2014-09-23 Planning Comm Minutes
1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4 PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5 September 23, 2014
6
7 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
8 September 23, 2014, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
9
10 The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Michael
11 Noonan, Doug Hennes, Robin Hennessy, Mary Magnuson, Howard Roston, and Ansis Viksnins.
12 Those absent: None. Others present were Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City
13 Engineer John Mazzitello.
14
Approval of Agenda
15
16
17 The agenda was approved as submitted.
18
Approval of August 26, 2014 Minutes
19
20
21 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON TO
22 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2014, AS PRESENTED.
23
24 AYES: 7
25 NAYS: 0
26
Hearings
27
28
29 PLANNING CASE #2014-26
30 Wayne Cummings, 2054 Acacia Drive
31 After-the-fact Wetlands Permit Wetland Permit for Vegetation Removal
32
33 Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking an after-the-fact wetland permit to
34 remove vegetation at 2054 Acacia Drive. The subject parcel is 0.64 acres, contains an existing
35 single-family dwelling, and is located along the northwest shore of Lake Augusta within the
36 Augusta Shores Development. A substantial portion of the rear yard is also within a conservation
37 easement that was established as part of the developer’s agreement that was approved in 1999.
38
39 Staff was made aware of the vegetation removal within the easement area and determined a
40 violation of the wetlands system chapter of the code occurred for action without a permit. The
41 wetlands chapter does require a permit for vegetation removal within the 100-foot buffer area of a
42 wetland or water resource related area.
43
44 Planner Wall shared a map of the affected area that showed where the five elm trees that were dead
45 or dying that were removed. According to the applicant, buckthorn and dead or dying elm trees
46 were removed from the rear yard in 2006 and 2007. The trees ranged in size from six to ten inches
47 in diameter and the stumps were left undisturbed. The impacted area is now devoid of significant
48 vegetative cover and the 25-foot non-disturb buffer area that the City likes to see directly from the
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1
49 water resource related area is not visible during high water levels. It has been maintained as a
50 grassy area since the buckthorn was removed. Since being contacted by the City, the property
51 owner is no longer maintaining the impacted area and regrowth is occurring.
52
53 The conservation easement area does contain a mixture of mature trees and natural and invasive
54 ground cover vegetation, and that is meant to provide a buffer between the development and the
55 lake. The extent of the cover does limit access and visibility of the lake from the development, but
56 the remainder of the conservation easement area in the development is largely natural and
57 unaltered, and it was dedicated to maintain a buffer and reduce unintended run-off into the lake.
58
59 It was also noted that Lake Augusta does suffer from poor water quality, which is due to excessive
60 nutrients from release of phosphorus from the lake bottom and run-off from streets and yards in
61 the watershed. In addition, the lake is land-locked without any outlet structures or streams.
62 Continued vegetation removal and degradation of the buffer area is not recommended.
63
64 Planner Wall included in his report language on after-the-fact permit requests regarding City Code
65 violations and noted that, since becoming aware of the violation, the property owner has been
66 responsive to staff’s concerns and through the application process. However, if the Planning
67 Commission does feel that citation is necessary they can recommend that to the City Council.
68
69 Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions.
70
71 Commissioners asked questions about their role in recommending the issuance of citations;
72 confirmation that the removal occurred seven to eight years ago and that maintenance of the area
73 as a yard has continued until the City was made aware of it; and the possibility of approval if the
74 request had come before City staff in the proper sequence.
75
76 Mr. Wayne Cummings, 2054 Acacia Drive, came forward to explain that he did not remove the
77 buckthorn but paid someone else to do that. However, he did help remove the dead trees. Planner
78 Wall replied that the applicant, as with other cases, is ultimately liable or responsible for actions
79 on his property.
80
81 Commissioners asked if there had been any other kind of significant removals from the area since
82 2006 or 2007, other than mowing for a path to the lake; if the homeowner was aware of the
83 conservation easement agreement at the time of the tree and buckthorn removal; and if he was
84 comfortable with abiding with the recommendation that there be no more removal of vegetation
85 in the area.
86
87 Chair Field opened the public hearing.
88
89 Mr. Tom Hanschen, 2158 Lemay Lake Drive, current president of the Augusta Shores
90 Homeowners Association, explained that he was the one who called the City. The Association has
91 been operating under the conservation easement which says you may remove noxious species,
92 which includes buckthorn. The wetlands permit was new to him and was unaware of having to
93 comply with that as well. He believes that if the buckthorn returns the homeowner should be able
94 to remove it. However, the continued mowing of the impacted area is inappropriate, so he would
95 be in support of the after-the-fact wetlands permit.
96
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2
97 Planner Wall commented that staff is not saying that the homeowner could not continue to remove
98 the buckthorn, but as part of this application further removals are not allowed and he would need
99 to apply for an additional wetlands permit to do that.
100
101 Mr. Gerald Reed, 2050 Acacia Drive, asked if the need for a wetlands permit to remove buckthorn
102 including poison ivy. Planner Wall indicated that the permit would be required and he made a
103 suggestion that the homeowners association apply for a blanket wetlands permit and have the
104 buckthorn, etc. removal done by a professional organization.
105
106 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
107
108 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
109 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
110
111 AYES: 7
112 NAYS: 0
113
114 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
115 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-26, AFTER-THE-FACT
116 WETLANDS PERMIT WITH THE CONDITION THAT FURTHER TRIMMING WITHIN THE
117 EASEMENT AREA IS PROHIBITED, THE NATURAL VEGETATION IS ALLOWED TO RE-
118 GROW, AND FURTHER REMOVAL BE THE SUBJECT OF A SEPARATE WETLANDS
119 PERMIT APPLICATION.
120
121 AYES: 7
122 NAYS: 0
123
124 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 7, 2014
125 meeting.Chair Field suggested that the next two items be presented together since they are related,
126 and can be broken down into two issues for voting purposes. Planner Wall and the Commission
127 agreed.
128
129 PLANNING CASE #2014-27
130 Sarah and Aaron Macke, 744 Woodridge Drive
131 Critical Area Permit for various improvements
132
133 PLANNING CASE #2014-28
134 Sarah and Aaron Macke
135 Proposed Code Amendment to allow an exception for swimming pool fencing requirements
136
137 In regards to Planning Case #2014-27, Planner Wall explained that the applicants are seeking a
138 Critical Area Permit to construct improvements within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical
139 Area, which requires City approval prior to construction. The subject parcel is zoned R-1 and
140 guided for low density residential development. It currently contains an existing single-family
141 dwelling, which was approved by a Critical Area Permit and constructed in 2010. The proposed
142 project includes a swimming pool, a retaining wall, patio, fence, and expansion to the existing
143 screen porch.
144
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
145 Planner Wall explained the purposes of the Critical Area Overlay Zoning District, which included
146 the development standards, natural resource management, and grading and drainage. He also
147 shared the portion of the City Code pertaining to swimming pool regulations, the retaining wall,
148 landscaping, and the screen porch expansion.
149
150 The applicants are also proposing a code amendment that would allow an automatic pool cover as
151 an exception to the fencing requirements. If denied, they would propose to construct a 5-foot tall
152 black ornamental three-rail aluminum fence, which would surround the entire pool area.
153 Compliance would be verified with the building permit application.
154
155 Staff recommended approval of the Critical Area Permit based on the finding that the application
156 meetings the policies of the critical area district, with conditions. Planner Wall noted that the
157 Department of Natural Resources was noticed and they responded that they had no comments on
158 the application.
159
160 In regards to Planning Case #2014-28, Planner Wall explained that the applicants are seeking a
161 code amendment to allow automatic pool covers as an exception to the swimming pool fencing
162 requirements. As noted above, the applicants would construct a fence if this code amendment was
163 not approved. If approved they would not construct a fence.
164
165 The Letter of Intent included in the Commissioner’s packet of information included the rational
166 for consideration for their proposed amendment, which Planner Wall explained. Draft Ordinance
167 469 was also included in the Commissioner’s packet of information.
168
169 Planner Wall noted that the proposed code language is the same as in affect in the City of Inver
170 Grove Heights. There are other jurisdictions that allow exceptions to the fencing requirements for
171 automatic covers, including Maplewood, Sunfish Lake, Rochester, and Scott County. The City
172 Council did consider a similar amendment in 2005 and that proposed code amendment included
173 two additional conditions. That proposed code amendment was denied by the City Council.
174
175 Planner Wall then reviewed the intentions of the Safety Barrier Requirements for private outdoor
176 swimming pools.
177
178 Staff recommended denial of the Proposed Code Amendment.
179
180 Commissioners asked the need for a code amendment if the City Council has the discretion to
181 allow pool covers in lieu of fencing if they determine that automatic pool covers; when properly
182 used, provide the same protection as a compliant fence and gate system; how would an automatic
183 cover work; why the Council denied the code amendment request previously; and excavation and
184 the potential for degradation of the bluff during the pool installation.
185 Specific to the Chair’s question regarding excavation activities, Public Works Director/City
186 Engineer Mazzitello responded that upon review of the preliminary grading plan, none of the
187 grading is taking place in any areas over 12% slope, which is in compliance with the Critical Area
188 guidelines. In addition, the proposed pool and patio are being built in the excavation mark for the
189 house that was constructed 4 years ago. No evidence of any bluff degradation has been observed
190 as a result of construction of the house, so there is no reason to believe any degradation will occur
191 as a result of the excavation for the pool.
192
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4
193 Ms. Sarah Macke, 744 Woodridge Drive came forward to address the Commissioners and
194 explained how a pool cover would work.
195
196 Commissioners asked questions regarding the “automatic” pool cover.
197
198 Chair Field opened the public hearing.
199
200 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
201 hearing.
202
203 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
204 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
205
206 AYES: 7
207 NAYS: 0
208
209 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
210 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-27 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR
211 VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION
212 MEETS THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY
213 DISTRICT, AND
214 with the following conditions:
215 1.Building, fence, and grading permits are approved by the City prior to construction of the
216 proposed improvements.
217 2.Construction of the proposed improvements shall be in compliance with the City’s Land
218 Disturbance Guidance Document.
219 3.The swimming pool is not to be drained toward any bluff line.
220
221 AYES: 7
222 NAYS: 0
223
224 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON,
225 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-28, PROPOSED CODE
226 AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN EXCEPTION FOR SWIMMING POOL FENCING
227 REQUIREMENTS, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
228 1.The proposed exception for automatic pool safety covers meets industry safety and weight-
229 bearing standards.
230 2.Automatic pool covers, when closed, cover the entire pool surface and can enhance safety
231 if access is gained to the pool area.
232 3.The proper use of automatic pool covers can save water by retaining heat and reducing
233 evaporation.
234 4.Swimming pool fencing can disrupt natural areas and animal movement.
235
236 Chair Field recommended that the additional conditions mentioned by Planner Wall earlier be
237 included in the motion:
238 A.The property owner shall provide proof of insurance specific to the Pool Safety Cover.
239 B.The property owner shall provide proof of inspection of the Pool Safety Cover by the
240 installer to the City on an annual basis.
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5
241 Discussions took place regarding the need for the additional conditions in light of the proposed
242 code amendment language; the possibility of changing the language in the conditions; and what
243 other items require recurring inspection reports on private properties.
244
245 Commissioners Hennes, Roston, Hennessy, and Magnuson explained their reasons for
246 recommending approval of the application.
247
248 Chair Field and Commissioners Noonan and Viksnins explained their reasons for denying the
249 application.
250
251 For means of clarification, the conditions being added to the motion are:
252 A.The property owner shall provide proof of liability insurance coverage.
253 B.The property owner shall provide proof of inspection of the Pool Safety Cover by an
254 experienced installer to the City on an annual basis.
255
256 AYES: 3 \[Magnuson, Hennes, Roston\]
257 NAYS: 4 \[Viksnins, Hennessy, Chair Field, Noonan\]
258
259 The motion did not pass.
260
261 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
262 RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-28, PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT
263 TO ALLOW AN EXCEPTION FOR SWIMMING POOL FENCING REQUIREMENTS,
264 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
265 1.The current City Code swimming pool fencing requirements are consistent with safety
266 barrier guidelines from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and are appropriate
267 for the majority of residential properties in order to provide protection against potential
268 drownings and near-drownings by restricting access.
269 2.Automatic swimming pool covers do not alone provide adequate safety measures and
270 should only be used to complement the existing regulations.
271
272 Ayes: 4 \[Viksnins, Hennessy, Chair Field, Noonan\]
273 Nays: 3 \[Magnuson, Hennes, Roston\]
274
275 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 7, 2014
276 meeting.
277
278 PLANNING CASE #2014-29
279 Convent of the Visitation School
280 Conditional Use Permit for an electronic display sign at 2455 Visitation Drive
281
282 Planner Nolan Wall explained that the application was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to erect
283 an electronic display sign on the Visitation Campus. The City recently amended the code to allow
284 this type of signage for qualifying uses in the residential districts, subject to numerous conditions.
285
286 As per the signage application package that was reviewed by the Commission and City Council,
287 this is an existing sign that would be refurbished to have the capability of having an electronic
288 display component.
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6
289 Planner Wall briefly reviewed the requirements and conditions necessary for this type of signage
290 and how the proposed signage relates to them and would be in compliance.
291
292 Staff recommended approval of this application.
293
294 Chair Field asked that the staff report provided by Planner Wall be included in the public record
295 on this.
296
297 Commissioners asked questions regarding the required hours of operation and the need for
298 additional applications for additional signage.
299
300 Mr. Greg Engel, Director of Operations at the Convent of the Visitation, along with Dr. Dawn
301 Nichols, Head of School came forward to address the Commission.
302
303 Commissioners asked questions regarding how many days a week the sign would be operational.
304
305 Chair Field opened the public hearing.
306 Ms. Sonja Hauter, 2371 Rogers Avenue, has just moved into her home which is located right across
307 the street from Visitation School. She asked how the LED lumens compare with the current parking
308 lot lights. Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello replied that a lumen is the
309 measurement of the intensity of light and is not specific to a light source. The LED’s being
310 proposed are dimmer than the surrounding light in the parking lot and, therefore, should not add
311 any brightness to what is already there.
312 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
313
314 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS,
315 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
316
317 AYES: 7
318 NAYS: 0
319
320 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNESSY,
321 TO RECOMMEND APPPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-29, CONDITIONAL USE
322 PERMIT FOR AN ELECTRONIC DISPLAY SIGN, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE
323 APPLICATION MEETS THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND WITH THE
324 CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN A SIGN PERMIT.
325
326 AYES: 7
327 NAYS: 0
328
329 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 7, 2014
330 meeting.
331
332 PLANNING CASE #2014-22
333 City of Mendota Heights
334 Proposed Code Amendments
335
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7
336 Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City is considering various amendments to the Zoning and
337 Subdivision Ordinances within the City Code. Over the past year, staff has identified a number of
338 potential amendments packaged into a single application for consideration. The goal would be to
339 clean up, clarify, and simplify certain sections in order to improve the interpretation and
340 implementation of those ordinances.
341
342 The proposed amendments were summarized in the staff report and were included in Draft
343 Ordinance 467. Staff recommended that the Commission consider this either as a first reading of
344 all or some of the components, any questions or additional conditions or changes that the
345 Commission would like to make could be brought back.
346
347 Planner Wall then reviewed each of the proposed amendments:
348 1.Fence Encroachment \[12-1D-6(D)\]
349 2.Traffic Study Requirement \[Proposed Amendment 12-1D-17\]
350 3.Variances \[12-1L-5\]
351 4.Beekeeping \[12-1E-4(C)\]
352 5.Park Dedication Procedure \[11-5-1\]
353
354 Commissioners asked questions and made suggestions regarding traffic studies.
355 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
356 TABLE ORDINANCE NO. 467 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-1D, 12-1E, 12-
357 1L, AND 11-5 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
358 DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS.
359
360 Ayes: 7
361 Nays: 0
362
Verbal Review
363
364
365 Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
366 PLANNING CASE #2014-17
367 Ned Rukavina and Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane
368 Front and Side Yard Setback Variances
369 •Tabled by the City Council at the July 1 and July 15 City Council Meetings
370 •Application has been withdrawn
371
372 PLANNING CASE #2014-20
373 Paul and Shannon Burke, 645 Sibley Memorial Highway
374 After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit for Clearcutting within the Mississippi River Corridor
375 Critical Area
376 •Per request by the Planning Commission, reports have been received from a Geotechnical
377 Engineer and from a Landscape Architect. The DNR has reviewed the documents.
378 •In order to allow for extended review time and for the applicant to attend the meeting, this
379 topic has been scheduled for the October 21, 2014 City Council Meeting.
380 PLANNING CASE #2014-21
381 Tom Christ, on behalf of Will and Katie Stewart, 667 Ivy Falls Court
382 Wetlands Permit
383 •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8
384 PLANNING CASE #2014-23
385 SAC Wireless on behalf of AT&T, 1196 Northland Drive
386 Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to Wireless Antenna Tower
387 •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
388
389 PLANNING CASE #2014-24
390 SAC Wireless on behalf of AT&T, 894 Sibley Memorial Highway
391 Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to Wireless Antenna Tower
392 •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
393
394 Some form of administrative approval for the Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to Wireless
395 Antenna Tower was met with much agreement by the City Council. Commissioners can expect to
396 see that topic at a future meeting.
397
Staff Announcements
398
399
400 The “Stand Up for Scott” benefit for slain Police Officer Scott Patrick’s family will be held
401 on Saturday, September 27 from 1:00 – 10:00 P.M. at Moose Country with live music and
402 raffle drawings.
403 This was Commissioner Robin Hennessy’s final meeting as a member of the Planning
404 Commission. She began her term in 2013 and staff expressed their appreciation for her
405 service to the community and wished her and her family the best of luck in their new
406 community.
407 The next Planning Commission meeting is October 28, 2014.
408
Adjournment
409
410
411 CHAIR FIELD ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:31 P.M.
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9