Loading...
2011-11-22 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Agenda November 22, 2011 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the October 25, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings a. Case No. 2011-32: City of Mendota Heights, Ordinance 440, amending Title 12 Chapter 4 of the City Code pertaining to aircraft noise reduction. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 6. Old Business a. Discussion of Wetlands Permit Processing b. Discussion of Critical Area Permit Processing c. Institutional Accessory Building Conditional Use Permits d. Commercial Property Maintenance Standards 7. Verbal Review 8. Adj ourn 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 Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 25, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Magnuson, Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent and excused: Commissioner Hennes. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval ofAgenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of July 26, 2011, Minutes COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2011, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Approval of September 27, 2011, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2011, AS PRESENTED. AYES: NAYS: M Hearings PLANNING CASE #2011-03 City of Mendota Heights Ordinance 439, amending Title 12 of the City Code pertaining to flood districts Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of the City of Mendota Heights to amend Zoning Ordinance 439. He explained that recently the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) updated its floodplain maps for Dakota County, including maps specific to Mendota Heights. With the issuance of the updated maps, the city is required to update its floodplain management regulations, thus maintaining its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Grittman noted that the draft presented for review is essentially the DNR model ordinance. He explained the changes from the previous DNR model are slight, collapsing three floodplain districts into two and making procedural and regulatory changes. However, for the purposes of Mendota Heights, the changes are extraordinarily minor because only one small area at the west boundary is subject to these regulations. Mr. Grittman explained that in most cases the city would look through the regulations in a lot of detail to determine how they may impact areas of the community. But since this ordinance impacts a small area, staff recommends the city adopt the model as provided by the DNR. He noted the land use on this impacted parcel, Jack's Manufacturing, will eventually require significant redevelopment in any case. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 Commissioner Roston asked if this is the only property within the jurisdiction of Mendota Heights that would be impacted by this ordinance. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative and used a map to point out the location of the parcel and small portion within the floodplain. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE NEW FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its November 1, 2011, meeting. Old Business a. Discussion of Critical Area Permit Processing b. Discussion of Wetlands Permit Processing Planner Stephen Grittman explained staff was unable to compile the requested materials and suggested these items be tabled to the November meeting. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO TABLE DISCUSSION OF CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT PROCESSING TO THE NOVEMBER 22, 2011, MEETING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 New Business a. Commercial Property Maintenance Standards Planner Stephen Grittman explained staff has prepared an outline of what the ordinance will contain, noting the contents follow the current Residential Property Maintenance Code. This format provides a familiar framework so staff will have a good handle on enforcement. He explained that a more fully developed draft ordinance will be presented at the November 2011 meeting Commissioner Noonan referenced Section 12.83C relating to building maintenance adjacent to residential and Section 12.85G relating to ground maintenance adjacent to residential. He asked if there will be other policies to address ground and building maintenance when adjacent to land uses other than residential. Mr. Grittman explained this is just an outline and the intent is that each section will address general and specifics guiding building and ground maintenance requirements and special regulations that apply specifically to residential. b. Institutional Accessory Building Conditional Use Permits 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 Planner Stephen Grittman stated this item was discussed several months ago. He explained the current zoning ordinance contains specific rules for accessory building size and because it allows most institutional uses in residential zones, the ordinance applies residential accessory building rules to institutional projects. As discovered with the Visitation School project, this does not translate well to institutional projects due to having to address size issues through the variance process. Mr. Grittman stated staff has laid out a structure to amend the district language to specifically address the possibility of allowing more accessory building space for institutional projects. He noted staff had proposed alternative ways to approach the issue to set a threshold size for institutional uses or tie accessory structures to the size of the lot or building. Mr. Grittman explained that for tonight's discussion, staff would like to receive the Commission's feedback. Staff will then present a draft at a future meeting for public hearing. Commissioner Roston stated he thinks the city needs to be careful to not "tinker" with normal residential lots so he would prefer setting a baseline lot size to which this language would apply. He suggested the lot size be large enough to assure it will not apply to single family homes. Commissioner Roston stated support for alternative 2, basing the size of the accessory structure on the size of the parcel. He stated he wants to be objective in treating people the same, which would be accomplished if using a ratio based on the size of the property. Mr. Grittman asked if that scenario would allow a percentage of the acreage. Commissioner Roston answered in the affirmative, noting it could also be calculated as a hard surface restriction or floor/area ratio. Chair Noonan asked the commission to keep in mind that it should also consider the exterior footprint and building height. He noted that a garage with spancrete can allow the use of the space below so a garage can be constructed with a basement, main floor, and even an attic without much impact to the appearance. He suggested the language also address the building footprint and height requirements. Commissioner Noonan stated this ordinance largely deals with institutional uses in a residential zone. He asked what is the smallest lot with an institutional use in a residential zone, noting if dealing with a small lot the city needs to be careful about the proportionate basis. Mr. Grittman advised that places of worship would be the smallest nonresidential uses in a residential zone and most have 3-4 acres as the minimum size. Commissioner Noonan asked whether a residential use can be established as a place of worship. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Noonan stated in that case the proportionate square footage requirement would have to be looked at closely. Mr. Grittman noted that Commissioner Roston had suggested a minimum acreage threshold be established, which would avoid that scenario. Chair Norton stated if the lot size is below the established threshold, it would have to comply with the regular rules. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative and explained another way to deal with it is proportionate to the size of building on the property. He noted, however, that method does not always work. Mr. Grittman cited the Par Three Golf Course as an example, noting it has a very small club house and so the maintenance building would have to be some portion of that size. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the commission would want to consider a maximum number of accessory buildings on a property. She noted it is conceivably possible to get to 1,000 sq. ft. with ten accessory buildings. Mr. Grittman advised the current code allows a maximum of three accessory buildings. He pointed out that Somerset Golf Course and Visitation School have four or five buildings but a maximum number could be set as long as it does not establish unintended non -conformities. Commissioner Magnuson felt a larger parcel could withstand a higher number of accessory buildings so, perhaps, the number of accessory buildings allowed should be tied to the size of the property. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2011 Commissioner Roston agreed the number of acceptable accessory buildings may depend on the size of the property, especially if the accessory buildings are not seen. Mr. Grittman stated staff will inventory the number of accessory buildings on a single parcel and report back. Chair Noonan pointed out that golf courses often have several small storm shelters. Mr. Grittman advised that from a code standpoint, they would qualify as accessory buildings. Chair Noonan stated asked staff to address this issue since it is common to see on a golf course. Mr. Grittman stated his perspective that regulating accessory buildings proportionate to the size of the parcel is the most reasonable/practical method because it is relatively easy to administer and for property owners to understand. Staff will present a draft ordinance at a future meeting for public hearing. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11-20 New Cingular Wireless Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. PLANNING CASE #11-27 New Cingular Wireless Conditional Use Pen -nit • Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. PLANNING CASE #11-26 Frank Pilney Wetlands Permit • Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. PLANNING CASE #11-28 Robert and Kathy Thompson Critical Area Permit • Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. PLANNING CASE #11-29 Dodge Nature Center Wetlands Permit • Approved by the city council as recommended by the planning commission. Commissioner Field reported the Mendakota Sign was installed and looks quite nice. Commissioner Roston inquired regarding city council feedback on the process for critical area. Mr. Sedlacek advised the city council is awaiting feedback from the planning commission after its November 2011 meeting. Adjourn COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:25 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary M NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: November 17, 2011 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2011 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Airport Noise Attenuation Code CASE NO: Case No. 2011-32; NAC Case 254.04 — 11.33 APPLICANT(S): City of Mendota Heights LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background and Description of Request. As noted in the attached staff letter of intent, the City is considering an amendment to its Airport Noise Attenuation ordinance that will shift the requirements of the code from a previously published map of zones to an actual map of noise contours. The effect of this change will be in three elements: 1. Changes the area to which the code applies from the previous 65 dnl map zone to the actual area of 60 dnl. 2. Creates a regulation more closely tied to actual conditions by annually updating the noise contour map, within which noise attenuation would be required. 3. The effective result, in Mendota Heights, of actually reducing the affected area (despite the lowering of the dnl threshold) due to remapped noise contours from those used in the original code. Depending on MSP airport operations, the dnl noise contours will likely change. Thus, the code may have varying application from year to year. However, this impact would appear to be offset by the more accurate reflection of existing conditions, and the consistency established between the codes of other affected jurisdictions. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: (1) Approval of the revised Airport Noise Attenuation Code as presented by staff. This recommendation should be based on a finding that the revised code more accurately depicts the impacts of airport noise on the Mendota Heights community, and permits the application of regulations in those areas that are actually impacted by airport noise. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations adoption of the revised code as presented, consistent with the recommendation of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission. Supplementary Materials: Application Materials dated 10/31/2011 2 r CRY Mendota n _ ag, h APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. 11 - -��) Date of Application 1011 Fee Paid Applicant Name: �d-t-e-9- —PH: (-O---",� �-� 1 L4 (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address:-��,Y)hf„(�' Address: �k (Number & Street) Owner Name: C -<'V -I `'(-fast) Address: k t 0 4 0 16-- (Number & Street) St t Location of Property in Question ((City) ,Fs�� ,,.-' (First) Q /it14 `IA (State) (Zip) (M) (City) (State) 0 ' LIA5 A^ 1s 5 5 I 1 � (Zip) I %_ Legal Description &: PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) q, (A Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Proposed Zoning of Property I? Present Use Proposed Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Section 1� I hereby declare th8t all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above prop e during daylight hours. .ter (Sig re of Applicant) Date Received-- -' -- .� (Signature of Owner) 11mI VACt lrja Cnnyve Henghts� HN 55118 ° (651) 452-1850 1 MA (WPIP v., -D. October 31, 2011 Planning Commission City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Planning Commissioners: QLJty of MeR dcuter- The Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission has asked staff to submit a planning application proposing updates to Title 12, Chapter 4 of the City Code pertaining to aircraft noise attenuation. The Aircraft Noise Attenuation Code was adopted in 1987 by the city council. This code identifies four airport noise reduction zones as an overlay to our official zoning map. The noise attenuation code requires that any new construction or additions to existing structures meet noise attenuation standards to reduce aircraft noise inside the structure. The code outlines specific levels of aircraft noise attenuation for varying land uses within the four noise zones. Until recently, the City of Mendota Heights was the only community neighboring the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) with a noise attenuation code. The rationale for this code is that property owners may not fully understand the impact of aircraft noise on daily life. The code amendment references Day - Night Sound Level (dnl) as the proper unit for measuring sound, the most common measure of aircraft noise across the nation. During the planning process for MSP expansion, the 60 dnl contour was identified as the level to which residential properties should be noise attenuated. Upon completion of the new runway, the cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Minneapolis and Richfield entered into litigation with the Metropolitan Airports Commission to ensure that all homes within the 60 dnl were noise attenuated. Recently, each of these communities passed ordinances recognizing 60 dnl as the appropriate standard for noise attenuation. The Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission (ARC) is recommending that the Aircraft Noise Attenuation Code be amended to reference annual noise contour maps issued by the Metropolitan Airports Commission as the appropriate overlay for noise contours. The ARC also recommends that noise attenuation requirements be applied to the 60 dnl. The proposed change will reduce the number of properties which would require noise attenuation. Additionally, the proposed new boundary is a more accurate reflection of portions of the community impacted by aircraft noise. Sincerely, Jake Sedlacek Assistant to the City Administrator S®u FInrtt�v4� (Cen�r� Mendota �il�a��nt5, NN ���7i� (GrI) �-71��®� FAX (6510 452-6940 r 0 u r4 4-J 'LL V T -I o 0 �//, 4v a -�3 -j Z� cl CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 440 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO AIRCRAFT NOISE ATTENUATION CHAPTER 4 AIRCRAFT NOISE ATTENUATION 12-4-1: AUTHORITY AND FINDINGS: 12-4-2: PURPOSE: 12-4-3: DEFINITIONS: 12-4-4: SCOPE AND EFFECT: 12-4-5: PREREQUISITES TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OR OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 12-4-6: AIRCRAFT NOISE 7ONFc FCTARI ISHFF)Rni pIDARlrc• —ACTUAL NOISE COUNTOURS AS PUBLISHED IN THE MAC ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR ANALYSIS ADOPTED 12-4-7: NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLES: 12-4-8: ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS: 12-44: AUTHORITY AND FINDINGS: A. Statutory Authority: This chapter is adopted pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 473.192. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987; amd_ 2003 Code) B. Findings Of Fact: The city finds that development within certain areas of the city is impacted by aircraft noise; that said noise is beyond the regulatory authority of the city to control; that certain uses of land are inappropriate in areas of high aircraft noise; that some structures do not adequately attenuate aircraft noise resulting in negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the residents or inhabitants of the structures; that, through proper construction methods, the means exist to attenuate aircraft noise to interior levels which alleviate such negative impacts; and that the requirements of this chapter are necessary to promote and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Mendota Heights. (Ord_ 232, 5-19-1987) 12-4-2: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to require that new or redeveloped portions of buildings within the city be constructed with materials and in such a manner that aircraft noise is attenuated by the structure to an interior level which has no adverse impact on the health, safety and general welfare of the residents, all in accordance with the metropolitan council's guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise. This chapter shall not apply to remodeling or rehabilitating an existing residential building, nor to the construction of an appurtenance to an existing residential building. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) 12-4-3: DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this chapter, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them in this section. AIRCRAFT NOISE ZONE: Any one of the four (4) zones identified on the map attached to ordinance 232- and 32and incorporated herein by reference. CONSISTENT: Land uses that are acceptable. dBA: A unit of sound pressure level weighted by use of the A metering characteristics and weighting as specified in the American national standards institute specification for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4- 1983), which is hereby incorporated by reference. "dBA" is also referred to as an A -weighted decibel. INCONSISTENT. Land uses that are not acceptable even if acoustical treatment was incorporated in the structure. INFILL DEVELOPMENT: Pertains to an undeveloped parcel or parcels of land proposed for development similar to or less noise sensitive than the developed parcels surrounding the undeveloped parcel (for _example, a new house on a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood, or a new industry on a vacant parcel in an established industrial area). — 444 DNL: The day -night sound level, or the twenty four (24) hour equivalent continuous sound level (time averaged A -weighted sound level) from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of ten (10) dBA to sound levels measured from ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. to seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. Leq: The equivalent continuous sound level which, over the period of one hour, has the same A - weighted sound energy as the time varying sound_ MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT: A relatively large parcel of land with all structures proposed for extensive rehabilitation or demolition, and different uses (for example, demolition of a square block of old office and hotel buildings for new housing, office, commercial uses; conversion of warehouse to office and commercial uses). NEW DEVELOPMENT: A relatively large, undeveloped tract of land proposed for development (for example, a residential subdivision, industrial park or shopping center). NOISE REDUCTION LEVEL: The difference between the exterior and interior sound level, expressed in dBA, which is achieved by the intervening structure. RECOGNIZED ACOUSTICAL SPECIALIST: A person qualified by education and experience to conduct sound analyses of buildings and approved for such purpose by the city. The approved individual shall have at least three (3) years of experience in the field of sound control and a degree from a recognized institute of higher learning in the process of sound analysis of buildings. RECONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES: Pertains to replacing a structure destroyed by fire, age, etc., to accommodate the same use that existed before destruction, or expanding a structure to accommodate increased demand for an existing use, but does not pertain to remodeling or rehabilitating existing residential buildings nor to the construction of an appurtenance to an existing residential building. SOUND: Energy that is transmitted by pressure waves in the air or in other materials and is the objective cause of the sensation of hearing. It is commonly called "noise" if it is unwanted. SOUND ATTENUATION: The reduction in sound level which occurs between the source and receiver. SOUND LEAK: An opening in a structure through which sound can pass. "Sound leaks" are often extremely small holes or cracks. In general, an air leak is a "sound leak". SOUND LEVEL: The level of sound pressure measured with a sound level meter and one of its weighting (frequency) networks. When A -weighting is used, the "sound level" is expressed as dBA. ee of SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (STC): A single number oIng for r otherdbu'Idblg elementng the grThe higher dthe STC, transmission loss specified for a wall, window, partition the more attenuation the building element will afford. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) 12-4-4: SCOPE AND EFFECT: h this e""' f+ nas 2007 Forecast Mitigated Noise Contour established � A. Scope: The a;r��Reis shall overlay the zoning districts established by chapter 1 of this title, so that any parcel of land lying in an overlay zone shall also lie on one or more of the established zoning districts. Territory within a given overlay zone shall be subject to the requirements established by the other applicable ordinances and regulations of the city_ B. Zoning District Uses: Within each adopted overlay zone, all uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations for the underlying zoning districts; provided, however, that the appropriate building permit is first obtained; and provided further, that no use designated as inconsistent on the noise compatibility tables in section 12-4-7 of this chapter shall be permitted. C. Application Of Provisions: This chapter applies to all construction and any reconstructed portion of a building requiring a building permit after the effective date hereof, except remodeling or rehabilitation of an existing residential building or the construction of an appurtenance to an existing residential building. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) 12-4-5: PREREQUISITES TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OR OCCUPANCY PERMIT: Any application for a city building or occupancy permit pertaining to land located in an aircraft noise zone must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this chapter prior to the issuance of such permit. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) 12-4-6: AIRCRAFT- INJOISE 7nniG!; p"Ani ISHFn B )I inin�DARI , ACTUAL CONTOURS AS PUBLISED IN THE MAC ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR ANALYSIS ADOPTED A. The Metropolitan Airport Commission publishes a map of actual noise contours annually as a part of their noise contour analysis. The preceding year's aThe'se contour map MAC Annual Noise all be used to ContourAnaldesesmine the DNLfor application of noise attenuation standards. maintained by the Metropolitan Airport Commission. 12-4-7: NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLES: All construction or reconstruction requiring a building permit and located within • a designated DNL contour shall be constructed in such a way that the applicable noise level reduction requirements contained in the following noise compatibility tables are met or exceeded. Where a particular structure contains different land uses, the more stringent requirements of the applicable table shall apply, except where it is architecturally possible to achieve the appropriate noise reduction level for each different use, and the uses are acoustically separated by a wall or partition with a minimum STC of twenty five (25). (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLE 1 Noise Reduction Level In dBA Required To Meet Standards For Use In New Development And Major Redevelopment level numbers specify for each type of land use the amount of intersor level (The noise reduction reduction necessary for the use to be compatible in the applicable gatednd ' ise contour) Land Use Type f+ N � Actual Noise Contour _.._._.. _ ( Leq(80+) (75-80) ,I (70-75) (6560-70) Residential: ( ' _..__ I Single/multiplex with individual I INCO INCO ' INCO 25 entrance - _.:------- __..___ ..__._ _ ____ ''. Multiplex/apartment with shared INCO 35 30 25 I entrances Note: 1.These uses do not permit "in the wall" air conditioning units in zones ', ", an "" in noise contours 70 or above. NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLE 2 Noise Reduction Level In dBA To Meet Standard For Use In Infill Development And Reconstruction Or Additions To Existing Structures (The noise reduction level numbers specify for each type of land use the amount of interior sound level reduction necessary for the use to be compatible in the applicable =- ' ne mitigated noise contour.) Land Use Type Residential1: Single/multiplex with individual entrance Airgaft Dinire Z� Actual Noise Contour Leq(80+) (75-80) (70-75) (�6560-70) M 40 Services: 30� 25 'Transportation/passenger facilities 35 }F30 -25 CNST Transient lodging INCO _ 30 ( 25 20 Other medical, health and 35 30 25 CNST educational services }} l 35 30 25 CNST Other services y Industrial, communication, utility 25 E CNST CNST CNST — Agricultural land, water area, resource extraction CNST ! CNST CNST CNST Note: 1.These uses do not permit "in the wall" air conditioning units in zones ', ", an "" in noise contours 70 or above. NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLE 2 Noise Reduction Level In dBA To Meet Standard For Use In Infill Development And Reconstruction Or Additions To Existing Structures (The noise reduction level numbers specify for each type of land use the amount of interior sound level reduction necessary for the use to be compatible in the applicable =- ' ne mitigated noise contour.) Land Use Type Residential1: Single/multiplex with individual entrance Airgaft Dinire Z� Actual Noise Contour Leq(80+) (75-80) (70-75) (�6560-70) M 40 35 30� 25 _.... .... Multiplex/apartment with shared ( 40 35 30 25 entranceZ _._-. _ _ ..._ Mobile homeZ - 4p 1 35 30 25 `. __.._....... # ... - . ... . ... _.. Educational and medical: j - ._ _.............. Schools, churches, hospitals, 40 1 35 30 25 nursing homes Cultural, entertainment, recreational 35 . 30 — 25^ 20 Office, commercial retail 3 5 30 i. 25 CNST Services. ` Transportation/passenger facilities 35 .... 30 25 _........ ) z._ CNST ..... ......_.. __ . _.... Is Transient lodging 3.5 30 25 # 20 ... ... . _._.. Other medical, health and E 35 30 25 CNST educational services _ ------ ----- - [ 25 CNST Other services 35 30 t Industrial, communication, utility E 25 CNST I CNST 3 CNST Agricultural land, water area, resource extraction CNST CNST CNST CNST Notes: 1. Does not apply to remodeling or rehabilitation of existing residential structures, or to construction of appurtenances to existing residential structures. 2. These uses do not permit "in the wall" air conditioning units in ZBRes ', 11, an in noise contours 70 or above. (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987; amd. 2003 Code) 12-4-8: ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS: The provisions of this chapter shall be enforced pursuant to this section. A. Plans And Specifications: 1. Required Plans And Specifications: a. All applicants for a building or occupancy permit shall include with the application all plans, specifications or other information required by this chapter. The plans and specifications shall describe in sufficient detail all pertinent features of the building, building materials, heating and ventilation systems; including, but not limited to, the STC ratings of exterior roof/ceilings, walls, windows, and doors; and other pertinent data as may be requested by the city to indicate conformance with the applicable noise reduction level requirements as specified in the noise compatibility tables. To assure the elimination of sound leaks, the plans and specifications shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: (1) A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide the minimum air circulation and fresh air supply requirements as provided in the state and uniform building code for the proposed occupancy without the need to open any exterior doors or windows. (2) The perimeter of all exterior windows and doorframes shall be sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction. (3) Fireplaces shall be equipped with well fitted chimney closing devices. (4) All ventilation ducts, except range hoods, connecting interior space to outdoors shall be provided with a bend such that no direct line of sight exists from exterior to interior through the vent duct. (5) Doors and windows shall be constructed so that they are close fitting. Weather stripping seals shall be incorporated to eliminate all edge gaps. (6) All penetrations through exterior walls by pipes, ducts, conduits and the like shall be caulked airtight to the exterior construction. b. The city shall require that plans and specifications be certified by a recognized acoustical specialist for compliance with this chapter. (Ord_ 420, 1-20-2009) 2_ Approval Or Rejection Of Plans: Within thirty (30) days of receipt of appropriate plans and specifications, the city shall approve or reject the plans based upon the ability of the proposed materials and construction techniques to adequately attenuate noise. The city shall approve the plans and specifications if, in the opinion of the code enforcement officer, the plans and specifications demonstrate a good faith effort to attenuate noise by meeting the intent of this chapter to the maximum extent possible. In the event that the drawings are rejected, the reasons for such rejection shall be submitted to the applicant in writing. (Ord. 243, 10-20- 1987; amd. 2003 Code) No construction shall occur prior to the approval of the appropriate plans and specifications. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications as determined by the city and shall be deemed to meet the noise attenuation requirements of this chapter. (Ord_ 243, 10-20-1987) B. Inspections: All construction or work for which a building permit is required shall be subject to inspections by the city. Inspections of noise attenuation work shall be performed during the required building construction inspections specified by this code. When inspection indicates that the construction is not in accordance with the approved plans, the city may order such corrective action as may be necessary to meet the noise attenuation requirements of this chapter. In lieu of performing such corrective action, a building owner may submit a test report based upon field tests showing compliance with the noise reduction level requirements contained in the applicable noise compatibility table. The field test shall be performed in accordance with the "American Society for Testing (Materials standard E 336-84, part A1.2.2. outside to inside (level reduction)". (Ord. 232, 5-19-1987) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, November 22, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from City of Mendota Heights to amend Title 12, Chapter 4 of the City Code pertaining to noise abatement. The planning case for this matter is 2011- 32. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Sandie Thone City Clerk NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: November 16, 2011 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2011 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Wetland Ordinance Administrative Approval CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 — 11.27 APPLICANT(S): City of Mendota Heights LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background and Description of Request: The Planning Commission reviewed this item in September, with a comment that the terms under which an administrative review could occur be listed as existing positive conditions, rather than as the absence of certain negative conditions. The text below has been adjusted with this in mind. The remainder of the report reflects material previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. The current zoning ordinance currently provides two basic methods of approval for Wetlands Permit requests. These are • A full public hearing before the Planning Commission, with a subsequent final consideration by the City Council, and • An "expedited" process which goes directly to the Planning Commission without a formal hearing, although this still requires final approval by the City Council. The first of these processes consumes about 45 days from application to Council consideration. The second may be slightly shorter, although few permits follow this process since the application deadlines do not accommodate significant differences, whether a hearing is required or not. It has not been uncommon for Wetlands Permits to be requested in which applicants are replacing existing structures (such as decks or porches), but other than during construction, create no additional impacts on the Wetland areas, whether though stormwater, impervious surfaces, or alteration of any existing soil or vegetation. This proposed amendment would create a particular exemption to the processing of certain low -impact permit applications, allowing the City Administrator, or designee, to approve such permits at staff level, rather than require the full public review process. The current zoning language for this section reads as follows.- 12-2-6 ollows: 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-7 of 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. 3. In the case of a minor development or change and/or development involving a single-family or two-family residence, the city administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the planning commission at its next regular meeting following receipt of an application for permit, whereupon, they shall review such request and may, if they so determine, exempt the subdivider from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this chapter. Analysis: The proposed amendment would add subparagraph 4. to the cited section, to read as follows: 4. 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 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. 2 The City Administrator 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 gpplicable regulations If issues are found in the application, the City Administrator may refer the application to the Planning Commission for review under 12-2-6 C.2. With this amendment, projects that are otherwise consistent with City requirements and likely to have little or impact on the Wetland area, or adjoining properties, may proceed on a quicker timeline. The draft ordinance language has been designed to provide three options to City staff: 1) Approve as submitted; 2) Approve with conditions; or 3) Refer to Planning Commission for the regular process. The first option (approval as submitted) would be expected for most applications eligible for administrative consideration. The second option (approval with conditions) is suggested where an administrative approval is appropriate, but some minor discrepancy is discovered that can be corrected with a simple condition. This latter option is intended to avoid an administrative "denial", for which the applicant would then need to file a separate appeal. As noted in the text, an administrative approval is only to be considered for applications that appear to meet all other zoning requirements. In this case, then, the applicant would be subject to the regular process, on the assumption that there is some aspect of the application that requires further policy examination, rather than a straightforward application of the code. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: (1) Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, adding an Administrative Approval option for simple Wetlands Permit applications, along with the various conditions as specified in the proposed text, based on a finding that certain applications do not significantly impact the conditions that the longer public review process is designed to address. (2) Denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the nature of Wetland Permits benefits from the public hearing and zoning review process in the current ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the amendment. As discussed, those applications meeting the conditions identified in the draft ordinance language are routinely approved, usually without significant comment, and at no threat to the wetland resource. In the event that an application is found to raise issues that exceed the Administrative authority, it can be cycled into the regular process for more extensive review and public notice. Supplementary Materials: 0 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 2012, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners@nacplanning.cam MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: November 16, 2011 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2011 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Critical Area Minor Project Permit Processing CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 -11.28 APPLICANT(S): City of Mendota Heights LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background and Description of Request: The Critical Area Ordinance regulates any construction or land alteration activity in the designated Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. This area is designated pursuant to federal regulation, and includes most of the land adjacent to the bluffs overlooking the river, as well as some property beyond the bluff areas. Regardless of location, all projects require a Critical Area Permit. For the past several years, the City has required that all such permits follow the full review process of public hearing before the Planning Commission, and City Council approval. The current ordinance does have a clause which permits an expedited review to the City Council for "minor" projects. However, concerns related to public notice for certain projects had resulted in a policy decision to require full review with the public hearing. That clause reads as follows: D. Modifications: In the case of a minor development and/or change involving a single-family dwelling, and if the site plans conform to the standards of the critical area overlay district, the city administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the city council at its next regular meeting following receipt of an application for critical area ordinance consideration. The city council shall review such request and may, if it so determines, exempt the applicant from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this chapter. At the request of the Planning Commission, staff undertook a brief survey of other cities subject to the Critical River regulations. The question posed to staff in those cities was whether they permitted certain projects to proceed under an expedited review without public hearing, and if so, what scope of project received this process. For the vast majority of other cities, most projects were permitted administratively. The most common exceptions were for new buildings, major re -grading projects, and fences. Other minor projects are routinely processed administratively. Analysis: Because there are a number of properties within the Critical Area that have neither steep slopes nor river exposure, the full review can be onerous, particularly when the project is of minimal impact. Many property owners have been surprised to discover that they are in the Critical Area when they have no views, and have had minor building permits held up for several weeks awaiting the Critical Area Permit process to unfold. Unfortunately, one possible solution to this issue — that of removing such properties from the Critical Area — would literally require an act of Congress. Thus, staff is suggesting the expedited review process be re -started, but with a few parameters added to the ordinance to ensure that no projects with potential impacts for the Critical Area escape public notice and comment. The proposed amendment to Section D., above, would add the following limitations: Properties eligible for the exemptions of this paragraph must comply with the following conditions: 1. No part of the subject property shall have slopes of greater than eighteen (18) percent. 2. No part of the subject property shall be within forty (40) feet, whether on the same parcel or on abutting parcels, of any area defined as a bluff by this chapter, or any area with slopes greater than forty (40) percent. 3. The proposed project shall not expand the enclosed area of the principal or accessory structures by more than 144 square feet. 4. The proposed project shall not increase the height of any existing structure. 5. The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter, and any other applicable regulations. 6. The proposed project shall not result in changes to the existing finished grade. 2 7. Projects included within this exemption, provided they meet the preceding equirements include minor building additions decks fences accessoryage sheds landscaping and similar structures. Action Requested: The Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1) Direct staff to file a formal application to consider this amendment at a public hearing before the Planning Commission at a future meeting; or 2) Recommend denial of the amendment, retaining the current code language and process. Staff Recommendation: This amendment has been forwarded for discussion, based on several recent applications for construction where there were nominal impacts on Critical Area issues. Staff requests that the Planning Commission directs a formal application, which would trigger consideration of the issue at a public hearing at an upcoming meeting. As noted, this amendment arises from a concern that for properties not directly affecting the bluff or steep slope areas, minor projects should be able to proceed directly to the City Council without the need for a public hearing. The expedited process still ensures staff review and an open meeting approval, without endangering the objectives that the Critical Area Ordinance is designed to protect. Mendota Heights has traditionally required extensive review and processing for Critical Area permit requests, consistent with the stated intent of the Critical River legislation. This amendment relaxes that process only slightly, ensuring that projects which may create noticeable impacts still get reviewed in a public forum, and with notice to surrounding property owners. Supplementary Materials: NA 3 NORTHWEST ► !- CONSULTANTS, 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 T elephone: 763.231.2555 f=acsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: CASE NO: APPLICANT(S): LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDE PLAN: Background: Mendota Heights Planning Commission Stephen W. Grittman November 16, 2011 November 22, 2011 Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Institutional Accessory Building Regulations in Residential Districts NAC Case 254.04 — 11.29 City of Mendota Heights IN IW NA At a Planning Commission meeting this past summer, a request for accessory building construction was considered for the Visitation Convent and School. The process to accommodate this request, as it has been for other institutional uses, required Conditional Use Permit approval, coupled with consideration of Variances related to number, size, and total square footage of accessory buildings in a residential district. The City's zoning ordinance allows institutional uses, such as schools, places of worship, golf courses, nature centers, and governmental buildings, in residential districts. The Accessory Building regulations for the residential districts, however, are structured to address accessory buildings that are typical of residential uses rather than institutional activities. While the City's practice has been to address this discrepancy through the variance process, it was suggested that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance be considered that would establish specific accessory use regulations for institutional land uses. The current regulations in the Residential Districts provide for the following: • Detached garages of between 440 square feet and 750 square feet. • Detached non -garage buildings of 144 square feet for single family property. • Detached non -garage buildings totaling 425 square feet for property over 4 acres in size. • Detached non -garage buildings up to 1,000 square feet by Conditional Use Permit. • Maximum of 3 accessory buildings for any principal use. For the uses identified above as "institutional", most of the properties in the City occupied by such uses have need for accessory buildings exceeding these regulations. To increase the allowance for such buildings, the Planning Commission recommended a proportional standard, allowing more accessory building space as the size of property increases. The draft text below establishes a proportional standard for accessory building size, with a minimum lot size and additional standards for larger buildings to ensure that surrounding residential areas are not negatively affected. Finally, a Conditional Use Permit is required to ensure that the larger accessory building construction will complement the neighborhood, and that site and building design is consistent with the City's standards in these areas. 2. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: a. Number and Size: s r one uftdfed ", f ,,.• (r ^ 4) square feet.- For parcels of four (4) acres or less occupied by a residential structure, only one accessory building of up to one hundred fbM four (144)square feet may be allowed. five (425) feet, r.•,,vided: For parcels of more than four (4) acres occupied by a residential structure, accessory building space of up to four hundred twenty five (425) square feet may be allowed, provided that: (A) No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet. (B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected. *In computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street, alley or private roadway, and any part which is in the critical area and below the "bluff line", as defined in chapter 3, "Critical Area Overlay District", of this title shall be excluded. 2 (3) For property in residential zoning districts occupied by non-residential uses, one accessory building other than detached garages) shall be allowed up to 1,000 square feet in area. For parcels of more than four (4) acres in size property owners may, upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit construct accessory building space equal to one half of one percent (0.5%) of the parcel size under the following conditions: (A) The accessory building shall be constructed of materials similar to, or complementary with the exterior building materials of the principal building. (B) The accessory building(s) shall meet all setbacks applicable to the principal building. (C) The land around accessory buildings built according to this section shall be landscaped to buffer the view of such buildings from exposure to abutting residential uses. With this change, the allowable accessory building size will be clarified for both residential and non-residential properties. Non-residential property would be allowed an accessory building of up to 1,000 square feet, with more accessory space allowed by CUP, based on the size of the property. Under this ratio, a ten acre property would be allowed 2,178 square feet of accessory building space. A forty acre property would be allowed up to 8,712 square feet. (For reference, 1,000 square feet would be equal to a four -car garage.) Action Requested: If this material is satisfactory, staff would ask the Planning Commission to call for a public hearing on the proposed amendment at an upcoming meeting. Supplementary Materials: None 3 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 T elephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: CASE NO: APPLICANT(S): LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDE PLAN: Background: Mendota Heights Planning Commission Stephen W. Grittman November 16, 2011 November 22, 2011 Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Institutional Accessory Building Regulations in Residential Districts NAC Case 254.04 — 11.29 City of Mendota Heights IVA NA At a Planning Commission meeting this past summer, a request for accessory building construction was considered for the Visitation Convent and School. The process to accommodate this request, as it has been for other institutional uses, required Conditional Use Permit approval, coupled with consideration of Variances related to number, size, and total square footage of accessory buildings in a residential district. The City's zoning ordinance allows institutional uses, such as schools, places of worship, golf courses, nature centers, and governmental buildings, in residential districts. The Accessory Building regulations for the residential districts, however, are structured to address accessory buildings that are typical of residential uses rather than institutional activities. While the City's practice has been to address this discrepancy through the variance process, it was suggested that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance be considered that would establish specific accessory use regulations for institutional land uses. The current regulations in the Residential Districts provide for the following: • Detached garages of between 440 square feet and 750 square feet. • Detached non -garage buildings of 144 square feet for single family property. • Detached non -garage buildings totaling 425 square feet for property over 4 acres in size. • Detached non -garage buildings up to 1,000 square feet by Conditional Use Permit. • Maximum of 3 accessory buildings for any principal use. For the uses identified above as "institutional", most of the properties in the City occupied by such uses have need for accessory buildings exceeding these regulations. To increase the allowance for such buildings, the Planning Commission recommended a proportional standard, allowing more accessory building space as the size of property increases. The draft text below establishes a proportional standard for accessory building size, with a minimum lot size and additional standards for larger buildings to ensure that surrounding residential areas are not negatively affected. Finally, a Conditional Use Permit is required to ensure that the larger accessory building construction will complement the neighborhood, and that site and building design is consistent with the City's standards in these areas. 2. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: a. Number and Size: LI) Pfopefty is four- (4) aefes or- less*: One aeeessefy stftietufewith the afea not to e) For parcels of four (4) acres or less occupied by a residential structure, only one accessory building of up to one hundred forty four (144) square feet may be allowed. five (425) squar-e feet, : For parcels of more than four (4) acres occupied by a residential structure, accessory building space of up to four hundred twenty five (425) square feet may be allowed, provided that: (A) No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet. (B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected. *In computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street, alley or private roadway, and any part which is in the critical area and below the "bluff line", as defined in chapter 3, "Critical Area Overlay District", of this title shall be excluded. 2 (3) For property in residential zoning districts occupied by non-residential uses, one accessory building (other than detached garages) shall be allowed up to 1,000 square feet in area. For parcels of more than four (4) acres in size property owners mU, upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit construct accessory building space equal to one half of one percent (0.5%) of the parcel size under the following; conditions: (A) The accessory building shall be constructed of materials similar to, or complementary with the exterior building materials of the principal building. (B) The accessory building(s) shall meet all setbacks applicable to the principal building. (C) The land around accessory buildings built according to this section shall be landscaped to buffer the view of such buildings from exposure to abutting residential uses. With this change, the allowable accessory building size will be clarified for both residential and non-residential properties. Non-residential property would be allowed an accessory building of up to 1,000 square feet, with more accessory space allowed by CUP, based on the size of the property. Under this ratio, a ten acre property would be allowed 2,178 square feet of accessory building space. A forty acre property would be allowed up to 8,712 square feet. (For reference, 1,000 square feet would be equal to a four -car garage.) Action Requested: If this material is satisfactory, staff would ask the Planning Commission to call for a public hearing on the proposed amendment at an upcoming meeting. Supplementary Materials: None