Loading...
2014-08-26 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA August 26, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Adopt Agenda 4.Approve July 22, 2014Planning Commission Minutes 5.Public Hearings(7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter): a.Case No. 2014-21: Tom Christ, on behalf of Will and Katie Stewart. Wetlands Permit for Vegetation Removal and Construction at 667 Ivy Falls Court. b.Case No. 2014-23: SAC Wireless, on behalf of AT&T. Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to a Wireless Antenna Facility at 1196 Northland Drive. c. Case No. 2014-24: SAC Wireless, on behalf of AT&T. Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to a Wireless AntennaFacility at 894 Sibley Memorial Highway. d.Case No. 2014-20: Paul and Shannon Burke. Conditional Use Permit for Clearcutting within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area at 645 Sibley Memorial Highway. e.Case No. 2014-22: City of Mendota Heights.Proposed Code Amendments. 6.Verbal Review 7.Staff Annoucements 8.Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hallat 651.452.1850 with requests. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5July 22, 2014 6 7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 22, 82014, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 9 10The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Michael 11Noonan, Doug Hennes, Robin Hennessy, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: 12Commissioner Howard Roston. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall andPublic Works 13Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello. 14 Approval of Agenda 15 16 17The agenda was approved as submitted. 18 Approval of June 24, 2014 Minutes 19 20 21COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2014, AS PRESENTED. 23 24AYES: 6 25NAYS: 0 26ABSENT: 1 27 Hearings 28 29 30PLANNING CASE #2014-18 31Elite Motor Sports 32Conditional Use Permit 33 34Chair Litton Field noted that this planning case was noticed and asked if there was anyone in the 35audience who came to speak about it during the public hearing. 36 37Seeing no one coming forward, Chair Field explained that the case was cancelled because the 38application was withdrawn. 39 40PLANNING CASE #2014-19 41Mark Gergen, on behalf of Cory Morrisette and Gail Darling,641 Callahan Place 42Subdivision Request 43 44Planner Nolan Wallexplained that the applicant requested a lot split for the subject parcel located 45at 641 Callahan Place. The subject parcel is approximately 1.0acre or 43,510 square feet and 46owned by Cory Morrisette and Gail Darling. It is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential July 22, 2014Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 1 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2 47development on the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has a purchase offer on the parcel 48contingent upon the approval of this subdivision. If approved, the applicant intends to demolish 49the existing home and construct two new single family homes. 50 51Planner Wall shared a copy of the submitted survey. The subdivision would create two lots, both 52in excess of the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement for the R-1 district. Parcel A 53would be 21,679 square feet and parcel B would be 21,722 square feet; both parcels would have 54100 foot of frontage on Callahan Place, would be compliant with the R-1 lot standards, and 55consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 56 57This request only considered the lot split and was not a site plan specific to any future development; 58although the setbacks were noted. Any drainage and setback issues would be addressed by staff 59once final plans are submitted as part of the building permit application. 60 61Staff recommended approval of the subdivision request for this lot split with conditions. Staff also 62recommended an additional condition be added requiring a five foot drainage and utility easement 63along the rear property boundary line. Based on the findings of fact, the subdivision would be 64consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 65 66Commissioner Magnuson asked for confirmation that the 100 foot frontage on Callahan Place 67would be consistent with at least some of the lots in the area. Planner Wall confirmed. 68 69Chair Field opened the public hearing. 70 71Mr. Mark Gergen, 18004 JacquardPath, Lakeville, came forward to answer questions from the 72Commission. There were no questions from the Commission. 73 74Mr. Jerome Schiltgen, 646 Callahan Place, asked what kind of structures are planned to be put up 75and how they would change how the neighborhood looks. He also wondered if they would be 76spaced far enough apart. Chair Field replied that due to the nature of the application, a lot split 77request only and not a site plan or building application, the Commission would be unable to answer 78his questions. 79 80Mr. Mark Bade, 632 Marie Avenue, also owns a property at 636 Marie Avenue that he is 81developing. He stated that his only concern is that there are some drainage issues in the back of 82these lots and would like them to be addressed. Chair Field replied that these issues would be 83addressed in the building permit phase of the application. Mr. Bade suggested that the owners 84review the drainage issue before the lot is split to make sure they could correct that problem. 85 86Mr. Mark Gergen stated that he would work with staff on addressing the drainage issue. 87 88COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 89CLOSE THEPUBLIC HEARING. 90AYES: 6 91NAYS: 0 92ABSENT: 1 July 22, 2014Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 2 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3 93COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 94RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNINGCASE 2014-19, SUBDIVISION REQUEST 95BASED ON THE FINDINGOF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS 96CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WITHTHE 97FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 981.The existing single family dwelling is demolished prior to the subdivision being recorded by 99Dakota County. 1002.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council 101approval andbefore being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits 102by the City. 1033.Street reconstruction assessment fee,as part ofCallahan Place Improvement 2008-04, is 104collected afterCity Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance 105of any additional permitsby the City. 1064.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a 107building permit. 1085.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site planwith associated 109easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Departmentas part of any 110building permit application. 1116.Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance 112Guidance document. 113AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION REQUIRING A FIVE FOOT DRAINAGE AND 114UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE REAR PROPERTYBOUNDARY LINE 115AYES: 6 116NAYS: 0 117ABSENT: 1 118 119Chair Fieldadvised the City Council would consider this application at its August 5, 2014 meeting, 120which begins at 8:00 p.m. 121 Mississippi River Corridor Critical AreaRulemaking 122 123 124Chair Litton Field reminded the Commission that this subject was briefly discussed at the June 24, 1252014 Planning CommissionMeeting. Since that time, Planner Nolan Wall hadprepared an outline 126of the issues that would apply to the City of Mendota Heights. Staff requested input and questions 127from the Commission on the proposed rules. The City Council would be requested to provide 128similar input at their August 5, 2014 meeting;after which staff would combine the feedback 129received with their own and submit them to the Department of Natural Resources by August 15, 1302014. 131 132Planner Nolan Wall provided background on the proposed draft rules and indicated the areas that 133would affect the City of Mendota Heights specifically.He also explained that once adopted, the 134amended rules would require the City to amend the existing Critical Area Overlay District 135standards. In addition, the MRCCA section of the Comprehensive Plan would have to beamended. 136 137Commissioners asked questionsand provided commentsregarding the roles and responsibilities 138of the different entities involved, how many homes are in the critical area and would be affected July 22, 2014Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 3 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4 139by the changing rules, height limits associated with the difference categories, the possibility of 140contracting the scope of the critical area, assuming this is adopted when would the City of Mendota 141Heights be required to amend its Comprehensive Plan, and reference to the flexibility provision. 142 Verbal Review 143 144 145Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 146 147PLANNING CASE #2014-13 th 148Ken and Mary Kay Noack, 677 – 4 Avenue 149Lot Split, Lot Width and Detached Garage Size Variance,and Wetland Permit Requests 150•Approved by the City Council 151 152PLANNING CASE #2014-17 153Ned Rukavina and Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane 154Front and Side Yard Setback Variances 155•Tabled by the City Council at the July 1 and July 15 City Council Meetings 156•Application deadline has been extended to allow for additional review and discussion at 157next months’ City Council meeting 158 Staff Announcements 159 160 161•Critical Area Public Information Meeting, July 24, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. in Hastings, MN 162•Two industrial developments on Pilot Knob Road and on Lemay Avenueare both 163progressing nicely now that the weather is cooperating 164•Next Planning Commission Meeting, August 26, 2014 165 Adjournment 166 167 168COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 169ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:02 P.M. 170AYES: 6 171NAYS: 0 172ABSENT: 1 July 22, 2014Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 4 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5 August 26, 2014 Planning Commission Nolan Wall, AICP Planner Planning Case 2014-21 Wetlands Permit Application Tom Christ, on behalf of Will and Katie Stewart 667 Ivy Falls Court R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential September 29, 2014 The applicant, on behalf of the property owners,is seeking a Wetlands Permit to remove vegetation and construct a pooland sport court in the rear yard of the subject property. The proposed activities arewithin 100 feet of a wetland or water resource-related area and do not meet the conditions for an administrative approval. The subject parcelis 0.68acres(29,676 square feet)and contains an existing single-familydwellingabutting a tributary stream to Ivy Falls Creek.In addition, it is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and guided for low density residential development. The proposed project includes the following improvements: 720-square foot pool1,950-square foot pool deck (non-permeable natural stone) 676-square foot sport court20-foot diameter fire pit/paver patio Landscaping and sodBoulder wall Ornamental fence Title 12-2-6(A) of the Code requires a wetlands permit for the removal of vegetation, and the construction, alteration, or removal of any structure within the 100-foot wetlandor water resource-relatedbuffer area. If approved, the project would be constructed this year. The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to remove vegetation and construct the proposed project on the property is consistent with the continued use as a single-family residential dwelling. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the Code is to (Title 12-2-1): 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6 1.Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands/water resource-related areas; 2.Maintain the natural drainage system; 3.Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; 4.Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and 5.Ensure safety from floods. According to the information submitted by the applicant,Staff has determined the pool area and sport court will be set back approximately 40-60 feet from the edge of the stream. According to the applicant, an Ash, two Pin Oaks and numerous saplings, and various landscape plants and trees will be removed to accommodate the project. In addition, a boulder wall and ornamental fence will be constructed. The proposed improvements’ distance from the streamand limitedland disturbance within the 25-foot non-disturb buffer area, satisfies the purpose and intent of the Code. Staff recommends approval of the Wetlands Permit with the following conditions: 1.Building, fence, and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction. 2.Area between the proposed construction and the normal water level of the stream(minimum of 25 feet) is to remain undisturbed and naturally-vegetated. 3.Construction and restoration activity, to include re-vegetation of disturbed areas, shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of the Wetlands Permit forvegetation removal and construction within the 100- foot buffer area of a water resource-related area, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the Wetlands Permit forvegetation removal and construction within the 100- foot buffer area of a water resource-related area, based on a findingthat the proposed improvements willhave negative impacts on the existing water resource-related area and is therefore inconsistent with the Wetland Systems Chapter of the City Code. OR 3.Table the request. 1.Site Photos 2.Aerial Site Map 3.Planning Applications, including supporting materials 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. 2.No existing vegetation within the required 25-foot bufferareawill be removed. 3.Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8 Planning Case 2014-21 Exhibit 1: Proposed Construction Area (08.07.14) Source: Staff Exhibit 2: View from stream bank (08.07.14) Source: Staff 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9 Planning Case 2014-21 City of 667 Ivy Falls Court Mendota 030 Heights July 22, 2014 SCALE IN FEET 1165 670 680 676 661 667 675 GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19 August 26, 2014 Planning Commission Nolan Wall, AICP Planner Planning Case 2014-23 Conditional Use Permit for Wireless Antenna Facility Upgrades SAC Wireless, on behalf of AT&T 1196 Northland Drive I-Industrial/I-Industrial October 20, 2014 The applicant, on behalf of AT&T,is seeking a conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to existing facility at 1196 Northland Drive.Title 12-1D-4 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for wireless antennas. The subject parcel is approximately 1.4 acres(58,376 square feet) and is bordered by I-494 to the south and Highway 55 to the east (see attached aerial map).The parcel is zonedand guided for industrial development. The applicant is proposing various upgrades to the existing 126-foot, freestandingwireless antenna facility to increase the data and call capacity in the service area. The parcel is ownedby the City and was acquired from the Minnesota Department of Transportation in 1998. As a result, the City also took control of the existing lease agreements in place for use of the wireless antenna facility. Title 12-1D-4 of the Code contains regulations regarding wireless antennas, towers, and accessory structures and requires a conditional use permit in all zoning districts. The purpose of the Code section is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, and is necessary to: 1.Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. 2.Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be screened from properties within viewing distance of the site and to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. 3.Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20 4.Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by utilizing collocation. 5.Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city. The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades include the following: Proposed – Antenna Solution Install (3) LTE AWS (1) per sector – (typ. for positions 1) Install (4) 1/2” coax jumpers connecting each RRH to the AWS side of its antenna position 1 Relocate existing GSM to new position 2 (typ. for 3 sectors) Relocate existing UMTS to new position 3 (typ. for 3 sectors) Install new antenna platform with handrail (3) antenna frames, (1) per sector, each frame with (4) new mounting pipes per sector, (3) sectors total Install (4) new HPA-65R-B44-H8-K (2) per sector in positions 1 & 4 (alpha & gamma sector) Install (2) new HPA-65R-B44-H8-K (2) in positions 1 & 4 (beta sector) Install (3) fiber/DC jumpers from each LTE AWS RRH to existing fiber/DC distribution box Proposed – Power Solution Replace existing power plant for new power plant Proposed – Site Install (1) 8AWG–6 conductor DC trunk line from raycap to fiber/DC distribution box Proposed (3) LTE WCS RRH (1) per sector in new position 4 Proposed (3) LTE 700 D/E RRH (1) per sector in new position 4 Proposed (2) 8AWG – 6 conductor DC trunk line from raycap to fiber/DC distribution box Proposed (1) raycap DC6-48-60-18-6F The Code section also contains the followingspecific evaluation criteria for a conditional use permit application. Title 12-1D-14 contains the following provisions, which are analyzed based on the submitted materials: D. Freestanding Antennas And Towers: 1. Restrictions In Residential Districts: No freestanding antenna or antenna tower shall be allowedin any R-1, R-1A, or R-2 districts unless collocated on existing utility towers. The subject parcel is zoned I-Industrial. 2. Conditions: A freestanding antenna tower shall only be permitted if the applicant can demonstrate the following to the council: a. That a building mounted or water tower mounted antenna in the manner described in subsection C of this section will not provide sufficient communication effectiveness; and b. That it is not possible or feasible to collocate on an existing freestanding antenna tower or building in the vicinity of the proposed location. Not applicable, the wireless antenna facility is pre-existing. 3. Design And Color: Freestanding antenna towers must be of a monopole type design and painted eggshell. The existing wireless antenna structure is a monopole type design. The upgraded equipment will be painted to match the existing equipment and monopole structure. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21 4. Height: All freestanding antenna towers shall be no higher than seventy five feet (75'), as measured from the ground to the highest point of any portion of the tower, antenna, or any other component attached thereto, or the distance between the base of the antenna tower and the nearest setback line, whichever is least. The existing wireless antenna structure is approximately 126 feet high and approximately 40 feet from the nearest property boundary line to the east. The new and replacement antennas will not exceed the height of the existing antennas. 5. Setbacks: All freestanding antenna towers and accessory structures must adhere to all appropriate setbacks for the given zone. Not applicable, the wireless antenna facility is pre-existing. E. Aesthetics: 1. Design: All freestanding antenna towers shall be of a monopole type design. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. The existing wireless antenna structure is a monopole type design. 2. Color: a. Those portions of all freestanding antenna towers and all antennas which protrude into the air shall be painted eggshell. The upgraded equipment will be painted to match the existing equipment and monopole structure. b. Those portions of all antennas that are flush mounted to the sides of buildings shall be painted to match the exterior of the building. Not applicable, the existing wireless antenna structure is a monopole type design. 3. Screening: All accessory buildings to all freestanding towers shall be screened from public view by a landscape plan according to the landscape standards of the appropriate zone and as described in subsection 12-1D-13-2D1 of this article subject to council review. Not applicable, the existing accessory buildings are adequately screened. 4. Advertising: Advertising of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure. No advertising currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facility. 5. Lighting: Artificial lighting of any kind shall not be permitted onany freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by the FCC, the FAA, or another federal or state regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting required shall be allowed. No tower-mounted lighting will be installed. 6. Prohibitions: Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the city to be specifically necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas shall be prohibited on any antenna or tower without express permission from the city unless the city grants a waiver to this requirement. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22 F. Safety: 1. Report Of Compliance: For a freestanding antenna tower, the applicant must provide a report from a licensed qualified professional structural engineer certifying that the tower will meet or exceed current EIA/TIA-222-E standards including, but not limited to, standards for withstanding meteorological conditions such as high winds and radial ice. The applicant has submitted a structural analysis report that may be reviewed by a City-contracted structural engineer, at the applicant’s cost, to verify compliancewith the applicable standards if determined necessary by the Building Official. 2. Compliance With Building And Electrical Codes: All antennas, freestanding antenna towers, and accessory structures shall conform to all building and electrical codes. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 3. Fencing: The applicant may be required by the council to erect a security fence around any freestanding antenna. Not applicable. G. Accessory Structures For Antennas: 1. Location And General Requirements: Accessory buildings to antennas or freestanding antenna towers must lie completely within all applicable setbacks from all property lines and must otherwise conform to all requirements for accessory buildings within the description of the specific zone. 2. Architecture: a. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site or, in the absence of such structures, with their immediate surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing manner. b. Accessory structures shall be finished on all sides. c. Theplanning commission shall review and the council shall approve the design of any accessory structures and equipment buildings. Not applicable, no external modification to the existing accessory structure is being proposed. H. Additional Requirements: 1. Abandoned Structures: a. Removal Required: Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases. b. Bond: A successful applicant shall provide an abandonmentbond to the city equal to one and a half 1 (1/) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying apparatus as 2 estimated by a consultant selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, which bond shall be used by the cityto remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus. The applicant is required to comply with these provisions. 2. Other Required Licenses: The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local licenses to the council prior to receiving a building permit. The applicant is required to comply with this provisions. 3. Interference With Public Safety Systems Prohibited: The applicant must agree in writing to support, participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the federal communications commission (FCC). The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23 4. Coverage/Interference And Capacity Analyses: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately servedby locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities. Response from the applicant:The purpose of the proposal is a technology upgrade of existing antennas and misc. equipment, combined with the installation of additional antennas at an existing cellular site. Updated coverage maps have been requested from AT&T as a necessary submittal with the application and shall be provided asa condition of final approval. The new coverage map will show only incremental expansion of the coverage area, but will more importantly show enhanced coverage in the existing coverage area. 5. Compliance With FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required: All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all federal communications commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the city a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference. The applicant has included a NEPA-RF Emissions Verification Form. 6. Environmental Impact Statement: In the event that the FCC or other agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement or similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the city. Not applicable. 7. Nonconformances: Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6) months, in which case, resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a conditional use permit. The Code limits the height of all freestanding antenna towers to 75 feet, as measured from the ground to the highest point of any portion of the tower, antenna, or any other component attached thereto, or the distance between the base of antenna tower andthe nearest setback line, whichever is the least.The existing 126-foot wireless antenna structure is legally nonconforming and the proposed antenna and equipment upgrades will not increase the height of the structure. 8. Area Map: All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site. Response from the applicant: An area map will be provided as a condition of final approval. However, we respectfully offer that this requirement is unnecessary given that this is not a new cellular site, but rather only a technology upgrade to an existing cellular site. Whereby we are not increasing the number of cellular sites in the jurisdiction. 9. Costs To Applicant: All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by city staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by the city staff, the planning commission or the city council shall be borne in full by the applicant. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 10. Variances: The council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this section in order to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design of freestanding antennas or poles or building 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24 mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects. Not applicable. 11. Prohibitions: Use of mobile cell/PCS sites or COWs (cell sites on wheels), or any other temporary antenna apparatus is strictly prohibited except in the case of emergency equipment used for public safety purposes for a limited time during or in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) The applicant is required to comply with this provision. The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades will not result in any significant physical changes to the tower structure. The visual changes will relate primarily to the addition of the platform and antennas. The facility’s location in an industrial area surrounded by roads on three sides and significant ground-cover screening will mitigate any additional negative impacts on the surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, with the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall abide by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined in the Staff report. 2.The applicant, or applicant’s representative, will draft an amendment to the existing Lease Agreement to be signed by the City. Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, based on the attached findings of fact. OR 2.Recommend denial of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, based on the finding of fact that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Code and Comprehensive Plan. OR 3.Table the request. 1.Site Photo 2.Aerial Site Map 3.Planning Application, including supporting materials 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such facilities. 2.The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3.Upgrading the wireless antenna facility’s antennas and equipment will help increase the data and call capacity in the service area. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26 Planning Case 2014-23 Exhibit 1: Existing Wireless Antenna Facility (looking northeast) Source: Staff 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27 Planning Case 2014-23 City of 1196 Northland Drive Mendota 090 Heights Date: 8/8/2014 SCALE IN FEET 1171 61 1196 1191 1196 1210 Aerometrics GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 31 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 50 August 26, 2014 Planning Commission Nolan Wall, AICP Planner Planning Case 2014-24 Conditional Use Permit for Wireless Antenna Facility Upgrades SAC Wireless, on behalf of AT&T 894Sibley Memorial Highway B-1 Limited Business/LB Limited Business October 20, 2014 The applicant, on behalf of AT&T,is seeking a conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to existing facility at 894 Sibley Memorial Highway. Title 12-1D-4 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for wireless antennas. The subject parcel is approximately 0.76acres (33,223 square feet) and is located between the CDI office building and the Xcel Energy property, approximately 230 feet west of Sibley Memorial Highway(see attached aerial map). The parcel is zonedand guided for limited business.The applicant is proposing various upgrades to the existing 75-foot, freestandingwireless antenna facility to increase the data and call capacity in the service area. Title 12-1D-4 of the Code contains regulations regarding wireless antennas, towers, and accessory structures and requires a conditional use permit in all zoning districts. The purpose of the Code section is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, and is necessary to: 1.Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. 2.Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be screened from properties within viewing distance of the site and to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. 3.Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. 4.Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by utilizing collocation. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 51 5.Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city. The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades include the following: Phase I Remove and replace existing power plant with new power plant and install (3) 15A breakers Remove existing tower arms and replace with new low-profile platform with handrails Remove (3) existing LTE antennas, (1) per sector in position 2 Relocate existing GSM and UMTS antennas in position 2 & 3 in all sectors Relocate (3) existing LTE RRH’s, (1) per sector to position 1 Install (12) new antenna mounting pipes, (4) per sector Install (6) new HPA-65R-BUU-H8-K, (2) per sector in positions 1 & 4 Install (3) total LTE AWS RRH, (1) per sector - (4) 1/2” coax jumpers connecting each AWS to the AWS side of its antenna position 1 Install (3) fiber/DC jumpers from each LTE AWS RRH to existing fiber/DC distribution box Phase II Proposed (3) LTE WCH RRH, (1) per sector in new position 4 Proposed (3) LTE 700 D/E RRH, (1) per sector in new position 4 Proposed (2) 8 AWG 6 conductor DC trunk lines run from raycap to proposed fiber/DC distribution box on existing waveguide Proposed (1) raycap DC6-48-60-18-8F The Code section also contains the followingspecific evaluation criteria for a conditional use permit application. Title 12-1D-14 contains the following provisions, which are analyzed based on the submitted materials: D. Freestanding Antennas And Towers: 1. Restrictions In Residential Districts: No freestanding antenna or antenna tower shall be allowed in any R-1, R-1A, or R-2 districts unless collocated on existing utility towers. The subject parcel is zoned B-1 Limited Business. 2. Conditions: A freestanding antenna tower shall only be permitted if the applicant can demonstrate the following to the council: a. That a building mounted or water tower mounted antenna in the manner described in subsection C of this section will not provide sufficient communication effectiveness; and b. That it is not possible or feasible to collocate on an existing freestanding antenna tower or building in the vicinity of the proposed location. Not applicable, the wireless antenna facility is pre-existing. 3. Design And Color: Freestanding antenna towers must be of a monopole type design and painted eggshell. The existing wireless antenna structure is a monopole type design. The upgraded equipment will be painted to match the existing equipment and monopole structure. 4. Height: All freestanding antenna towers shall be no higher than seventy five feet (75'), as measured from the ground to the highest point of any portion of the tower, antenna, or any other component attached 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 52 thereto, or the distance between the base of the antenna tower and the nearest setback line, whichever is least. The existing wireless antenna structure is approximately 75 feet high and thenew and replacement antennas will not exceed the height of the existing antennas. 5. Setbacks: All freestanding antenna towers and accessory structures must adhere to all appropriate setbacks for the given zone. Not applicable, the wireless antenna facility is pre-existing. E. Aesthetics: 1. Design: All freestanding antenna towers shall be of a monopole type design. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. The existing wireless antenna structure is a monopole type design. 2. Color: a. Those portions of all freestanding antenna towers and all antennas which protrude into the air shall be painted eggshell. The upgraded equipment will be painted to match the existing equipment and monopole structure. b. Those portions of all antennas that are flush mounted to the sides of buildings shall be painted to match the exterior of the building. Not applicable, the existing wireless antenna structure is a monopole type design. 3. Screening: All accessory buildings to all freestanding towers shall be screened from public view by a landscape plan according to the landscape standards of the appropriate zone and as described in subsection 12-1D-13-2D1 of this article subject to council review. Not applicable, no external modification to the existing accessory structure is being proposed. 4. Advertising: Advertising of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure. No advertising currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facility. 5. Lighting: Artificial lighting of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by the FCC, the FAA, or another federal or state regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting required shall be allowed. No tower-mounted lighting will be installed. 6. Prohibitions: Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the city to be specifically necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas shall be prohibited on any antenna or tower without express permission from the city unless the city grants a waiver to this requirement. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. F. Safety: 1. Report Of Compliance: For a freestanding antenna tower, the applicant must provide a report from a licensed qualified professional structural engineer certifying that the tower will meet or exceed current 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 53 EIA/TIA-222-E standards including, but not limited to, standards for withstanding meteorological conditions such as high winds and radial ice. The applicant has submitted a structural analysis report that may be reviewed by a City-contracted structural engineer, at the applicant’s cost, to verify compliancewith the applicable standards if determined necessary by the Building Official. 2. Compliance With Building And Electrical Codes: All antennas, freestanding antenna towers, and accessory structures shall conform to all building and electrical codes. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 3. Fencing: The applicant may be required by the council to erect a security fence around any freestanding antenna. Not applicable. G. Accessory Structures For Antennas: 1. Location And General Requirements: Accessory buildings to antennas or freestanding antenna towers must lie completely within all applicable setbacks from all property lines and must otherwise conform to all requirements for accessory buildings within the description of the specific zone. 2. Architecture: a. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site or, in the absence of such structures, with their immediate surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing manner. b. Accessory structures shall be finished on all sides. c. The planning commission shall review and the council shall approve the design of any accessory structures and equipment buildings. Not applicable, no external modification to the existing accessory structure is being proposed. H. Additional Requirements: 1. Abandoned Structures: a. Removal Required: Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases. b. Bond: A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the city equal to one and a half 1 (1/) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying apparatus as 2 estimated by a consultant selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, which bond shall be used by the city to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus. The applicant is required to comply with these provisions. 2. Other Required Licenses: The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local licenses to the council prior to receiving a building permit. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 3. Interference With Public Safety Systems Prohibited: The applicant must agree in writing to support, participate in and refrain from interfering withpublic warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the federal communications commission (FCC). The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 54 4. Coverage/Interference And Capacity Analyses: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities. Response from the applicant:The purpose of the proposal is a technology upgrade of existing antennas and misc. equipment, combined with the installation of additional antennas at an existing cellular site. Updated coverage maps have been requested from AT&T as a necessary submittal with the application and shall be provided asa condition of final approval. The new coverage map will show only incremental expansion of the coverage area, but will more importantly show enhanced coverage in the existing coverage area. 5. Compliance With FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required: All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all federal communications commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the city a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference. The applicant has included a NEPA-RF Emissions Verification Form. 6. Environmental Impact Statement: Inthe event that the FCC or other agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement or similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the city. Not applicable. 7. Nonconformances: Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6) months, in which case, resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a conditional use permit. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 8. Area Map: All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site. Response from the applicant: An area map will be provided as a condition of final approval. However, we respectfully offer that this requirement is unnecessary given that this is not a new cellular site, but rather only a technology upgrade to an existing cellular site. Whereby we are not increasing the number of cellular sites in the jurisdiction. 9. Costs To Applicant: All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by city staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by the city staff, the planning commission or the city council shall be borne in full by the applicant. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 10. Variances: The council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this section in order to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design of freestanding antennas or poles or building mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects. Not applicable. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 55 11. Prohibitions: Use of mobile cell/PCS sites or COWs (cell sites on wheels), or any other temporary antenna apparatus is strictly prohibited except in the case of emergency equipment used for public safety purposes for a limited time during or in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) The applicant is required to comply with this provision. The subject parcel is located within the Critical Area. Since no changes to the ground area or height of the wireless antenna structureare proposedas part of the project, Staff determined the request did not require a critical area permit. The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades will not result in any significant physical changes to the tower structure. The visual changes will relate primarily to the addition of the platform and antennas. The facility’s location in a commercial area and distance from the river will mitigate any additional negative impacts on the surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, with the condition that the applicant shall abide by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined in the Staff report. Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, based on the attached findings of fact. OR 2.Recommend denial of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, based on the finding of fact that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Code and Comprehensive Plan. OR 3.Table the request. 1.Site Photo 2.Aerial Site Map 3.Planning Application, including supporting materials 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 56 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such facilities. 2.The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3.Upgrading the wireless antenna facility’s antennas and equipment will help increase the data and call capacity in the service area. 4.The proposed project does not include any ground disturbance and the exiting wireless antenna structure’s replacement and upgraded equipment will be painted to match the existing equipment and will not have a negative impact on the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 57 Planning Case 2014-24 Exhibit 1: Existing Wireless Antenna Facility Source: Staff 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 58 Planning Case 2014-24 City of 894 Sibley Memorial Highway Mendota 080 Heights Date: 8/12/2014 SCALE IN FEET 901 910 800 50 80 2 8 0 0 0 9 7 4 79 7 52 8 80 Aerometrics GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 59 WI RE L E S S July 31,2014 CityofMendota Heights Mr. Nolan Wall, Planner 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE:894 Sibley Memorial Highway - AT&TAntenna & Equipment Upgrade DearMr. Wall, SACWireless,onbehalfofAT&Tis requestingthenecessaryapprovals toaddantennas and upgrade equipment attheirwirelesstelecommunicationequipmentattheabovereferenced location.AT&TRF Engineershavedeterminedanadditionalfacilityis requiredatthislocationtohelp increasethedataandcall capacityfortheresidentsandworkforce in this area. Enclosedpleasefindthefollowing: CUPApplication 2 Sets Architectural Drawings Structural Analysis Application Fee $350 Wegreatly appreciateyourhelp withthis proposedAT&TFacility. Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestions. BestRegards, ChristopherRohr Zoning& PermittingSpecialist SACWirelessforAT&T 4300MarketPlaceDrive,Suite 150 Bloomington,MN55435 612-226-6470 christopher.rohr@sacw.com 5 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 60 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 61 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 62 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 63 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 64 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 65 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 66 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 67 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 68 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 69 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 70 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 71 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 72 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 73 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 74 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 75 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 76 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 77 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 78 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 79 August 26, 2014 Planning Commission Nolan Wall, AICP Planner Planning Case 2014-20 Conditional Use Permit for Clearcutting in the Critical Area Paul and Shannon Burke 645 Sibley Memorial Highway R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential September 29, 2014 The applicantisseeking approval for an after-the-fact conditional use permit to clear cut vegetation within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. Title 12-3-9(F)of the City Code allows vegetation removal in the Critical Area Overlay District, in compliance with a number of conditions. The applicantreceived a Critical Area Permit on October 1, 2013 to demolish the existing structures and construct a new single-family dwelling on the subject parcel. On July 1, 2014, Staff was made aware of a significant clearcutting activity withinthe bluff area, which was not included in the landscape plan as part of the approved application, and investigated the complaint. The property owners were notified of the violation by letter the following day and contacted Staff promptly to determine the appropriate course of action. The purpose and intent of the City’s Critical Area Overlay District is to: “…prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems…”\[Title 12-3-2\] The applicant’s letter indicates their intention to trim additional oak trees on the property this fall. The extent of the proposed trimming is unknown at this time and is not included as part of this after-the-fact permit review process. Any additional trimming or cutting may require an additional conditional use permit to be approved through another public planning process. The Bluff Tree Preservation Plan indicates that all fallen vegetation will remain on-site to provide coverage and shade, prevent erosion, and retain moisture to encourage new growth. As shown in Exhibit 2, therehas been significant re-growth in the impacted area since the clearcutting activity took place in late June. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 80 According to the Hillside Vegetation Restoration Plan, the impacted area will be re-evaluated on September 1, 2014 to ensure adequate re-growth is progressing. If determined to be inadequate by Staff and/orthe licensed landscape architect, the plan includes a re-vegetation plan to be implemented as soon as possible. Title 12-3-9(F)(2) of the City Codecontains the following conditional use permit provisions for clearcutting within the Critical Area: 1.The applicant shall demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to cutting trees on the site. According to the contractor who completed the work, the following trees were removed from the impacted area on June 26, 2014: Hackberry3”2 Green Ash4”1 American Elm3-4”4 Basswood (stump sprout)8”1 Boxelder3-4”15 Boxelder resprouts (6-12 stems/clump)N/A35 As indicated in the applicant’s letter, the reason for the clearcutting activity was to enhance the view of the river from the house. Due to the after-the-fact nature of the application, and the undocumented height of the vegetation that was removed, it is unclear if other feasible or prudent alternatives were available to accomplish their intended action. 2.Clearcutting shall not be used where soil, slope or other watershed conditions are fragile and subject to injury. There were severalsignificant landslide events in close proximity to the subject propertydue to the amount of rain earlier this summer. While the rainfall amounts may have been abnormal, the bluffline bordering the subject property is steep and should have been left alone until later this year to ensureappropriate soil stability and comply with the timeline provisionin #5 below. However, Staff has no data to analyze the existing conditions of the soils and slope on the subject property. According to the Bluff Tree Preservation Plan, all stumps were left intact to encourage re-growth and no soil or earthwork will take place in the impacted area to prevent erosion or damage to existing root systems. 3.Clearcutting shall be conducted only where clear cut blocks, patches or strips are, in all cases, shaped and blended with the natural terrain. As shown on the Bluff Tree Preservation Plan, and observed by Staff, the impacted area appears to have been cleared in the past by previous property owners.It has a noticeably different vegetation pattern than surrounding areas along the bluff, which include mature Oak, Basswood, Maple, Hackberry, and Ash trees. 4.The size of clear cut blocks, patches or strips shall be kept at the minimum necessary. As noted, it appears the clearcutting activity was conducted within the previously-cut, impacted area. No additional mature vegetation was removed which would have increased the extent of the impacted area. 5.Where feasible, all clear cuts shall be conducted between September 15 and May 15. If natural regeneration will not result in adequate vegetable cover, areas in which clearcutting is conducted shall be replanted to prevent erosion and to maintain the aesthetic quality of the area where feasible; replanting shall be performed in the same spring or the following spring. According to the contractor, the clearcutting could not take place before May 15 because the site was under construction and inaccessible; nor could it be accomplished after September 15 because the new landscaping 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 81 would not allow for the necessary safety line tie-offs and access. Due to the after-the-fact nature of the permit, Staff was not able to appropriately analyze the contractor’s justification and therefore has no comments.The re- growth will be inspected on September 1, 2014. If necessary, replanting will be required in accordance with the Hillside Vegetation Restoration Plan. Once notified of the Code violation for clearcutting without an approved permit, the property owner was responsive to Staff’s direction and apologeticfor the situation. However, Title 12-1L-11 of the City Code authorizes the City to issue citations for violations of or refusal to comply with the provisionsof the Code. Furthermore, violation of the Code is a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, may be punished by a fine of no more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment for a term not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both \[Title 1-4-1(A)\].At this time no citation has been issued. If the Planning Commission feels a fine is necessary in this case, it can be included as an additional condition for consideration by the City Council. Staff recommends approval of the after-the-fact conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1.The applicant supplies a report from a licensed landscape architect on the status of the vegetation re-growth in the impacted area as soon as possible after September 1, 2014. If determined to be inadequate, the Hillside Vegetation Restoration Plan will beimplemented immediately. 2.Any additional trimming or cutting, which is determined to require additional permitting, will be included in a separate Critical Area Permit applicationfor consideration. 1.Recommend approval of the after-the-fact conditional permit request, with conditions. OR 2.Table the request. 1.Site Photos 2.Aerial Site Map 3.Planning Application, including supporting materials 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 82 Planning Case 2014-20 Exhibit 1: Clearcutting Activity (07.01.14) Source: Staff 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 83 Planning Case 2014-20 Exhibit 2: Vegetation Re-growth (07.28.14 and 08.20.14) Sources: Keenan & Sveiven, Inc./Staff 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 84 Planning Case 2014-20 City of 645 Sibley Memorial Highway Mendota 075 Heights Date: 8/12/2014 SCALE IN FEET 635 265 41 40 116 333 641 643 645 1004 647 649 1007 655 Aerometrics GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 85 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 86 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 87 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 88 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 89 Mendota Heights, MN 645 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY Mendota Heights, MN 645 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 92 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 93 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 94 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 95 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 96 August 26, 2014 Planning Commission Nolan Wall, AICP Planner Planning Case 2014-22 Proposed Code Amendments City of Mendota Heights N/A N/A N/A The City is considering amendments to various sections of the City Code. Staff has identified a number of potential code amendments, packaged in a single application, for discussion and recommendation by the Planning Commission. The goal is to clean-up, clarify, and simplify certain sections to improve the interpretation and implementation of the subdivision and zoning ordinances. Current Standard Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the other requirements of subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36") in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of corner lots by conditional use permit when said yard abuts a public street;provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) Proposed Amendment Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the otherrequirements of subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36") in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of corner lots throughbyadministrative approvalby the Engineering Departmentconditional use permitwhen said yard abuts a public street; provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 97 Rationale The intent is to provide additional standards for fences within side and rear yards that encroach into the required setbacks to ensure safe sightlines are maintained at intersections. A conditional use permit application requires a public hearing and significant Staff time to process. In addition, the minimum 5-week application approval process and $350 fee can be burdensome to applicants.It is Staff’s opinion that applicable fence permit applications can be reviewed and administratively-approved by the planning and engineering departments and still accomplish the intent of the ordinance, while making the approval process more efficient and equitable. Current Standard N/A Proposed Amendment \[12-1D-17\] Traffic Studies A.Any proposed development or redevelopment in the Citymay be required to conduct or submit a recently-completedtraffic study, at the cost of the applicantand prepared by a licensed engineer,for review and commentaspart of any permit application. B.The study shall be prepared in compliance with the most current version of the Dakota County Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. C.When potentially impacted roadways included in the traffic study are under County, State, or adjacent City jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to request additional review and comment from those jurisdictions for consideration in evaluating the permit application. Rationale Potential development or redevelopment projects may not require a conditional use permit or other planning application requiring a public hearing. In addition, the Code currently does not require a traffic study to be included as part any planning application. The Code does allow the City to consider “existing and anticipated traffic conditions” and that the proposed use will not “cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards” in granting a conditional use permit.The proposed amendment would give the City the authority to require a traffic study, if necessary, as part of any permit review process, even if a public hearing is not required. Current Standard A.Authority ToGrant Variances; Conditions: The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties or undue hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter. "Undue hardship", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by this chapter and the hardship is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under this chapter. 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 98 Proposed Amendment A.Authority To Grant Variances; Conditions: The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties or undue hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter. "Undue hardship"”Practical difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the propertyowner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of thelandowner is due to circumstances unique to the property no created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by this chapter and the hardship is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under this chapter. Rationale A 2010 decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court,Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d. 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010) resulted in the state legislatureamending thelaw in 2011 renaming the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retained the three-factor test. The current City Code should be amended to be consistent with variance language in Minn. Stat. §462.357, subd. 6. Current Standard Keeping of bees on parcels of fifty (50) acres or more in area, provided any accessory structures conform to the city's requirement for accessory buildings, no more than ten (10) hives may be maintained, and all buildings, hives, apiaries, or other areas for colonies of bees are located no closer than one hundred feet (100') from any property line. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010; amd. Ord. 448, 4-2-2013) Proposed Amendment Same language –relocated to 12-1E-3(C) Rationale The City Council approved Ordinance No. 448 allowing beekeeping on residential properties, with conditions, in March 2013. The applicant for Planning Case 2013-03 was Somerset Country Club, which is zoned R-1. The Code only allows beekeeping in the R-1A District as an accessory use, but not in the R-1 Districtas intended. Upon reviewing the staff report and subsequent ordinance, it appears an error was made concerning the appropriate Code reference for the amendment. Title 12-1E-3(C) should have been amended, not 12-1E-4(C). The proposed amendment would correct the error and allow for beekeeping in the R-1 District. In addition, accessory uses in the R-1 District are also allowed in the R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, and R-3 Districts. Current Standard Pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.358, subdivision 2b, as amended, the city council shall require all developers requesting platting or replattingof land in the city to contribute ten percent (10%) of final plat gross area to be dedicated to the public for their use as either parks, playgrounds, public open space, trail systems, or water ponding, or to contribute cash in lieu of land in an amount established by resolution of the city council, based upon the conditions outlined below. The form of contribution (cash or land, or 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 99 any combination thereof) shall be decided by the city council based upon need and conformance with approved city plans. (1981 Code 301 § 6; amd. 2003 Code) Proposed Amendment Pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.358, subdivision 2b, as amended, the city council shall require all developers requesting platting or replatting of land in the city to contribute ten percent (10%) of final plat gross area to be dedicated to the public for their use as either parks, playgrounds, public open space, trail systems, or water ponding, or to contribute cash in lieu of land in an amount established by resolution of the city council, based upon the conditions outlined below. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the city council based upon need and conformance with approved city plans. Payment of cash in lieu of land will be collected prior to any subdivision or final plat being recorded by Dakota County. (1981 Code 301 § 6; amd. 2003 Code) Rationale The City’s current policy on collecting park dedication fees is unclear. The park dedication fees are currently included in the building permit section of the Fee Schedulewhich causes confusion when they should be collected. There are instances where a subdivision may be approved, but not built immediately. In the case of a final plat, the City isrequired to sign the official Mylarcopy that gets filed at City Hall and the County. In the case of a minor subdivision (lot split), the applicant is required to record the survey map and the signed resolution with the County. The proposed amendment would clarify the procedure and ensure the City collects the applicable fee prior to any documents being filed with Dakota County. Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed Code amendments. If acceptable to the Commission, action can be taken at this month’s meeting. Staff would proposeto bring back any suggested revisions for review at a future meeting prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 467, as presented or as amended by the Commission. OR 2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 467. OR 3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from Staff. 1.DRAFT Ordinance 467 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 100 The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 12-1D-6(D)is hereby amended to read as follows: Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the other requirements of subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36") in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of corner lots throughby administrative approval by the Engineering Department conditional use permitwhen said yard abuts a public street; provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes. Section 12-1D-17 is hereby added to read as follows: A.Any proposed development or redevelopment in the City may be required to conduct or submit a recently-completed traffic study, at the cost of the applicant and prepared by a licensed engineer, for review and comment as part of any permit application. B.The study shall be prepared in compliance with the most current version of the Dakota County Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. C.When potentially impacted roadways included in the traffic study are under County, State, or adjacent City jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to request additional review and comment from those jurisdictions for consideration in evaluating the permit application. Section 12-1L-5(A) is hereby amended as follows: A.Authority To Grant Variances; Conditions: The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties or undue hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter. "Undue hardship"”Practical difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property no created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by this chapter and the hardship is due to Ord #467 – First Reading page 1 of 2 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 101 circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under this chapter. Section 12-1E-3(C) is hereby amended as follows: Keeping of bees on parcels of fifty (50) acres or more in area, provided any accessory structures conform to the city's requirement for accessory buildings, no more than ten (10) hives may be maintained, and all buildings, hives, apiaries, or other areasfor colonies of bees are located no closer than one hundred feet (100') from any property line. Section 12-1E-3(D) is hereby amended as follows: Keeping of bees on parcels of fifty (50) acres or more in area, provided any accessory structures conform to the city's requirement for accessory buildings, no more than ten (10) hives may be maintained, and all buildings, hives, apiaries, or other areas for colonies of bees are located no closer than one hundred feet (100') from any property line. Section 11-5-1 is hereby amended as follows: Pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.358, subdivision 2b, as amended, the city council shall require all developers requesting platting or replatting of land in the city to contribute ten percent (10%) of final plat gross area to be dedicated to the public for their use as either parks, playgrounds, public open space, trail systems, or water ponding, or to contribute cash in lieu of land in an amount established by resolution of the city council, based upon the conditions outlined below. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the city council based upon need and conformance with approved city plans. Payment of cash in lieu of land will be collected prior to any subdivision or final plat being recorded by Dakota County. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ## day of Month, 2014. ___________________________ Ord #467 – First Readingpage 2 of 2 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 102 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 103 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR VARIOUS ZONINGAND SUBDIVISIONORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or assoon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday,August 26, 2014in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from the City of Mendota Heights for various amendmentsto the Zoningand Subdivision Ordinances. This request has been assigned Planning Case number 2014-22 This notice is pursuant to Title 11 (Subdivision) and Title 12 (Zoning) of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this requestwill be heard at this meeting. Lorri Smith City Clerk 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 104 8/26/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 105