piece. Mr. Birch responded that yes it was necessary to exchange this small triangular piece. He explained that the frontage of his remaining property would be one hundred ten feet (110') and that in order to utilize his property, he needs this exchange as it straightens out the property which is narrow. He stated that this triangular piece would give him the ability to utilize his property to its full potential. Mr. Birch also stated that Dr. Koepke's building had no windows or doors in the back where it faces his remaining property. Chairman Morson stated that there was a drainage question raised by staff in its memo. He wanted to know if water accumulates in the ponding area shown on the drawing. Mr. Birch responded that yes the water ponds there on occasion. Mr. Birch stated that he has owned the land for approximately twenty (20) years and as far as he knows there has never been a problem with water accumulation on this piece of land. Chairman Morson stated that it is hard for the City to decide on this drainage issue Page 3 December 26, 1989 because there are no contours available with the plans. He wanted to know from Mr. Birch, that as you go east on the property where is the drainage. Mr. Birch responded that he has shown two foot (2') increments on a drawing that he had with him at the meeting to show the topography. Mr. Birch stated that the land drains to the south and to the east. Chairman Morson asked if there was a need for the pond as shown on the drawing. Mr. Birch stated that it is aesthetic only and that he thought it could be landscaped in an attractive manner. Commissioner Duggan asked the applicant what is to be done with the land after the subdivision. Mr. Birch stated that is not a concern of his at the present time. Commissioner Duggan asked where will Dr. Koepke's exit and entrance be for the addition. He stated that his concern was the closeness of the entrance to Dodd Road. Commissioner Duggan stated that the turn is very close to Dodd Road and could be a traffic problem. Mr. Birch responded that he didn't believe this would pose a problem because the entrance to the addition would be far enough from the intersection that there would be no problem with the turn radius. Commissioner Krebsbach asked about the Highway right-of-way and when that land could be vacated. Chairman Morson asked is there any news from the State Highway Department about this issue. Planning Consultant Howard Dahlgren responded that the City did a study of the right-of-way and the options involved for handling the right-of-way five to six years ago. Planner Dahlgren gave a brief history of the right-of-way acquisition and stated that when 1-35E was built Dodd Road was never upgraded as there was not a need for duplicate highways. Planner Dahlgren stated that the MnDot traffic study showed Dodd Road would be less than 10,000 trips per day. He stated that MnDot felt that Dodd Road should be left alone and not realigned. Planner Dahlgren stated that, however 1 Page 4 December 26, 1989 development in Eagan may change this view point. In time traffic on Dodd Road may dramatically increase. MnDot is still thinking of releasing the right-of-way stated Planner Dahlgren. Planner Dahlgren stated that Mr. Birch would have a finer piece of land if the land is released. He stated that at this point you really can't plan the land until it is released. Planner Dahlgren stated that the land is zoned B-2 to the center line so that if the land is turned back you would have business on the west side of a Dodd Road realignment and on the east side you would have a low intensity use zoning. Planner Dahlgren stated to the Planning Commission that the parcel you are creating is too small as a single lot and therefore must be an addition. If, however, the plat is approved you may be approving the addition that Dr. Koepke will be coming forward with. Planner Dahlgren stated that he felt this addition should go through its own conditional use permit process. Chairman Morson question Mr. Dahlgren about the traffic on Freeway Road and the proposed entrance along Freeway Road. Planner Dahlgren responded that it would be better to have the entrance to the addition off of Freeway Road. There is potential for traffic problems if the addition's entrance is used on Dodd Road. Chairman Morson stated that he felt questions about the addition's entrance and other factors regarding the addition are probably questions more appropriate for Dr. Koepke's conditional use permit hearing. Commissioner Koll stated that she had a concern about the drainage. She asked the questions who would have the responsibility for excess water if it pooled in the area? Commissioner Koll stated that this was a concern of hers particularly when the building and the parking lot create additional drainage and runoff and take away ability of the land to absorb water. Mr. Birch responded that he has proposed on his Page 5 December 26, 1989 plans that the City put in a culvert across Freeway Road if it is needed. Chairman Morson asked Acting City Administrator Danielson; if this triangular parcel, which is 10,622 square feet, is a drainage problem. Mr. Danielson responded that it is not a large problem, however, if there is silt in with the storm water over the years the ponding ability may decrease to the point that excess water may accumulate to the point that it may go across the road to the north. Mr. Danielson stated that it is our preference to have it go to the east. Mr. Danielson stated that it is not a significant problem. Commissioner Duggan stated the road is eight feet (8') above the property. Acting City Administrator Danielson stated that the amount of land draining into the area is small and therefore the concern about drainage is not significant. He stated however, that there may be drainage onto Freeway Road or Dodd Road if the ability of the land to absorb the water is decreased by silt build up. Commissioner Koll asked if the water drains to the west or to the east. Mr. Danielson stated that the water should go east and then under Highway 110 as it slopes south. Mr. Birch stated that the City is using the property to the east for a fill. He stated that this should be in the comprehensive plan for the entire area. Commissioner Koll stated that she wished to raise her question again, who has responsibility for the drainage on the triangular piece if there is a problem. Mr. Birch responded that it was the City's fault for constructing the road fifteen feet (15') onto his property. He stated that the City made the road far above the elevation of the lay of the land. He stated that any water problems were created when the City built this road and that this road caused the drainage to across his property. Chairman Morson stated that the plan that he Page 6 December 26, 1989 had has two different legal descriptions. He asked Mr. Birch which was the accurate one. Mr. Birch stated that there was a more detailed legal description available and he showed the Planning Commission which of the legal descriptions he had provided was the accurate one. Chairman Morson stated that it was imperative that a registered surveyor must do the platting for a subdivision. Chairman Morson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak to this subdivision issue. There was no one in the audience who wished to address the Planning Commission. Chairman Morson stated that now we should consider item two of your agenda. That being the plans that show the potential future development including the right-of-way. Mr. Birch gave an explanation of the options of the land including the right-of-way, potential zonings and potential developments. Mr. Birch stated that he has written the State a formal letter to reacquire his property on a right-of-way give back. Mr. Birch stated that at this point he wanted the minutes to reflect that he is requesting that the City reply in a formal letter. to Mr. Birch that the City tell him what the plans are for the use of the property the City has to the east of the right-of-way which they are currently using for a fill. Mr. Birch also stated that he wanted the minutes to reflect that the Highway 110 frontage road is built on his property. Commissioner Duggan queried about the potential of a new over-cross of Highway 110 where the right-of-way exists. Chairman Morson responded that it is probably not an appropriate discussion matter for tonight's meeting. Commissioner Duggan asked that if the right-of-way give back doesn't happen would Mr. Birch be comfortable with the slim lot that is left of his property. Mr. Birch responded that yes he has many ideas depending on the zoning of the land. Planning Consultant Howard Dahlgren stated AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Page 7 December 26, 1989 that his firm has done a study that suggests that if the right -of -way is left alone, the City would benefit greatly with an overpass for cars and the bike path. He also stated that this would also benefit the shopping center to the south of Highway 110. Planner Dahlgren stated that in the scenario it would release a major portion of the right -of -way but it would also put a nice road in for Mr. Birch's property. Planner Dahlgren also responded to Mr. Birch's claim that the east side of the right -of -way has the road on his property. Planner Dahlgren stated that MnDot has this land as a part of their right -of -way and this is not a problem. Planner Dahlgren stated for the applicant's information, that a right -of -way give back is not really a give back, that land must be bought back for a price from the State of Minnesota. Planner Dahlgren also stated that part of the right - of -way may be kept for a local overpass. He felt that the City would benefit greatly from this overpass. Planner Dahlgren also stated that he doesn't think single family residential is the proper land use for this parcel of land. Commissioner Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. Planning Consultant Dahlgren stated that before the Planning Commission can recommend approval on the variance it must be applied for by the applicant. He also stated that the use of the land Dr. Koepke's addition would need a conditional use permit and that this should be processed on its own merits. After some discussion Planner Dahlgren stated that the Planning Commission can recommend approval of the land division and the variance but the conditional use permit can and should be done at a latter Planning Commission hearing. Planner Dahlgren stated that there is no zoning involved here, that Page 8 December 26, 1989 this is not a problem, however, he stated that the planning application reflects that a rezoning is considered. He stated that this should be pointed out to the City Council that this is not a rezoning matter before the Planning Commission tonight. Commissioner Koll asked Acting City Administrator James Danielson if there was a problem with drainage. Mr. Danielson responded that there is some confusion over the ponding in the drainage area and that the major portion of the confusion was over who should pay for it. He stated that the City's past practice is to have the developer pay for it or the land owner be assessed for it. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend preliminary plat approval of drawing one conditioned on having an update with an official survey. He stated that the survey should have two parts included in it. These two parts should be : 1. That Dr. Koepke's new lot should be shown as one lot with a proper legal description; and 2. That Mr. Birch's remaining land be shown as one lot on the survey with a proper legal description. Commission Duggan also moved that a proper drainage plan be submitted with the final plans showing contours so that the City Council can properly address the drainage issue. Commissioner Duggan also moved that the fifteen foot (15') rear yard setback variance be granted as a result of plat approval. Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the motion. The Planning Commission stated for the record that the drawing they were recommending approval on were the large drawing dated 11- 28-89 and drawing number one in the application packet. The Planning Commission also stated that the minutes should reflect that the check off on the application filed by Mr. Birch shows a rezoning, however, they want to make it clear that no rezoning is Page 9 December 26, 1989 considered at this time. As a body, the Planning Commission added an amendment to the motion stating that their action tonight is only on the subdivision, and that no action is taken on any rezoning. Any action regarding a rezoning or future subdivision of the right-of-way would have to occur at a public hearing at a separate Planning Commission meeting as a separate application. Chairman Morson stated that any other discussion of the easterly property will be at a later date as a separate planning consideration. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 89-34 Commissioner Krebsbach questioned the MINNESOTA INDOOR statute of limitations on an application SOCCER & TRAIN. being sixty (60) days. AMEND. TO ZONING sixty (60) days. ORD & CUP - (HEARING) AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 89-40 FRYE - CAO VARIANCE - (HEARING) Planner Dahlgren replied that in this case that the applicant is requesting the tabling and that the applicant has the right to do that indefinitely. Commissioner Krebsbach moved to continue the public hearing until the January Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. Ms. Amy Wadsworth, an Attorney representing the Katz's (neighbors of the Frye's), requested that the meeting be continued because the Katz's could not be present tonight. She stated that the Katz's had submitted a letter to the Acting City Administrator asking for this continuance. Acting City Administrator Danielson responded that he had received a letter. Mr. Danielson stated that the only person who can request a continuance is the applicant themselves. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Page 10 December 26, 1980 Ms. Wadsworth submitted an exhibit to the Commission that shows a photo of the property and the view. Chairman Morson asked the Frye's if there was anything to be added to their request. He stated that they were ready to act on the request tonight. Commissioner Duggan stated that he was also prepared to act and he asked if it would be acceptable to the Frye's to continue until January. Mr. Frye stated that he has no reason for wishing a continuance. Commissioner Krebsbach asked how far the footings are from the bluffline. Chairman Morson responded that the building addition extends forty-one feet (41') from the present house. Commissioner Koll moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the motion. Commissioner Koll stated that there must be a need to show hardship. Commissioner Koll stated that this need should not be contrary to the public interest. She stated that after much deliberation she feels approving the request is a violation of the intent of the Critical Area Ordinance. She stated the following reasons that support her intent to deny the request for the variance. The following reasons are stated in Ordinance 403 Section 2.5e, Section 2.5g, Section 4.1b and Section 5.4 subsections a,b,c,d,e and g. Section 2.5e The development is consistent with the reasonable preservation of the view of the river corridor from other properties and by the public and the walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public right-of-ways has been minimized. Section 2.5q The development shall be located in such a manner as to minimize the removal of Page 11 December 26, 1989 vegetation and alteration of the natural topography, however, in no case shall the following standards be exceeded: 1. No building or structure shall be located within forty (40) feet of the bluff line. 2. No finished grades shall exceed a slop of forty percent (40%). Section 4.1b Existing Structures. Existing structures the location, or the use of which is inconsistent with this Ordinance or the Critical Areas Designation Order shall not be eligible for any permit granted by the City for expansion, change of use, renewal of existing permit, or building permit, unless the following criteria are met: b. Expansion of existing structures shall be in the direction away from the river front. Section 5.4 - A,B,C,D,E and G Variance Approval Standards. In considering applications for variance under this Ordinance, the Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and may grant variance from the strict application of the provisions of this Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted, provided the following additional criteria shall be considered: a. The conditions causing the hardship are unique to that property. b. The variance is proved necessary in order to secure for the applicant the right or rights that are enjoyed by other owners in the same area of the district. c. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest or damaging to the rights of other persons or to AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 VERBAL REVIEW Page 12 December 26, 1989 property values in the neighborhood. d. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the management policies of the Critical Area. e. No variance shall be granted simply because there are no objections or because those who do not object outnumber those who do; nor for any other reason other than a proven hardship. g. The conditions which result in the need for the variance were not created by the applicants design solution. The applicant shall have the burden of proof for showing that no other reasonable design solution exists. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend to the City Council that the request for Critical Area Ordinance Variance be denied based on her stated findings of fact. Commissioner Krebsbach seconded the motion. Commissioner Duggan wanted the record to reflect that his specific objection is not the obstruction to the neighbors, which he feels is not significant, it is just that the applicants are requesting to build too close to the bluff line. Commissioner Duggan stated that his main objection is that it could not be redesigned to be a little further back from the bluff. Commissioner Koll submitted some photos of both the Frye and Katz properties for the public record. Acting City Administrator James Danielson gave a verbal review to the Planning Commission on City Council action on Planning items. Page 13 December 26, 1989 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Dreelan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Respectfully submitted, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant