Loading...
1989-08-22 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST 22 1989 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 22, 1989, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chairman Morson called the meeting to order at 7:34 P.M. The following members were present: Morson, Koll, Dwyer, Anderson, Duggan and Tilsen. Commissioner Krebsbach was excused. Also present were Public Works Director James Danielson, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder and Planning Consultant Howard Dahlgren. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Duggan moved approval of the minutes of the July 25, 1989. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. CASE NO. 89-32 Kenneth Schweiger, 683 Ocala Lane, SCHWEIGER VARIANCE described the proposed addition to his home and the variance he was requesting. In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Public Works Director James Danielson stated that after a building permit is issued inspections are required. He stated that prior to the footings being poured, the Building Inspectors verify property lines. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend that Council grant a one foot (1') rear yard variance to construct an addition. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 89-33 Mr. Dennis Weiler, 1899 Walsh Lane, AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 89-28 SIGN VARIANCE Page 2 August 22, 1989 described his request for a variance to the side yard setback. He stated that the survey stakes overlapped when Rolling Green Addition was platted. This caused a five foot discrepancy along his south property line where the Rolling Green Addition plat butted against the Wagenknecht Addition. Mr. Weiler stated that his neighbor to the south had maintained the property up to an existing fence which is actually five feet on his property. He did not want to cut five feet off his garage when his house was built. He also stated that when a public walkway was put through, he had to reduce his home to achieve a ten foot setback along his south property line. He wants to deed the disputed five feet of land to his neighbor so he can clear the problem in order to sell his home. Mr. Weiler stated that he wants a variance to his side yard setback. Commissioner Dwyer moved to waive the public hearing for a lot division and recommend that Council approve a five foot (5') side yard setback variance and that Council pass a Resolution approving the requested lot division. Commissioner Duggan moved to second the motion. There was no one present to represent Dakota County State Bank's request for a sign variance. Commissioner Duggan inquired if the size of the sign was a problem and exactly where was the relocated sign to be placed. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that City Council grant a front yard setback variance with two conditions: 1. That the sign be the same size or smaller and that it be in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance. 2. That the exact placement of the sign be determined by City Council in light of sight distance lines and constraints. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Page 3 August 22, 1989 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 88-27 Commission Chair Morson called the public PATRICK SUBDIVISION hearing to order. Mr. Steve Patrick presented his proposed subdivision, Mendota Woods. Mr. Patrick discussed how his first subdivision proposal last year had been delayed. Mr. Patrick discussed how he had been directed by the City to integrate his subdivision with surrounding land owners and how he had achieved this and is now reapplying for a subdivision. Mr. Patrick stated that he had purchased the Irving Clark land and had a tentative agreement to swap some land with Centex. Mr. Patrick stated his subdivision proposal was eleven (11) lots, with a public cul-de-sac. He stated all lots were well above the City's minimum lot size and that the use was in compliance with the zoning. Chairman Morson asked Mr. Patrick, who owned the land to the west. Mr. Patrick stated that this land was owned by Tandem all the way to Dodd Road. Commission Chair Morson inquired about Lot 7 and its access being so close to the pond. Public Works Director Danielson responded that a Wetlands permit would be needed. Commissioner Koll inquired if there was currently an existing driveway where Ryan Road was proposed. She inquired about its location to the pond and how wet it was. Mr. Patrick responded that it is dry however, it does get wet but is formed to drain to the pond. Commissioner Duggan stated that with the airplane noise that Mr. Patrick might encounter a reluctance to buy lots. Commissioner Duggan expressed a concern about the lack of driveways shown on the plat and the difficulty of the terrain. Commissioner Duggan also expressed a concern about tree removal. He stated, that in this case we are not talking about scrub trees but aged trees, many of them oaks. Commissioner Duggan stated that the ordinances had grading requirements that he felt were not met in this plat. He stated that a tree inventory should be done. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 page 4 August 22, 1989 Commissioner Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. Commissioner Duggan inquired if the cul-de- sac had to be sixty feet (60') wide and was it possible to be only forty feet (40') wide. Public Works Director Danielson stated that sixty feet (60') is the City's minimum right of way. Chair Morson inquired if Ryan Road was to be dedicated as a public road. Mr. Patrick responded yes. Commissioner Duggan stated that there was no indication of driveways and drainage on the plat. Commissioner Tilsen inquired about the grading of the driveways and if other alternatives to accessing the lots were considered. Mr. Patrick replied that some leveling was needed to put in the public road and that this would also require the removal of some trees. He stated it would be a small percentage of the trees on the parcel. Commissioner Tilsen expressed his concerns about the access to lot 7 and its proximity to the Wetlands. Chair Morson inquired if Lot 7, because of its difficulty could have a common drive with Lot 6. Planner Dahlgren responded that a private easement could be granted through another lot. Chair Morson stated that we could recommend a Wetlands Permit be granted now. Planner Dahlgren responded that the actual location of the drive should await for the developer to determine. Commissioner Koll inquired if the drainage was into the cul-de-sac area with a storm sewer link to the pond area and into the storm sewer already constructed on the Centex site. Public Works Director Danielson replied that this was correct. Commissioner Koll inquired if the houses on the plan are arbitrary. Mr. Patrick responded that yes, they are shown on the plan only to give an idea of possible layouts for footprints. Mr. Patrick stated he intends to leave the lots in their present state and let the individual buyers do as Page 5 August 22, 1989 they see fit. Commissioner Dwyer asked if Outlot A would be added to Centex' PUD as Manor Homes and if so how many additional Manor Homes would this amount to. Mr. Kevin Clark, of Centex Homes, replied that on the final plat for Centex there would be 20 buildings and that Outlot A would contain 28 units. Commissioner Dwyer stated this would be a concern that Council should be aware of. Public Works Director Danielson stated that this area was designated as high density residential. Danielson stated that when Mr. Patrick originally applied for a subdivision it was unknown what would happen with the surrounding properties and how they would be developed, especially the Irving Clark property which would have been landlocked with the earlier subdivision. Danielson stated that now Mr. Patrick has acquired the Irving Clark land and has included it in his subdivision request. He stated this creates a buffer to the west with the trees and the ridge. Commissioner Anderson stated that last year the proposal was too little of a parcel for single family development. Commissioner Anderson stated that keeping the Wetland area and the terrain in mind that there is really no other rational approach to developing this area. Commissioner Anderson stated that keeping this area in a low density use makes sense to him. Commissioner Dwyer asked if combining Lots 6 and 7 would be a good approach to not encroaching on the Wetlands area. Commissioner Anderson agreed. Commissioner Duggan stated that this is the high point in the Southeast area and that the airplane noise might cause a reluctance to buy in the area. Commissioner Duggan stated that he would like to see the trees on the west side of Ryan Road protected when grading is done for the public road and when individual drives are put in. Chair Morson stated that he appreciated the concerns over removal of the trees and the protection of the Wetlands, however each owner will have his/her lot development to consider and that this is something there is no control over. Commissioner Duggan stated that we could have Page 6 August 22, 1989 the developer come back with the driveways shown and the potential number of trees that would be removed. Commissioner Anderson stated that Mr. Patrick should be commended for not stripping his land before even approaching the City, that other developers would have done this. Anderson stated that Mr. Patrick recognized the saving of trees and the value they will have to the individual lots. Commissioner Duggan replied that many of the trees were aged and substantial oaks. Commissioner Tilsen stated that Lot 2 appeared to be 20 to 25 feet higher than the road and that this created an enormous slope for a driveway. He was concerned that the lot would have very few trees left after the grading was completed. He inquired if there were perhaps any different ideas about accessing the individual lots. Chair Morson stated that Wachtler/Evergreen Knolls was also a challenging site, but not impossible. Commissioner Anderson stated that it was not the Planning Commission's task to devise a scheme that would work, that it is the developer's challenge to place the houses and drives. Commissioner Anderson stated that economics and viability would determine the outcome and that these designs should be left up to the developer. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend that City Council grant preliminary plat approval as presented with one condition, the condition being that Lot 6 and Lot 7 be combined to avoid Wetlands issues. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. Commissioner Tilsen suggested a friendly amendment to be included in the motion. Tilsen stated that Mike Scharrer, the City's Oak Wilt Specialist, consult with the City and that prior to final plat approval he would make recommendations on how to minimize the impact to trees in the subdivision. Oak Wilt disease was discussed. Commissioner Anderson accepted the friendly amendment to his motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 2 Duggan and Koll. Duggan opposed because of his feeling that the plat was inadequate because it failed to show driveways, grading Page 7 August 22, 1989 and tree removal. Koll was opposed to the combining of Lot 6 and 7. CASE NO. 89-30 Mr. Steve Karel, of 1562 Park Circle, KAREL CUP FOR FENCE presented his request for a CUP to build a fence, six feet (6') high on his property line on a through lot. Mr. Karel stated he was concerned for his family because the property was along Wachtler and its level of traffic caused him concern about his children's safety. Commission Chair Morson asked Mr. Karel if he had considered any other type of fence, such as a woven fence. Mr. Karel responded he was not opposed to changing the style of the fence. Commissioner Duggan asked if the trees along the property line would remain. Mr. Karel responded that yes the fence would be inside the trees. Chair Morson stated that he was concerned about a six foot high board fence. Morson stated that when Mr. Mastel had put up his fence that the noise level had increased along Wachtler. These types of fences reflect the noise to other neighbors, he stated. Mr. Karel stated that the other fence is closer to the street. Chair Morson replied that he had spoken to an engineer that was involved in noise issues and that reflected noise from board fences was a significant factor. Morson stated that he would like to continue the public hearing to allow staff time to contract with a noise engineer to study reflected noise in the community and suggest ordinance changes to handle this problem. Mr. Karel stated that he understood that berms help reduce noise and that his fence would be on higher ground. Commissioner Dwyer stated that screening with trees might help. Commissioner Anderson stated that aesthetically speaking he would like to see no fences along Wachtler. Anderson stated that this fence would set a bad precedent along the street and that child safety was a parental issue. Anderson stated that aesthetically the fence would not be a good neighbor. Commissioner Duggan asked when the studies would end, once they were started. Commissioner Anderson replied that the Ordinances are already in place and, that is, for a through lot, the rear yard is Page 8 August 22, 1989 treated similar to a front yard. He stated that front yards are allowed a fence two and one half feet (2 1/2') high that are set back thirty (30') from the property line. Anderson stated that a 2 1/2' fence would protect the children and preserve the rural character of the community. Anderson stated that a six foot (6') fence is inappropriate and a poor precedent. Commissioner Duggan stated that if staff had to commission research studies for every variance we might have a problem. Mr. Karel responded that he understands the Commission's concern about a wide corridor along Wachtler, but they should note the size of his back yard. Mr. Karel stated that it was not a corner lot but a center lot that only affected one neighbor and that he doubted it would create an unfriendly situation with the neighbors. He stated that they had received public notices and were not present. Mr. Karel stated his back yard faced Wachtler. Commissioner Duggan also stated that the neighbors would be present if they cared. Commissioner Dwyer stated these fences should be considered on a case by case basis. Dwyer stated that people will see the spruce trees and not the fence. Commissioner Koll inquired about the visibility with the board fence. Koll stated she was concerned with aesthetics, and about who would maintain the fence and the land between the fence and street. Mr. Karel replied he would. Commissioner Koll stated her main objection was the solid wood fence and that visibility and open space were more aesthetic. Commissioner Tilsen stated he was concerned with the height of the fence. Tilsen stated he would like to see the fences along Wachtler kept to minimum heights. Tilsen asked Mr. Karel if five feet (5') or lower would work. Mr. Karel responded that five feet (5') would work but he had problems with four feet (4'). Commission Chair Morson stated that once this was approved then all the other lots could come in requesting the same thing. Morson stated this was why he felt it was important to have the City study the noise problem and Page 9 August 22, 1989 come up with some answers. Commissioner Tilsen stated that this case was more of a hardship because it was an older home. Mr. Karel stated that he could legally build a six foot high fence that was thirty feet back from the property line but that this is not possible because his house sits there. Commission Chair Morson stated he had talked to Twin Cities Testing and that they felt board fences were a significant noise problem. Morson stated that he believed the City had made a mistake with the approval of the Mastel fence and that it should not be allowed to happen again. City Planner Dahlgren stated that fences don't do much to restrict noise from coming into the yard, and that a board on board fence will not reflect noise. Dahlgren asked why a six foot fence was necessary to keep the children in. Dahlgren stated a chain link fence would not reflect noise and that four feet (4') would be plenty high to keep children in. Commissioner Tilsen agreed with Planner Dahlgren's points and stated that lat boards on an angle would reflect less noise. Chair Morson stated he wanted to continue the hearing and commission a study. Commissioner Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 2 Morson, Tilsen. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that City Council approve the CUP for a four foot (4') fence and that the fence be a picket fence instead of a solid board fence. Commissioner Duggan seconded. AYES: 3 NAYS: 3 Morson, Anderson, Tilsen. Motion fails. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City Council approve a CUP for the fence if the fence is a maximum of five feet (5') high and is aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors and neighborhood. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. Page 10 August 22, 1989 AYES: 3 NAYS: 3 Morson, Anderson, Tilsen. Motion fails. Mr. Karel asked the nays to explain their votes. Commissioner Anderson explained that he feels the ordinance should be adhered to and that this meant a two and one half foot (2 1/2') fence set back in conformity with the ordinance. Chair Morson stated that he was concerned with noise and setting a bad precedent. Commissioner Tilsen stated he shared the concerns with noise and aesthetics. Chair Morson stated it seemed to be at an impasse and asked Planner Dahlgren what the options were. Planner Dahlgren stated that a new motion could be made and passed with a majority or that the Planning Commission could pass it along to City Council without a recommendation. Planner Dahlgren stated that perhaps the motion should use the language of the Ordinance that refers to minimum and maximum opaqueness of fences. Commissioner Duggan made a motion to recommend that City Council approve a CUP for the fence with the following conditions: 1. that the fence have a maximum opaqueness of fifty percent (50%). 2. that the fence have a maximum height of four and one half feet (4 1/2'). Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1 Anderson. Commissioner Anderson stated he doesn't believe there should be a fence along a property line without the proper setback and maximum height of two and one half feet (2 1/2'). He stated it was at odds with the broad expanse, rustic atmosphere and attractiveness of Mendota Heights. CASE NO. 89-31 Dave Bjorklund, of Bjorklund Construction, CUP for Cabana introduced Al Steffes, of 1149 Orchard Circle. Commissioner Koll clarified where the holding pond was in conjunction to the house. Commissioner Duggan asked if the 1 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 VERBAL REVIEW Page 11 August 22, 1989 neighbors had been contacted. Mr. Steffes said the immediate neighbors had been, and the others had received their public notices. Staff apologized for not having the signed letters of consent in the packets and showed the Commission the letters and the abstract. Commissioner Dwyer moved the close the public hearing. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Commissioner Dwyer made a motion to recommend that City Council approve the requested CUP as presented. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Public Works Director outlined the actions Council had taken on last months planning cases. ADJOURN There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant