Loading...
2010-02-23 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA February 23, 2010 - 7:00 P.M. 1) Call to Order 2) Roll Call 3) Election of Chair and Vice Chair 4) Approval of the December 22, 2009 and January 26, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes 5) Presentation of Open Meeting Law and Data Practices Act 6) Hearings a) Case No. 10-02: Jane Landreville — 2455 Bridgeview Court — Wetlands Permit for a fence. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. 7) Verbal Review 8) Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 22, 2009 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 22, 2009, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lally, Commissioners Hennes, McManus, Norton, Povolny, and Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioner Field. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, and Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval of November 24 2009 Minutes COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, 2009 AS PRESENTED. AYES: NAYES: Heariu�,,s PLANNING CASE #09-40 Clear Wireless LLC Sibley Memorial Highway (East of 35E) Conditional Use Permit Planner Steve Grittman explained that Lawrence Coleman of FMHC Corporation, on behalf of Clear Wireless, LLC, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to collocate wireless equipment on an existing telecommunications tower at 894 Sibley Memorial Highway. He displayed a map of the subject site and noted the parcel is zoned B-1, Limited Business. The installation will include a new antenna, three 4 -foot panels, and two 2 - foot dishes. The Zoning Ordinance allows for wireless communication towers and antennas in all zoning districts upon approval of a CUP. Mr. Grittman advised the proposal includes the placement of a new antenna, 65 feet in height, between the existing antennas. He displayed a site plan and noted the ground equipment consists of a single cabinet proposed to be located in a 4 foot by 7 foot leased area in the southwest corner of the existing AT&T equipment shelter, so it is screened by the existing equipment. It was noted that all cables would be run inside the monopole from the equipment to the antenna. Mr. Grittman stated there would be no visual or ground impact. Since it is within the critical area, staff reviewed that issue and found a critical area pen -nit is not necessary since the ground area of the facility is not expanded under this request. Staff recommends approval of the CUP as submitted since it is fully consistent with the City's wireless requirements and the Zoning Ordinance. Lawrence Coleman, FMHC Corporation on behalf of Clear Wireless, LLC, explained they are a new wireless carrier to the Twin Cities. They hope to build in the spring and summer of next year and be operational by next fall when they will offer service to the public. Clear Wireless tries to collocate when possible instead of owning a tower. This is an existing tower owned by AT&T and they have a master agreement lease with that firm. Clear Wireless is the 4G currently being advertised and the next step forward in the wireless business, making it easier to run computer applications from mobile wireless devices. He displayed a picture of existing antennas from other wireless carriers, noting the Clear Wireless equipment is much smaller and more compact. He also displayed a picture of their ground equipment, noting how it can be attached to a pole or next to an existing shelter, as proposed under this application. Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2009 Chair Lally stated the City has approved this site for other carriers so the CUP process assures the Clear Wireless application fits under the same conditions imposed on other carriers. Mr. Coleman stated they are not proposing any new towers in Mendota Heights but are looking at the Sibley High School, City's water tower, and Eagle Ridge Condominiums for antenna locations. Mr. Coleman noted the recommendation to maintain their FCC license and indicated he would provide a copy of their FCC license to staff. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYES 0 COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED UPON THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED ANTENNA AND ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION MEETS ALL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA ALLOWING SUCH FEATURES, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE AN ABANDONMENT BOND TO THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 12-IJ-6.H.I.b OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE 3. THE PROPOSED ANTENNA SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FCC REGULATIONS. THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT PROOF OF ANY APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL LICENSES TO THE COUNCIL PRIOR TO RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 5, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE 909-41 City of Mendota Heights 1695 Dodd Road Wetlands Permit Mr. Grittman explained the City of Mendota Heights is seeking a Wetlands Pen -nit for maintenance to the stormwater pond located on the Par 3 Golf Course. The subject site of about 17 acres is located at 1695 Dodd Road, and is zoned R -1A, One Family Residential. The Wetlands Ordinance requires that any land alteration or construction within 100 feet of any designated wetland require approval of a Wetlands Pen -nit. Mr. Grittman advised that the Par 3 Golf Course contains two water bodies that serve as a part of the City's stormwater sewer system. He displayed a map of the subject site and pointed out the location of the small pond located off Bachelor Avenue, near the service drive. Since this pond has become filled with sediment over the past several years the work will include dredging the pond to remove the sediment build-up. The grading and vegetation around the pond, along with the shape of the pond, will retain its current look. Mr. Sedlacelc stated staff recommends approval of the Wetlands Permit, as submitted, because the work is consistent with the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance to ensure any work in and around wetland areas are done in a way that preserves the water resources of the community. Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Ruzek explained this request is being made by City staff because each spring the storm sewer lines need to be cleaned so it is a maintenance issue. Commissioner Hennes asked how often 2 Planning Commission Minutes Decenzber22, 2009 the storm sewer line needs to be cleaned, Mr. Ruzek stated the City inspects one-fifth of the ponds each year and if sedimentation is found, it is placed on a priority list. Assistant City Administrator Jake Sedlacel< advised that two calls were received from the public with questions about the Wetlands Permit. The callers were told that the wetland area would not be expanded; the work is just to clean what is existing. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYES COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE WETLAND AND THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE. AYES NAYS Chair Lally advised the Council would consider this application at its meeting of January 5, 2010. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek reported on the following: • The Zoning Ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the November 24, 2009, meeting and will be reviewed again at the January meeting. • Final comments were received from the Metropolitan Council on the City's Comprehensive Plan and it will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the January meeting to assure ample public input. Commissioner McManus asked staff to provide the Comprehensive Plan document to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting date to allow adequate time for review. COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:15 P.M. AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 3 Planning Commission Minutes Jantimy26, 2010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2010 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 26, 2010, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lally, Commissioners Field, Hennes, McManus, Norton, and Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioner Povolny. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, and NAC Planner Carie Fuhrman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval of November 24 2009 Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, 2009 AS PRESENTED. AYES: NAYES: Hearin,as PLANNING CASE #10-01 Clear Wireless, LLC 2341 Lexington Avenue Conditional Use Permit Planner Carie Fuluman explained that FMHC Corporation, on behalf of Clear Wireless, LLC, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to collocate wireless equipment on the existing water tower located at 2431 Lexington Avenue. The parcel is zoned I, Industrial, and will include new antennae: three 4 -foot panels, two 2 -foot dishes, and a single cabinet located on the ground inside the water tower. The applicant is proposing to mount Clearwire antennas to the exterior wall of the water tank at a height of 126 feet, 8 inches, which is well below the top of the water tower and existing carrier antennas. The only ground equipment proposed is an H -frame mounted equipment cabinet located inside the water tower. Ms. Fuhrman noted that wireless telecommunication structures are allowed as a CUP in all zones and are regulated by Section 12-1J-6. Since the equipment is to be located on the City's property, a developer's agreement may be necessary, at the discretion of the City in addition to the CUP. She stated the rest of the review standards are straightforward and a bond is required in accordance with FCC rules. Ms. Fuhrman advised the subject parcel is guided CC, City Hall/Public Works/Fire Hall, in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan so the request is consistent with this land use category. Adding the antenna and ground equipment to the City's water tower does not infringe upon the intent of this land use category. Ms. Fuhrman presented the considerations available to the Planning Commission for approval with conditions or denial based on findings. She stated the City strongly encourages new personal wireless service antennas to be located on existing towers or support structures and this proposal meets this objective. Based on the review of the applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements, City staff recommends approval of the CUP to collate wireless equipment on an existing telecommunications tower as illustrated on the submitted site plans and subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. Chair Lally agreed that collocation is the best option for this type of equipment. Pat Conlin, FMHC Corporation on behalf of Clear Wireless, LLC, thanked Staff for their review and explained Clearwire's basic service is not telephone, it is high speed internet service to businesses and homes. This can be an Planning Connnission Mingles Ja»gary 26, 2010 outdoor mobile internet service but, for the most part, they are looking to provide service to a stationary location. She advised their service abides by the rules and regulations of the FCC, under which they are licensed. Ms. Conlin displayed a picture of their antenna and ground equipment when compared to other carriers, noting Clearwire equipment is much smaller in size. Chair Lally asked Ms. Conlin about the recommended conditions and requirement for FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference and a report from a qualified professional engineer. Ms. Conlin stated they have no objection to those conditions. Commissioner Field asked if a developer's agreement has been established. Ms. Conlin stated it has not been formally established and they are happy to comply with that requirement. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYES 0 COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED UPON THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED ANTENNA AND ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION MEETS ALL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA ALLOWING SUCH FEATURES, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1, A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND CITY. 2, A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 3. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE AN ABANDONMENT BOND TO THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 12-1J-6.H.I.b OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. a. THE PROPOSED ANTENNA SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FCC REGULATIONS. THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT PROOF OF ANY APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL LICENSES TO THE COUNCIL PRIOR TO RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT. 5. THE APPLICANT SHALL ABIDE BY ALL OTHER REGULATIONS IN SECTION 12-1J-6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. 6. ALL WORK WILL BE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY ENGINEER AND CONSULTANT OVERSEEING THE WATER TOWER PAINTING PROJECT. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 3, 2010, meeting. 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2010 Discussion and Approval of Comprehensive Plan Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek presented the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the guiding document for the physical development in Mendota Heights and required to be reviewed every 10 years. He reviewed the past considerations of this document, public hearing of the draft, informal review by the Metropolitan Council, and need to complete the Plan for adoption and recommendation to the Met Council. He advised that the Metropolitan Council provided feedback to the City as well as Councilmember Duggan who made suggestions for grammatical changes. In addition, maps will be updated and included for Pilot Knob. Mr. Sedlacek advised of revisions to be made and requested input from the Commissioners on changes needed prior to Council consideration at their next meeting. Chair Lally stated it is critical that the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning designations align and not conflict. He asked about changes with Mendota Plaza and open space. Mr. Sedlacek referenced the zoning map on Page 107 and explained the designation for Pilot Knob and Mendota Plaza will have to be updated. Commissioner McManus referenced Page 2 and asked that the Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts be included in the list of educational institutions. On Page 61, Paragraph 2, Line 4, he asked that the word "starting" be changed to "started." Commissioner McManus asked that language be revised on Page 78, Principal Arteries, which indicates that Highway 110 bisects the City north/south (but itis east/west) and 1-35 bisects the City east/west (but it is north/south). Mr. Sedlacek stated that Councilmember Duggan raised this same issue. It was agreed that since a second person has raised this question, staff will revise the language to provide more clarity. Chair Lally noted the highways create four quadrants in Mendota Heights. Commissioner Norton stated he appreciated staff's work and only had stylized issue comments but would not impose his viewpoints on how this document should be written. Commissioner Viksnins noted the census data is mostly from the 2000 census. Mr. Sedlacek stated if Plan approval is pushed back two years, it could contain the most recent census but for right now, the 2000 census is the most reliable data. He noted the next Plan update will be in 2020, resulting in the same situation; however, the City would not have to wait for ten years before the next update, if determined by the City Council. Commissioner Viksnins stated the demographic profile and number of people in Mendota Heights has changed since the 2000 census and there may be other more recent sources, such as employment records. Mr. Sedlacek stated the Metropolitan Council does have some updated information but other information is only available through the census. Commissioner Viksnins noted the document references City Administrator Danielson, which needs to be updated. Commissioner Hennes noted Page 44, Paragraph 2, references "Lexington and 110" but it should be "Dodd and 1 10." On Page 69, he noted the language referencing Mendota Bridge seems to be dated without reference to the rebuilt bridge of the 1980s or 1990s. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff will review that section. Commissioner Hennes referenced Page 59, and asked about a development plan that had been approved about a year ago for a housing development. Mr. Sedlacek said a PUD for Hoffman Homes was approved but is officially on hold and a two-year extension was granted at their request. Commissioner Hennes referenced Pages 60 and 64, Housing and Affordable Housing, and said he was struck by how little rental housing is available in Mendota Heights and that only 4.4% is considered affordable. He asked if this is enough for the next 20 years. Mr. Sedlacek explained the City has reacted to what the market presents rather than being proactive in creating more affordable housing. He noted that in 2008 a group came before the Council to request it pursue more affordable housing. It was noted that many units in the Centex Townhome development many qualify but there is always more that can be done. Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2010 Commissioner Hennes referenced Page 56, Somerset Area, and asked whether property owners have expressed interest in subdividing their lot. Mr. Sedlacek advised that one property owner has asked staff about the potential to redevelop smaller lots along Delaware but there has not been much interest. Chair Lally commented on the difficulty of developing larger ten acre lots along Delaware and Wentworth because there is not sufficient frontage on a public road, some lots contain a conservation easement, and a tendency to not support flag lot configurations. Commissioner Hennes felt the stated traffic volumes and maps on Pages 78 and 79 seemed exaggerated in some areas. Mr. Sedlacek reviewed traffic projections for Wagon Wheel and deferred the question to engineering staff. Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Ruzek explained that the County and Metropolitan Council generate traffic volumes and staff does not always agree with their projections. Commissioner Hennes noted Page 81 references the expansion of I -35E between St. Paul and Highway 110 and asked when that would occur. Mr. Sedlacek explained it is a Mn/DOT project but not scheduled in the near future. Commissioner Hennes referenced Page 84, Bikes and Pedestrians, and asked if the City has identified gaps in the trail system, had plans to fill the gaps, or if it was dependent on funding. Mr. Sedlacek explained the City has not conducted a study of this matter and would have to request funding from the Met Council for a study of that type. It was noted that the Dakota County Greenways Initiatives includes visioning in how the trails and other resources connect to the public. He reviewed the location of trail corridors that have and have not been completed and stated the next step will be with the Dakota County Greenway Initiative. Coirunissioner Hennes asked if areas that still need parks would be funded by the City. Mr. Sedlacek explained that parks are funded through a special park dedication fund from developments. During the past few years, the City has opted for a cash contribution instead of the dedication of small park outlots since they sometimes become maintenance issues. Commissioner Field noted the Commission's role is to comment on this Plan, in an advisory role. Mr. Sedlacek stated that is correct and changes suggested by the Commission will be presented to the Council. Commissioner Field asked if anything unexpected came from the Metropolitan Council's review. Mr. Sedlacek stated they offered stylistic changes, additions of maps of the airport, but nothing unexpected. Mr. Sedlacek displayed a map that identified the Pilot Knob area, industrially zoned lots, and portion of land to be addressed by the Pilot Knob Preservation Association. It was noted this site is 7.59 acres of City owned land and 1,63 acres of residential parcels. Gail Lewellan, 656 Sibley Memorial Highway, President of the Pilot Knob Preservation Association (PKPA), introduced four other residents in support: Jennifer Otto, Jane Jefferson, Lori Evans, and Tom Evans. She referenced a publication "Over the Years" by Dakota County that detailed the history of Pilot Knob and stated they are committed to preserving and raising public awareness of this site. They received a grant that will be used to produce a colored informational brochure to advise the public of this cultural significance. She presented its history since owned by the Dakota Indians to the present day and used a map to identify the nine acres they are concerned with today. Ms. Lewellan reviewed Page 94 regarding preservation of active and passive open space and policy statement to support that goal, which they also supported. She referenced the section of the Comprehensive Plan that described Pilot Knob and encouraged the Commission to recognize the cultural significance of an expanded area over what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan from 25.5 acres to 35 acres, which better matches the area identified by the Historical Register. Chair Lally asked if the PKPA was requesting a revision to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Lewellan apologized for coming so late into the process and stated they are requesting a change to the 2030 map to identify the nine acres zoned Industrial as open space, the same category as the 25 acres to the north. M Planning C017Pr7iSSia17 Minutes JaMiary 26, 2010 Chair Lally asked if there is additional property in the zone that should be identified with "stripes" just north of the nine acre parcel. Ms. Lewellan stated that is correct since part of the land was color coded inappropriately. Chair Lally asked if there had been discussions of how the nine acres would be used, if it would be developed or purchased with park funds for park property. Mr. Sedlacek stated a majority of the parcels were purchased with TIF with the intent of being Industrial; however, that TIF District expired. He noted the Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document for Mendota Heights so it may or may not be a good discussion at this point in time. It was noted that on the City -owned parcels, the residential structures were removed and the lots are now an open grass area. Ms. Sedlacek stated the City is not pressing the matter but the owners know the City is interested, at some point, in purchasing the homes. Commissioner McManus asked why it was zoned Industrial. Mr. Sedlacek noted this nine acres site is at the northern boundary of the Industrial Park. Commissioner McManus asked if the City is prepared to protect this property for use as a future park space if an application is submitted for an Industrial use. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff has followed the existing documents and the property is zoned Industrial. Commissioner McManus asked how the process is initiated to change this land into a park area. Mr. Sedlacek stated a concerned resident can present the request at a meeting, or the City can raise the issue to amend the Comprehensive Plan. In order to sell City property, a public hearing has to be held by the Planning Commission to assure it fits with the City's vision and the Comprehensive Plan. It was noted that since this property is already zoned Industrial, an applicant for an industrial project may think they have a "leg up" with their request. Commissioner Field noted in this situation, the City owns all but two lots and if someone wanted an Industrial use, there may be an argument it is a taking. Mr. Sedlacek stated that is a real concern and should be discussed. Ms. Lewellan stated she appreciates the Commission's comments and recognition of the difficulty in changing currently privately owned property to public property. She noted that in 2003, when Pilot Knob was a matter of controversy, the issue was raised that the 25 acres the City owned was designated for Medium and High Density. She agreed it would be good for the City to get ahead of an Industrial request and consider the status of the nine acres. Commissioner Field stated one way to deal with it is to zone all the City owned land to be consistent with the land use being advocated and to leave the other two parcels; however, that may be considered spot zoning. Ms. Lewellan stated they have not been in touch with the private property owners but at one time, one of the owners strongly supported the position of the PKPA. She used the map to identify the area of the hill and described artifacts that had been found in that location. Mr. Sedlacel: stated staff had encouraged the PKPA to attend the meeting tonight and since this matter has been discussed it is now on record and the Council will advise staff in how they want to proceed. He recommended the Planning Commission act on the Comprehensive Plan and make a further recommendation if it wants staff to follow up on the matter. Chair Lally stated the Cormnission could find that the PKPA has made valid points and encourage the Council to direct staff to look into it further. He agreed this area was of historical significance. Commissioner Field asked if the City should approach the matter administratively through a moratorium so there is time to conduct a land use study. He pointed out that the private land owners were not invited to attend tonight and notice was not published that this would be considered so it would be troublesome to take action tonight. However, after acting on the Comprehensive Plan another recommendation could be made to the Council regarding the need for a moratorium to conduct a land use study. Ms. Lewellan welcomed the opportunity to return to a future meeting for additional discussion. Chair Lally thanked Ms. Lewellan for bring this matter before the Planning Commission. 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2010 Chair Lally opened the floor for audience members to make comment on the Comprehensive Plan. No one responded. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND SUBMITTAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION WITH CHANGES IDENTIFIED TO DATE. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this recommendation at its January 5, 2010, meeting. COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL EXPLORE ALL POSSIBLE OPTIONS OF THE 7.59 ACRES OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE PRESERVED PILOT KNOB AREA AND THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. Discussion ensued regarding whether an interim ordinance concept should be recommended and the entire 9.22 acres of privately owned land included in the motion. A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE 9.22 -ACRE PARCEL SOUTH OF ACACIA BOULEVARD, EAST OF PILOT KNOB ROAD, AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 55. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Ms. Fuhrman explained the memorandum provided to the Coimnission summarized the substantive Zoning Ordinance changes and the other changes made to the text were technical, clerical, or for clarifying purposes. Ms. Fuhrman presented the more significant changes starting with Page 2, Nonconforming Structures/Uses, to reflect the recent amendment to State law regarding the rights of nonconformities, including the right to rebuild within specific timeframes, regardless of the cause of the discontinuance. She explained that formerly, the Code required an "act of God" type of loss and prohibited replacement if more than 50% of the nonconformity were destroyed. Now, any nonconformity may be replaced if a permit is requested within six months and replacement is done within 12 months. Ms. Fuhrman referenced Page 3, Accessory Structures, and explained staff is currently revising this section to merge all of the accessory structure regulations into one section. On Page 7, String Rule, the proposed language would change the "string rule" to permit some encroachment ahead of the current strict string line. The proposed change would average the adjacent setbacks and the required 30 -foot setback to establish a modified front setback. The intent is to allow some forward encroachment allowing for remodeling projects without completely abandoning the string line concept. Ms. Fuhrman advised of the significant fonnatting changes to move all articles from Article J into Article D, making Article J "reserved," and merging Article H into Article K, making Article H "reserved." Chair Lally noted the fence regulation would require industrial fences to comply with residential fence regulations when abutting residential property. Residential fences have an open requirement but if next to an industrial use, he would prefer the fence to be more closed, possibly to completely block the view. Commissioner Norton stated this was extensively addressed during the Bituminous Roadway application. Ms. Fuhrman stated staff will look at this matter. Coiiimissioner Viksnins noted the revised language for accessory structures will be forthcoming and asked if there are other revisions where the language has not yet been finalized. Ms. Fuhrman stated that is the major section and the other changes are minor in nature. 2 Planning Commission Alfinules Januar, 26, 2010 Mr. Sedlacek stated the intent is to receive Commission input tonight. A public hearing will be held at the February meeting and a recommendation made to the Council. If approved by the Council, it would be published and become the new Zoning Code. At the request of Commissioner Viksnins, Ms. Fuhrman provided an explanation of how the "string rule" will be applied. Commissioner Norton drew a diagram to define how the "string rule" would be measured. Ms. Fuhrman stated such a diagram will be included in the Code. Commissioner McManus stated he cannot remember a time when the Commission has not considered an exception where it made sense to do so, after careful consideration. He noted that the setback distances have not been very great and asked what would happen if the setback varied greatly. Mr. Sedlacek explained staff found, in processing variance applications, there are a variety of setbacks in Mendota Heights. The string rule was an attempt to keep everything in a straight line and this revision would allow some variety while maintaining the neighborhood's character. In this case, it would have to be a reasonable request and have no other alternatives. He described several past variance considerations and how the new language would have been applied. Commissioner McManus stated he understands the decision making has been subjective but always took into consideration if the neighbors would be impacted. He did not feel that the new language would guarantee the neighbors would not be hurt, which is the Commission's responsibility to assure. He stated if the other Commissioners are comfortable with this language he would go along but felt someone should "eyeball" the distance to assure neighbors are not impacted. Commissioner Norton stated that this will remove some subjectivity and the "string rule" is only used when there is no other alternative. He stated from a litigation standpoint, it is important to remove subjectivity to assure all are treated alike. Commissioner McManus asked what happens when a resident wants a setback slightly ahead of the string rule. Commissioner Norton stated they could apply for a variance. Commissioner McManus felt that did not remove subjectivity. Chair Lally stated that the opportunity for variances will be less frequent with the new language. Commissioner Viksnins noted it may be harder to justify the variance given there is already some "wiggle room" in the revised ordinance. He asked if there have been a lot of instances where there is great significance between setbacks. Mr. Sedlacek stated he thinks every other month staff is dealing with a question or application where this language would likely allow it. He noted older neighborhoods, like along Wentworth, have significant variances in setback. Commissioner Field noted the revision would allow some requests to be administratively approved rather than involving a protracted process through the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner McManus felt the average citizen would not understand this language but thinks it may work as long as City staff can explain it to them. Chair Lally requested the Commission be provided with an updated Zoning Ordinance prior to the February public hearing. Verbal Revie)v Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #09-40 Clear Wireless, LLC Conditional Use Permit o Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE 409-41 City of Mendota Heights Wetlands Permit at Par 3 Golf Course • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2010 Mr. Sedlacek advised that due to the Caucus Night, the Council meeting would be held on Wednesday, February 3, 2010. He also advised that the Planning Commission will be electing a Chair and Vice Chair at the February meeting. Mr. Sedlacek noted that two Council seats will be open this year and Mayor Huber has indicated he will not run for reelection. Commissioner Field asked for an update on Mendota Plaza. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff received communication from Mendota Plaza that there were MPCA soil issues. An Action Plan is now in place and they are working to clean the site. He explained they anticipate closing the construction loan in March of 2010 and starting construction immediately. COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:39 P.M. AYES NAYES Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 MEMO DATE: February 17, 2010 TO: Members of the Planning Commission, Airport Relations Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: David McKnight, City Administrator�� CC: Mendota Heights City Council SUBJECT: Open Meeting Law and Data Practices Act DISCUSSION The Open Meeting Law and Data Practices Act are two laws in Minnesota that apply to local government organizations and their members. It has been recommended to city staff that we provide a brief overview of these two issues to all of our commissions on an annual basis. This information may be a review for some of you and new information to others. The purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to prohibit actions being taken at secret meetings where the public is unable to become informed about decisions of the public body or to detect improper influences and to assure the public's right to be informed. The Open Meeting Law applies to all meetings of the public body and meetings of its committees and subcommittees. At your meeting we will discuss the following issues: ® Meeting Definition ® Serial Meetings ® Social Gatherings ® Electronic Communications a Penalties I have attached a copy a Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust Resource Briefing on this topic that I have found very useful. It deals with a lot of issues that we as staff deal with on this issue but also gives you plenty of information on this topic. The Data Practices Act regulates the collection, creation, storage, maintenance, dissemination and access to government data. The public policy behind the Data Practices Act is to provide the public with access to data that is the basis for, and the product of, governmental decisions. Government data is presumed to be accessible by the public for inspection and copying unless they fall within an exception to the Data Practices Act created by state or federal law. While the work you perform on the city commissions deals almost exclusively with public data it is important to remember that this would include such data as emails you send to each other about city business, notes you make on your meeting packet and other "data" that we sometimes forget about. These two topics are laws that we all have to abide by in our work for the city. It is a good idea to review these two issues on an annual basis. ACTION REQUIRED Listen to the presentation on these two topics and ask any questions you might have. Minnesota Counties Revised Minnesota's Open Meeting B3AK`�QU'ND��` Insurance Trust t F Chapter 3 As interest and involvement in public policy grows, individuals in government must have a solid understanding of the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. Whenever members of a public body come together to conduct business, constituents, the media and special interest groups must be provided with an opportunity to observe and comment on the issues and the actions of their representatives. It was in this spirit that the Minnesota Legislature enacted the Open Meeting Law in 1957. Since its adoption, the law has evolved through judicial interpretation and legislative amendments. The purpose of the law is to: 9 Prohibit actions being taken at secret meetings where the public is unable to become informed about decisions of the public body OR to detect improper influences; and Assure the public's right to be informed. This Resource Briefing will examine aspects of the law that expose public entities to risk; specifically, it will address who is subject to the law, notice requirements, exceptions, the relationship with the Minnesota Data Government Data Practices Act and new technologies, procedural issues and the penalties which may be imposed for violations. The Open Meeting Law applies to all meetings of the public body and, in general, meetings of its committees and subcommittees. The gathering of a quorum (a majority of the members of the public body) constitutes a meeting if "members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of the governing body." Committees and Subcommittees of the Board: The law applies to these bodies if they possess decision making authority on behalf of the board. Decision making authority is presumed if: �> Members of the committee comprise a quorum of the governing body; or ➢ The governing body has delegated its power to the (sub) committee. Serial Meetings: Public bodies that orchestrate serial meetings of less than a quorum to avoid the open meeting requirements or to fashion an agreement in advance, may be found to have violated the law depending on the circumstances. Communication Between Board Members: The law does not apply to telephone conversations, e-mail or letters between less than a quorum of the public body unless such communication was used to circumvent the open meeting law requirements. Such communication can be used to have discussions and build consensus outside of a public meeting. Like serial meetings, when used to avoid the open meeting requirements, these communications may be found to have violated the law. No open meeting violation occurs when mail — e-mail or regular mail — is used to distribute materials to board members. A problem or violation occurs when the board members respond to the information and begin a discussion of the materials. Board members are cautioned against communicating on matters that may come before the Board. Social Gatherings: The law does not apply to a quorum of the governing body that comes together by chance at a social gathering so long as the group does not use the setting for purposes of conducting official business. Informational Gatherings: The law applies to informational gatherings such as retreats, executive sessions, public hearings or work sessions The Open Meeting Law is intended to preserve the rights of the public to observe and comment on actions and decisions being taken by its representatives. To satisfy this burden, the public must be informed as to the time and place of open meetings. Although the responsibility to ensure that meetings are properly noticed lies with the public body, this operational activity is typically carried out by the individual that functions as the Clerk to the Board. The public body is also required to maintain a record of all votes taken at open meetings. This record must be maintained in a journal and should identify the issues considered by the public body. The law requires the journal be open and available for inspection by the public: The four kinds of meetings subject to varying notice requirements include: 1. Regular meetings 2. Special meetings 3. Emergency meetings 4. Recessed or continued meetings Regular meetings are meetings conducted routinely or on a prescribed schedule Notice Requirements: A schedule of the regular meetings of the board must include times and locations and must be kept on file at its primary office. If a meeting is to be held at a time or location inconsistent with the schedule, notice of the changes must be made in the some manner as a special meeting. Special meetings are not conducted as part of the normal routine, but planned for enough in advance to be scheduled. Notice Requirements: Written notice must be posted with the date, time, place and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board, or on the door of its usual meeting room. The principal bulletin board must be located in a place which is reasonably accessible to the public. n\v The notice must be mailed or otherwise delivered at least three days (72 hours) before the meeting to each person who has filed a written request for notice of special meetings. As an alternative to mailing or otherwise delivering the notice, the public body may publish notice in the official newspaper three days prior to the special meeting. Emergency meetings are called because of circumstances that, in the public body's judgment, require immediate attention. Notice Requirements: Good faith efforts must be made to provide notice to all news media that have filed a written request for notice of special meetings. The notice must include the date, time, place and an explanation of the subject matter of the meeting. Notice must also be given by telephone or other reasonable method to members of the public body. Recessed or continued meetings are those meetings that are a continuation of a previous meeting. Notice Requirements: No notice is required so long as the time and place of the meeting was established during the previous meeting and recorded in the meeting minutes. When in doubt whether a committee or subcommittee meeting of the governing body is subject to the ®pen Meeting Law notice the meeting and conduct it in public. The legislature has identified six valid reasons for conducting business in a closed session: 1 . Labor negotiations 2. Preliminary consideration of charges against an employee 3. Performance evaluations 4. Attorney-client privilege 5. Preliminary considerations of purchase or sale of real or personal property; to review confidential or nonpublic appraisal data 6. To receive security briefings and reports; to discuss issues related to security and emergency response procedures Labor negotiations may be closed to discuss strategy for labor negotiations and review labor negotiated proposals. Requirements: A majority vote of the members of the board is required to close the meeting. A written roll must be taken of the members and other persons present at the closed meeting and must be made available to the public following the meeting. While these meetings can be closed, the time and place of the meeting must be announced in an open session. Meetings closed for labor negotiations must be tape-recorded. The tapes are to be retained for two years after the contract is signed. The tapes are available to the public after all contacts have been settled for the current budget period. Preliminary consideration of charges against an employee must be closed unless the employee requests that the meeting remain open. The purpose for closing the meeting is to safeguard information or materials that may not be public per the Minnesota Data Practices Act. t (� Requirements: One or more meeting(s) may be closed while the body is considering whether disciplinary action is warranted. Once a conclusion is reached, the discussion must be conducted in public. The employee does not participate in the closed meeting unless the: ➢ purpose of attendance is to respond to charges against him or her ➢ the employee requests the meeting be open/public. The employee should be given advance notice of the existence and nature of the charges so they can make an informed decision on whether to request that the meeting be open. Public entity employees must be given an opportunity to explain/defend their actions when termination is being considered. This "due process" is referred to as a Loudermill hearing. Typically, this informal hearing is conducted by the employer's human resource professional, coordinator/administrator or county attorney. When the governing body becomes involved in the discharge of an employee a closed meeting that allows an employee to respond to charges against them may satisfy due process requirements for those employees that have a property or liberty interest in their job. A property interest exists when a contract, personnel policy, union agreement includes a "for cause" provision for discipline or the employee is a veteran pursuant to the Veteran's Preference Law. A liberty interest exists when the action of the employer may impact the employee's good name and reputation. Performance evaluation may be closed to the public unless the employee being evaluated requests to be evaluated in public. In this case, it must be open. Requirements: Prior to closing the meeting the body must identify the employee to be evaluated_ At its next open meeting, the body must summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. Advance notice to the employee being evaluated should be given so that the employee can make an informed decision on whether to request that the meeting be open. Attorney-client privilege allows a meeting to be closed, if the meeting with counsel is to discuss pending or threatened litigation against the public body. The meeting may not be closed to seek general legal advice or discuss litigation they assume may occur or that is threatened. Requirement: Prior to closing the meeting, the body must indicate that the meeting is being closed under attorney-client privilege to discuss litigation and must provide a specific description of the subject to be discussed. To satisfy the requirement for a specific description, the public body should state the nature of the pending claim, e.g. "to discuss the pending EEOC charge filed against the county, "or to "discuss a grievance filed in the social services department against the county." The body should also describe how a balancing of the purposes of the attorney-client privilege against the purposes of the open meeting law demonstrates the need for absolute confidentiality. An attorney must participate in the meeting. r- Page 4 ' A preliminary consideration for purchase and sale of property allows for a public body to close a meeting to: ➢ determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the government entity and strategy relating to that sale; 9 review confidential or nonpublic appraisal data under Minn. Stat. §13.44 (3) and 9 develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property and strategy relating to that sale or purchase. Requirements: Before holding a closed meeting under this provision the public body must identify, on the record, the particular real or personal property that is the subject of the meeting. The proceedings of the meeting must be tape recorded at the expense of the public body. The particular property must be described on the tape. The recording must be preserved for eight years after the date of the meeting and be available to the public after all real or personal property discussed at that meeting has been purchased or sold or the governing body has abandoned the purchase or sale. When an action is brought claiming that public business, other than discussions allowed under this paragraph, was transacted at a closed meeting held pursuant to this paragraph during the time when the tape is not available to the public, the provisions of Minn. Stat. §13D.03(3) shall be applicable. Said provisions establish a procedure for a court to review the recording to determine if a violation of the open meeting law has occurred. When the court finds a violation has occurred the recording can be used in the trial. Security briefings and emergency response procedures provides that meetings may be closed to receive security briefings and reports, to discuss issues related to security systems, to discuss emergency response procedures and to discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services, infrastructure and facilities, if disclosure of the information discussed would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security procedures or responses. Requirements: Financial considerations including decisions regarding the use of public funds related to security matters must occur at an open meeting. The meeting can be closed however, the motion closing the meeting under this provision must describe the subject to be discussed and refer to the facilities, systems, procedures, services, or infrastructures to be considered during the closed meeting. A closed meeting must be tape recorded at the expense of the governing body. The recording must be preserved for at least four years. The Chairperson of the Board should state, in open session, the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed. If the board is not in session, it may be necessary to convene a special meeting that will require special notification. 9 Describe the subject to be discussed. Withhold, from the public, materials discussed in the closed session. Ensure the minutes of the meeting simply state that a closed meeting was held and the statutory reason for closing the meeting. g 't-. e: 1 Sample Resolution and Minutes: Motion by Board Member X, seconded by Board Member Y to close the meeting of the public body to discuss possible charges against an employee. Motion carried unanimously. N' Motion by Board Member X, seconded by Board Member Y to close the meeting to conduct a performance evaluation of the county engineer. Motion carried unanimously. At the next meeting the minutes must reflect the conclusion of the board such as: The public body has completed the performance evaluation of the county engineer and finds his/her performance satisfactory. The meeting was closed under Minn. Stat. §13D.05 subd. 3. ® ® • �° „ rya The public must have access to materials distributed to the governing body for consideration during their meeting. To satisfy this requirement, the public body must make available for inspection in the meeting room at least one (1) copy of the agenda and other written materials which are: ➢ Distributed to all board members at the meeting; ➢ Distributed to all board members before the meeting; or ➢ Available in the meeting to board members. The public body can provide additional copies available for the public at the meeting and distribute the materials in advance of the meeting. The public body can only distribute materials classified as public pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act. DISCUSSINGLPR r kr AT A With increased awareness regarding risks associated with the release of private or confidential information there may be an inclination to close the meeting whenever this data may be discussed. Meetings cannot be closed simply because private or confidential data will be discussed. The law provides that any part of a meeting must be closed if the following data is to be discussed: ➢ Data identifying alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minor or vulnerable adults. ➢ Active investigation data as defined in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, or internal affairs data relating to allegations of law enforcement personnel. ➢ Educational data, health data, medical data, welfare data, or mental health data that are not public under the MGDPA. Page 6'. If the meeting is not required to be closed, private data may be discussed in public without liability or penalty when the disclosure related to a matter within the scope of the public body's authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct business. 2 �Sr f/u1EETI NGSBY�,I�NT�E'1�►�� The law authorizes meetings of public bodies by interactive television as long as the following criteria are met: 9 All members of the body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location, can hear and see one another as well as hear and see all discussion occurring at any location at which at least one member is present; Members of the public present at the regular meeting location can hear and see all discussions, testimony and votes of the public body; and At least one member of the public body is physically present at the regular meeting location. Each location at which a member of the public body is present is open and accessible to the public. To comply with the Open Meeting Law each member of the governing body choosing to participate in a meeting via interactive television is considered present for purposes of defining a quorum and participating in all proceedings. The public body must allow the public to monitor the meeting from a remote location with or without the presence of a member of the body (and may charge a fee for the additional costs if it can document the charge as a result of the connection.) The public body must provide notice of the location of the regular meeting AND notice of any site from which a member of the body will participate. �PENALTIES� ���� When a court finds a member of the public body violated the Open Meeting Law with specific intent to do so, the member may be fined up to $300 for each violation. The public body cannot indemnify the member for these penalties. When the member has been found to have intentionally violated the law three or more separate and unrelated times he/she may be removed from office. Note: This provision of the law is under consideration by the courts at the time of this publication's release (Kenneth Brown and Robert Banks v. Cannon Falls Township, et al, on appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals from Goodhue County District Court. The amended district court order appealed is dated November 23, 2005). The court may order the member to pay costs and attorney's fees, up to $13,000, to the claimant. Unlike the penalty, the public body may choose to indemnify the member for these expenses. MCIT excludes coverage for Open Meeting Violation penalties. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO.nA14 4-a uc;-kI�Jl+ Dlr,nninn (`nmmicclnn IvIel-JUCL FROM: Carie Fuhrman/Steve Grittman DATE: February 18, 2010 MEETING DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit CASE NO: Case No. 10-02; NAC Case 254.04 — 10.03 APPLICANT(S): Jane Landreville LOCATION: 2455 Bridgeview Court ZONING: R-1 — One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR — Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: Jane Landreville is seeking a Wetlands Permit in order to install a fence to enclose a portion of the rear yard and to construct a set of stairs off of the rear yard deck. The subject site is located at 2455 Bridgeview Court and is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. The Wetlands Ordinance requires that any land alteration or construction within 100 feet of any designated wetland requires approval of a Wetlands Permit. Analysis: Parcel Description. The parcel is located at the end of Bridgeview Court, which is a cul-de-sac, and west of friendly Hills Middle School. It is a triangular-shaped parcel with a wetland located in the northwest corner. The parcel slopes down from the location of the home towards the wetland. According to the Dakota County GIS mapping system, the house is located approximately 50 feet from the edge of the wetland at its closest point. The rear portion of the parcel is unimproved and contains natural vegetation. An 18 to 25 foot wide natural vegetation buffer (10 to 25 feet high) is located between the improved lawn and the wetland area. Project Description. The proposed fence will be approximately 18 to 20 feet from the wetland edge at its nearest point, while the proposed deck stairs will be at least 70 feet from the wetland edge. The proposed fence material is 48 -inch black, aluminum, classic style fence with a 3/ -rail puppy panel at the bottom, which shall be located around the improved lawn area, and a 48 -inch black, vinyl -coated chain link fence, which shall be located through the wooded area. Photographs of both fence styles have been provided with the application materials. The fence is proposed to be installed in the following manner: the black aluminum fencing will start from the front corner of the attached garage (located on the east side of the home) and extend for approximately 10 feet, then turn and run along the side property line for approximately 65 feet until the improved lawn turns into a heavily - wooded area. The black, vinyl -coated chain link fencing will then be installed for 30 feet, then angle down the slope for 100 feet towards the wetland area, ending 25 feet within from the bond, within the wetland buffer area. The fence will then angle along the perimeter of the pond for approximately 40 feet, until it reaches improved lawn again. The black aluminum fencing will then run again for 85 feet. In this location, the fencing will remain on the improved side of the natural vegetation buffer, which is 18 to 25 feet in width. The fence will then turn south for 30 feet, running along the side lot line with Lot 3, and then angle and run for 13 feet until it meets the west side of the house. According to the applicant, the fence shall be setback approximately 18 to 20 feet from the pond at its closest point. This location allows the existing poplar and cherry trees to remain in place and will not damage the mature trees. The applicant is also applying to construct a set of stairs off of the existing deck, which is located on the rear side of the home. The steps would be no wider than 4 feet in width, run directly behind the attached garage towards the east side property line, and be approximately 90 feet from the wetland. The applicant has chosen this location to place the stairs because the area immediately adjacent to the deck, in the center of the rear yard, is 16 or so feet lower than the deck elevation and would require a more intrusive staircase. The Engineering Department has reviewed this permit request and has no comments. Letter of Intent. There is an existing bike path that runs along the northeast corner of the parcel. According to the applicant, the purpose of the fence is to help keep both the family dog and the public utilizing the bike path safe from each other. The applicant also states that the natural slope of the property and drainage will not be affected from this fencing project and no trees will be cut down to accommodate this project. Lastly, the applicant points out that the fence will not be visible from across the pond or in the woods when leaf -on conditions exist. Wetlands Permit. The Wetlands Ordinance requires that any land alteration or construction within 100 feet of any designated wetland requires approval of a Wetlands 2 Permit. The purpose of the Wetlands Ordinance is to ensure that alterations within the buffer area adjacent to wetlands do not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland area. Action Requested: Regarding the request for a Wetlands Permit at 2455 Bridgeview Court, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following options: 1. Approval of the Wetlands Permit based on a finding that the proposal will not result in any negative impacts to the wetland and that the request is consistent with the Wetlands Ordinance. 2. Denial of the Wetlands Permit based on a finding that the application is inconsistent with the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the requested Wetlands Permit for the installation of the fence and construction of the deck stairs as both projects will not result in any negative impacts to the wetland. The applicant has shown consideration for alternative locations for both the fencing and stairs, but the proposed locations appear to meet the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance and will not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application Materials submitted January 28, 2010 2. Site location map 3 Findings of Fact for Approval Wetlands Permit 2455 Bridgeview Court The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Wetlands Permit: 1. The project meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. 2. The project has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 3. The grading and vegetation surrounding the pond will be unchanged. 4. The shape of the pond will be unchanged. 4 Friendly Hills Middle School Pbndhaven LI a L it j ,� - hts-kd- mendq ei g !Q/ Concord aYJ ............................................. Site Location Map City Limits Major Roads Parcels City Roads WaterMetlands C 0,1 ity of yy .� 5 £� /� hts APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. 10-67— Date D-oz_Date of Application - Z g- /t> Fee Paid /° Applicant Name: G./N!3I1LL1-1-6 _PH: si (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: Address: 4455 Z .d• L (�� F�� t-} 5 (City) Lim (State) Zi (Zip) (Number & Street) Owner Name'. Lu2u, (First) (M) (Last) Address, X74/ 5 cc��N��c�.- S ^ (State) Zi (zip) (Number & S reet) (City) Street Location of Property in Question: _;2 SS A,� t5 SS;-/. Legal Description &PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) .Sltie:%�S 1-5f 4c(c(�{—fc.� / Ci,L; i r J 7 /ill PIN � 2_is-/52-6Z/O--0 Y Type of Request- Variance Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval ` Wetlands Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. ^ V .+ PreliminaryiFinal Plat Approval r' ea r vFm � Comprehensive Plan Amendment Other (attach explanation) Applicable City Ordinance Number Section Present Zoning of Property Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during-jylltj hours. (Signature of Applicant) Date Received 11o1 victoria curve menadota Heights, NN 5 � FAX (651) 452-8940 ��Pd) avn w.mendota-heights-com City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 January 25, 2010 Re: Application for wetlands permit at 2455 Bridgeview Court, MN 55120 PIN 27-15150-040-03 Lot 4, Block 3 Bridgeview Shores 1" Addition, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, MN To Whom it May Concern: I, Jane Landreville, would like to apply for a wetlands permit for the purpose of installing a fence to contain a dog on my property located at: 2455 Bridgeview Court, Mendota Heights, MN 55120, described as Lot 4, Block 3, Bridgeview Shores 1St Addition, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, MN. My family built on this lot back in 1990 and have roughly one acre of land consisting of woods and the comer section of a pond. We are located at the end of a cul-de-sac with a bike path which runs behind our property, separating us from the acreage of Friendly Hills Middle School. We have always chosen to leave more than one half of the property natural and untouched. The natural buffer between our cultured lawn and the pond is, and has always been, in the area of 18'-25' with vegetation ranging from 10 to 25 feet in height. It is my desire to enclose a portion of my property with a fencing system to keep both the family dog and the public who use the bike path safe from each other. I have chosen to contract with Midwest Fence in the following manner: A48 " black, aluminum, classic style fence by Ameristar with a3/4 -rail puppy panel at the bottom will extend from the front corner of the garage, run within 6 inches of the property line between my lot (lot 4) and my neighbor's (lot 5) and travel along that same line for roughly 65 feet, until my cultured yard turns into heavy woods. At this time we will change the fencing from aluminum to 48" black vinyl coated chain link fencing for an additional 30 feet. (This amount of footage is less than half of the lot's linear footage on that one side.) The chain link will then be angled down the hill for 100 feet towards the pond, ending well within the 25 foot easement the city requires. While still in the woods, the fence will angle along the perimeter of the pond for about 40 feet until it reaches cultured lawn once again. Once the fencing meets up with the cultured part of the yard it will change back to the black aluminum, staying on the groomed side of the natural easement which expands anywhere from 18 to 25 feet from the pond. While I understand that 25 feet is recommended, at two locations it would be necessary to reduce it to 18-20 feet to avoid damaging mature trees already on the property since before we bought it. The aluminum will then turn south running for 30 feet on my landscaped buffer which separates my lot (lot four) from my neighbors' (lot 3) just until my chimney, where it will join the house (well less than half of the property line on that side). The natural slope of the property and drainage will not be affected in any way from this fencing project. Furthermore, no trees will be cut down to accommodate this project as I have chosen the path of least resistance throughout my property. Finally, as the fence is only 48" in height it will not be visible from across the pond or in the woods when the foliage is out; the trees and bushes in the buffer and woods far exceed said height. We plan on beginning this project in early spring for completion before summer. Any dirt from the post holes will be distributed evenly in my woods where there are any number of natural sink holes from old trees and stumpage. If financial situations permit, I would also like to add a set of stairs from my already existing backyard deck into the yard, as there are none at this time. The steps would run behind my garage towards the eastern side of the property as that part of the yard is at a height basically level with the deck. The area immediately off the deck, in the center of the backyard, is 16 or so feet lower than the deck and would require a rather long, tedious staircase. If I can supply you with any further needed information, please contact me at 651-688-2270 or at ilandreville(a�stmichaelweststpaul.or . Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely,. i Jane Landreville 2455 Bridgeview Court Mendota Heights, MN 55120 651-688-2270 January 25, 2010 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in reference to the proposed containment fence installation at the residence of Jane Landreville, 2455 Bridgeview Ct., Mendota Hts, 55120. If the weather allows us, we intend on setting the posts around mid-April, early -May of 2010, and completing the fence about 5 business days after the post set date, weather permitting. Also the dirt that is excavated from the ground for the posts, will be spread through out the wooded half acre on the property, away from the pond. We are aware of the "Wetland Buffer", and the guidelines put fourth by the City of Mendota Heights that pertain to these projects. I am writing this letter to help facilitate the process, and offer any assistance that I can give to the city and homeowner to help this run effortlessly. The information that accompanies this letter will include; an aerial picture of the property that will detail where the fence will be installed(not to scale), material pictures and descriptions, along with footages and heights. The aerial photo does not show the brush that runs along the shoreline. Installing this fence any closer than 20' from the shoreline would be next to impossible, due to the density of the foliage, and softer soil. I hope that this information is helpful. If there is anything more that I can do, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 7:;P� Derek P. Vocovich Midwest Fence 651-210-4353 '® Ililli I Varies with Height Varies with Height Standard Heights 4', 5', 6' 21" Min. 2" Nom_ ;'•� {= -` Footing depth LJ:; Q 8' O.C. Nom. — 1 %"TYPICAL NOTES: 1.) Post size depends on fence height and wind loads. PANEL BRACKET See ECHELON Plus- post sizing chart. Specially designed two 2.) Panels also available for 6' on center post spacing -point connection ensures fixity of rail ends for 3.) Additional heights available on request 4.) Fourth rail optional. Some heights noted increased strength. require a fourth rail. INTERNAL RETAINING ROD Variable pitch connection system for ease of installation, high angle bias ability and elimination of unsightly external fasteners. Base Material — "No -Mar" Polyester Powder finish coat ME INTERIOR GUIDE CHANNEL Channel forms lower limit of raceway for retaining rod and allows for high angle bias ability. FORERUNNER -RAIL — "U" -Channel specially formed high strength architectural shape. 1Y1" x 13/16' FORERUNNER -Rail (see Cross- Section Below) Post size varies with Height (See ECHELOAI P1uar' Post -sizing c) hO 7 a s s s T. 3/4" JL(x .045" Picket Bracket Options s s s �0 REINFORCED POST Internal rib increases against wind loading as well as other horizontally applied forces (Only on 2%" aluminum posts). COMMERCIAL STRENGTHALUMINUM AMIsuu nae, 1555 N. Mingo ECHELON PLUS MAJESTIC 3/4 -RAIL PUP PX PANEL Teti r�l� ® Tulsa, OK 74116 DR: NJB SH . lof 1 SCALE: DO NOT SCALE M �R AMEMSTAR 1_988-333-3422 CK: CI Date 03/26/09 REV: b www.ameristarfence.com 'M NOW Ll I MW 4- s u -o AL ry as � V J ,a �A� . J I MW 4- s u -o ry as � V I MW 4- � V s 3 �Il1 I MW 4- la,..� l�dr�cu� ll2 r N 2455 Bridgeview Ct WE .l Al ♦ AIA S 50 25 0 50 Feet City of 1111110 Mendota Heights 4 7, %• i L: 724 1 I 124 723 LP ................ 110 ............................. --•-_--_ 155 I do V; % I 2455 P\6 , 2461 •� A 2a 11 �� ` X00 2455 i % i 70 29 �� "7 6/ /• NI 2450 i 2461 �� `=_ �_�� :a;.�• i' \O 9 V 3� A7 1 65 ' vl �. -- x;11 • --� '� 251' }r_ _ _- _-.�� �`� _�6� _ 1`.. fl N� f_ - - 149 ...................... oj 24658 -v rlyTl caec+cS �i� it Oc�U� ✓riiMN Uo r--e6tCf (31cu.14 L14Ll�N- linkTn wvoclS' ; �,�e .� s w is ��s vs=� 131,.ck - . . , CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING February 2, 2010 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, February 23, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Jane Landreville for a Wetlands Permit for a fence at the following described property. Lot 4, Block 3, Bridgeview Shores 1St Addition (PIN #27-15150-040-03) More particularly this property is located at 2455 Bridgeview Court This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 2 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this Wetlands Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Auxiliary aids for disabled persons 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 Administrator at 452-1850. 2455 Bridgeview Court Dakota County, MN Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 208 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. City Of Mendota Heights Independent School Dist 197 City Of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Cury 1897 Delaware Ave 1101 Victoria Cury Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167 Thalhuber Jennifer L & Scott F Johnson Philip E & Margaret City Of Mendota Heights 2473 Bridgeview Ct 2458 Bridgeview Ct 1101 Victoria Cury Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1610 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1600 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167 Kauffman Kenneth K Katzmark John R & Deborah L Ryan Kevin P & Lori A 2467 Bridgeview Ct 2461 Bridgeview Ct 2470 Bridgeview Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1610 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1610 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1600 Cutrone Theodore J & Barbara Landreville Jane M Najjar Dominique B & Susan 2477 Bridgeview Ct 2455 Bridgeview Ct 2476 Bridgeview Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1610 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1610 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1600 Tschida Joanne & Jason M Wier Michael J Reamer John M & Jill M 2450 Bridgeview Ct 2480 Bridgeview Ct 2489 Mendota Heights Cir Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1600 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1600 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1690 Mclaughlin James M & Sally R City Of Mendota Heights City Of Mendota Heights 2480 Mendota Heights Cir 1101 Victoria Cury 1101 Victoria Cury Saint Paul Mn 55120-1690 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167 Friel Bernard P & Damaris Bausch Maureen Orfei Thomas & Mary Ann 750 Mohican Lane 750 Havenview Ct 766 Havenview Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1633 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1800 Wickard Todd A & Melissa S Ernst Michael G & Lynette Jacobson David R & Stacy S 760 Havenview Ct 732 Mohican Ct 728 Mohican Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1800 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1632 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1632 Seivert Gregory N & Juana V Kelly Daniel J Friel Bernard P & Damaris 724 Mohican Ct 736 Mohican Ct 750 Mohican Ln Saint Paul Mn 55120-1632 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1632 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1633 VVardwell William M & Debra A Mashuga Dennis L & Carol A Cornetto Roger J 2464 Bridgeview Ct 754 Havenview Ct 723 Mohican Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1600 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1800 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1632 Mager Steven A 729 Mohican Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1632