2014-03-25 Planning Comm Minutes
1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4 PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5 March 25, 2014
6
7 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March
8 25, 2013, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
9
10 The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard
11 Roston, Doug Hennes, Robin Hennessy, and Mary Magnuson. Those absent: Michael Noonan
12 and Ansis Viksnins. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City
13 Engineer John Mazzitello.
14
Approval of Agenda
15
16
17 The agenda was approved as submitted.
18
Approval of February 25, 2014 Minutes
19
20
21 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
22 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2014, AS PRESENTED.
23 AYES: 5
24 NAYS: 0
25 ABSENT: 2
26
Hearings
27
28
29 PLANNING CASE #2014-07
30 Lee Violet and Joe Rueckert, 2334 Swan Drive
31 Conditional Use Permit for fence in the required side yard
32
33 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicants requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
34 to construct a fence in the required yard adjacent to a public right-of-way. The subject parcel is
35 located at 2334 Swan Drive, is a corner lot, with driveway access off of Swan Drive and a side
36 yard abutting Bluebill Drive. The parcel contained a single family dwelling on 0.39 acres, zoned
37 R-1, and guided for low density residential development in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
38 fence would encompass the back yard of the property, be located approximately four feet from the
39 property boundary lines, be five feet in height, and vinyl coated. The applicant requested the fence
40 in order to provide protection and containment for a future pet dog.
41
42 Staff recommended approval of this application.
43
44 Chair Field opened the public hearing.
45
46 Ms. Lee Violet, 2334 Swan Drive, was in attendance to answer questions from the Commissioners.
March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1
47 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
48 hearing.
49
50 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
51 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
52 AYES: 5
53 NAYS: 0
54 ABSENT: 2
55
56 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
57 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE NO. 2014-07, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
58 REQUEST FOR FENCE CONSTRUCTION GREATER THAN 36 INCHES IN A REQUIRED
59 YARD ADJACENT TO A RIGHT-OF-WAY, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF
60 FACTS:
61 1.The proposed project will not negatively impact traffic visibility at the Swan Drive/Bluebill
62 Drive intersection.
63 2.The proposed fence-type and height are consistent with Code requirements.
64 3.The fence is compatible with the established character of the neighborhood and will not
65 negatively impact any surrounding properties.
66 AYES: 5
67 NAYS: 0
68 ABSENT: 2
69
70 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 1, 2014 meeting.
71
72 PLANNING CASE #2014-08
73 Linda Dehkes, on behalf of Roger and Grace Pass
74 Lot split request for unaddressed property at Oak Street and North Freeway Road
75 (Lot 3, Block 3, Jefferson Heights)
76
77 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant requested a lot split for the vacant
78 unaddressed parcel located at the intersection of Freeway Road North and Oak Street. The subject
79 parcel is 0.92 acres, zoned R-1, and guided for low density residential development in the
80 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has a purchase offer on the parcel contingent on the lot split
81 approval. If approved, the applicant intends to construct two new single family homes on the
82 proposed parcels, both of which would be proposed to have access onto Oak Street.
83
84 The subdivision would create two lots, both of which exceed the 15,000 square foot minimum lot
85 size standard for the R-1 district. Parcel A, to the north, is proposed to be 21,140 square feet and
86 Parcel B, to the south, is proposed to be 21,088 square feet. Both parcels would have 125 feet of
87 frontage on Oak Street, which meets the 100 foot requirement. Both parcels would be compliant
88 with the R-1 zoning requirements and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
89
90 Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions.
91
92 Chair Field opened the public hearing.
March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2
93
94 Ms. Linda Dehkes, 1830 Maple Street, Hastings, MN; and Mr. Mark Gergen, Greenwood Design
95 Build and Miles Realty, were on hand to answer any questions from the Commission.
96
97 Mr. Dominic Alphonso, 697 South Freeway Road, commented that the property in question is very
98 steep and goes down very rapidly from North Freeway Road south. He asked how the owner would
99 maintain the two proposed residences one from the other and not disturb each other and the
100 drainage.
101
102 Chair Field pointed out that the topic under consideration is the lot split only and not a site plan
103 specific to it. Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello replied that staff does not have
104 any building plans as part of this application and so would not be sure how the applicant is
105 proposing to handle construction on the two lots. However, the City has codes that prevent
106 drainage from one lot adversely affecting another and the applicant has been made aware of that.
107 There are storm drains in Oak Street that they could, through the course of grading and
108 construction, route drainage out into the catch basins.
109
110 Planner Wall noted that two of the conditions of this application address these concerns.
111
112 COMMISSIONER HENNESSY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
113 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
114 AYES: 5
115 NAYS: 0
116 ABSENT: 2
117
118 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
119 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE NO. 2014-08, LOT SPLIT REQUEST FOR
120 UNADDRESSED PROPERTY AT OAK STREET AND NORTH FREEWAY ROAD (LOT 3,
121 BLOCK 3, JEFFERSON HEIGHTS) BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE
122 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY CODE AND
123 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
124 1.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council
125 approval and before issuance of any additional permits by the City.
126 2.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a
127 building permit.
128 3.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with
129 associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department
130 as part of any building permit application.
131 4.The land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
132 Guidance document.
133 AYES: 5
134 NAYS: 0
135 ABSENT: 2
136
137 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 1, 2014 meeting.
138
March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
139 PLANNING CASE #2014-03
140 Code Amendment for Electronic Display Signs
141
142 Chair Field noted that this is a continuation of the public hearing that began at the February 25,
143 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
144
145 City Planner Nolan Wall explained for the record that this is a request from the City of Mendota
146 Heights to amend the City Code that would allow electronic display signage, limited to institutional
147 uses in the R-1 and R-1A zoning districts. Staff was directed to bring back additional revisions for
148 discussion and the public hearing was to remain open to solicit additional comments. The Planning
149 Commission also suggested some additional outreach to promote awareness of the topic and
150 encourage additional comments. Staff issued a press release, which was published in the March 9,
151 2014 edition of the South-West Review, a link with the proposed amendments was provided on the
152 City’s website, and information was posted on the City’s Facebook page.
153
154 Chair Field also noted that there was a column in the St. Paul paper as well.
155
156 Planner Wall continued by stating that the revised code amendment was also then sent out to the
157 same previously identified institutional uses for additional comment and feedback. However,
158 despite the additional outreach efforts staff did not receive any new comments.
159
160 Planner Wall then summarized the proposed changes to the draft ordinance.
161
162 Commissioner Roston explained his reasoning for suggesting a minimum lot size standard was to
163 attempt to accommodate institutional uses within residential zoning districts without allowing
164 them for single-family homes that may qualify under the definition for an institutional use. Planner
165 Wall confirmed that all previously-identified institutional uses would comply with the proposed
166 2-acre minimum lot size standard.
167
168 Commissioner Magnuson suggested specifically excluding scoreboards from the proposed code
169 amendment language. Planner Wall noted that scoreboards are not intended to be regulated by
170 this proposed amendment, however an exclusion could be added to the electronic display sign
171 definition if desired. Commissioner Roston then proposed language for inclusion in the definition
172 that exempts scoreboards.
173
174 Planner Wall continued to summarize the additional proposed revisions to the draft code
175 amendment language, including flexibility for less intrusive sign setbacks from residential uses,
176 message change interval, sign aesthetics, and minimum lot size and display size for additional
177 electronic displays.
178
179 Chair Field opened the floor for additional public comments.
180
181 Ron and Dianne Berfelz, 688 W. Wentworth Avenue, are against lighted signs. They live across
182 the street from Somerset 19, who went from 100 watt bulbs to sodium vapor 150 watt bulbs. When
183 this occurred the lumens went up to 60,000 so they know that light can be very, very invasive.
March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4
184 They gave other examples of areas where lighting is invasive. They also asked about enforcement
185 of the ordinance and penalties for non-compliance.
186
187 Jack Vitelli, 1334 Sylvandale Road and former Councilmember, stated that he was surprised when
188 he saw the article in the St. Paul newspaper. He asked about the objective of the ordinance change,
189 benefit to the residents, benefit to the sign owners, why only institutions, cost to the City,
190 enforcement, future requests for changes, and notification to neighboring residents of these
191 institutions. Until these topics are addressed he would recommend denial of the ordinance
192 amendment.
193
194 Dawn Nichols, Head of School at Visitation, expressed her appreciation to the Planning
195 Commission for their attention to this request. She believes that the proposed changes to the
196 ordinance allow for reasonable and broader groups of institutional users in a smart and up-to-date
197 way. They reflect the changing times and a careful use of digital technology, that is not intrusive
198 and is used for a good purpose, would be an acceptable path.
199
200 Commissioners asked additional questions in regards to shut-off times for other lighted signs
201 within the City, candle strength of lights, and ability of the City to deny a conditional use permit.
202
203 Steve VanHout, Watchfire Signs, stated that the federal government just released a study talking
204 about digital signage, traffic safety, and other topics brought up this evening. He suggested the
205 Commission review that report before making any final decisions. He also mentioned that a LED
206 sign has built-in dimming capabilities at night and for a sign to be readable it cannot be
207 overpowering or too bright. He offered himself as a resource.
208
209 Commissioner Hennes stated that he believes he has learned enough in the last three meetings and
210 would be comfortable moving forward and closing the public hearing. Commissioners Magnuson
211 and Roston agreed with those comments.
212
213 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
214 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
215 AYES: 5
216 NAYS: 0
217 ABSENT: 2
218
219 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNESSY, TO
220 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE NO. 2014-03, DRAFT ORDINANCE 460 BASED ON
221 THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
222 1.Electronic display signs may replace handmade temporary and changeable copy signs on
223 institutional properties, resulting in a more attractive environment.
224 2.Limiting electronic display signs to institutional uses in the R-1 and R-1A Zoning Districts
225 with substantial setbacks from surrounding properties will protect against proliferation of
226 such signs.
227 3.Standards regarding the size of the sign structure and electronic display, message changes
228 interval, hours of operation, message characteristics, font size, off-premise advertising,
March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5
229 malfunction settings, and brightness of electronic display signs will mitigate potential
230 negative impacts to surrounding uses and the general public.
231 AND INCORPORATING COMMISSIONER ROSTON’S PROPOSED REVISIONS.
232
233 Commissioner Hennes commented that, in his opinion, the objective of this ordinance to provide
234 better information to residents as is the case with the request from Visitation. The benefit to the
235 sign holder is obvious. The benefit to residents is to be better informed.
236
237 Commissioner Magnuson stated that ultimately this is a decision that the City Council is going to
238 have to make. She is not troubled by the idea of electronic signs as long as they are adopted in a
239 way that is careful and respectful of the surrounding neighborhoods.
240
241 Commissioner Roston commented that he appreciated the ‘slippery slope’ comment about who
242 else is going to be asking for this type of signage. However, he believes the institutional uses that
243 fit under this ordinance is pretty narrow and they are responsible institutional uses.
244
245 Commissioner Hennessy commented that the example brought forward previously from Visitation
246 presents a good illustration of a way to take advantage of the new technology to present a better
247 looking sign.
248
249 Chair Field echoed the thoughts and comments from the Commissioners. He respected the
250 opinions of those that are concerned about it; however, he believes they have deliberately limited
251 it to the specific institutional uses where it provides some benefit.
252
253 There being no other comments, Chair Field called for the vote.
254 AYES: 5
255 NAYS: 0
256 ABSENT: 2
257
258 Planner Wall advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 15, 2014
259 meeting.
260
Discussion of Public Hearing Process
261
262
263 Chair Field stated that he had discussions with Planner Wall about making adjustments to the
264 public hearing process. He had chaired zoning in St. Paul and some of the following rules were
265 used for the public hearing process. For consideration by the Commissioners are the following:
266
267 After the Staff presentation, the Chair opens the public hearing and provides the following
268 proposed rules of procedures:
269 1.Comments shall be limited to the plan or application being submitted
270 2.Comments shall be limited to 3-5 minutes or a reasonable period of time
271 3.Comment shall not be repetitious until everyone else wishing to provide comments
272 has testified.
273 4.The applicant shall be allowed to speak last to address any comments.
274
March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6
275 Commissioner Hennes suggested that Item 2 be a specific amount of time, not 3-5 minutes, and
276 would not include the time taken by the Commission to ask questions.
277
278 Commissioner Magnuson suggested adding Item 5: The Chair shall have the ability to amend
279 provisions on a case by case basis to allow for extenuating circumstances.
280
281 Commissioner Roston asked if this was a solution without a problem. He has not observed any
282 abuse of anyone’s right to speak or where anyone has been unruly or difficult.
283
284 Commissioner Magnuson believes this would be helpful so people coming before the Commission
285 would know what to expect.
286
287 Planner Wall will draft a formal statement that the Chair would read before the public hearings.
288 This draft statement will be brought to the next Commission meeting for review.
289
Verbal Review
290
291
292 Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
293
294 PLANNING CASE #2014-04 Rod and Sue Stombaugh Conditional Use Permit
295 •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
296
297 PLANNING CASE #2014-05 Alden and Joyce Landreville Lot Split Request
298 •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
299
300 PLANNING CASE #2014-06 United Properties Preliminary and Final Plat,
301 Conditional Use Permit,
302 Planned Unit Development Amendment
303 •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
304
305 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
306 ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:16 P.M.
307
308 AYES: 5
309 NAYS: 0
310 ABSENT: 2
March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7