2015-02-24 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA
February 24, 2015 – 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Adopt Agenda
4.Approve December 23, 2014Planning Commission Minutes
5.Planning Commission Appointments
6.Election of Chair and Vice Chair
7.Public Hearings(7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter):
a.Case No. 2015-01: Jacqueline Chase. Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use
Permit, Variance, and Wetlands Permit at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road.
b.Case No. 2015-02: James and Mary Waldvogel. Wetlands Permit at 2540
Arbor Court.
c. Case No. 2015-03: Steven Mangold, on behalf of Verizon and ISD 197.
Conditional Use Permit at 1897 Delaware Avenue.
d.Case No. 2014-37: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed amendmentto the
Wetlands System Chapter of the City Code.
e.Case No. 2015-04: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed amendmentto the
Zoning Chapter of the City Code.
8.2014 Planning Department Summary
9.Verbal Review
10.Staff Annoucements
11.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.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1
1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5December 23, 2014
6
7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
8December 23, 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 Howard
11Roston, Doug Hennes, and Mary Magnuson.Those absent:Commissioners Michael Noonan and
12Ansis Viksnins.Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City
13Engineer John Mazzitello.
14
Approval of Agenda
15
16
17The agenda was approved as submitted.
18
Approval of November 25, 2014 Minutes
19
20
21COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON TO
22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25, 2014, AS PRESENTED.
23AYES: 4
24NAYS: 0
25ABSENT: 2
26
Hearings
27
28
29PLANNING CASE #2014-36
30Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC, 2511 and 2525 Condon Court
31Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning
32
33City Planner Nolan Wallexplained that the applicant requested a comprehensive plan amendment
34and rezoning of the properties at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court. The subject parcels are collectively
351.26 acres and contain two single-family dwellings, both of which are zoned R-1 Residential and
36guided for Limited Business PUD Development in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has
37also submitted a concept development planas part of the application. Approval of the
38comprehensive plan amendment and the rezoning requests would allow the applicant to further
39pursue the project, which would require another planning application process.
40
41Planner Wall then shared an image of the properties and noted that the property at 2535 Condon
42Court is not a part of this application and is not a property that is owned by the applicant. He then
43shared the context of the areas surrounding the subject parcels. The request would be to amend the
44future land use designation for thesetwo specificparcels in the application to Medium Density
45Residential(MR). As part of this request, the determination should be made that the proposed used
46is compatible with the existing and future land uses that abut the area. Planner Wall also noted that
December 23, 2014 Mendota HeightsPlanning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2
47comprehensive plan amendments require a four-fifths affirmation by the City Council and
48ultimately Metropolitan Council approval as well.
49
50The Metropolitan Council classifies this specific amendment as a minor amendment; therefore, it
51does not require the adjacent review provisions that most other amendments may require so
52jurisdiction review and comment was not required. However, because of its proximity to the City
53of Eagan it was sent to them for review and they had no comments.
54
55There is Limited Business-PUD(LB-PUD) in the area and, according to the Comprehensive Plan
56that would include daytime office uses. That specific land use designation corresponds to the B-
571, B-1A, and B-2 zoning districts.The Medium Density Residential future land use designation
58does provide for townhome and attached housing development, and that would correspond to the
59R-2 and the MR-PUD zoning districts of the City Code.
60
61Specific to the rezoning request, these two properties are zoned R-1 which is the designation as
62well as the Visitation School property and the single-family residential to the east across Dodd
63Road and then to the north; which is consistent with the properties on the other side of the
64Visitation campus. The applicant requested to rezone these two parcels from R-1 (current
65designation) to the R-2 Medium Density Residential District. The remaining parcel on Condon
66Court is zoned B-1 Limited Business and is used as a single-family home (residential treatment
67program), in compliance with the Code requirements. The rezoning is then necessary to eventually
68construct the proposed concept development plan, which would be allowed in the R-2 zoning
69district.
70
71Planner Wall noted that the consideration of a rezoning request is reviewed as to its conformance
72with the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the corresponding zoning districts for thecurrent
73Limited Business-PUDfuture land use designation are not consistent with the current zoning of
74the subject parcels. However, the proposed R-2 District is consistent with the proposed Medium
75Density Residential (MR) future land use designation.
76
77If this application were approved, the applicants would then proceed with their plans to gain
78approval to subdivide the two subject parcels into five lots. Planner Wall shared an image of the
79proposed five lots. The applicants propose to construct two 2-unit townhomes and a new single-
80family dwelling. It would also include an extension of water and sewer utilities to the site at the
81applicant’s cost. Although this plan is not under consideration at this time, Planner Wall noted that
82proposed lots 3 and 4 would not comply with the minimum lot size standards for the R-2 District.
83The applicant is aware of this and has been in discussion with MnDOT to potentially acquire some
84additional property from their right-of-way to enable them to comply with the minimum lot size
85requirements. Planner Wall also shared images of the proposed elevation.
86
87Staff recommended approval of both requests with conditions.
88
89Chair Field also noted that the Commission and Planner Wall received communication from a
90neighboring property owner that were more related to the next steps of the potential project in
91relation to some potential construction impacts as well as landscaping and grading concerns. Staff
92assured them that there would be an additional process if the City Council and the Metropolitan
December 23, 2014 Mendota HeightsPlanning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 2
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3
93Council ultimately approved this. If and when the applicant comes back for a subdivision
94application, at that point in time those comments would be more relevant for consideration.
95
96Commissioners asked for clarification on which properties were and were not under consideration,
97the uniqueness of having two different zoning districts on one cul-de-sac with only one
98ingress/egress point, and the MnDOT right-of-way.
99
100Dick Bjorklund came forward to answer questions from the Commissioners regarding the history
101of the properties and the surrounding area.
102
103Chair Field opened the public hearing.
104
105See no one coming forward, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
106
107COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
108CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
109AYES: 4
110NAYS: 0
111ABSENT: 2
112
113COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
114TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,
115SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, AND
116ORDINANCE 470,BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1171.Limited business development in this area, in compliance with the goals and policies of the
118City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is unlikely at this time due to access, visibility,
119infrastructure, and market constraints.
1202.The proposed future land use designation is consistent with the surrounding existing and
121planned land uses.
1223.The existing zoning and land use on the subject parcels are not consistent with the current
123future land use designation.
1244.The required rezoning, in order to consider the proposed concept development plan,
125provides for increased residential density in the area and is consistentwith the surrounding
126zoning districts.
127AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1281.The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan Council.
1292.The applicant submits the necessary complete applications in consideration of the
130proposed concept development plan within twelve (12) months of receiving approval
131from the Metropolitan Council.
1323.If the deadline is not met, the current future land use designation and existing zoning for
133the subject parcels may remain in place.
134AYES: 4
135NAYS: 0
136ABSENT: 2
137Chair Fieldadvised the City Council would consider this application at its January 6, 2015
138meeting.
December 23, 2014 Mendota HeightsPlanning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 3
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4
139
140PLANNING CASE #2014-37
141City of Mendota Heights
142Proposed amendments to the Wetlands System Chapter of the City Code
143
144City Planner Nolan Wall explained that this is a city-initiated application for proposed amendments
145to the Wetlands System Chapter of the City Code, which concerns expansion of the eligible
146projects for administrative approval. Due to the absence of two commissioners and the fact that it
147is a city-initiated application and there is no rush to move forward, staff requested an action to
148table this application until the next Planning Commission meeting.
149
150COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
151TABLE PLANNING CASE #2014-37, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WETLANDS
152SYSTEM CHAPTER OF THE CITY CODE, TO THE JANUARY 27, 2015 PLANNING
153COMMISSION MEETING.
154AYES: 4
155NAYS: 0
156ABSENT: 2
157
2015 Planning Commission Meeting Calendar
158
159
160Planner Wall outlined the potential dates for the 2015 Planning Commission meetings and
161requested feedback as to any potential conflicts from the Commissioners.
162
163There were no objections from the Commissioners present; however, this calendar will be brought
164back to the next Planning Commission meeting for finalization.
165
Verbal Review
166
167
168Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
169
170PLANNING CASE #2014-33
171T-Mobile, 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive
172Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to Cellular Equipment
173•Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
174
175PLANNING CASE #2014-34
176Glenn Petersen, 2361 Field Stone Ct and 580 Waters Edge Terrace
177Wetlands Permit to Construction of Fence
178•Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
179
180PLANNING CASE #2014-35
181Matthew and Mary Paquette
182Proposed Code Amendment to Allow Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts
183•Denied by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
184
December 23, 2014 Mendota HeightsPlanning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 4
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5
185PLANNING CASE #2014-31
1862270 Wagon Wheel Court
187Lot Split and Lot Width Variance Request
188•After being tabled twice by the applicant, they have subsequently withdrawn their
189application. However, they plan to submit a new subdivision application as they and the
190surrounding property owner have reached an agreement for additional acquisition of
191property, which made the proposed variance part of the request null and void.
192
Staff Announcements
193
194
195The deadline to submit a resume and the letter of interest for the vacancies on the City
196Commissions is Monday, December29; send to HR Coordinator/Interim City
197Administrator Tamara Schutta at City Hall (Planning Commission, Airport Commission,
198and a non-voting student position on the Parks Commission)
199The City Council will be considering a number of planning-related issues at their annual
200goal-setting workshop in February(cell phone tower CUP process, fees for after-the-fact
201permits, chickens in residential zoning districts,and development goals for city-owned
202properties)
203City Engineer John Mazzitello provided an update on the Lemay Shores Development
204project by stating that the construction is underway, is a 60-unit, 30 townhome residential
205development located off of Lemay Lake Road. The contractor has begun clearing the site,
206removing vegetation, stumps, and installing erosion control measures. Over the winter,
207while the ground is frozen, they will be hauling out various quantities of construction debris
208that has accumulated over the years. As soon as road restrictionsare lifted and the ground
209is thawed, they will start the installation of the public infrastructure and the building of the
210model home.
211In regards to the search process for the new City Administrator, the personnel committee
212met on Friday, December 19, 2014 to review the 27 applications received. They selected
213the top seven or eight and forwarded them on to the full City Council. Interviews will be
214scheduled in January 2015.
215
Adjournment
216
217
218COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
219ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:32 P.M.
220
221AYES: 4
222NAYS: 0
223ABSENT: 2
December 23, 2014 Mendota HeightsPlanning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 5
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6
DATE:
February 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission Members
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission Appointments &Chair/Vice Chair Elections
BACKGROUND
Appointments
At the February 3 City Council meeting, Commissioners Doug Hennes and Mary Magnuson were
reappointed to new terms on the Planning Commission. In addition, Christine Costello was appointed to
serve the remainder of former Commissioner Robin Hennessy’s term.
Thank you to Doug and Mary for continuing to serve the City and welcome aboard Christine.
Elections
Title 2-1-3 of the City Code requires election of a planning commission chairperson and vice chairperson
at the February meeting each year. The term of both officers will last one year and becomeeffective at the
March meeting.
Also attached is the entire Code section regarding the planning commission for your reference.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission take action to elect a chairperson and vice chairperson.
Thismatterrequires a simple majority vote.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7
Item No. 2015-01
MEMORANDUM
Date:February 24, 2015
To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
From:Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner;
John Mazzitello, Public Works Director/City Engineer
RE:Planning Case 2015-01:Jacqueline Chase
1.Critical Area Permit to demolish existing structures and construct a new single
family home with attached garage in the Critical Area
2.Conditional Use Permit for new development within the Critical Area
3.Variance to allow grading of the site affecting slopes over 18%
4.Wetland Permit
Action
Deadline: April 6, 2015 (60 days from complete application submittal)
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Jacqueline Chase, wishes to build a new single family home with attached garage
on an existing lot at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road, within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area.
The lot is now occupied by a single family home and detached garage. The existing house and
garage would be removed.
The project requires:
Critical Area permittodemolish existing structures andconstruct the new home and
garage in the Critical Area
Conditional use permitfor new development in the Critical Area
Varianceto allow grading of the site affecting slopes over 18%
Wetlands permit
Development within the Critical Area requires scrutiny, but City staff’s approach to this project is
tempered by the following:
The lot is already built on.
There is significant development on the bluff around this site, especially between this lot
and the Mississippi River. Changes on this lot will have little or no impact on the Critical
Area, compared to what already exists.
The slopes in question on-site were manmade and not part of the original bluffline which
the Critical Area ordinance intends to protect and preserve.
The slopes in question on site do not drain to the river, but to a storm pond west of the site.
Total impervious surface on the site wouldbe reduced from the current condition.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8
February 24, 2015
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 2 of 7
Reference: 2015-01, Jacqueline Chase
BACKGROUND
The subject property is 1.42 acres (61,934 square feet) in area.
The property is guided LR Low Density Residential in the City’s Land Use Plan.
The property is zoned R-1 One Family Residential.
The proposed new home and garage is approximately 3,000squarefeet in area.
There are 3,840 square feet of other impervious surface (driveway, sidewalk and patio)
proposed on the site.
The total proposed impervious coverage on the site is 11.1%.
The total existing impervious coverage on the site is 16.5 %.
ANALYSIS
Understanding the purpose of the Critical Arearegulationsis important to this application:
12-3-2. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter:
To prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and
national resource
To promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational
and public areas,
To preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system
as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational
systems
12-3-8.A. Objectives: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic
integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These
standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as
provide sufficient setback for on site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to
minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground water.
The proposed development meets these objectives since it does not impact the shoreline or bluff
areas, does not involve an on-site septic system, provides adequate erosion protection, and
provides adequate pollution prevention measures.
There are a number of specific ordinance requirements that come together on this application:
1)Relation to Critical Area
12-3-14.A. Critical Area Permit: “The construction of any building or structure, or the
alteration of any land consisting of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of fill or
excavation, shall require a critical area permit from the city council.”
New structures are proposed; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9
February 24, 2015
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 3 of 7
Reference: 2015-01, Jacqueline Chase
2)Relation to bluff line
12-3-8.B.1: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet landward from the bluff
line of the river.
The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion
and aesthetic reasons. In this case, the buildable lot area is below the bluff line, so the
above standard does not apply. The existing house and garage are located in this
buildable area below the bluff line, as are numerous other houses and apartment
buildings.
3)Development on slopes between 18% and 40%.
12-3-14.B. Conditional Use Permit: Any affected activity requiring a critical area permit
on slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%) but less than forty percent (40%) shall
require a conditional use permit, and shall be required to meet the procedural and
performance requirements of this section. Conditional use permits under this chapter
shall be considered as follows:
. . . .
2. On lots where a principal building was present as of September 1, 2006, only
accessory or incidental structures shall be allowed under this clause on slopes greater
than eighteen percent (18%). Examples of such structures include fences, retaining
walls, landscape elements, decks and patios, or similar structures.
There are slopes between 18% and 40% that are beingdisturbed by this project and there
was a structure on this lot before 2006, so the above standards apply.
The grades in excess of 18% impacted by the proposed project appear to have been
man-made in conjunction with the installation of the existing driveway.
Drainage from grades in excess of 18% impacted by the proposed project drain away
from the Mississippi River and towards a storm water retention pond to the west of the
site.Impact to these grades will have little to no effect on drainage, erosion, or
sedimentation with respect to the Mississippi River.
4)Conditional use permit standardswithin the Critical Area.
12-3-16: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
Conditional use permits may be granted after an application process and a public
hearing according to the provisions of section 12-1L-6of this title. A conditional use
permit may be granted only when the following findings are made, in addition to those
conditions listed in this zoning ordinance:
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10
February 24, 2015
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 4 of 7
Reference: 2015-01, Jacqueline Chase
A.The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the critical area order and the
city's comprehensive plan;
B.The proposed use is compatible with uses in the immediate vicinity; and
C.The proposed use is allowed under the applicable ordinances of the city of
Mendota Heights.
The proposed development meets all three criteria above.
5)Variances can be granted from the standards.
12-3-15.B. When considering a proposal for a variance or other applications within the
Mississippi River corridor critical area, the planning commission and city council shall
address the following items in making their decision, in addition to those conditions
listed in this zoning ordinance:
1. Preserving the scenic and recreational resources of the river corridor, especially
in regard to the view from and use of the river.
2. The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions.
3. The prevention and control of water pollution, including sedimentation.
4. The location of the site with respect to floodways, floodplains, slopes and bluff
lines.
5. The erosion potential of the site based on degree and direction of slope, soil type
and vegetative cover.
6. Potential impact on game and fish habitat.
7. Location of the site with respect to existing or future access roads.
8. The amount of wastes to be generated and the adequacy of the proposed
disposal systems.
9. The anticipated demand for police, fire, medical and school services and
facilities.
10. The compatibility of the proposed development with uses on adjacent land.
The variance request, therefore, is to the provision of the ordinance prohibiting
development other than accessory structures on slopes greater than 18%.
The proposed development meets all ten of the above criteria. The variance can also be
considered againstthree of the criteria for variances in the Mendota Heights code
(Section 12-1L-5(A)):
There are in utilizing the site for a new home without disturbing
practical difficulties
the slopes in question.
The .
circumstances are unique to the property and not created by the landowner
Rather, they were created by the previous landowner, likely before the Critical
Area ordinance was in effect.
A variance to develop the property as proposed
will not alter the essential
. The characterof the surrounding neighborhood is
character of the neighborhood
of a completely developed suburban neighborhood. The proposed home will be
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11
February 24, 2015
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 5 of 7
Reference: 2015-01, Jacqueline Chase
compatible with the area, while being respectful of the slopes, adjacent
stormwater pond and surrounding properties.
6)Relation to normal high water.
12-3-8.B.2: “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 structures are outside the 100-foot bufferfrom the adjacent water body.
There is grading for the new driveway within 100 feet of the water body.This water body in
question is a manmade storm water treatment pond andis not the channel of the
MississippiRiver, the key resource protected by the Critical Area ordinance.
7)Heightlimit.
R-1 District: 12-1-E.D (3): Structure Height: No structure or building shall exceed two (2)
stories or twenty five feet (25') in height, whichever is the lesser in height. . .”
Critical Area Overly: 12-3-8.C: “All new structures shall be limited to thirty five feet. . .”
The proposed house is about 22.7 feetin height, as height is defined by ordinance. This
meets both the Critical Area Overlay District and the R-1 District standards.
8)Wetlands Permit
The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the Code Title (12-2-1) is to:
1.Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands/water
resource-related areas;
2.Maintain the natural drainage system;
3.Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of
vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of
the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation;
4.Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
5.Ensure safety fromfloods.
The proposed project would reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site; thus,
reducing the total flow rate and volume of storm water runoff (as demonstrated in the
applicant’s storm water model).
The Area Hydrologist for the DNR was alsoasked to review the plans and requested “that
additional plantings be incorporated in the landscaping plan that would limit any potential
runoff from the back patio areas before it reaches the area of steepest slopes.” The
applicant has agreed to revise the landscape plan to add such plantings.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12
February 24, 2015
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 6 of 7
Reference: 2015-01, Jacqueline Chase
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the
application for Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for the
Jacqueline Chase application with the following conditions:
1.The landscape plan shall be revised to provide additional plantings to meet the intent of
the DNR’s request, in consultation with the City Planner and City Engineer.
2.Construction of the proposed improvements shall be in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance Document.
3.Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1.Recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and
Wetlands Permit, with conditions.
OR
2.Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and
Wetlands Permitfor the proposed improvements based on the finding that the application
does not meet the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District.
OR
3.Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
The following exhibits are attached for your review:
1.Aerial Location Map
2.Site Photos
3.Planning Applications, including supporting materials
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13
February 24, 2015
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 7 of 7
Reference: 2015-01, Jacqueline Chase
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit
1680 Mayfield Heights Road
1.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District,
including the conditional use permit and variance standards.
2.The grades in excess of 18% impacted by the proposed project appear to have been
man-made and drain away from the Mississippi River and will not negatively impact the
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
3.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of
the City Code and adequate erosion control measures will be observed during
construction.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14
Planning Case 2015-01
City of
1680 Mayfield Heights Road
Mendota
070
Heights
Date: 2/2/2015
SCALE IN FEET
1016
1670
1041
1670
1012
1680
1693
1701
1011
1049
1045
1041
1031
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.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15
Planning Case 2015-01
Site Photos – 1680 Mayfield Heights Road Critical Area/Conditional Use/Variance/Wetlands Permits
Source: Staff (02.18.15)
Source: Staff (02.18.15)
Source: Staff (02.18.15)
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 31
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35
DATE:
February 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-02
Wetlands Permit Application
APPLICANT:
James and Mary Waldvogel
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
2540 Arbor Court
ZONED/GUIDED:
R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
April 6, 2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is seeking a Wetlands Permit to construct an addition to the existing single-family dwelling
and remove vegetationon the subject parcel. The proposed constructionis within 100 feet of a
wetland/water resource-related area and does not meet the conditionsfor an administrative approval. Title
12-2-6(A) of the Code requires a wetlands permit for the construction, alteration, or removal of any structure
and removal of vegetation within a wetland/water resource-relatedarea.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel at 2540 Arbor Court is 2.42 acres (105,525 square feet) and contains an existing single-
family dwelling abutting a wetland to the north.In addition, it is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and
guided for low density residential development. The applicant intends to construct an approximately 390-
square foot addition and 325-square foot deck on the east side of the existing dwelling, extending into the
rear yard. The entire dwelling was constructed within the 100-foot wetland/water resource-relatedarea and
received a wetlands permit in 2005, as part of Planning Case 2005-30.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s
request to construct an addition and deck areconsistent with the continued use as a single-family residential
dwelling.
Wetlands Permit
The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the Code is to (Title 12-2-1):
Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related
areas;
Maintain the natural drainage system;
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36
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;
Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
Ensure safety from floods.
As shown in the attached map, the proposed addition/deck will beapproximately 29 feet from the edge of
the wetland. According to the applicant, one tree within the rear yard is proposed to be removed. As shown
in the proposed plans, the addition/deck will be constructed on posts, which will result in minimal impacts
to the existing grades and will be reviewedas part of the final grading plansubmitted with thebuilding
permit application.
In addition, appropriate erosion control measures will be used to protect the adjacent wetland during
construction, no disturbanceor vegetation removalwill occur withinthe 25-foot non-disturb buffer area,
and the proposed addition/deck meets the required side and rear yard setback requirements. If approved,
the applicants intend to begin construction this summer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Wetlands Permit with the following conditions:
1.Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction.
2.No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, will occur
within 25 feet of the edge of the wetland.
3.Construction shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
ACTION REQUESTED
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1.Recommendapproval of the Wetlands Permit for construction of an addition/deck on an
existing single-family dwellingand vegetation removalwithin a wetland/water resource-
related area, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions.
OR
2.Recommend denial of the Wetlands Permit, for construction of an addition/deck onan existing
single-family dwelling and vegetation removal within a wetland/water resource-related area
based on a findingthat the proposed projectwillhave negative impacts on the wetland/water
resource-related area and is therefore inconsistent with the Wetland Systems Chapter of the
City Code.
OR
3.Table the request.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Aerial Site Map/Site Plan
2.Site Photos
3.Planning Applications, including supporting materials
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 37
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Wetlands Permit for Construction and Vegetation Removal
2540 Arbor Court
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City
Code.
2.Soil disturbance within the 100-foot wetland/water resource-related area will be minimized by the
construction techniques utilized for the proposed project.
3.No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25-foot non-disturb buffer area will occur
as part of the proposed project.
4.The proposed project complies with the setback requirements.
5.Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 38
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 39
Planning Case 2015-02
Site Photos – 2540 Arbor Court Wetlands Permit
Source: Staff (02.18.15)
Source: Staff (02.18.15)
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 40
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 41
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 44
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 45
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 50
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 51
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 52
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 53
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 54
DATE:
February 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-03
Conditional Use Permit for Wireless Antenna Facility Upgrades
APPLICANT:
Verizon/I.S.D. 197
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
1897 Delaware Avenue
ZONED/GUIDED:
R-1 One-Family Residential/S School
ACTION DEADLINE:
April 6, 2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicantis seeking a conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to the existing
facility at 1897 Delaware Avenue.Title 12-1D-4 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for
wireless antennas, subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is the Henry Sibley High School campus and I.S.D. 197 district offices (see aerial map).
The parcel is zoned R-1 One-Family Residential and guided as a school.The existing wireless antenna
equipment consists of building-mounted antennas and related equipment located on the roof, and was
originally approved in 1998 as part of Planning Case 1998-09.In addition, the building currently has
cellular antenna mounts for other cellular carriers.
ANALYSIS
Title 12-1D-4 of the Code contains regulations regarding wireless antennas, towers, and accessory
structures and requires a conditional use permit in all zoning districts. The purpose of the Code section is
to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the
communication needs of residents and businesses, and is necessary to:
1.Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through
structural standards and setback requirements.
2.Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be
screened from properties within viewingdistance of the site and to be designed in a manner to blend
in with the surroundings and complement existing structures.
3.Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing
light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas.
4.Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by utilizing
collocation.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 55
5.Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of
the city.
The proposed wireless antenna facility upgradesare necessary to incorporate Advanced Wireless Service
(AWS), and is described in the attached plans as follows:
Remove (12) panel antennas(2) Distribution boxes
Add (12) panel antennas(6) Sector boxes
(3) Couplers(6) 2RRUHybrid cables
(3) RRUs-12/A2
The Code section also contains the followingspecific evaluation criteria for a conditional use permit
application.
Wireless Antenna Facility
Title 12-1D-14 contains the following provisions, which are analyzed based on the submitted materials:
C. Building Mounted Antennas:
1.Permitted Buildings: Antennas may only be mounted on institutional buildings (churches, schools,
businesses, etc.) or multiple-family dwellings two (2) stories or higher. Wireless telecommunications
antennas are not permitted on attached or detached single-family homes or townhome dwellings.
The existing location is on top of an institutional building (school).
2.Flush Mounting; Color:
a.Building mounted antennas must be flush mounted to the sides of the building and painted the
color of the building exterior unless the applicant can demonstrate to the council that
protrusion above the roofline is necessary for communication effectiveness.
Not applicable, the existing building-mounted wireless antenna structures were approved in 1998.
b.In no case shall building mounted antennas or any attachment thereto be allowed to protrude
more than fifteen feet (15') above the roofline of the building.
The upgraded equipment will be compliant with the 15-foot height limit.
3.Agreement To Mount On City Property: If both the applicant and the city consent to mounting the
antennas on the city's water tower or other municipal building, a developer's agreement may be
necessary at the discretion of the city in addition to a conditional use permit.
Not applicable.
E. Aesthetics:
1. Design: All freestanding antenna towers shall be of a monopole type design. The use of guyed towers is
prohibited.
Not applicable.
2. Color:
a. Those portions of all freestanding antenna towers and all antennas which protrude into the air
shall be painted eggshell.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 56
b. Those portions of all antennas that are flush mounted to the sides of buildings shall be painted
to match the exterior of the building.
The upgraded equipment will be painted to match the existing equipment.
3. Screening: All accessory buildings to all freestanding towers shall be screened from public view by a
landscape plan according to the landscape standards of the appropriate zone and as described in
subsection 12-1D-13-2D1 of this article subject to council review.
Not applicable.
4. Advertising: Advertising of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna,
or accessory structure.
No advertising currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facility.
5. Lighting: Artificial lighting of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower,
antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by the FCC, the FAA, or another federal
or state regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting required shall
be allowed.
No lighting currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facility.
6. Prohibitions: Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the city to be specifically
necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas shall be prohibited on any antenna or tower without
express permission from the city unless the city grants a waiver to this requirement.
The applicant is required to comply with this provision.
F. Safety:
1. Report Of Compliance: For a freestanding antenna tower, the applicant must provide a report from a
licensedqualified professional structural engineer certifying that the tower will meet or exceed current
EIA/TIA-222-E standards including, but not limited to, standards for withstanding meteorological
conditions such as high winds and radial ice.
Not applicable.
2. Compliance With Building And Electrical Codes: All antennas, freestanding antenna towers, and
accessory structures shall conform to all building and electrical codes.
The applicant is required to comply with this provision.
3. Fencing: The applicant may be required by the council to erect a security fence around any freestanding
antenna.
Not applicable.
G. Accessory Structures For Antennas:
1.Location And General Requirements: Accessory buildings to antennas or freestanding antenna towers
must lie completely within all applicable setbacks from all property lines and must otherwise conform
to all requirements for accessory buildings within the description of the specific zone.
2. Architecture:
a. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with any principal structures on the site or, in the absence of such structures, with their immediate
surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing manner.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 57
b. Accessory structures shall be finished on all sides.
c. Theplanning commission shall review and the council shall approve the design of any accessory
structures and equipment buildings.
Not applicable, the accessory structure is located on the roof and no exterior modifications are being
proposed.
H. Additional Requirements:(responses summarized from the applicant’s letter)
1. Abandoned Structures:
a. Removal Required: Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or
apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases.
b. Bond: A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the city equal to one and a
1
half (1/) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying
2
apparatus as estimated by a consultant selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, which
bond shall be used by the city to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused
or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to
remove said antennas and apparatus.
The applicant is required to comply with these provisions.
2. Other Required Licenses: The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local
licenses to the council prior to receiving a building permit.
The applicant is required to comply with this provision.
3. Interference With Public Safety Systems Prohibited: The applicant must agree in writing to support,
participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications
and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the federal communications commission (FCC).
The applicant is required to comply with this provision; see attached letter.
4. Coverage/Interference And Capacity Analyses: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a
coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding
antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, frequency reuse and
spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to
areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing
structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities.
See attached maps.
5. Compliance With FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required: All new or existing telecommunications
service and equipment shall meet or exceed all federal communications commission (FCC) standards and
regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or
manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to
the city a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the
FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference.
The applicant is required to comply with this provision; see attached letter.
6. Environmental Impact Statement: In the event that the FCC or other agency or other governmental body
having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement or similar
document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the city.
Not applicable.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 58
7. Nonconformances: Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory
structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or
accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6) months, in which case,
resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a conditional use permit.
The applicant is required to comply with this provision.
8. Area Map: All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building
mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of the same provider
within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for
the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius ofthe proposed site.
See attached maps.
9. Costs To Applicant: All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by city staff
time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by the city staff,
the planning commission or the city council shall be borne in full by the applicant.
The applicant is required to comply with this provision.
10. Variances: The council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this section in order
to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design of freestanding antennas or poles or building
mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees,
light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects.
Not applicable.
11. Prohibitions: Use of mobile cell/PCS sites or COWs (cell sites on wheels), or any other temporary
antenna apparatus is strictly prohibited except in the case of emergency equipment used for public safety
purposes for a limited time during or in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency.
(Ord. 429, 8-3-2010)
The applicant is required to comply with this provision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades will not resultin any significant physical changes to the
existing structures. The visual changes will relate primarily to the relocationof the new antennas and will
be painted to match the existing equipment.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permitfor wireless antenna facility upgrades to an
existing facility, with the condition that the applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of theCity
Code, as outlined in the staff report.
ACTION REQUESTED
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1.Recommendapproval of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an
existing facility, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions.
OR
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 59
2.Recommend denial of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an
existing facility, based on the finding of fact that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Code
and Comprehensive Plan.
OR
3.Table the request.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Aerial Site Map
2.Planning Application, including supporting materials.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 60
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit Request for Wireless Antenna Facility Upgrades to an Existing Facility
1897 Delaware Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such
facilities.
2.The proposed project willnot 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.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 61
Planning Case 2015-03
City of
1897 Delaware Avenue
Mendota
0390
Heights
Date: 2/11/2015
SCALE IN FEET
PRESERVE PATH
P
RIVATE ROAD
DARLA CT
SIBLEY CT
W
MENDOTA RD
HWY 110
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.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 62
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 63
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 64
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 65
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 66
.ǒĻƌƌ /ƚƓƭǒƌƷźƓŭͲ LƓĭ͵
ЊЌЏЉ 9ƓĻƩŭǤ tğƩƉ 5ƩźǝĻͲ {ǒźƷĻ ЋЊЉ
{ğźƓƷ tğǒƌͲ aźƓƓĻƭƚƷğ ЎЎЊЉБ
ΛЏЎЊΜ ЋЋЎΏЉАВЋ
ǞǞǞ͵ĬǒĻƌƌĭƚƓƭǒƌƷźƓŭ͵ĭƚƒ
Site Acquisition
Permitting
Established 1991
February 4, 2015
Hand Delivered
Mr. Nolan Wall
City Planner
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
Re: Verizon Site #: MINC Sunfish
Site Address: 1897 Delaware Ave. Mendota Heights MN
Conditional Use Permit Request
Dear Nolan,
Section 12-1D14 Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures
This letter will address of
Mendota Heights Ordinance. In this section there is a request for Additional Requirements that touch upon
interference with the public warning system, coverage/interference analysis, compliance with FCC standards and an
area map showing all Verizon Wireless facilities within a (2) mile radius.
I have attached the following which should provide the information required to satisfy these requirements. You
will find:
A non-Interference Letter from Verizon which states confirmation that the equipment will not interfere with
public safety or private communications. It also states that all equipment is in compliance with the FCC.
A Capacity and Coverage Analysis for MIN Sunfish (1897 Delaware Ave)
A map of MIN Sunfish and surrounding existing sites.
Verizon has enjoyed the relationship that is has with the City of Mendota Heights and the property owner, the
Independent School District 197, since 1996. Verizon wants to continue on with providing the best possible service
for its customers in this community.
Please let me know if there is any further information that is required Nolan. And again, thank you for all of
your assistance with this application.
Sincerely,
Steven Mangold
Buell Consulting
stevenmangold@msn.com
Agent for Verizon Wireless
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 67
12
Letter to Nolan Wall 2/4/15 Page of
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 68
Jordan Alstad
RF Engineer
Mobile (612)719-5587
Verizon Wireless
22
Letter to Nolan Wall 2/4/15 Page of
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 69
Capacity and Coverage Analysis for MIN Sunfish AWS Carrier Add
2-4-2015
Jordan Alstad
The proposed modification to the existing MIN Sunfish site is designed to add equipment for the new
AWS spectrum Verizon has been deploying in cities across the nation to expand the capacity of its
existing 700 MHz LTE network. The Twin Cities is one of the areas of AWS deployment, and several cell
sites, including some surrounding the MIN Sunfish site, have already been upgraded to include AWS
equipment. The map below shows where AWS coverage exists: Green areas show where AWS coverage
is strong, that is where almost all connections will be reliable. Yellow areas show where AWS coverage is
fair, that is, connections will mostly be reliable, but some areas indoors may cause connection issues.
Red areas show where AWS coverage is poor; while some connections will be reliable, many others will
have reduced quality, especially in high traffic and indoor areas. White areas show where users will not
be able to connect to the AWS network at all, and will have to rely on the traditional 700 MHz network
for LTE connections.
Map of Existing AWS Coverage
As can be seen from the map, users traveling along MN-110 between I-35E and I-494, and users along
Dodd Rd, will have no access to the AWS network. The existing 700 MHz network will have to support all
of the LTE traffic in those areas, which causes capacity issues. Adding AWS to the Sunfish site, as will be
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 70
seen on the next map, will relieve the traffic along those highways, allowing all users a superior
experience on the Verizon network.
Map of Proposed AWS Coverage
The above map shows the improvement in the AWS coverage surrounding the Sunfish site. Now users
along MN-110 and Dodd Rd, as well as the neighborhoods in the area, will be able to utilize the new
AWS spectrum for LTE connections instead of being forced to rely on the existing 700 MHz network.
The purpose of adding AWS capability to the existing sites is to provide capacity relief for the existing
network. Customers who are able to access the new AWS spectrum will no longer be contributing to
traffic on the existing network, and will experience increased speeds on the new spectrum. Customers
outside of the area will experience increase speeds due to the reduced traffic, which will improve
customer experience for everyone.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 71
ağƦ ƚŅ aLb {ǒƓŅźƭŷ ğƓķ {ǒƩƩƚǒƓķźƓŭ 9ǣźƭƷźƓŭ {źƷĻƭ
9ǣźƭƷźƓŭ {źƷĻ ǞźƷŷ tƩƚƦƚƭĻķ
aƚķźŅźĭğƷźƚƓƭ
Њ ƒź
9ǣźƭƷźƓŭ {ǒƩƩƚǒƓķźƓŭ {źƷĻ
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 72
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 73
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 74
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 75
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 76
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 77
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 78
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 79
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 80
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...22201
o//5
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 81
DATE:
February 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2014-37
Proposed Code Amendments – Wetlands Systems Chapter
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 Title 12, Chapter 2 of the City Code concerning wetlands systems.
BACKGROUND
Staff has identified potential code amendments concerning the wetlands permit administrative approval
process for discussion and recommendation by the Planning Commission. The goal is to clean-up and
streamline the approval process for certain activities. The applicationwas originally presented at the
December 23, 2014 Commission meeting, but was tabled to allow for review and comment by the full
Commission at an upcoming meeting.
ANALYSIS
As contained in DRAFT Ordinance 471, the following amendments are proposed; the rationale for each is
provided under the applicable section:
Title 12-2-6(C) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND EXEMPTIONS
1.All proposals to adjust a W district boundary line shall follow the same administrative procedures
as outlined in section 12-1L-7of this title.
2.Permit application shall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified for the
processing of a conditional use permit under the city zoning ordinance.
The revision is necessary to clarify that an administrative approval process under this chapter is not
subject to the same process as a conditional use permit. Conditional use permits require a public
hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The
purpose of an administrative approval process is to expedite the approval of qualifying applications,
in compliance with certain conditions –as in #3 below.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 82
3.Where a project is proposed within the wetlands district, the city administrator may, at his or her
discretion, direct the appropriate staff member to review the permit request for administrative
approval when all of the following conditions exist:
a.No change from existing grades.
b.No increase in building or structure square footage.
c.Porch enclosure of an existing deck no larger than two hundred (200) square feet.
d.No increase in impervious surface coverage.
e.No reduction in natural vegetation cover.
f.Compliance with all other applicable zoning regulations.
g.Construction or repair of a private residential fence, in compliance with 12-1D-6 of this
title.
If all other conditions included in #3 are met and the fence is compliant with the applicable
construction standards, staff canapprove applications for fences within a wetlands/water
resource-related area administratively. A similar process that required conditional use permit
approval for fences encroaching into rights-of-way was recently amended to allow for
administrative approval.
h.Construction of an accessory structure not requiring a building permit.
The City currently does not require a building permit for an accessory structure under 200
square feet. However, the current Code requires a wetlands permit for the construction,
alteration, orremoval of any structure \[12-2-6(A)(4)\]. As long as all other conditions and
applicable standards are met and a building permit is not required, staff can approve
applications for accessory structureswithin a wetlands/water resource-related area
administratively.
i.Emergency repairs to an existing structure or land that requires immediate action to
mitigate any additional negative impacts.
An expedited approval processshould be allowedin this case. Examples of potential projects
include streambank or infrastructure repair, slope stabilization, or structure reinforcement.
j.Removal of invasive terrestrial plants and noxious weeds, by agreement with the City and
in compliance with best management practices.
The City encourages this activity because of the potential benefit to native vegetation in
wetland/water resource-related areas. The agreement requirement ensures best management
practices are followed andthat the permit can be revoked if violated.
k.Removal of dead, dying, or diseasedvegetation, by agreement with the City and in
compliance with best management practices.
The Cityalsoencourages this activity to prevent the potential spread of emerald ash borer and
dead vegetation washing into water bodies. The agreement requirement ensures best
management practices are followed and that the permit can be revoked if violated.
4.The city administrator, or designee,may issue an administrative approval. Such approval may
include conditions if those conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with the intent and/or
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 83
specific regulations of the wetlands ordinance or other applicable regulations. If issues are found
in the application that disqualify the request from administrative approval under this section, the
city administrator shall refer the application to the planning commission for review under
subsection C2 of this section. (Ord. 441, 2-21-2012)
The revision is necessary to be consistent with 12-2-6(C)(3) above, which allows the city
administrator to direct the appropriate staff member to review an administrative permit application.
The designee would also be allowed to approve the administrative permit, which would most likely
be the Public Works Director/City Engineer or City Planner.
Title 12-2-10(A): FEES
Proposed Amendment
Base Fees: To defray administrative costs for processing of wetlands permit applications, a base fee as set
by resolution of the city council shall be paid by all applicants. Base fees as set by resolution of the city
council shall also be required for a permit renewal and for an application approved administrativelyas a
minor development under subsection 12-2-6 12-2-6C3of this chapter. (1981 Code 402 §12; amd. 2003
Code)
Rationale
The revisionis necessary to clean-up the current reference to a “minor development,” which no longer
exists in the Code.
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.Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 471, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 471.
OR
3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.DRAFT Ordinance 471
2.Planning application, including supporting materials
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 84
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 471
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-2-6 AND 12-2-10 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTACOUNTY, CONCERNING
WETLANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Section 12-2-6(C) is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Administrative Procedures And Exemptions:
1.All proposals to adjust a W district boundary line shall follow the same administrative procedures
as outlined in section 12-1L-7of this title.
2.Permit applicationshall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified for the
processing of a conditional use permit under the city zoning ordinance.
3.Where a project is proposed within the wetlands district, the city administrator may, at his or her
discretion,direct the appropriate staff member to review the permit request for administrative
approval when all of the following conditions exist:
a.No change from existing grades.
b.No increase in building or structure square footage.
c.Porch enclosure of an existingdeck no larger than two hundred (200) square feet.
d.No increase in impervious surface coverage.
e.No reduction in natural vegetation cover.
f.Compliance with all other applicable zoning regulations.
g.Construction or repair of a private residential fence, in compliance with 12-1D-6 of this
title.
h.Construction of an accessory structure not requiring a building permit.
i.Emergency repairs to an existing structure or land that requires immediate action to
mitigate any additional negative impacts.
j.Removal of invasive terrestrial plants and noxious weeds, by agreement with the City and
in compliance with best management practices.
k.Removal of dead, dying, or diseased vegetation, by agreement with the City and in
compliance with best management practices.
Ord #471 – 02.24.15 DRAFT for Planning Commission Review page 1 of 2
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 85
4.The city administrator, or designee,may issue an administrative approval. Such approval may
include conditions if those conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with the intent and/or
specific regulations of the wetlands ordinance or other applicable regulations. If issues are found
inthe application that disqualify the request from administrative approval under this section, the
city administrator shall refer the application to the planning commission for review under
subsection C2 of this section. (Ord. 441, 2-21-2012)
Section 2.
Section 12-2-10(A) is hereby amended to read as follows:
A.Base Fees: To defray administrative costs for processing of wetlands permit applications, a base
fee as set by resolution of the city council shall be paid by all applicants. Base fees as set by
resolution of the city council shall also be required for a permit renewal and for an application
approved administratively as a minor development under subsection 12-2-6 12-2-6C3 of this
chapter. (1981 Code 402 § 12; amd. 2003 Code)
Section 3.
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, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
Ord #471 – 02.24.15 DRAFT for Planning Commission Review page 2 of 2
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 86
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 87
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 88
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 89
DATE:
February 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-04
Proposed Code Amendments – After-the-fact Permit Fees
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 Title 12, Chapter 1, Article L of the City Code concerning fees and
deposits.
BACKGROUND
Staff has identified apotential code amendment concerning after-the-fact permit fees for discussion and
recommendation by the Planning Commission. In 2014, the City approved twoafter-the-fact permits
involving non-compliant vegetation removal activities. Currently, the City only has the authority to charge
additional fees for after-the-fact building and sign permits, as in Title 9-1-1(A) and Title 12-1D-15(B)(2)
of the City Code.
In order to charge additional fees for after-the-fact zoning permits (critical area permit, conditional use
permit, variance, wetlands permit, etc.), the City Code must be amended to grant the authority. If approved,
language would also be added to the Fee Schedule. Actions requiring an after-the-fact permit are also
subject to the General Penalty provision, as in Title 1-4-1(A), which provides a penalty for violations of the
City Code.
ANALYSIS
As contained in DRAFT Ordinance 473, the following amendment is proposed:
12-1L-10: FEES AND DEPOSITS:
A. Base Fees: The base fees to be paid for each application shall be established by ordinance. Base fees
shall be payable at the time applications are filed with the city clerk and shall not be refundable unless said
application is withdrawn prior to referral to the planning commission. In addition to any other remedies
available to the city, a doublefee shall be charged if action requiring any permit required by this Title is
undertaken without first obtaining a permit for such action.
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 90
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment. 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.Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 473, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 473.
OR
3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.DRAFT Ordinance 473
2.Planning Application
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 91
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 473
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-1L-10 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING
AFTER-THE-FACT PERMIT APPLICATION FEES
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Section 12-1L-10 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12-1L-10: FEES AND DEPOSITS:
A. Base Fees: The base fees to be paid for each application shall be established by ordinance. Base fees
shall be payable at the time applications are filed with the city clerk and shall not be refundable unless
said application is withdrawn prior to referral to the planning commission. In addition to any other
remediesavailable to the city, a doublefee shall be charged if action requiring any permit required by this
Title is undertaken without first obtaining a permit for such action.
Section 2.
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, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, CityClerk
Ord #473 – DRAFT for Planning Commission Review page 1 of 1
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 92
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 93
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 94
2/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 95
DATE:
February 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall,AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Year 2014 Planning Department Summary
In cooperation with other city departments, the Planning Commission, and the Consulting Planner, the Planning
Department accomplished the following tasks in 2014:
1.Reviewed 18building permits for construction of new single-family homes –see attached map.
2.Processed 37 applications(some with multiple requests) – see attached map, including:
12 Conditional Use Permits1Concept PUD
8 Variances1 Critical Area Permit
7 Lot Splits1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
7 Wetlands Permits (2 administrative)1 Rezoning
6 Code Amendments (see #3)
3.Considered amendments to various sections of the City Code, including:
Electronic display signageBeekeeping districts
Fence ROW encroachmentsPark dedication requirement
Traffic study requirement Automatic pool cover exemption
VariancesChickens in residential zoning districts
4.Approved site plans for twomajor development projects in the Industrial District:
United Properties: 97,000-square foot industrial building on 8.3 acres
Southview Design: 17,000-square foot office building and outdoor storage yard on 3.25 acres
5.Analyzed Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Proposed Rules:
Participated in the MnDNR’s rules revision process and presented the information to the Planning
Commission and City Council for comments
Submitted comments on behalf of the City regarding the proposed Rules
6.Reviewed and approved amendments to the final plat, PUD, and developer’s agreement for LeMay Shores:
60-unit twin home development on approximately 67 acres west of Resurrection Cemetery and east of
LeMay Lake
7.Processed 92 code enforcement complaints.
8.Planned the annual Spring Clean-Up, including the following:
226 participants10,680 lbs. of waste (approx.)
6,840 lbs. of electronics34 appliances
6,660 lbs. scrap metal55 bikes
D
R B
ON
K
NL HTUOS
TS KAO
WACHTLER AVE
ARVIN DR