Loading...
1988-01-26 Joint Council-Planning Comm minutesJanuary 26, 1988 Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Minutes of the Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting Held Tuesday, January 26, 1988 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the joint meeting of the Mendota Heights City Council and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 26, 1988, in the City Council Chambers, 750 South Plaza Drive. Acting Mayor Witt called the meeting to order at 8:45 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Acting Mayor Witt, Councilmembers Blesener, Cummins, and Hartmann. Mayor Mertensotto had advised the Council that he would be unable to attend. The following members of the Planning Commission were present: Chair Morson, Commissioners Anderson, Burke, Duggan, Krebsbach, and McMonigal. Commissioner Henning had notified the Commission that he would be unable to attend. Also present was City Attorney Tom Hart and Planner Howard Dahlgren. The Council and Planning Commission members agreed to go through the issues item by item, as outlined in the report prepared by City Planner Howard Dahlgren. ZONING ORDINANCE ISSUES VARIANCES The staff recommendation for an alternative method of handling variances was approved. The first method would be by written consent and waiver of public hearing by property owners within 100 feet of the outer perimeter of the property on which the variance would be located. Lacking such consent, a formal public hearing will be called and all those within 100 feet notified by mail. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, and pass its recommendation to the City Council, without a hearing at the Council level. Planning Commission Chair Morson indicated his desire we do a better job of making sure there is a full complement of information in the packet for any Planning Commission item. The group also concurred with the recommendation of the City Attorney to prepare a model "fill in the blanks" resolution for approval and denial of variances. SINGLE FAMILY LOT AREA REQUIREMENT After some discussion of alternative ways of handling January 26, 1988 Page 2 side yard setbacks for large homes, the staff recommendation was approved. This will change the current side yard setback from 10 feet to a standard of either 10 feet or one-half the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater. BUILDING HEIGHTS The group rejected the recommendation of the City Attorney to modify ordinance language concerning how building height is determined (i.e., by type of roof). Current language will remain. Also, it was decided that house elevation should be relative to the approved grading plan for the lot, and that building permit applications should include information demonstrating the grade. Also, a staff recommendation was endorsed to define "building height" as the "average grade of the front building line". BUSINESS LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS The staff recommendation to raise the minimum lot area requirement in the B-1, B-2, and B-3 zones to 20,000 square feet was approved, as was the recommendation to reduce the minimum size in the B-1A district from 5 acres to 3 acres. ATTACHED GARAGE AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS It was agreed not to specify whether the required garage is attached or detached. It was further agreed, that in addition to a detached garage, the only other building allowed on a lot would be one accessory structure of 144 square feet or less. Additional structures, or those greater than 144 square feet would be by conditional use permit. DRIVEWAY WIDTHS Current language for a 25 foot maximum width at the front property line will be retained. Staff was also directed to require a showing of the driveway width in building permit application materials, and to enforce that provision of the permit upon inspection. NON-CONFORMING USE REGULATIONS The City Attorney recommended that ordinance language for non-conforming uses be changed from a value determined by "fair market value," to "assessor's true and full value". This recommendation was endorsed. January 26, 1988 Page 3 Staff was also directed to initiate proceedings for removal of signs in the community that are in a non- conforming status. Councilmember Blesener asked that staff also look into beefing up ordinance language so as to preclude billboards in the community. RELATIONSHIP OF GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATIONS TO STREET LEVELS The staff recommendation was endorsed that a minimum relationship be established of having the garage floor at least 1 1/2 feet above the street grade at the curb. Deviations from this standard could be granted by the Public Works Director upon a determination that a lower elevation would be appropriate, and if denied by the Public Works Director could be by application for variance by the Planning Commission and Council. HOME ALIGNMENTS ALONG STREETS AND ON CUL DE SACS It was agreed that it would be difficult, and perhaps counter productive, to adopt a definitive standard on how homes should be aligned along streets and on cul de sacs. There was a concensus that the building official should work with home builders and owners to try to encourage them to align homes in a manner consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE APPLICATION MATERIALS It was agreed that staff should put together a checklist of materials that must be submitted by an applicant for subdivision. It was also agreed that applications should not be accepted for processing until all of the required materials have been submitted. CUL DE SAC DIMENSIONS It was agreed to reduce the standard cul de sac dimension in the subdivision regulations to a 110 foot diameter with a roadway radius of 41.5 feet, including curb. FINAL PLAT PROCESSING It was agreed that the regulations should be amended to delete the requirement for a public hearing on final plat approval, since this is already the City practice. January 26, 1988 Page 4 THROUGH TRAFFIC It was agreed that language should be added to Section 5.3, that minor residential street patterns within a subdivision shall be configured so as to discourage through traffic on such minor residential roadways. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE There was a concensus not to amend the subdivision regulations to require park board approval, but that a formal policy should be adopted by the City that all preliminary plats will be referred to the park board for its comment, prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS DENSITY CALCULATIONS It was agreed that no more than 5 acres of water area should be included for the purpose of density transfer calculation in a planned unit development. 4/5's VOTE CONCEPT It was agreed that language in the planned unit development ordinance should be amended to read "where the form of housing proposed in a Planned Unit Development creates a more intensive residential density within a structure as indicated by the number of dwellings units per building than that allowed in the underlying zoning, the approval of a planned unit development by the City Council shall require a 4/5's positive vote. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE It was agreed that the ordinance should be amended to provide the option for a pre-application conference with both the Planning Commission and City Council. The sketch plan phase of a PUD will be preserved as an option for those doing large scale developments that will be carried out in stages. Otherwise, the planned unit development process will proceed from the pre-application conference to the preliminary development plan. RIGHTS TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT It was agreed that the City Planner and City Attorney should write specific language for an amendment to the PUD provision of the zoning ordinance, which would clearly indicate that the process and more flexible regulations of the PUD process is a potential privilege, and not an assumed January 26, 1988 Page 5 right of the applicant. The application review process will also be standardized so as to protect the City against claims of unequal treatment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS It was agreed that the provision for minor conditional use permits could be deleted from the code, with fences being handled as a variance, rather than a conditional use. CUP PROCESS It was agreed that the public hearing for conditional uses should be held only at the Planning Commission, but that the date for consideration by the City Council could be announced at the Planning Commission meeting. It was also agreed that the Ordinance reference to the process being the same as that of the rezoning process be deleted, since it conflicts with later provisions of how conditional use permits are to be handled. STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW There was agreement with the recommendation of the City Planner for adoption of standards similar to those in use by the City of Burnsville. There was also agreement to add a requirement for screening of roof-top mechanical systems. MISCELLANEOUS CRITICAL AREA REVIEW It was agreed to amend the ordinance to delete Planning Commission review, since this is already the practice. Rather, CA's will be handled with staff review and Council approval. REZONING PROCEDURES It was agreed that a checklist for rezoning applications should be prepared. There was some difference of opinion about whether it would be worthwhile to put together a model application to hand out to the applicants. Staff will spend some more time considering this issue. FENCE REQUIREMENTS It was agreed to increase the allowable fence height from 2 1/2 to 3 feet. This should help eliminate many January 26, 1988 Page 6 applications for variance. TRAFFIC VISIBILITY It was agreed that the City needs to do a better job of enforcing obstructions at intersection site triangles. However, there was some difficulty in coming to a concensus on the distance for measuring the site triangles, and staff was directed to do some more research. MOVEMENT OF BUILDINGS It was agreed that the City should adopt an ordinance modeled somewhat after that in place in the City of Roseville, and as recommended by the City Planner. Permits for house moving would be accompanied by a developer's agreement and the posting of a performance bond. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. ATTEST: i beth Witt Acting Mayor Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator