2014-09-23 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA
September23, 2014 – 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Adopt Agenda
4.Approve August 26, 2014Planning Commission Minutes
5.Public Hearings(7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter):
a.Case No. 2014-26: Wayne Cummings. After-the-fact Wetlands Permit for
vegetationremoval at 2054 Acacia Drive.
b. Case No. 2014-27: Sarah and Aaron Macke. Critical Area Permit for various
improvements at 744 Woodridge Drive.
c. Case No. 2014-28: Sarah and Aaron Macke. Proposed Code Amendment to
allow an exception for swimming pool fencing requirements.
d.Case No. 2014-29: Convent of theVisitation School. Conditional Use Permit
for an electronic display sign at 2455 Visitation Drive.
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.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1
1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5August 26, 2014
6
7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August
826, 2014, 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, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins.Those absent:Commissioners
12Howard Roston and Robin Hennessy.Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public
13Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello.
14
Approval of Agenda
15
16
17The agenda was approved as submitted.
18
Approval of July 22, 2014 Minutes
19
20
21COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONANTO
22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2014, AS PRESENTED.
23
24AYES: 5
25NAYS: 0
26ABSENT: 2
27
Hearings
28
29
30PLANNING CASE #2014-21
31Tom Christ, on behalf of Will and Katie Stewart, 667 Ivy Falls Court
32Wetland Permit for Vegetation Removal and Construction
33
34Planner Nolan Wallexplained that the applicant was seeking a wetlands permit to remove
35vegetation and construct a pool and a sport court at 667 Ivy Falls Court. The subject parcel is .68
36acres and contains an existing single-family dwelling and abuts a tributary stream to Ivy Creek at
37the rear of the property. The property is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential
38development in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project includes the following
39improvements:
40720 square foot pool
41676 square foot sport court
42Landscaping and sod
43Ornamental fence
441,950 square foot pool deck
4520 foot diameter fire pit/paver patio
46Boulder wall
August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 1
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2
47The proposed activities are within 100 feet of a water resource related area and do not meet the
48conditions for administrative approval.The wetlands chapter of the code does require a permit for
49vegetation removal and construction within the buffer area.
50
51According to the landscape plan, the improvements would be approximately 40 to 60 feet from the
52stream bank. The vegetation to be removed includes an ash tree, two pin oaks, and numerous
53saplings and ornamental landscape plants.
54
55With the proposed improvements distance from the stream and the limited land disturbance within
56the 25 foot non-disturb area staff felt satisfies that the purpose and intent of the code and
57recommended approval of this application.
58
59Commissioners requested clarification on which vegetation in the area is proposed to be removed,
60asked questions regarding the erosion control plan, and the landscape plan.
61
62Mr. Will Stewart, 667 Ivy Falls Court; and Mr. Tom Christ, 245 Indian Trail South, Afton came
63forward to answer any additional questions from the Commission regarding the erosion control
64plan and the landscape plan.
65
66Chair Field opened the public hearing.
67
68Mr. Ted Taylor, 670 Maple Park Drive, stated that the views from his property overlook the
69applicant and so he was very concerned with what is being planned. He reminded everyone that
70trees provide oxygen, cooling, and waste water evaporation. The loss of trees would cause more
71run-offs to occur simply by not being there.
72
73He also noted that the letter that was sent to the surrounding neighbors downplayed the extent of
74the construction and the amount of impervious surface to be installed. He has put in a rain garden
75to help with absorption of roof run-off back into the soil and is very concerned about this project.
76Especially since no before or after elevations were shown in the documents he was ableto find on-
line.
77
78
79Ms. JulieLeslie, 680 Maple Park Drive, lives across the creek from the applicant. The reason she
80and her family moved into the neighborhood was because of the location, the quiet, the privacy,
81the trees, and the nature. They have put up with the noise of construction since the spring and are
82tired of the lights that shine into their bedroom windows each night from this residence. If this
83permit were to be approved it would not only increase the noise, it would decrease privacy and
84negatively impact the nature in the neighborhood. She expressed her opposition to this proposal
85and listed several points she felt staff failed to acknowledge in their report.
86
87Mr. Dave Byrne, 669 Maple Park Drive, is a member of the homeowners association in the area,
88but was not speakingon their behalf. The homeowners’ association property has some large and
89small banks and there is concern about being called to account someday if they agree to changes
90with the banks that run through all of these creek beds within the area. He wanted to go on record
91that he, personally, is opposed to this application.
92
August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 2
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3
93Mr. Tom Christ returned to address the concerns expressed by the neighborhood residents.
94
95Commissioners asked additional questions regarding vegetation and landscape possibilitiesand
96whether or not there would be lighting on the sports court.
97
98Ms. Agnes Taylor, 670 Maple Park Drive, noted that the staff report claimed that the applicant’s
99property is on a tributary that flows into Ivy Creek. She corrected that statement by claiming that
100the property abuts the actual creek, not a tributary. She also expressed her concern about the
101removal of trees to install a wall that everyone would be able to see six months out of the year.
102
103Planner Wall clarified that grading, drainage, and erosion control plans would be required as part
104of the building permit for construction of these improvements. The application before the
105Commission was only for the wetlands permit.
106
107Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
108
109COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONERNOONAN, TO
110CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
111
112AYES: 5
113NAYS: 0
114ABSENT: 2
115
116COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
117RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-21, WETLANDS PERMIT
118APPLICATION BASED ON THEFOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1191.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the
120City Code.
1212.No existing vegetation within the required 25-foot buffer area will be removed.
1223.Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction
123AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1241.Building, fence, and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction.
1252.Area between the proposed construction and the normal water level of the stream
126(minimum of 25 feet) is to remain undisturbed and naturally-vegetated.
1273.Construction and restoration activity, to include re-vegetation of disturbed areas, shall be
128in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
129
130Commissioner Magnuson offered an additional condition and that would be that the applicant
131provide a list of trees that are going to be removed from the property for review by staff and that
132no additional trees, other than what is contained in the list, would be removed as part of the project.
133\[Addition by Commissioner Noonan\] A planting list would be provided which would detail the
134vegetation that would be planted as part of this project.
135
136Planner Wall responded by stating that the application dealt with the vegetation that was to be
137removed, which is covered in the applicant’s letter of intent. However, it is reasonable to request
August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 3
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4
138that the applicant update the landscape plan to include a table showing what was removed and a
139planting schedule for the additional improvements.
140
141Commissioners Noonan and Viksnins approved the addition of the condition.
142
143AYES: 5
144NAYS: 0
145ABSENT: 2
146
147Chair Fieldadvised the City Council would consider this application at its September 2, 2014
148meeting.
149
150PLANNING CASE #2014-23
151SAC Wireless, on behalf of AT&T, 1196 Northland Drive
152Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to a Wireless Antenna Facility
153
154City Planner Nolan Wall explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for wireless
155antenna facility upgrades. The purpose of this upgrade would be to increase the data and call
156capacity in the existing service area. The code does require CUP approval for wireless antennas.
157
158The parcel is approximately 1.4 acres and bordered by Northland Drive to the north, Highway 55
159to the east, I-494 tothe south, and an office building in the industrial park to the west. The property
160is zoned and guided for industrial development in the Comprehensive Plan.
161
162The applicant is proposing various upgrades and installation of new equipment on the existing
163tower. The subject parcel is actually owned by the City and AT&T operates this tower under a
164lease agreement.
165
166Planner Wall shared an image that showed the visual impact of the improvements, which would
167not increase the height of the existing structure and noexterior modifications are being proposed
168to the existing accessory structure.
169
170The applicant has complied or will comply with all of the conditions included in the code for
171approval of this Conditional Use Permit request. Staff recommended approval with conditions
172based on the findings of fact.
173
174Mr. Chris Rohr of SAC Wireless, 4300 Market Point Drive, was on hand to answer questions from
175the Commission. He stated if AT&T knew that they would be required to request a CUP on top of
176a CUP to add an antenna and some gear to an already existing tower, they would not have done it.
177He is in charge of 257 sites and on 95% of them this would be a straight building permit application
178since it is already a cellular installation; it’s not like starting on a piece of raw land. He also noted
179that this installation would increase capacity but would not increase coverage. The existing
180equipment cannot handle the density of the users with their data plans.
181
182In effect, they would be going from three to four antennas on the array and would change out a
183little gear in the equipment enclosure – which does not have any outside affect.
August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 4
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5
184
185Chair Field opened the public hearing.
186
187Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
188hearing.
189
190COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
191CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
192
193AYES: 5
194NAYS: 0
195ABSENT: 2
196
197COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
198RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-23 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
199FORUPGRADES TO A WIRELESS ANTENNA FACILITY, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
200FINDINGS OF FACT:
2011.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing
202suchfacilities.
2032.The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare
204of the community.
2053.Upgrading the wireless antenna facility’s antennas and equipment will help increase the
206data andcall capacity in the service area.
207AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2081.The applicant shall abide by all regulationsin Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined
209in the Staff report.
2102.The applicant, or applicant’s representative, will draft an amendment to the existing Lease
211Agreement to be signed by the City.
212
213AYES: 5
214NAYS: 0
215ABSENT: 2
216
217Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 2, 2014
218meeting.
219
220PLANNING CASE #2014-24
221SAC Wireless, on behalf of AT&T, 895 Sibley Memorial Highway
222Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to a Wireless Antenna Facility
223
224Planner Nolan Wall explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for wireless
225antenna facility upgrades; same circumstances and rationale as Planning Case 2014-23, which the
226Commission had just heard.
227
228Planner Wall also noted that although it is burdensome onthe applicant to have to go through a
229CUP process for this type of modification, there is some merit to it in order to make sure there are
August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 5
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6
230not any increases to the tower height or any increases or expansions of those existing accessory
231structures.
232
233The subject parcel is approximately .76 acres and is located between the CDI Building, the Excel
234Energy property, and approximately 230 feet west of Sibley Memorial Highway. The property is
235zoned B-1 and guided for limited business in the Comprehensive Plan.
236
237The applicant has complied or will comply with all of the conditions included in the code for
238approval of this Conditional Use Permit request. Staff recommended approval with conditions
239based on the findings of fact.
240
241Planner Wall also noted that this property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor or
242Critical Area. However, since there were no changes to the ground area or the height of the
243structure staff determined that a Critical Area Permit was not necessary for this request.
244
245Chair Field opened the public hearing.
246
247Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
248hearing.
249
250COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS,
251TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
252
253AYES: 5
254NAYS: 0
255ABSENT: 2
256
257COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
258RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-24, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
259FOR UPGRADES TO A WIRELESS ANTENNA FACILITY, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
260FINDINGS OF FACT:
2611.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing
262such facilities.
2632.The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare
264of the community.
2653.Upgrading the wireless antenna facility’s antennas and equipment will help increase the
266data and call capacity in the service area.
2674.The proposed project does not include any ground disturbance and the exiting wireless
268antenna structure’s replacement and upgraded equipment will be painted to match the
269existing equipment and will not have a negative impact on the Mississippi River Corridor
270Critical Area.
271AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
2721.The applicant shall abide by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined
273in the Staff report.
274
275
August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 6
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7
276AYES: 5
277NAYS: 0
278ABSENT: 2
279
280Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 2, 2014
281meeting.
282
283PLANNING CASE #2014-20
284Paul and Shannon Burke, 645 Sibley Memorial Highway
285After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit for Clearcutting within the Mississippi River Corridor
286Critical Area.
287
288Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting an after-the-fact approval of a
289Conditional Use Permit to clear cut vegetation in the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area.
290
291The applicant did receive a Critical Area Permit in October 2013 to construct a new single family
292dwelling on the subject parcel. On July 1, 2014 staff was made aware of the clearcutting activity
293within that impacted area and it was determined that action was not included as part of the
294landscape plan of the approved Critical Area Permit. Staff investigated the issue and notified the
295property owners of the appropriate course of action.
296
297Planner Wall shared an image of the property with the dwellings and improvements that were on
298the property as part of the Critical Area Permit, as well as the impacted area. This After-the-Fact
299Conditional Use Permit only addresses the clearcutting activity that took place within the impacted
300area this summer; any additional cutting or trimming may need to be considered in an additional
301request in the future.
302
303The applicant was required to provide a Hillside Vegetation Restoration Plan and noted that the
304impacted area would be re-evaluated in September in order to insure that appropriate regrowth has
305occurred. If at that time it is determined by staff or by the landscape architect working with the
306property owner that additional plantings are needed,this planting schedule would be implemented
307immediately.
308
309Clearcutting is allowed in the critical area by Conditional Use Permit but is subject to compliance
310with a number of different conditions. Planner Wall reviewed each of those conditions and related
311how the application applies.
312
313Planner Wall further explained that the City is authorized to issue a citation for violations of the
314code provisions,which would be a maximum of up to a $1,000 fine in this case. No citation has
315been issued at this time. The Planning Commission could consider that as a condition of approval
316and forward on to the City Council.
317
318Staff recommended approval of the After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit with conditions.
319
August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 7
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8
320Commissioners asked questions regarding the deepness of the area of clearcutting, what would
321happen if this application was not approved, the proposed conditions, the Hillside Vegetation
322Restoration Plan, and what would be ‘inadequate’ regrowth.
323
324Mr. Paul Burke, 645 Sibley Memorial Highway; and Mr. Jeff Feulnerwith Keenan & Sveiven,
32515119 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, were on hand to answer questions from the
326Commission.Mr. Burke stated that he hired St. Croix Tree Service, who espoused knowledge of
327the regulations for trimming within the bluff zone and they provided a letter in which they claimed
328to have contacted the City last fall in anticipation of doing this trimming, and he turned the tree
329trimming activities over to them to provide some improvement in the views. However, he certainly
330would not characterize their work project as clearcutting.
331
332Commissioners asked the applicant questions regarding the sharing of the current situation with
333St. Croix Tree Service and what their reaction was, the purpose of the removal, if St. Croix Tree
334Service was involved in the previous cutting, how recent was the previous cutting, and if a permit
335had been issued for the previous cutting.
336
337Chair Field opened the public hearing.
338
339Planner Wall read a comment from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, which was
340received the afternoon of this Planning Commission meeting. Theirrecommendationis to get
341erosion control measures in place, as needed, to stabilizethe slope before vegetation takes root to
342prevent any destabilizationof the slope.
343
344Mr. Marco Scibora, 647 and 649 Sibley Memorial Highway, expressed his opposition to the
345granting of this Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the previous clearing had been done by the
346previous owner in 2003and at that time, the mature trees were cut downtofour feet from the
347ground to allow for growth.
348
349As a next door neighbor, he was very concerned about liability to his property. He has lost
350approximately one foot of his property since 1998 to erosion and severely questioned the
351consequences of this clearcutting event on his and his neighbors’ properties.
352
353Mr. Sciboraalso questioned the hiring of the landscape architect to evaluate the regrowth. After
354speaking with the Department of NaturalResources, he believed that a geotechnical engineer
355would be better qualified to evaluate the site.
356
357He wished that he had been given the opportunity to express his opposition before the event took
358place. He believed that allowing this violation of the code to pass by without consequences would
359be wrong. He also wanted it put on the record that he requested the City issue a bond insurance to
360protect his property until this potential for erosion has been taken care of.
361
362Commissioners asked Mr. Sciborato confirm that, according to his experience;the previous
363cutting was not as extensive as this oneand asked questions regarding his requestfor denial of the
364application.
365
August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 8
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9
366Mr. Tom Diamond, 2119 Savage Drive, St. Paul addressed the specific regulations in place that
367have been established by the state to protect the slope,wildlifehabitat, and views along the river.
368He stated that clearcutting of the bluff is flat out prohibited in the critical area.He continued by
369describing the area in this application as being approximately 80 feet by 80 feetwith the grade
370being roughly 66% slope. Now that the clearcutting has been done, it is very important that the
371natural habitat be restored. The vegetation restoration plan is a landscaping plan –not a bluff
372restoration plan and it will not have the root structure necessary to protect the bluff.
373
374Also, the applicant keeps referring to ‘trimming’ when what occurred was ‘clearcutting’.The
375record indicates that this was done without a required permit and that the City is considering using
376a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the clearcutting after the fact. He suggested that the permit
377specify that the vegetation, including trees, must be allowed to regenerate; and that if the
378regeneration of the vegetation does not happen then they must be re-establishedand restored,
379including trees; and the replacement vegetation must be a mix of the species which are native to
380that bluff area.
381
382Mr. Burke returned to address concerns and opinions expressed in the public hearing. He stated
383that the area that was cut was no different in size than what was cut in the past and, as in the past,
384regrowth will occur.
385
386Mr. Fuelner return to address the comments about the Hillside Vegetation Restoration Plan and
387the reasons for using the plantings as proposed should the review require that the plan be
388implemented.
389
390Commissioners asked questions regarding if and when a geotechnical engineer would be
391consulted; the training, background, and experience of the landscape architect that would give
392them the ability to make a determination as to whether or not there has been any slope failure.
393
394Ms. Phyllis Dosch, 1028 Brompton Place, expressedher concerns about the bluff. She also
395indicated that the cutting done in 2003 was illegal and that the property owner at the time was
396either penalized or threatened with penalty. She wondered why this is even being discussed as it
397should never had been done in the first place; and what is to prevent someone else from doing it
398as well.
399
400Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
401
402COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
403CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
404
405AYES: 5
406NAYS: 0
407ABSENT: 2
408
409Commissioners asked additional questions regarding the possibility of recommending a fine; the
410CUP approval running with the land and, therefore allowing clearcutting in the future; the
August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 9
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10
411provisions of the ordinance that would allow clearcutting;andif the contractor is liable for
412anything in this situation.
413
414
415COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS,
416TO RECOMMEND APPPROVAL OF AN AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
417FOR CLEARCUTTING WITHIN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR WITH THE
418FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
4191.The applicant supplies a report from a licensed landscape architect on the status of the
420vegetationre-growth in the impacted area as soon as possible after September 1, 2014. If
421determined to beinadequate, the Hillside VegetationRestoration Plan will beimplemented
422immediately.
4232.Any additional trimming or cutting, which is determined to require additional permitting,
424will be includedin a separate Critical Area Permit application for consideration.
425AND WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
4263.At the expense of the applicant, ageotechnical engineer be retained toconduct a sight
427investigation to assess whether clearcutting activity has undermined or impacted the slope
428and if so to advance corrective and mitigation measures to be implemented immediately.
429
430As a discussion item, Commissioner Noonan suggested the immediate implementation of a
431restoration plan, approved by the City of Mendota Heights and the DNR. It was determined that
432this is covered sufficiently under condition three.
433
434Commissioners discussed the possibility of adding a fine.
435
436Chair Field suggested Condition number two be amended to read:
4372.No trimming, cutting, or any alteration of the slope may occur except in complete
438conformity with the provisions of the City Code relating to the Mississippi River Corridor
439Critical Area, and all other City Codes.
440
441Commissioners Magnuson and Viksnins accepted this additional condition as part of the motion.
442
443After the question was raised about what would happen if the conditions were not met, the addition
444of the condition was suggested:
4453.If a restoration plan is required to be implemented, a performance bondin compliance with
446City Code requirementsbe posted guaranteeing the value of the work and posted for a two
447year period following complete implementation.
448
449Commissioners Magnuson and Viksnins accepted this additional condition as part of the motion.
450
451AYES: 5
452NAYS: 0
453ABSENT: 2
454
455Chair Fieldadvised the City Council may consider this application at a futuremeeting, but not
456necessarily the first meeting in September. Planner Wall confirmed that due to the additional
August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 10
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11
457conditions and reporting required from theapplicant, it would most likely be considered at a future
458City Council meeting.
459
460PLANNING CASE #2014-22
461City of Mendota Heights
462Proposed Code Amendments
463
464Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City is considering various amendments to the Zoning and
465Subdivision Ordinances within the City Code. Over the past year, staff has identified a number of
466potential amendments packaged into a single application for consideration. The goal would be to
467clean up, clarify, and simplify certain sections in order to improve the interpretation and
468implementation of those ordinances.
469
470There being no rush to review or approve these amendments, the Commission requested that this
471topic be postponed to a future meeting.
472
473The Commission also requested that when this is brought back that some definition be provided
474as to what would trigger a traffic study.
475
Verbal Review
476
477
478Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
479
480PLANNING CASE #2014-19
481Mark Gergen, on behalf of Corey Morrisette and Gail Darling, 641 Callahan Place
482Subdivision Request
483•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
484
485Amendments to the Final Planned Unit DevelopmentPlan, Final Plat, and the Development
486Agreement were approved for the Lemay Shores Development.
487
488PLANNING CASE #2014-25
489786 Marie Avenue
490Wetlands Permit was approved administratively for an emergency stream bank restoration.
491
Adjournment
492
493
494COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS,
495TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:11 P.M.
496
497AYES: 5
498NAYS: 0
499ABSENT: 2
August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 11
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12
DATE:
September 23, 2014
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2014-26
Wetlands Permit Application
APPLICANT:
Wayne Cummings
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
2054 Acacia Drive
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
November 1, 2014
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicantis seeking an after-the-factWetlands Permit to removevegetation in the rear yard of the
subject parcel. The impacted area is within 100 feet of a wetland or water resource-related area and does
not meet the conditions for an administrative approval.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcelis 0.64acres (28,050 square feet)and contains an existing single-familyattached
townhouse dwellingalong Lake Augusta.In addition, it is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and guided
for low density residential development.The property is located withinthe Augusta Shores development
and a substantial portion of the rear yard is within a conservation easement established as part of the
Developers’ Agreement in 1999.
City staff was made aware of the vegetation removal within the easement area and subsequently contacted
the property owner to investigatethe complaint. While the removal activity was not recent, it was
determined that it was in violation of the Wetlands Systems chapter of the City Code. Title 12-2-6(A)(5)
of the Code requires a wetlands permit for the removal of vegetation.
ANALYSIS
Wetlands Permit
The purpose of the Wetlands Systems chapter of the Code is to (Title 12-2-1):
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;
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13
4.Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
5.Ensure safety from floods.
According to the applicant, buckthorn and 5 dead elm trees were removed from the rear yard of the property
within the wetland/water resource-related area in 2006-2007 (see attached map). The trees ranged in size
from approximately 6-10 inches in diameterand the stumps were left undisturbed. The impacted area is
now devoid of significantcover vegetation and has been maintained as a grassy area since the buckthorn
was removed in 2006. The applicant has continually trimmed the area, but not since being contacted by the
City earlierthis summer. In addition, piles of brush and wood have been removed and disposed of at
another location. As shown in the attached photos, and verified recently by Staff, the natural vegetation is
growing back aggressively.
The conservation easement area along the northwest shore of Lake Augusta contains a mix of mature trees
along with natural and invasive ground-cover plants, such as buckthorn, hackweed, mustards, and thistles.
This level of vegetative cover in the conservation easement area has been present since before Augusta
Shores was developed, and provides a buffer between the development and the lake. Due to the extent of
the vegetativecoverage, the lake is difficult to access and view from much of the development. With the
exception of the applicant’s property, the remainder of the conservation easement area has remained in its
natural, unaltered state.The Augusta Shores development was designed to drain thevast majority of runoff
away from the lake andinto treatment ponds. The easement area was established to maintain a buffer and
reduce/treatany unintended runoff into the lake.
According to the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization, the lake suffers from poor
water quality dueto excessive nutrients (phosphorus) that spur algae growth. The source of the nutrients
are from releases of phosphorus from the lake bottom and runoff from streets and yards in the watershed.
In addition, the lake is landlocked, meaning no water leavesthe lake througha stream or outlet structure.
Continued vegetation removal and degradation of the buffer area willmost likelyfurther impair the water
and is not compliant with the purpose andintent of the Wetlands System chapter of the City Code.
Conservation Easement Agreement
According to the Conservation Easement Agreementestablished as part of the Augusta Shores
development:
4.) Use of Easement Area. The purpose oftheEasement is to assure that the Easement Area shall at all
times remain in its present natural condition. To accomplish this purpose, Owner, for Owner, its successors
and assigns, does hereby agree as follows:
(a) Owner shall not remove, destroy, cut, mow, or alter trees, shrubs, and other vegetation within
the Easement Area except (i) for areas immediately adjacent to the Easement Area that may have
trees, shrubs and/or other vegetation that overhangs into the Easement Area; (ii) to prevent or
control insects, noxious weeds, diseases, fire, personal injury, or property damage; or (iii) to
remove dead or dying vegetation.
Based on theintendedpurposeand useof theeasement area, the applicant has violated this agreement by
removing the natural vegetation. While buckthorn can be considered an invasive species, and presents a
barrier to use and view of the lake, it was part of the natural condition in the buffer area and should not
have been removed. According to the applicant, the trees removed in 2006-2007 were dead/dying and may
have been allowed under the agreement. The easement agreement does not containany penalty provisions.
City Code Violation
Once notified of the Code violation for vegetation removal without an approved permit, the property owner
was responsive to Staff’s direction and apologetic for 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 provisions of the
Code. Furthermore, violation of the Code is a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, may be punished
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14
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 RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the after-the-fact WetlandsPermit with the condition that further trimming
within the easement area is prohibited and the natural vegetation is allowed to re-grow.Based on the
information provided by the applicant, the trees that were removed were dead/dying and may have been
allowed to be removed in compliance with the Wetlands Systems chapter and the conservation easement
agreement. If no further trimming is conducted in the buffer area, the natural vegetation should be restored
to be consistent with surrounding properties abutting Lake Augusta. Staff will continue to monitor the re-
growthin the impacted areaand work with the property to address any additional issues.
ACTION REQUESTED
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1.Recommendapproval of the after-the-fact Wetlands Permit forvegetation removalwithin the
100-foot buffer area of awater resource-related area, with the condition that further trimming
within the easement area is prohibited and the natural vegetation is allowed to re-grow.
OR
2.Table the request.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Site Photos
2.Aerial Site Map
3.Planning Applications, including supporting materials
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15
Planning Case 2014-26
Site Photos – 2054 Acacia Drive
Source: Staff (07.18.14) Source: Staff (07.18.14)
Source: Staff (09.16.14)
Source: Staff (09.16.14)
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16
Planning Case 2014-26
City of
2054 Acacia Drive
Mendota
040
Heights
Date: 9/15/2014
SCALE IN FEET
2050
2054
2058
2054
2058
2062
2062
2
3
2066
2066
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.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25
DATE:
September 23, 2014
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2014-27
Critical Area Permit Application
APPLICANT:
Sarah and Aaron Macke
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
744 Woodridge Drive
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
November 11, 2014
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants areseekinga Critical Area Permit to construct a retaining wall, patio, fence, and swimming
pool, and an expansion to the existing screen porch. The subject parcel is located within the Mississippi
River Corridor Critical Area and requires City Council approval for the proposed improvements before a
building permit or zoning approval can be issued.
BACKGROUND
The City approved the “Ivy Ridge Addition” plat in 2008 and the applicants received a critical area permit
in 2010 to construct the existing single-family dwelling on the 1.75-acre subject parcel. In addition, it is
zoned R-1 One Family Residential and guided for low density residential development.
As part of a separate request (Planning Case 2014-28), the applicants are seekingan amendment to the City
Code to allow an exception from the swimming pool fencing requirementsfor automatic pool covers. If
approved, they would not construct the fence included as part of the proposed project.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicants’
request to construct the proposed improvements areconsistent with the continued use as a single-family
residential dwelling.
Critical Area Overlay Zoning District
The purpose and intent of the 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
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26
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…” \[Title 12-3-2\]
Development Standards
Title 12-3-8 contains developmentstandards in the Critical Area in order to maintain the aesthetic integrity
and natural environment. The standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas,
provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, prevent erosion of bluffs, minimize flood damage,
and prevent pollution of surface and ground water. The following applicable standards apply to the
proposed project:
Setback From Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward from the bluff
line of the river.
According to the Grading Plan, all proposed improvements will be compliant with the bluff setback
standard.
Setback From Normal High Water Mark: No structure or road shall be constructed less than one hundred
feet (100') from the normal high water mark of any water body.
The proposed improvements are over 250 feet from Ivy Falls Creek, which is the nearest water body.
Height Of Structures: All new structures shall be limited to the lesser of the underlying zoning district
regulations or thirty five feet (35').
The R-1 District structure height requirement is the lesser of 2 stories or 25 feet, which supersedes the
35-foot height requirementin the Critical Area. The proposed enclosed porch expansion will maintain the
existing roofline, which faces the bluff, and will not increase the height of the already-approved structure.
Protection Of Natural Features: The governing body may require the preservation of natural features such
as large trees, watercourses, scenic points, historical sites and similar community assets and may decline
approval of a subdivision or other development if provision is not made for preservation of these assets.
The proposed project will not remove any trees and any ornamental landscaping removed will be replaced
with similar plantings; there will be no negativeimpacts to any significant natural features.
Natural Resource Management
Title 12-3-9 contains natural resource management standards in the Critical Area. The standards have been
developed to promote, preserve and enhance the natural resources within the Critical Areaand to protect
them from adverse effects by regulating developments that would have a severe adverse and potentially
irreversible impact on unique and fragile environmentally-sensitive land. The following applicable
standards apply to the proposed project:
No development shall be permitted on slopes of eighteen percent (18%) or more. No development shall
be permitted on land having a slope before alteration in excess of twelve percent (12%) but less than
eighteen percent (18%), unless specific conditions are met.
According to the Grading Plan, the proposed improvements will not impact any slopes greater than 12%.
Structures, including utilities and roadways, shall be sited so as to minimize the impact on natural areas
and unique plant and animal species within the district. No substantial alteration of the natural
environment or removal of vegetation may be permitted, when such alteration or removal would
significantly diminish the scientific, historical, educational, recreational or aesthetic value of the resource,
or where the alteration or removal would remove a unique or endangered plant species or the supporting
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27
environment or critical habitat or a unique or endangered animal species, or where such activities would
have a significant detrimental impact upon the food supply, security and reproductive cycle of the species.
The proposed pool and patio will be located in the existing undeveloped backyard area(see attached
photos). While it will create additional impervious surface, the vast majority of the rear yard will be
unaffected. As noted, no trees will be removed as part of the proposed project. No significant critical
habitat or endangered animal species were specifically identified as being present on the subject parcel as
part of the critical area permit approved for construction of the house in 2010.
Grading and Drainage
Engineering Department comments:
As previously noted, the proposed improvements donot impact slopes greater than 12%, and the post
construction drainage pattern remains consistent with the existing condition. In fact, the proposed
development, if constructed, appears to improve bluff line drainage as the site runoff is proposed to be
disbursed downstream where it is currently in a single channel. Furthermore,the applicant is accepting of
a proposedcondition that the pool not be drained towards the bluff line; alternative plans for draining the
pool need to be in place. Final grading plans, including proposed erosion control measures, will be required
and reviewed as part of the building permit review process.
Swimming Pool
The proposed project includes a512-square footin-ground pool surrounded by a 4-foot wide concrete deck.
As shown on the Landscape Plan, additional improvements include anatural stone dining patio, hot tub,
bubbling boulder, masonry fire pit, and planting areas. Private swimming pools are a permitted accessory
use in the R-1 Districtand require a building permit prior to construction. Title 9-2 of the City Code
contains the following swimming pool regulations:
Location
Pools shall not be located within ten feet (10'), measured horizontally, from overhead or underground
utility lines of any type. Pools shall not be located within any private or public utility, walkway, drainage
or other easement.
There are no overhead utility lines in the proposed pool location and underground utility locations will be
verified and located prior to any excavation activity. The proposed pool location is not within any
easements.
Pools shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any rear lot line or within ten feet (10') of any side lot line
nor within ten feet (10') of any principal structure or of any frost footing.Pools shall not be located within
any required front yard.
The proposed pool will be located in the rear yard of the subject parcel, approximately 25 feet from the
nearest lot line and approximately 15 feet from nearest portion the principal structure.
Noise Control: The filter unit, pump, heating unit and any other noisemaking mechanical equipment shall
be located at least twenty five feet (25') from any adjacent or nearby residential structure and not closer
than eight feet (8') to any lot line.
The location of the pool equipment was not provided as part of the application; compliance will be verified
during the building permit review process.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28
Fences, Gates and Screening
Pool areas are required to be enclosed with fencing to effectively prevent the entrance of children and be
without handholds or footholds that would enable a child to climb over it or pass through it. In addition,
fences only enclosing the swimming pool area must have adequate screening from adjacent single-family
properties.
The proposed project includes a 5-foot tall,black ornamental, 3-rail aluminum fence surrounding the entire
landscaped area. As noted, the applicants are requesting a code amendment to allow an automatic pool
cover as an exception to the fencing requirements, and if approved, will not be installing a fence. In the
event the code amendment request is denied, the applicants will be required to submit additional materials
indicating compliance with the applicableswimming pool fence requirementsto be reviewedas part of the
building permit.
Drainage Of Water
To the extent feasible, backflush water or water from pool drainage shall be directed onto the owner's
property or into approved public drainageways and shallnot drain onto adjacent private land. Drainage
onto public streets or other public drainageways shall require permission of the appropriate local city
officials.
According to the applicant, drainage of the pool will be accomplished be pumping the water into a truck or
to the storm drain on Woodridge Drive.
Retaining Wall
The proposed project also includes the removal and reconstruction of a retaining wall on the west side of
the house, including landscaping and patio improvements. According to the applicants, the existing
retaining wall, patio, and landscaping have been damaged by erosion from the natural drainage pattern from
surrounding properties.
The Code requires retaining walls in the Critical Area, on slopes between 12% and 18%, to be constructed
of native stone or wood and not exceed 5 feet in height. The new retaining wall will be constructedof
8-inch thickwallstone into the existing contours of the rear yardat heights ranging from 3 to 1.5 feet; both
of which comply with the Code requirements for greater slopes than exist in the impacted area.
Furthermore, the Code requires retaining walls surrounding swimming pools to be designed to resist the
lateral pressure of the retained material in accordance with accepted engineering practice. Walls retaining
drained earth may be designed for pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid weighing not less than 30
pounds per cubic foot and having depth equal to that of the retained earth. Compliance with this
requirement will be verified by the Engineering Department as part of the building permit review process.
Landscaping
As noted, the Code requires fences only enclosing the swimming pool area to have adequate screening from
adjacent single-family properties; this includes, but is not limited to, landscaping. According to the
applicants, many of the existing plantings in the new landscaped area will be re-used and additional
plantings will include similar species. The rear yard of the subject parcel abuts the bluff and there is
significant existing vegetation that provides a buffer from adjacent properties. The proposed retaining walls
will screen the pool areafrom properties to the north and existing pine trees and other vegetation already
provide screening to the south.
Enclosed Porch Expansion
The existing home containsan attached covered screen porch and adjoining deck off the back of the house,
which faces the bluff. The proposed project would expand the covered screen porchby 285 square feet
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29
over the deck and maintain the existing roofline. In addition, the existing unfinished open-air space under
the covered screen porch/deck would be finished to create a 513-square foot multi-purpose space for
recreation and storage. The same exterior materials would be used, which feature natural stone and Hardie
siding(see attached photos).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a Critical Area Permit for the proposed improvements based on the finding
that the application meets the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, withthe following
conditions:
1.Building, fence, and gradingpermits are approved bythe City prior to constructionof the proposed
improvements.
2.Construction of the proposed improvementsshall be in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance Document.
3.The swimming pool is not to be drained toward any bluff line.
ACTION REQUESTED
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1.Recommendapproval of the Critical Area Permit for the proposed improvements based on the
finding that the application meets the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District,
with conditions.
OR
2.Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit for theproposed improvements based on the
finding that the application does not meet the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay
District.
OR
3.Table the request.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Site Photos
2.Aerial Site Map
3.Planning Application, including supporting materials
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30
Planning Case 2014-27
Exhibit 1: Site Photos
Source: Staff (09.15.14) Source: Staff (09.15.14)
Source: Staff (09.15.14) Source: Staff (09.15.14)
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 31
Planning Case 2014-27
City of
744 Woodridge Drive
Mendota
080
Heights
Date: 9/12/2014
SCALE IN FEET
727
731
1
00
W
OODR
IDGE
DR
1
00
754
734
175
744
711
716
774
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.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35
Application for Critical Area Permit, Letter of Intent
September 2, 2014
Water Management:
Backyard Enhancements:
Page Њ of Ћ
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36
Application for Critical Area Permit, Letter of Intent
September 2, 2014
Page Ћ of Ћ
W:\\2010\\10006\\CADD DATA\\SURVEY
Plotted: 09 /11 / 2014 12:36 PM
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 39
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 40
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 41
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 44
DATE:
September 23, 2014
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2014-28
Code Amendment Application
APPLICANT:
Sarah and Aaron Macke
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
N/A
ZONING/GUIDED:
N/A
ACTION DEADLINE:
November 8, 2014
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are requesting an amendment to the Title 9-2-4(C) of the City Code to allow an exception
for swimming pool fencing requirements.
BACKGROUND
As part of a separate request, the applicants are seeking a critical area permit to construct a pool and
additional improvements in the rear yard of their property. The applicants’ letter of intent includes the
rationale for their request and proposed language.
ANALYSIS
Existing Code Requirements
Title 9, Chapter 2 of the City Code contains swimming pool requirements; the fencing requirements are as
follows:
9-2-4: REQUIREMENTS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS:
C. Fences, Gates And Screening:
1. The pool area shall be enclosed with fencing to effectivelyprevent the entrance of children and be
without handholds or footholds that would enable a child to climb over it or pass through it. The fence
shall be at least five feet (5') in height, but not exceeding six feet (6'), to prevent uncontrolled access
from the street or adjacent property. Where horizontal fence members are less than forty five inches
3
/"). Where horizontal
(45") apart, vertical spacing shall not exceed one and three-quarter inches (1
4
members are equal to or more than forty five inches (45") apart, vertical spacing shall not exceed four
inches (4"), spaced so that a four inch (4") sphere cannot pass through. The spacing between the bottom
of the fence and grade shall not exceed four inches (4").
2. Fences shall have self-closing and self-latching gates with provisions for locking and shall be
completely installed prior to the filling of the pool. Spacing between the bottom of fence gates and grade
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 45
shall not exceed four inches (4"). The gate release mechanism shall be placed a minimum of fifty four
inches (54") above the bottom of the gate.
3. Where the fence encloses only the swimming pool area, adequate screening, including, but not limited
to, landscaping, shall be placed between the pool area and adjacent single-family district lot lines.
These requirements are reviewed and approved as part of the building permit application.
Proposed Amendment
The applicants are proposing to amend the City Code to read as follows:
“Exception to the fence requirement for pool covers conforming to ASTM F 1346-91, Standard
Performance Specifications for Safety Covers and Labeling Requirements.”
ASTM International develops and delivers voluntary consensus standards for a variety of products. Some
of the conditions for ASTM specification F 1346-91 include:
Provisions such as keys, combination locks, special tools, devices or inaccessible locations to
inhibit children under 5 years of age from the removing or operating the cover
Switching devices that are key-operated must be locked away or able to be de-activated or located
in an inaccessible location, at least 5 feet above the pool deck
Cover should be able to hold a weight of 485 pounds (2 adults and 1 child) to permit rescue
operation
Demonstration that any opening in the cover is sufficiently small and strong enough to prevent the
test object being passed through
Standing water must be substantially drained from the cover within a period of 30 minutes after a
normal rainfall
Meet labeling requirements for all covers for swimming pools, spas and hot tubs
Cover must be reversible in direction from a full stop at any point in its travel without having to
complete the full open or closed cycle
The proposed Code language would be the same as contained in the Inver Grove Heights City Code. Other
jurisdictions, including the cities of Sunfish Lake, Maplewood and Rochester, and Scott County allow
exceptions to the fence requirements for automatic or manually-controlled pool covers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Safety barrier design requirements for private outdoor swimming pools are intended to provide protection
against potential drownings and near-drownings by restricting access. The City’s existing swimming pool
fencing requirements are consistent with safety barrierguidelines from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, as well as numerous surrounding communities. The City has discretion to amend the Code if
it determines that an automatic pool cover, when used properly, provides the same protection as the existing
fencing requirements.
Staff recommendsdenial of the proposed amendment to the City Code to allowan exception forswimming
pool fence requirements.While some residential properties with an automatic pool coverare secluded and
may not need a fence to prevent an unattended child from wandering intothe pool area, there are numerous
properties where the current fencing regulations are the best way to ensure the appropriate safety barrier
requirements exist. While a gate can be left unlocked or fencing not properly maintained, it is Staff’s
opinion that automatic pool covers donot alone provide adequate safety measuresbecause theycan be left
open or unattended without any additional safety barriers in place.
Staff further recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed amendment, as inDRAFT
Ordinance 469, and make a recommendation to the City Council.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46
ACTION REQUESTED
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 469, or amendments thereto,based on the attached
findings of fact.
OR
2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 469 based on the attached findings of fact.
OR
3.Table the request.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Planning Application, including supporting materials
2.DRAFT Ordinance 469
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47
FINDINGS OF FACT FORDENIAL
Proposed City Code Amendment
Swimming Pool Fence Exception
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request:
1.The current City Code swimming pool fencing requirements areconsistent with safety barrier
guidelines from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and are appropriate for the
majority of residential properties in orderto provide protection against potential drownings and
near-drownings by restricting access.
2.Automaticswimmingpool covers donot alone provide adequate safety measuresandshould only
be used to complement the existing regulations.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
Proposed City Code Amendment
Swimming Pool Fence Exception
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1.The proposed exception for automatic pool safety covers meets industry safety and weight-bearing
standards.
2.Automatic pool covers, when closed, cover the entire pool surface and canenhance safety if access
is gained to the pool area.
3.The proper use of automatic pool covers can save water by retaining heat and reducing evaporation.
4.Swimming pool fencing can disrupt natural areas and animal movement.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 50
September 2, 2014
City of Mendota Heights
Planning Commission and
City Council
Dear Commission and Council Members,
We, Sarah and Aaron Macke, are homeowners of 744 Woodridge Dr. and have together been 11 year
homeowners of Mendota Heights. In addition, Aaron Macke, was raised in Mendota Heights and has
been a resident for over 30 years. We respectfully write to request an amendment to the city code
regarding the fence requirement for an in-ground swimming pool.
We are currently in the process of researching swimming pool options for our backyard and exploring
the possibility of adding a swimming pool to our existing yard. In researching swimming pools, many
items become critical, including the various options for pool covers. The type of cover that seems to be
the most recommended for safety and function is an automatic safety cover. These covers are
automatic, lockable, water and energy conservative, close in under one minute and enclose the entire
surface of the pool easily holding the body weight of several persons. As a result, they have quickly
become the preferred option for homeowners and many cities/counties have adjusted their code to
allow for these covers as an exception to fence requirements.
Through research, it has been discovered that automatic safety covers are being used in lieu of fencing
for a variety of reasons. First, they actually cover the entire surface of the pool making them safe even
when intruders, kids or animals manage to get to the actual pool area. Second, they save water and
energy by retaining heat and reducing evaporation. Third, they allow for pools in backyards with natural
habitats to continue to be or to appear to be natural. Fences can easily trap wildlife and/or disturb the
patterns of behavior for wildlife. While fences around swimming pools have served a great purpose for
many years, the advancements of pool covers to being automatic and heavy duty, are now providing
more safety than fences.
An example of an amendment to the existing city code could read, “Exception to the fence requirement
for pool covers conforming to ASTM F 1346-91, Standard Performance Specifications for Safety Covers
and Labeling Requirements”.
Thank you for considering our request and please let us know if you have any questions regarding this
request or need us to provide any further explanation.
Sincerely,
Aaron and Sarah Macke
651-690-9674
ammacke@icloud.com
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 51
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 469
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9-2-4 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING AN EXCEPTION
FOR SWIMMING POOL FENCE REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Section 9-2-4(C)is hereby amended to read as follows:
4. In-ground, private swimming pools may install a pool cover conforming to ASTM F 1346-91,
“Standard Performance Specifications For Safety Covers and Labeling Requirements For All Covers For
Swimming Pools, Spas, And Hot Tubs” in lieu of the required fencing.
Section 2.
This Ordinance shall bein effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ## day of Month, 2014.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
LorriSmith, City Clerk
Ord #469 – DRAFTpage 1 of 1
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 52
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 53
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 54
Item No. 2014-29
MEMORANDUM
Date:September 23, 2014
To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner
Subject: Planning Case 2014-29
Conditional Use Permit for electronic display sign
Applicant: Visitation School
Address: 2455 Visitation Drive
Zoning/Guided: R-1/Institutional (Private School)
Action
Deadline: 11-1-2014 (60 days from 9-2-2014 application date)
BACKGROUND
Visitation School is applying for a conditional use permit (CUP) for an electronic display sign on
their campus. The sign will be a modification of an existing lighted display sign near the main
entry to the school, which faces the parking lot and Lake Driveon the north side of the campus.
ANALYSIS
The City recently amended the zoning code to allow electronic message signs and this application
will apply the standards in Section 12-1D-15 H7. Those standards allow an electronic display sign
by CUP for an institutional use in the R-1 or R-1A residential districts provided fifteen conditions
for approval are met.
The applicant has provided a clear, complete summary of the code standards, items “a” through
“o” in sub-section H7 noted above. The proposed sign meets all zoning code standards.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 55
September 15, 2014
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 2 of 2
Re: 2014-29
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the Visitation School electronic
sign as described and illustrated on the attached materials. Specifically, the information in the
applicant’s “Letter of Intent” will be incorporated as the conditions of approval for the permit,
together with the illustration from Spectrum signs dated 8-22-14. The applicant will be required
to obtain a sign permit prior to construction.
ACTION REQUESTED
1.Recommend approval of the conditional use permit for an electronic display sign based on
the finding that the application meets the zoning code requirements, withthe conditions
proposed, or as modified by the Planning Commission;
OR
2.Recommend denial with specific findings of fact supporting denial;
OR
3.Table the request if additional information is needed or there are other issues associated
with the application.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
The following exhibits are attached for your review:
1.Application for Conditional Use Permit
2.Site maps
3.Site photos
4.Campus signage summary (Exhibit B – New Signage)
5.Letter of Intent (summary of code standards)
6.AIM – Visitation School Base 8-22-14
7.Daktronics letter
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 56
Planning Case 2014-29
Site Photos – 2455 Visitation Drive
Source: Applicant
Source: Applicant
Source: Applicant Source: Applicant
Source: Applicant Source: Applicant
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 57
Planning Case 2014-29
City of
Convent of the Visitation
Mendota
Electronic Display Sign CUP
0325
Heights
Date: 9/16/2014
SCALE IN FEET
BLUEBILL DR
_
^
D
IGHTS R
DOTA HE
MEN
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.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 58
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 59
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 60
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 61
Convent and the Academy of the Visitation
Conditional Use Permit Application
Electronic Display Sign
Convent and the Academy of the Visitation wishes to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to install an
electronic display sign on our campus. The electronic display sign will be a revamping of an existing,
lighted display sign. The purpose of the sign is to flexibly communicate information on the school’s
activities and events students, parents and visitors at the most active nexus point of our campus. It is
located deeply within the interior of our campus by the main entrance to our academic and fine arts
performance facilities. It is adjacent to our main parking lot and drop-off area. The existing street and
parking lot lighting will be significantly brighter than the proposed sign at the setback proposed.
The desired sign is covered by the requirements of City Code 12-1D-15, Signs. Item H7 of this Section
contains the following requirements:
7. By conditional use permit, an institutional use in the R1 or R-1A zoning district which is allowed
either as a permitted or conditional use may install one freestanding electronic display sign, provided
that each of the following requirements are met:
a. The parcel, or campus containing contiguous parcels, on which the sign is proposed must be
no less than two acres in size.
The Visitation campus is approximately sixty two acres in size.
b. The sign shall not exceed 100 square feet in area per surface.
The total area of the sign is 98 square feet as described in the attached drawing.
c. The sign shall not exceed nine feet in height from the average natural grade at the base of the
sign.
The height of the sign at its highest point above the average natural grade is 8 feet, 9 inches (please
see attached drawing). This will be lower than the existing lighted sign in this location which is 9
feet, 8 inches point above the average natural grade.
d. The total area per surface for an electronic display is not to exceed 50 percent of the sign’s
total area. Only one contiguous electronic display area is allowed per surface.
The sign will contain one electronic display area amounting to 33.9 square feet. This is 36 percent
of the sign’s total surface area of square feet.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 62
e. The sign shall be set back at least ten feet from any external property boundary line and shall
not be located closer than 50 feet to any surrounding residential property boundary line, unless a
less intrusive sign placement can be accomplished as approved by the city council.
The sign will be set back 320 feet from the nearest external property line and 337 feet from the
nearest residential property boundary line. Please see attached drawing.
f. The electronic display message shall not change more than once every one hour, except for
emergency messages. Time, date or temperature is considered one electronic display when
displayed alone, however it may be included as a component of any other electronic display but
cannot change more than once every three seconds.
The electronic display message shall not change more than once every one hour.
g. The hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM.
The sign will be operated between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
h. The electronic display message shall be limited to static letters and numbers. No portion of a
message shall contain animation, video or audio, scroll, flash, twirl, fade or change color.
The electronic display message will contain only static letters and numbers. It will not scroll, flash,
twirl, fade or change colors. It will not contain video or audio capabilities.
i. The electronic display area shall be a black background and messages shall not contain more
than one font color.
The electronic display area shall be a black background. Letters and numbers will be of one font
color.
j. The electronic display message shall be a minimum of four inches in height or larger as
necessary to ensure readability.
The electronic display is designed to be able to create characters of a minimum five inches and
maximum of eight inches in height.
k. Messages shall be limited to advertisement of products, events, persons, institutions,
activities, businesses, services or subjects which are located on the premises only or which give
public service information.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 63
Visitation will be using the electronic display to advertise our events, activities, speakers and
services as well public service information to members of our community, Mendota Heights and
other visitors to our campus.
l. Malfunctioning signs shall be shut off immediately by the owner. Additionally, the sign owner
shall immediately stop the display if notified by the city that the sign is non-compliant.
Visitation will constantly monitor and maintain the functionality of the sign. In the event of
malfunction we will turn it off immediately until the problem can be corrected. Additionally we will
comply with any notifications received from the City pertaining to the sign’s operation.
m. The sign shall be constructed in monument fashion, including a base of natural stone, brick or
other masonry material of at least twenty four inches in height from the average natural grade.
The sign is constructed in monument fashion of masonry brick that matches the brick used on the
exterior of our buildings. The existing lighted sign will be removed and the brick base will be
reduced by approximately nine inches. The adjusted base will be approximately 3 feet, 10 inches in
height above the natural average grade.
n. The sign shall be landscaped with materials subject to a plan as submitted with the
application approved by the city council.
The electronic display sign will be replacing an existing lighted sign. The current sign is an integral
part of our existing structures and is already landscaped. It has hard surfaces on the front and right
sides (sidewalks). The area to the right and behind the sign is grass. The landscaped areas on the
plaza to the left of the sign contain various shrubbery and perennial flowering plans. The plaza has
multiple large pots containing annual grasses and flowers. Additionally the parking lot islands
across from the sign contain deciduous trees. Please see the attached pictures.
o. The sign shall be equipped with a sensor that detects the ambient light level and adjusts the
brightness of the sign accordingly. Brightness shall not exceed 0.3 foot candle above the ambient
light as measured by using a brightness meter from a preset distance depending on the signs size.
The sign will be equipped with a light sensor that will automatically adjust the brightness of the
display according to the changes in the ambient light level. It contains a manual adjustment
capability to enabling the school to flexibly set the brightness margin above ambient light. As
described in the attached letter from Daktronics, the sign manufacturer, the preset brightness
measurement above ambient light will be set for a significantly shorter distance than required by
the ordinance. Additionally as indicated in the letter, the existing street and parking lot lighting
levels will be significantly brighter than the proposed sign at the setback proposed.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 66
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 67
November 18, 2013
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Proposed Electronic Message Board for Visitation School
To Whom This May Concern:
We would like to provide the following comments and explanation regarding the proposed Daktronics
Electronic Message Board for Visitation School in Mendota Heights, MN.
Daktronics, Inc is the world leader in the design and manufacturing of electronic display systems. We are
committed to providing LED displays that adhere to the regulatory environment, working closely with
our customers for a responsible approach to the market.
Although Section 12-1D-15.E does not allow animated or flashing signs within R, B-1 or B-2 districts,
please consider the following information regarding the proposed electronic message board.
Aesthetics of Electronic Message Boards
Manual changeable copy signs have the potential for mis-matched letters and bland fonts, unlike
electronic signs, which allow for clear, easy to read messages. Electronic message boards improve the
aesthetics of a community, when properly regulated. The proposed sign for Visitation School is located
earest roadway and thus, far away from
any other signage. As a result, with the addition of such sign at Visitation School, the city of Mendota
Heights will still maintain its residential character.
Safety
It is important to note several studies have been performed over the years reviewing whether electronic
signs are a hazard to traffic safety. None have shown these signs are a hazard. Methods of operation
have already been developed and approved by the Federal Highway Administration as well as the
majority of states that appropriately regulate this valuable technology.
Also, I have included a link with additional safety studies, http://dakfiles.daktronics.com/. In particular,
note the Texas A&M on-premise safety study that was completed. This study also concluded that on-
Considering the studies performed evaluated the safety of electronic signs along roadways with much
higher speeds than average parking lot speeds, the proposed electronic sign will not create any
additional safety hazards.
Automatic Dimming Technology
02766
-
DF
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 68
The perceived brightness of an LED sign is dependent on a variety of factors. Ambient light conditions
play the largest role in impacting the brightness of the display.
An LED sign communicates its messages by emitting light. It therefore must not be too dim, since it
cannot be distinguished in sunlight; nor should it be too bright, as the image will be distorted and
difficult to read. During the course of the day, the sign will periodically adjust its brightness levels to
ensure it is operating appropriately. Automatic dimming technology is an asset as it ensures electronic
signs are not overly bright, given the ambient light conditions.
Brightness
The sign comes equipped with the ability to not exceed the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA)-based standards of 0.3 foot candles above ambient light as measured using a
brightness meter at a preset sign-to-viewer distance; in this case 50 feet (distance calculated using the
square root of the area of the sign times 100). The nearest residential areas, across Lake Drive, are
located over 300 feet away from the proposed sign. Since the illumination levels will continue to
decrease as the distance away from the display increases, the light visible to the residential areas would
be minimal and most likely immeasurable.
Also, the presence of other ambient light from adjacent roadways, parking lots, streets, the moon, etc.
further reduces the measureable light from the proposed digital on-premise sign. For example, the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America standards (as compiled by the International Dark Sky
Association) for outdoor illumination dictate that average lighting for local roadways should be 0.4 foot
candles. When considering the sign is equipped with the ability to not exceed 0.3 foot candles above
ambient light at its highest illumination on the roadway, the light from said display would be absorbed
by the light from the school, the parking lot and Lake Drive, located near the proposed sign location.
Community Benefit
The proposed electronic message board for Visitation School would actually benefit the community as a
whole, especially families with students that attend Visitation School. Such sign would allow school
administrators to more effectively relay information about school activities and events as a message
could be changed with a few clicks of a button. Additionally, the sign would allow administrators to
display multiple messages throughout a single day, which is useful when needing to relay several
announcements at one time. A manual changeable copy sign severely limits the amount of information
that can be relayed and frequently does not allow for several different messages to be relayed at once,
without cluttering up the sign. The ability to display different messages will
communication with its students and families. An increase in communication to students and families
and
the community as a whole.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
DAKTRONICS, INC.
02766
-
DF
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 69
Angela Bailey
State and Local Regulatory Affairs
605-692-0200 Ext. 56808
02766
-
DF
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 70
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 71
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 72
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 73
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 74
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 75
DATE:
September 23, 2014
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2014-22
Proposed Code Amendments
APPLICANT:
City of Mendota Heights
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
N/A
ZONING/GUIDED:
N/A
ACTION DEADLINE:
N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City is considering amendments to various sections of the City Code.
BACKGROUND
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.
ANALYSIS
1.Fence Encroachment \[12-1D-6(D)\]
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.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 76
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 accomplishthe intent of the ordinance, while making the approval
process more efficient and equitable.
2.Traffic Study Requirement
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 trafficcongestion 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.
3.Variances \[12-1L-5\]
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.
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 77
Proposed Amendment
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"”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, ifgranted, 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 the law 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.
4.Beekeeping \[12-1E-4(C)\]
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.
5.Park Dedication Procedure\[11-5-1\]
Current Standard
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
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 78
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. (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 RECOMMENDATION
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.
ACTION REQUESTED
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 46, as presented or as amendedby the Commission.
OR
2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 467.
OR
3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from Staff.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.DRAFT Ordinance 467
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 79
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 467
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-1D, 12-1E, 12-1L, AND 11-5 OF THE CITY CODE
OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING
VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
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 2.
Section 12-1D-17 is hereby added to read as follows:
12-1D-17: TRAFFIC STUDIES:
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 3.
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
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 80
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 4.
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 5.
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 6.
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.
Section 7.
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.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
Ord #467 – First Readingpage 2 of 2
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 81
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 82
9/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 83