Loading...
2014-08-26 Planning Comm Minutes CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES August 26, 2014 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 26, 2014, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioners Howard Roston and Robin Hennessy. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of July 22, 2014 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2014, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2014-21 Tom Christ, on behalf of Will and Katie Stewart, 667 Ivy Falls Court Wetland Permit for Vegetation Removal and Construction Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a wetlands permit to remove vegetation and construct a pool and a sport court at 667 Ivy Falls Court. The subject parcel is .68 acres and contains an existing single-family dwelling and abuts a tributary stream to Ivy Creek at the rear of the property. The property is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential development in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project includes the following improvements:  720 square foot pool  676 square foot sport court  Landscaping and sod  Ornamental fence  1,950 square foot pool deck  20 foot diameter fire pit/paver patio  Boulder wall August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 The proposed activities are within 100 feet of a water resource related area and do not meet the conditions for administrative approval. The wetlands chapter of the code does require a permit for vegetation removal and construction within the buffer area. According to the landscape plan, the improvements would be approximately 40 to 60 feet from the stream bank. The vegetation to be removed includes an ash tree, two pin oaks, and numerous saplings and ornamental landscape plants. With the proposed improvements distance from the stream and the limited land disturbance within the 25 foot non-disturb area staff felt satisfies that the purpose and intent of the code and recommended approval of this application. Commissioners requested clarification on which vegetation in the area is proposed to be removed, asked questions regarding the erosion control plan, and the landscape plan. Mr. Will Stewart, 667 Ivy Falls Court; and Mr. Tom Christ, 245 Indian Trail South, Afton came forward to answer any additional questions from the Commission regarding the erosion control plan and the landscape plan. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Ted Taylor, 670 Maple Park Drive, stated that the views from his property overlook the applicant and so he was very concerned with what is being planned. He reminded everyone that trees provide oxygen, cooling, and waste water evaporation. The loss of trees would cause more run-offs to occur simply by not being there. He also noted that the letter that was sent to the surrounding neighbors downplayed the extent of the construction and the amount of impervious surface to be installed. He has put in a rain garden to help with absorption of roof run-off back into the soil and is very concerned about this project. Especially since no before or after elevations were shown in the documents he was able to find on- line. Ms. Julie Leslie, 680 Maple Park Drive, lives across the creek from the applicant. The reason she and her family moved into the neighborhood was because of the location, the quiet, the privacy, the trees, and the nature. They have put up with the noise of construction since the spring and are tired of the lights that shine into their bedroom windows each night from this residence. If this permit were to be approved it would not only increase the noise, it would decrease privacy and negatively impact the nature in the neighborhood. She expressed her opposition to this proposal and listed several points she felt staff failed to acknowledge in their report. Mr. Dave Byrne, 669 Maple Park Drive, is a member of the homeowners association in the area, but was not speaking on their behalf. The homeowners’ association property has some large and small banks and there is concern about being called to account someday if they agree to changes with the banks that run through all of these creek beds within the area. He wanted to go on record that he, personally, is opposed to this application. August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 Mr. Tom Christ returned to address the concerns expressed by the neighborhood residents. Commissioners asked additional questions regarding vegetation and landscape possibilities and whether or not there would be lighting on the sports court. Ms. Agnes Taylor, 670 Maple Park Drive, noted that the staff report claimed that the applicant’s property is on a tributary that flows into Ivy Creek. She corrected that statement by claiming that the property abuts the actual creek, not a tributary. She also expressed her concern about the removal of trees to install a wall that everyone would be able to see six months out of the year. Planner Wall clarified that grading, drainage, and erosion control plans would be required as part of the building permit for construction of these improvements. The application before the Commission was only for the wetlands permit. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-21, WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. 2.No existing vegetation within the required 25-foot buffer area will be removed. 3.Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.Building, fence, and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction. 2.Area between the proposed construction and the normal water level of the stream (minimum of 25 feet) is to remain undisturbed and naturally-vegetated. 3.Construction and restoration activity, to include re-vegetation of disturbed areas, shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Commissioner Magnuson offered an additional condition and that would be that the applicant provide a list of trees that are going to be removed from the property for review by staff and that no additional trees, other than what is contained in the list, would be removed as part of the project. \[Addition by Commissioner Noonan\] A planting list would be provided which would detail the vegetation that would be planted as part of this project. Planner Wall responded by stating that the application dealt with the vegetation that was to be removed, which is covered in the applicant’s letter of intent. However, it is reasonable to request August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 that the applicant update the landscape plan to include a table showing what was removed and a planting schedule for the additional improvements. Commissioners Noonan and Viksnins approved the addition of the condition. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 2, 2014 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2014-23 SAC Wireless, on behalf of AT&T, 1196 Northland Drive Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to a Wireless Antenna Facility City Planner Nolan Wall explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades. The purpose of this upgrade would be to increase the data and call capacity in the existing service area. The code does require CUP approval for wireless antennas. The parcel is approximately 1.4 acres and bordered by Northland Drive to the north, Highway 55 to the east, I-494 to the south, and an office building in the industrial park to the west. The property is zoned and guided for industrial development in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing various upgrades and installation of new equipment on the existing tower. The subject parcel is actually owned by the City and AT&T operates this tower under a lease agreement. Planner Wall shared an image that showed the visual impact of the improvements, which would not increase the height of the existing structure and no exterior modifications are being proposed to the existing accessory structure. The applicant has complied or will comply with all of the conditions included in the code for approval of this Conditional Use Permit request. Staff recommended approval with conditions based on the findings of fact. Mr. Chris Rohr of SAC Wireless, 4300 Market Point Drive, was on hand to answer questions from the Commission. He stated if AT&T knew that they would be required to request a CUP on top of a CUP to add an antenna and some gear to an already existing tower, they would not have done it. He is in charge of 257 sites and on 95% of them this would be a straight building permit application since it is already a cellular installation; it’s not like starting on a piece of raw land. He also noted that this installation would increase capacity but would not increase coverage. The existing equipment cannot handle the density of the users with their data plans. In effect, they would be going from three to four antennas on the array and would change out a little gear in the equipment enclosure – which does not have any outside affect. August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-23 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR UPGRADES TO A WIRELESS ANTENNA FACILITY, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such facilities. 2.The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3.Upgrading the wireless antenna facility’s antennas and equipment will help increase the data and call capacity in the service area. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.The applicant shall abide by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined in the Staff report. 2.The applicant, or applicant’s representative, will draft an amendment to the existing Lease Agreement to be signed by the City. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 2, 2014 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2014-24 SAC Wireless, on behalf of AT&T, 895 Sibley Memorial Highway Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to a Wireless Antenna Facility Planner Nolan Wall explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades; same circumstances and rationale as Planning Case 2014-23, which the Commission had just heard. Planner Wall also noted that although it is burdensome on the applicant to have to go through a CUP 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 Page 5 not any increases to the tower height or any increases or expansions of those existing accessory structures. The subject parcel is approximately .76 acres and is located between the CDI Building, the Excel Energy property, and approximately 230 feet west of Sibley Memorial Highway. The property is zoned B-1 and guided for limited business in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has complied or will comply with all of the conditions included in the code for approval of this Conditional Use Permit request. Staff recommended approval with conditions based on the findings of fact. Planner Wall also noted that this property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor or Critical Area. However, since there were no changes to the ground area or the height of the structure staff determined that a Critical Area Permit was not necessary for this request. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-24, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR UPGRADES TO A WIRELESS ANTENNA FACILITY, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such facilities. 2.The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3.Upgrading the wireless antenna facility’s antennas and equipment will help increase the data and call capacity in the service area. 4.The proposed project does not include any ground disturbance and the exiting wireless antenna structure’s replacement and upgraded equipment will be painted to match the existing equipment and will not have a negative impact on the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1.The applicant shall abide by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined in the Staff report. August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 2, 2014 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2014-20 Paul and Shannon Burke, 645 Sibley Memorial Highway After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit for Clearcutting within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting an after-the-fact approval of a Conditional Use Permit to clear cut vegetation in the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area. The applicant did receive a Critical Area Permit in October 2013 to construct a new single family dwelling on the subject parcel. On July 1, 2014 staff was made aware of the clearcutting activity within that impacted area and it was determined that action was not included as part of the landscape plan of the approved Critical Area Permit. Staff investigated the issue and notified the property owners of the appropriate course of action. Planner Wall shared an image of the property with the dwellings and improvements that were on the property as part of the Critical Area Permit, as well as the impacted area. This After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit only addresses the clearcutting activity that took place within the impacted area this summer; any additional cutting or trimming may need to be considered in an additional request in the future. The applicant was required to provide a Hillside Vegetation Restoration Plan and noted that the impacted area would be re-evaluated in September in order to insure that appropriate regrowth has occurred. If at that time it is determined by staff or by the landscape architect working with the property owner that additional plantings are needed, this planting schedule would be implemented immediately. Clearcutting is allowed in the critical area by Conditional Use Permit but is subject to compliance with a number of different conditions. Planner Wall reviewed each of those conditions and related how the application applies. Planner Wall further explained that the City is authorized to issue a citation for violations of the code provisions, which would be a maximum of up to a $1,000 fine in this case. No citation has been issued at this time. The Planning Commission could consider that as a condition of approval and forward on to the City Council. Staff recommended approval of the After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit with conditions. August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 Commissioners asked questions regarding the deepness of the area of clearcutting, what would happen if this application was not approved, the proposed conditions, the Hillside Vegetation Restoration Plan, and what would be ‘inadequate’ regrowth. Mr. Paul Burke, 645 Sibley Memorial Highway; and Mr. Jeff Feulner with Keenan & Sveiven, 15119 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, were on hand to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Burke stated that he hired St. Croix Tree Service, who espoused knowledge of the regulations for trimming within the bluff zone and they provided a letter in which they claimed to have contacted the City last fall in anticipation of doing this trimming, and he turned the tree trimming activities over to them to provide some improvement in the views. However, he certainly would not characterize their work project as clearcutting. Commissioners asked the applicant questions regarding the sharing of the current situation with St. Croix Tree Service and what their reaction was, the purpose of the removal, if St. Croix Tree Service was involved in the previous cutting, how recent was the previous cutting, and if a permit had been issued for the previous cutting. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Planner Wall read a comment from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, which was received the afternoon of this Planning Commission meeting. Their recommendation is to get erosion control measures in place, as needed, to stabilize the slope before vegetation takes root to prevent any destabilization of the slope. Mr. Marco Scibora, 647 and 649 Sibley Memorial Highway, expressed his opposition to the granting of this Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the previous clearing had been done by the previous owner in 2003 and at that time, the mature trees were cut down to four feet from the ground to allow for growth. As a next door neighbor, he was very concerned about liability to his property. He has lost approximately one foot of his property since 1998 to erosion and severely questioned the consequences of this clearcutting event on his and his neighbors’ properties. Mr. Scibora also questioned the hiring of the landscape architect to evaluate the regrowth. After speaking with the Department of Natural Resources, he believed that a geotechnical engineer would be better qualified to evaluate the site. He wished that he had been given the opportunity to express his opposition before the event took place. He believed that allowing this violation of the code to pass by without consequences would be wrong. He also wanted it put on the record that he requested the City issue a bond insurance to protect his property until this potential for erosion has been taken care of. Commissioners asked Mr. Scibora to confirm that, according to his experience; the previous cutting was not as extensive as this one and asked questions regarding his request for denial of the application. August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 Mr. Tom Diamond, 2119 Savage Drive, St. Paul addressed the specific regulations in place that have been established by the state to protect the slope, wildlife habitat, and views along the river. He stated that clearcutting of the bluff is flat out prohibited in the critical area. He continued by describing the area in this application as being approximately 80 feet by 80 feet with the grade being roughly 66% slope. Now that the clearcutting has been done, it is very important that the natural habitat be restored. The vegetation restoration plan is a landscaping plan – not a bluff restoration plan and it will not have the root structure necessary to protect the bluff. Also, the applicant keeps referring to ‘trimming’ when what occurred was ‘clearcutting’. The record indicates that this was done without a required permit and that the City is considering using a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the clearcutting after the fact. He suggested that the permit specify that the vegetation, including trees, must be allowed to regenerate; and that if the regeneration of the vegetation does not happen then they must be re-established and restored, including trees; and the replacement vegetation must be a mix of the species which are native to that bluff area. Mr. Burke returned to address concerns and opinions expressed in the public hearing. He stated that the area that was cut was no different in size than what was cut in the past and, as in the past, regrowth will occur. Mr. Fuelner return to address the comments about the Hillside Vegetation Restoration Plan and the reasons for using the plantings as proposed should the review require that the plan be implemented. Commissioners asked questions regarding if and when a geotechnical engineer would be consulted; the training, background, and experience of the landscape architect that would give them the ability to make a determination as to whether or not there has been any slope failure. Ms. Phyllis Dosch, 1028 Brompton Place, expressed her concerns about the bluff. She also indicated that the cutting done in 2003 was illegal and that the property owner at the time was either penalized or threatened with penalty. She wondered why this is even being discussed as it should never had been done in the first place; and what is to prevent someone else from doing it as well. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Commissioners asked additional questions regarding the possibility of recommending a fine; the CUP approval running with the land and, therefore allowing clearcutting in the future; the August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 provisions of the ordinance that would allow clearcutting; and if the contractor is liable for anything in this situation. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPPROVAL OF AN AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CLEARCUTTING WITHIN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.The applicant supplies a report from a licensed landscape architect on the status of the vegetation re-growth in the impacted area as soon as possible after September 1, 2014. If determined to be inadequate, the Hillside Vegetation Restoration Plan will be implemented immediately. 2.Any additional trimming or cutting, which is determined to require additional permitting, will be included in a separate Critical Area Permit application for consideration. AND WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 3.At the expense of the applicant, a geotechnical engineer be retained to conduct a sight investigation to assess whether clearcutting activity has undermined or impacted the slope and if so to advance corrective and mitigation measures to be implemented immediately. As a discussion item, Commissioner Noonan suggested the immediate implementation of a restoration plan, approved by the City of Mendota Heights and the DNR. It was determined that this is covered sufficiently under condition three. Commissioners discussed the possibility of adding a fine. Chair Field suggested Condition number two be amended to read: 2.No trimming, cutting, or any alteration of the slope may occur except in complete conformity with the provisions of the City Code relating to the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, and all other City Codes. Commissioners Magnuson and Viksnins accepted this additional condition as part of the motion. After the question was raised about what would happen if the conditions were not met, the addition of the condition was suggested: 3.If a restoration plan is required to be implemented, a performance bond in compliance with City Code requirements be posted guaranteeing the value of the work and posted for a two year period following complete implementation. Commissioners Magnuson and Viksnins accepted this additional condition as part of the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 Chair Field advised the City Council may consider this application at a future meeting, but not necessarily the first meeting in September. Planner Wall confirmed that due to the additional August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 conditions and reporting required from the applicant, it would most likely be considered at a future City Council meeting. PLANNING CASE #2014-22 City of Mendota Heights Proposed Code Amendments Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City is considering various amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances within the City Code. Over the past year, staff has identified a number of potential amendments packaged into a single application for consideration. The goal would be to clean up, clarify, and simplify certain sections in order to improve the interpretation and implementation of those ordinances. There being no rush to review or approve these amendments, the Commission requested that this topic be postponed to a future meeting. The Commission also requested that when this is brought back that some definition be provided as to what would trigger a traffic study. Verbal Review Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2014-19 Mark Gergen, on behalf of Corey Morrisette and Gail Darling, 641 Callahan Place Subdivision Request •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Amendments to the Final Planned Unit Development Plan, Final Plat, and the Development Agreement were approved for the Lemay Shores Development. PLANNING CASE #2014-25 786 Marie Avenue Wetlands Permit was approved administratively for an emergency stream bank restoration. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:11 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 August 26, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11