Loading...
2017-08-22 Planning Comm MinutesAugust 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 22 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 22, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. Call to Order Vice-Chair Doug Hennes called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Commissioners John Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Vice-Chair Doug Hennes were present. Chair Litton Field, Jr. was absent/excused. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of July 25, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Toth) ABSENT: 1 (Field) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2017-17 ALLTECH ENGINEERING, 2515 PILOT KNOB ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVER-HEIGHT FENCE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Alltech Engineering was seeking a conditional use permit to erect an eight-foot tall security fence on a portion of their industrial based property located at 2515 Pilot Knob Road. He also noted that a public hearing notice had been sent out on this application and no comments or objections have been received. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Pilot Knob and Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Benetti shared images of the property in relation to its location to surrounding streets and properties. The site is 4.34 acres, just under 190,000 square feet, contains an existing 32,106 square foot office/warehouse building, and is zoned and guided as I-Industrial. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 22 Alltech Engineering has experienced a rash of thefts and vandalism on the back of their property, in the storage areas. They are looking to erect something to keep out unwelcome guests and to provide for some type of security measures. Mr. Benetti shared an image showing the current driveway coming off of Pilot Knob Road, storage and parking area, and a curved entrance off of Mendota Heights Road. The access points would be blocked off with a horizontal rolling gate system, controlled by a keypad. The gates would be open throughout the day and closed at night. City Code requires that screening of approximately 90% or more opacity be installed; however, the fence design request is a classic style, 8-foot high, picket rail fence style with fleurs-de-lis on top. This style of fencing was chosen by the applicant not only for their need in protecting their property and added security measures, but more for the high quality finish and appearance. If the Planning Commission feels that a screen of 90% or more must be attained, then the applicant would have to adjust or offer to provide a new version or style of security fence that would meet this standard. However, because the current site has been without any vegetative or structural measures for a long time, due to the overall nice appearance and quality of the new fence, and the fact that the adjacent properties are not residential but similar industrial and/or office/warehouse uses with their own unscreened loading or storage areas, staff recommended support of the proposed security fence presented, without added measures or meeting the complete 90% opacity standard. Mr. Benetti explained the standards that must be met to approve a conditional use permit and how this request satisfies those standards. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the site under consideration is currently not fenced, screened, or buffered; so the back of the property is open to the view to the extent that it is viewable from Mendota Heights Road or from Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan continued by noting that the request is not for a chain-link fence nor a wood fence, which would show the test of time. Again, Mr. Benetti confirmed. It was then asked if that wouldn’t offset the notion – the improved fence, is that a reason why the Commission could say that it enhances or addresses the screen situation because there is nothing there now. Mr. Benetti wholeheartedly agreed with that statement and said that the proposed fence would be a much better improvement than a chain-link fence with the slats or anything else, especially anything with a barbed-wire security arm on the top. A wood fence weathers over time and would not be as appealing, per staff, as this fence would be. Commissioner Noonan stated that it was represented to the Commission that the applicant was proposing this classic style of fence; however, when looking at the conditions – it’s not a condition. He expressed his concern that if the Commission gave the approval for the 8-foot but do not condition it to this fence, there could be a substitution. He then asked if it would be appropriate to include, as a condition, that the applicant install and staff can identify the appropriate type. Mr. Benetti replied that he would recommend that amendment. Commissioner Petschel noted that just a few months ago the Commission approved a fence just down the road at the Liquor Distributor, which the Commission required 90% opacity and with August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 22 barbed-wire at the top. He then asked that, if the Commissioner were to approve this, how would it not just throw this rule out the window. Mr. Benetti replied that the easiest way to do this is to consider, now that they Comprehensive Plan is under amendment consideration, tweaking or upgrading the zoning ordinance comprehensively as well. This could be something that staff could look at very closely. He would be willing to see what other communities do; he does not see an opacity rule of 90% as being really effective in an industrial zone as it is not really needed from a planning perspective. The screening measures really come into play when there are residential areas next door or when it is highly visible. The property under consideration is dead center in the industrial park so there would not be any negative connotations with having this fence. Commissioner Magnuson asked if Mr. Benetti had any conversations with the owner about using some vegetation to provide some sort of buffer. When out looking at the site she would agree that completely surrounding that fence in vegetative material would require a lot; however, it seemed to her that there are a few key places where a couple of nicely placed pine trees or something would really solve the problem. It probably would not get it to 90% - but may come close to the spirit and intent of the Code rather than just not dealing with it. Mr. Benetti agreed and said that when staff walked the site a suggestion was made to put the some trees within the open edge; however, putting trees in the berm area would be difficult. Hopefully the applicant would have the budget for a few trees if the Commission felt it was warranted. Vice Chair Hennes asked how hard and fast is the 90% rule and, if it is hard and fast, does the Commission need to consider a variance. Mr. Benetti replied that his past experience working with Conditional Use Permits, other city attorneys advised that if a condition under a Conditional Use Permit if being asked to be waived or reduced/limited, a variance does not really need to be applied in that case. In effect, the Commission could request a modification under the broad general category of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Toth, referencing the statement in the staff report that the pavilion would be removed, asked what the timeline would be for the removal – would it be removed prior to the installation of the fence if this were to be approved. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant would like to remove the pavilion no matter the decision; the concrete pad would remain. He also noted that this would be inside the fence line. Commissioner Toth asked if the 8-foot fence would be installed on top of the already existing 4- foot berm, thus making that stretch of the fenced area 12 feet. Mr. Benetti replied that the plan calls for an 8-foot fence around the whole blue-lined area in the photograph provided, including the berm. Mr. Chris Lawrence, Operations Manager at Alltech Engineering Corp. shared images of the property in question, which had been included in the staff report. He then noted the location of the day-to-day operational parking lot, the loading area where they sometimes leave vehicles parked overnight – the area of most security concern – and the location of the berms or buffer areas. He also shared an image of the property from Pilot Knob Road indicating that the view from there would probably only be 4 feet of the installed fence. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 22 Commissioner Magnuson agreed that when going down Mendota Heights Road the neighbor’s loading dock is more visible than Alltech’s. She then asked if they would be open to putting in a few evergreens here and there. Mr. Lawrence stated that he would be open to that suggestion. The one concern he would have is as the back of the property is approached there are potential blind spots for their drivers; however, he would be open to it. Commissioner Noonan stated that the representation is that it was the classic fence that would be installed, so if a condition were added that it had to be this classic fence, would that be acceptable. Mr. Lawrence replied that this would be acceptable. Vice Chair Hennes asked, since this is the first time they would be installing a fence, would two feet make that much of a difference in terms of security. Mr. Lawrence replied that to him, as well as other management, it would be more of a deterrent. He recalled scaling four foot fences when he was younger to go to football games. Commissioner Toth asked if the fence was metal and would it be powder-coat paint or painted with an industrial black paint – what would be seen in the next five, ten, or fifteen years as far as peeling, rust, etc. Mr. Lawrence replied that he believed this to be a dipped product and of nice quality; made to stand the test of time. Vice Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVER-HEIGHT FENCE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by screening the loading dock area on the subject property, while providing additional security for the property owner. 2. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The existing mature vegetation along Pilot Knob Road right-of-way increases the screening/buffering of the subject property from this adjacent roadway; and any visual impacts experienced form Northland Drive along the north side will be reduced by the physical screening offered by the existing building. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 22 1. A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction. 2. The fence shall be located entirely on private property. 3. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. AND THE ADDED FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 4. The applicant agrees to install a Montage Commercial® classic fence on the property 5. The applicant work with the City Planner to site and install additional landscaping adjacent to the fence area AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) Vice Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5, 2017 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2017-18 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE INC. AND PETER & JEN EISENHUTH, 1275 KNOLLWOOD LANE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this application was to help facilitate the removal of an existing single-family dwelling and replace it with a new one. As part of any properties that are within or partially within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area, any work, construction activity, grading work all has to be approved with a Critical Area Permit. This application was being presented as a public hearing and notices were published and mailed out to all residences within 350 feet. One comment was received by an adjacent neighbor and once he understood the scope and scale of the project he had no objections. Almost three-quarters of the subject property is located within the Critical Area. The property is a 1.73 acre parcel and contains a single-family dwelling of just over 4,000 square feet. There is currently an access point on the south corner of the lot which swings into a circular driveway. The property is zoned R-1 Residential and there are no plans to change that zoning. The plan is to remove the existing dwelling and construct a new one in the same place. The only difference is they would be going lower than the existing house. According to their grading and foundation plans, they will be a little lower than what is seen at this time. Grading would take place along Knollwood Lane and along the back side. They are tying in some of the grades into the existing contours in the bluff line. This has been reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and they have determined that the plans are adequate. The owners plan to construct a new, modern style home. Mr. Benetti shared architectural images of the front and rear of the planned dwelling, with a rear walkout and gentle slopes to the backyard August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 22 areas. The reason for the grading work as shown on the plan would be to accommodate the walkout. Mr. Benetti shared the standards and provisions as noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District, which included the site planning requirements, development standards, setbacks, height limits, retaining wall, process for construction on property within the critical area, vegetation management, and surface water runoff management. The report indicated that there are some retaining walls on the site; however, they are not planning any new retaining walls; only natural graded berms. There is an old foundation on site, believed to be an old barn or outbuilding structure, believed to be constructed of a running brick pattern or concrete block; there are no plans to remove that foundation. The Conditional Use Permit is needed for any areas affected between 18% and 40% grades. In this case, it is almost the entire site. The grading plan as presented meets the identified and required standards that must be met in order to allow said grades and work in these areas. Commissioner Noonan noted, generally speaking, that the footprint where this new home is to be built is more or less identical to the footprint of the existing home. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was true. Commissioner Noonan observed that the height of the proposed home is more or less consistent with the height of the current residence. Again, Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan observed then that there is no change in the structure’s impact on this area; it is just new and therefore it is triggered because of where it is. Mr. Benetti replied that the new structure would actually be lower than the existing structure; but is probably close to the 25-foot standard. Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the drainage map, noted that the site is draining in two halves; a portion goes down the slope and a portion goes down to Knollwood. He then asked if anyone knew the drainage pattern on the existing site. Mr. Benetti deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Mazzitello asked, if this home were not in the critical area, would there be any other planning reason for it to be before the Planning Commission. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Mr. Stephen Mastey of Landscape Architecture Inc. came forward representing the applicant asked to hear Commissioner Mazzitello’s question regarding drainage. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if there were any significant changes between the existing drainage pattern and the new planned drainage pattern. Mr. Mastey replied in the affirmative and explained that the only different is they would reduce the impervious surfaces on the site by approximately 30% so there would be less runoff, less storm water leaving the site, and more greenspace. Vice Chair Hennes asked if the homeowners would be comfortable with working with the City Planner a more reasonable tree replacement plan. Mr. Mastey agreed that they would be and as the site plan evolves and they start to site the house and discover what the critical screenings are, they have had some discussions already about wanting to add some additional screen trees, especially where some of the diseased trees are proposed to be removed and where the existing driveway is. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 22 Commissioner Magnuson noted that one of the conditions of constructing in the critical area is that the materials used have to be of natural quality and color and blend into the environment so it does not create some sort of eye-sore. In looking at the diagrams, the house appears to be stark white and she was sure that was for purposes of review. She asked if they had considered the color of the structure. Mr. Mastey replied that what they are proposing to do is to drop the structure a little bit and they would adjust the grade so the site would be lower. The second part regarding materials he deferred to Mr. Charles Simmons and Ms. Marcy Townsend of Charlie & Co. Design. Mr. Charles Simmons, 356 – 3rd Avenue N, Minneapolis, in reference to the color pallet, replied that at this point in the conceptual design it is intended to be white for diagram purposes. In all of the images that the homeowner has shared with them, all of the materials are incredibly warm, natural color pallets. There will be some stone on the outside for the chimney and the base. This would not be a white modern home by any stretch of the imagination. Vice Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. Mr. Ken Hayes, 1291 Knollwood Lane, stated that he called Mr. Benetti on August 14th but received no reply and his questions could have been answered that way. However, many of his questions were answered during the presentation. He is the neighbor where the circular driveways come together and from the vegetation diagrams it is hard tell what is going to be replaced or not in the green buffer between the properties. There is a lot of invasive species in there and he requested that they be removed and replaced by appropriate vegetation. He noted that the driveway is going to be moved; however, he would like the three USPS mailbox to stay where it is currently. If the owner would like to install his own mailbox near his own driveway, that would be fine. If the current mailbox straddles the property lines, he would like to see an easement put in place to keep it where it is. Mr. Stephen Mastey of Landscape Architecture Inc. returned and, in reference to the invasive species, stated that he is recommending the removal and doing some eco-system management to clean that area and create a clean slate for something better. Typically they try to plant trees that would be there for 100 years. There have also been discussions, once the driveway is moved, of adding some additional screening and other vegetation specifically in that area. He said he would be willing to work with Mr. Benetti and suggested Mr. Benetti keep Mr. Hayes updated. As for the mailbox, typically they are in the right-of-way so he does not believe an easement or anything like that is needed. Vice Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 22 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-18 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1275 KNOLLWOOD LANE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed development of the property with two a new single-family residential structure meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, including the additional conditional use permit standards. 3. The proposed development will make a concerted effort to reduce the removal of any significant trees on the subject property; the removal of invasive and harmful planting provides a benefit to helping restore the natural environment and native plant growth in this area; and provides a condition to help replace and replenish the loss of some significant trees. 4. The proximity of the new home from the bluff line, along with all new grades for this site, will ensure that no stormwater drainage will negatively impact neighboring residents; and help lessen any erosion or future degradation of the nearby bluff and critical corridor area. 5. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area, if done carefully and professionally. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Building and grading permits shall be approved by the City prior to any demolition or removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of any new dwelling on the lot. 2. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 3. All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. The Applicant shall provide an updated tree and/or vegetation replacement plan that provides a reasonable and equitable replacement of trees to be removed under this new development plan. 5. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. Removal of vegetation is primarily confined to the areas identified on the “Tree Removal Plan” as submitted under this joint application. 6. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 7. All grading and landscape work shall be performed by a qualified, professional contractor and/or landscape company. 8. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 9. The final design and location of the new (relocated) driveway must be approved by the City Engineer; and any portion of the existing driveway that is removed within the Knollwood Lane right-of-way and inside the subject property must repaired and restored accordingly. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 22 AND THE ADDED FOLLOWING CONDITION: 10. The exterior finishes of the dwelling shall incorporate natural and/or native type materials, subject to approval of the Community Dev. Director and City Engineer. Commissioner Magnuson noted that Findings of Fact #1 had a typographical error in it and suggested that the word ‘two’ be stricken. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the edit as a friendly amendment to his motion as did the second, Commissioner Noonan. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) Vice Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5, 2017 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE #2017-19 MIKE SWENSON – MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT OF MN, LLC, 2160 & 2180 HWY 13 REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this was a request from Mr. Michael Swenson – Michael Development of MN, LLC asking for a rezoning, preliminary plat, conditional use permit, and wetlands permit for the new Mendota Heights Apartments, PUD complex. The original plan was to build two 69-unit apartment complexes; however, the updated plan under consideration tonight is for two, 70-unit apartment complexes for a total of 140 units. This would entail the redevelopment of the Mendota Motel site and the former Larson Greenhouse Center site. The rezoning request would be from B-3 General Business to a new HR-PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development; a preliminary plat of “Mendota Heights Apartments”; a conditional use permit for the establishment of the PUD and the development of the proposed multi-family type buildings; and wetlands permit due to the proximity of work adjacent to Lemay Lake. As part of a PUD process, it starts off with a concept plan. As the staff report indicated, staff believes they have already presented the concept plan at the initial land use amendment stage a few months. The concept plan has not changed very much so staff requested the Planning Commission to consider both the Preliminary and Final Development plans at this time as one complete submittal. This item being be presented as a public hearing item, notices were mailed to residents within 1,500 feet or more of the development site and published in the local South-West Review newspaper. These same residents had been included in the notices for the public information meeting and the comprehensive plan review meeting. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 22 Mr. Benetti reviewed the background, site description and present use, surrounding properties and neighborhood, and project description; all included in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Mr. Benetti also presented staff’s analysis on the rezoning from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High Density Residential PUD, preliminary/final development plan – site plan & specifics review, wetlands permit, aircraft noise attenuation, and preliminary plat. Mr. Benetti shared images of the concept plan for the development, no more than three stories; a single identification monument sign near the front entry; layout of the underground parking with 79 spaces; layouts of the units, conference rooms, office, open concept lobby, club room, and fitness room. Each building would have 37 one-bedroom apartments, 16 one-bedroom plus den apartments, and 17 two-bedroom apartments. The overall grading plan not only showed the overall grading, but the north and south, which is effective for review as this is being looked at in two phases. Phase 1 is on the Mendota Motel site in the south and Phase 2 will take place a little bit later on the north site. Mr. Benetti stated that the landscaping plans is probably one of the better ones he has ever seen with numerous and wide varieties of plantings; staff was very pleased to see this variety. They were also very happy to see that they are not planning on a lot of work in the rear setback area as it has existing screening with a great highway buffer screening view. During the rezoning analysis, Mr. Benetti indicated that the one of the key provisions of the purpose of a PUD is “…to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land . . .” He then listed the basis a council may consider the reduction of the 10-acre requirement for a PUD, one of them being that it would not require any wetlands permit. This application does include a wetlands permit; however, this is only due to the proximity of Lemay Lake. Staff is very confident that they are not going to be affecting any part of Lemay Lake so they feel that the wetland permit provision should not really be a factor in the Commissions’ decision of making a recommendation. Mr. Benetti then shared the standards that need to be met for a PUD approval and explained how this request meets those standards. In terms of the density, Mr. Benetti explained that the High Density residential land use designation in the 2030 Land Use Plan only allows a maximum density of 8.5 units per acre, which is very low compared to many other suburban cities in the region. The trend in the local areas is towards higher density in appropriate locations; said locations would include good access and compatibility with surrounding land uses, which the subject property does. The Planning Commission determines the number of dwelling units which may be constructed within the PUD. Under the Preliminary/Final Development Plan – Site Plan & Specifics Review, Mr. Benetti reviewed the living area, unit size, levels, height, setback standards, floor area ratio, site data calculations, design, parking, sidewalk/trail, signage, landscape plan, and public safety review. While reviewing the setbacks standards, Mr. Benetti explained that the PUD can be used to provide flexibility to allowing or accepting the reduced setbacks in this development plan and why these reduced setbacks are no cause for concern and are acceptable by city staff. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 22 As for the wetland permit, as indicated earlier the proposed project includes grading and construction activities within 100 feet of a wetland/water resource-related area; however, staff is confident the developer will provide adequate protection and safeguards throughout the duration of the project, and will ensure these and all other environmental and habitat protection measures are maintained. Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the protection of Lemay Lake, asked if the stormwater pollution prevention plan, erosion and sediment control plan, and stormwater model for the proposed condition are all yet to come. The only item under consideration this evening is simply the rezoning of the property to allow the PUD to progress. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was correct. The applicant has already submitted a stormwater report and their SWPPP, but Staff did not include them with the Planning Report due to technical language, overall volume and size. However, they are available at City Hall Planning Dept. should anyone wish to review. Commissioner Toth asked if there were any safety concerns with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) using Highway 13 coming out onto Highway 110 and the uses of Mendota Heights Road; would Highway 13 / Mendota Heights Road see any major impacts or how would that be mitigated if problems arise in the future. Mr. Benetti indicated that this was a good question. MnDOT has reviewed this and they have indicated that there would be the obvious spike in local traffic from what was before. It has been pretty quiet in the last few years with the shutting of the old garden center site and motel did not have a lot of traffic in and out. However, with the new development, yes there would be an increase in traffic seen. The benefit is they are eliminating access on one point and Highway 13 currently serves as more of a high collector frontage road system. He did not believe that MnDOT had any issues or concerns and did not see any need for a traffic study at this point. They believe the highway can handle this uptick in traffic. There was a concern raised by a resident about any decreasing in posted speeds along Highway 13; again, it’s a State Highway and the City cannot recommend or authorize any reduction in speed. Commissioner Petschel asked if the issues in MnDOT’s response been addressed as it appeared they were asking for a number of things to be addressed. Mr. Benetti replied that MnDOT still has the opportunity to review this as the project goes along; however, the applicant has been made aware of their comments as far any permitting and right-of-way work – all of that has to be approved beforehand. There are still some issues they have to address directly with MnDOT. If they would not be in support of it, they would have indicated that early on. Commissioner Magnuson indicated that on one of the designs there is a picture of Highway 13 and it looks substantially wider than what currently exists with the center turn lane and asked if this was part of the project. Mr. Benetti replied that there will be a proposed right-hand turn lane into the site, which a recommendation was made by MnDOT; so there will be some additional work at that right-of-way for that turn lane. Vice Chair Hennes, looking at the main map for the site plan, asked if the northern apartment building would be visible from the Augusta Shores property or, given the drop off and all of the trees if it would be invisible. Mr. Benetti replied that it was possible but indicated that with the heavy grove of woods and a variety of trees he did not believe much of the site would be visible. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 22 Commissioner Toth asked if the area would be disturbed – the large trees down the embankment area to protect those residents on the Augusta Shores side. Mr. Benetti replied that currently all of the work being done is within their own property limits and that is where it is desired to be kept. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that between the existing greenhouse property and the motel property there is a city right-of-way that is undeveloped. This would need to be vacated for the plat to move forward and he asked this to be addressed. Mr. Benetti answered that there is an old unused section called Hilltop and that would need to go through the official vacation process. The City Engineer and Mr. Benetti would be setting up a public hearing process for that as it would need to be vacated officially by the Council. Also, all drainage utility easements will also be dedicated as part of this new plat. Mr. Mike Swenson of Michael Development of MN, LLC, 1650 Four Oaks Road, Eagan stated this idea has been presented for the last 6 or 8 months and he hopes that it is accepted. He believes it to be an improvement to the area and he would build a livable, acceptable, and attractive building. He would also do his best to rent to qualified people. Michael Development screens all of their tenants as far as being good people and this is who would be invited to the community. Vice Chair Hennes asked if he had to guess as the typical age of tenants, would they be baby boomers, millennials, or gen X’s or what. Mr. Swenson replied that when a building like this is constructed, the rent is hefty so the people that could afford the rent are probably a little bit more established in life; usually 30 to 45 years in age. Mr. Ben Delwiche of Kass Wilson Architects located at 1301 American Boulevard E, Bloomington came forward to address the Commission and to answer questions. He stated that the front of the building would be heavily clad in brick and the color scheme would include four different colors, including the accent piece and would be pretty neutral. They would also use a hearty flat panel and lap siding combination. Vice Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. Mr. Harold Fotsch, 2126 Lake Augusta Drive, lives right next to this place. He expressed his appreciation to the developer for coming forward with a plan as they have been waiting for something for some time and are anxious for this to be developed. In regards to the underground parking, he asked where the exit would be from that area. His next question was in regards to the site lines on the exit from Augusta Shores on Highway 13. The only exit Augusta Shores has is onto Highway 13 and it is a challenge to do that safely, primarily due to the lack of a sight line coming from the south. He was also concerned about the amount of traffic that would be generated from the development to the extent that he wondered if Victoria could be used as an exit from the underground parking area. His next comment pertained to the northern border of this development. Apparently there is a platted street on the northern border of this property, between this and Augusta Shores. This has been a point of contention as Augusta Shores has not been able to make any improvements to the entrance to their development. He asked if this new development could remove that paving and put in foliage of some sort. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 22 His final comment was that the apartment buildings look like boxes. He suggested the addition of some kind of interesting roof line instead of plain old boxes to look at. Mr. Greg Langan, 2101 Lake Augusta Drive, had five points or questions: 1. He observed that he lives on the north side facing the pond. Everything that he sees from his deck is the Larson property. There is a huge swale between Augusta Shores property and Larson greenhouse. If the grading that he heard about happens they are most likely to lose some of that tree buffer that would potentially block his view of the new apartment complex. This is a concern to him. 2. It was mentioned that on the north side of the property the set back from Acacia Drive is proposed to be 30 feet, which would be less than what it is supposed to be. That would only be 1.5 cars away from the property line. 3. He agreed with Mr. Fotsch and stated that there are days they cannot get out of their development – and that is without the extra cars this development would add. 4. The lovely stonework was mentioned on the front with some siding materials. Augusta Shores would be looking at the backside of this complex. He asked if the developer or the architect could tell him what would be on the backside of the building that he gets to look at, especially if the trees are removed when they do the grading. 5. He was not sure if this was appropriate to ask but did anyway – He asked Mr. Swenson to provide the projected range of rents for the new complex. Vice Chair Hennes asked the applicant or architect to come forward and address some of the concerns raised. Mr. Ben Delwiche of Kass Wilson Architects replied as follows: • Access from the underground garage – both garages would be entered from Highway 13, residents would drive down the hill to the space between the two buildings to the entrances to the underground garages. • Sight line at the corner and the set back of the building – the building on the north side would be 30 feet away from the property line, the property line – especially at the far corner – is set back an additional 15 to 20 feet from Highway 13. Additionally, this phase 2 building is within the existing setbacks on the site – they are not requesting more setback on any of the buildings at any portion that currently exist on the site. • Tree removal plan – they plan to remove a heavy amount of trees from the area between the Phase 2 building and Highway 13, which would greatly increase the sight lines. They do plan on replacing two large trees and they would be happy to have the landscape designer remove those or any visual impediments on this portion of the site. • Traffic – looking at the MnDOT report the received initially, MnDOT deemed that the road could handle the amount of traffic. Within that they did request that they add the proposed right turn lane to help mitigate any slowing down along that route to Acacia Boulevard. • The platted street on the north - according to the survey, there is an existing paved area. They currently have plans to remove all of that paving. • Design on the outside – it is architectural style and they have worked on the renderings and what they have currently is not significantly different but it is making steady improvements to get where they want to be • Where this development is located is kind of a buffer between the small-scale residential community [Augusta Shores] and the depot facility [Restaurant Technologies]. Based on August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 22 the location and proximity to the highway, they are an intermediate buffer or transition. They did a flat roof design to be an intermediary between those two things. The flat roof also helps with the overall building height, which was a concern from residents who could view the building from Augusta Shores. • Grading and elimination of the buffer to the Augusta Shores neighborhood – he assured everyone that they are only removing a handful of very small trees along the whole area. They are also going through and giving more of an effort to preserve a number of trees in the area. The removal plans are available for anyone to review and he would be happy to talk to the residents after the meeting. He indicated on the plan the location of the two significant trees to be removed from the site. Overall, the area should be more guarded then it was previously. • Design on the rear of the building – there is a very heavy buffer of trees on the entire site. Strategically they placed brick on the ends on all visible spots that can be seen from Highway 13, along the interior side, and then switch on the rear side to the hearty board siding in a color to mimic the brick. Commissioner Magnuson asked if he had done much of an analysis of the buffer being mostly comprised of deciduous trees, which in the summer is great with the foliage; however, in the winter those types of trees are bare. She was able to see that there are some pine trees; however, the buffer may go away in the winter. Mr. Delwiche replied that he has not looked at the specific species of trees. He also clarified that just because they are removing the brick from the bottom two layers from the back of the building, they are not compromising the aesthetic. The look on the backside, even without any trees, would remain the same as the front of the building. Commissioner Toth asked if he was living on the east side of the complex would he be able to see the roof line of the apartment complex from his home at any given time. Mr. Delwiche replied that they have modeled this project and put it into Google Earth and their building came down within the three strands of trees, well below the top of the tree line. Although he could not say with certainty, his assumption would be that this development would have very limited visibility from the Augusta Shores neighborhood. Commissioner Toth asked what type of surveys had been done and could he guarantee that this building roof line would be below the top of the trees. Mr. Delwiche replied that he did not have that answer currently; however, he could get that answer and get very accurate drawings to depict what exactly those views would be down there. However, whether or not the roof line could be seen, a three story development, 70 apartment units is far less than what is typically asked for. Usually, the economy to scale numbers push it up to a four story building. Here, given the heights of the buildings at only three stories, plus the costly transition to a flat roof and the means to mitigate what that roof line might do, he would hope that would serve the neighbors well. Commissioner Toth noted that many times on apartments and commercial buildings air conditioning units and other mechanical elements are seen. He then asked if there would be a number of those units on top of this building. Mr. Delwiche replied that they would have a very limited amount of roof top units; basically one adjacent to elevator overrun, which goes above the roof by four or five feet. That unit would serve the corridor. One thing that they do as a strategy, to eliminate the look of those mechanical units on the outside of the building, is that they are August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 22 recessed them back into the deck area and are basically hidden from the main front face of the building. They also added roof line projections to break up the roof line. Commissioner Petschel suggested the developer provide a simulated drop street view onto Augusta Shores, which Mr. Delwiche agreed to do. The last item Mr. Delwiche addressed concerned the estimated rent dollars. He could not speak specifically; however, based on apartment buildings in the Twin Cities he would estimate approximately $1.60 per square foot. The smallest units in this building are 771 square feet; which would equate to approximately $1,400 for a one bedroom unit. Ms. Kathryn Haight, 2090 Acacia Drive, stated that she was confused. She and her husband have been very supportive of this project and have been to several meetings regarding it. She received the notice that this was regarding two 69-unit apartment buildings; however, at this meeting she is hearing about two 70-unit apartment buildings. She also commented that the schematics about Highway 13 are a little bit deceiving because there really is quite a curve as you drive around the motel site and come by Acacia Drive as it comes into Augusta Shores. Anyone exiting Augusta Shores onto Highway 13 and they look right, left, right and start to make the turn, there could be a car coming around that curve. Drivers do exceed the 40 MPH speed limit; in fact, the Mendota Heights Police sit in the paved area there and watch for speeders. She expressed her concerns about the safety on the corner, even if the trees were moved back. She suggested they be very cautious about the types of trees or plantings installed there. Mr. Greg Langan returned and referenced the 30-foot setback. He clarified his point that by the time a driver were to reach the northeast corner they would be deep into the swale with the large trees that are affecting providing blockage of the Larson property. He expressed his concern that if there were to be extensive grading and they lose those trees he would get an unobstructed view of the hearty siding rather than brick. Mr. Delwiche returned and shared an image of the removal plan with X’s showing the removal of trees and O’s showing the trees that would be protected or remain. Again, he noted that the two largest trees being removed are in the middle of the site, between the Larson greenhouse and the Mendota Heights Motel. He reiterated the landscape plan for the corner and that they would work with the landscapers adjust to create as much visual clearance as possible. In reference to the transition from 69 units to 70 units, Mr. Delwiche noted that what they had done on level three was to have an outdoor deck and a level three clubroom. Currently, they had two one-bedroom units, one was the clubroom and the other one was the outdoor deck. They realized that wasn’t really adequate for space and they did not want too many people out on the deck anyway; so they took a two bedroom unit, combined those two uses into the two bedroom unit and then added the two one-bedrooms back. So they have the same number of bedrooms in August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 22 the project, it just happened to switch the unit count based on a little bit further design investigation. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that the plan Mr. Delwiche shared showed the removal and the protection of the trees on the backside; however, the landscaping plan also showed some additional plantings. Mr. Delwiche confirmed. Vice Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-19 REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR NEW MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed Planned Unit Development Plan, both preliminary and final plans, are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a planned development in this area. 2. The proposed PUD should be approved the higher density, because: a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development; b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities; c. financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and the PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and d. the PUD can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. 3. The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 4. The reduced setback and building separation does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 5. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking would require. 6. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council’s Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 22 7. The proposed project is specifically designed to minimize impacts on the nearby wetland areas (Lemay Lake) and will meet all requirements of the Wetlands Overlay Ordinances. 8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the proposed project will facilitate recreational opportunities. 9. High Density Residential land use would be in character with other surrounding properties and the existing vegetation and adjacent commercial uses, due to the added setbacks and natural buffering between the proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density residential housing. 10. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development. 11. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking in the City and would help to reach the forecasted population projections. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights. 2. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the Engineering Department and Saint Paul Regional Water Services. 3. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F “Architectural Controls” and Subpart G – Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 4. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 5. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with city pollinator friendly ordinance policy. 6. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility areas, but shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half (1 1/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 8. The Developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. 9. A MnDOT Right-of-Way Access Permit shall be obtained for the proposed access onto State Highway 13, as shown in the proposed plans prior to final approval. 10. Provide outlet velocity from underground infiltration area (energy dissipation) 11. Rainfall intensity shall be by Atlas 14. 12. Provide water quality model. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 22 13. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards, including written approval of the design layout prior to final City Council approval. 14. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 15. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 16. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 17. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as found under Title 12-4-1 of City Code. 18. The Developer with work with the fire department personnel in determining final design, location and specifications to the fire safety access road to the rear sections of the new buildings. Commissioner Mazzitello proposed adding Condition 19 as: 19. That a right-of-way vacation process is executed for Hilltop Avenue, formally known as Doughty Street, prior to the recording of the final plat. Commissioner Noonan accepted that as a friendly amendment to his motion. Community Development Director Tim Benetti proposed adding Condition 20 as: 20. The Developer will revise the planned five foot (5’) concrete walk along Highway 13 to an eight-foot (8’) bituminous trail with a minimum of a 5’ boulevard. This trail should extend south to Victory Avenue, with ADA compliant ramps and crosswalks including on Acacia Drive. This would also include any necessary easements or right-of-ways. Commissioner Noonan modified his motion to include Condition #20, Commissioner Mazzitello agreed. Commissioner Mazzitello also requested an edit to Condition #5 as “pollinator friendly” has not been codified in ordinance; it is a policy but not an ordinance. He suggested the word ‘ordinance’ be changed to ‘policy’. Commissioner Noonan agreed to this amendment of the motion. Commissioner Magnuson, with respect to the concerns raised by the residents of Augusta Shores for the ability to actually see to get onto Highway 13, asked if the City was in a position to do some sort of review prior to the time that Phase 2 goes into construction to ensure that everything is situated in a way that makes it so that the views are not obstructed coming down Highway 13. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and believes that working with the City Engineers and with the MnDOT staff would be more than happy to provide a lot more of a site line space in there. Adjusting the landscaping is the easiest for staff to do that. They would look at all measures necessary to make sure that is accommodated. Commissioner Magnuson also asked if the MnDOT needs to be involved in that process in the event there needs to be some type of traffic signal or stop sign or something like that – or speed August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 22 bumps or whatever to reduce speed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that any intersection improvements would be at the cost of Mendota Heights. If the City were to require a traffic study, that is something that would be requested at this time. MnDOT is not currently saying that this development would cause a problem on their highway; however, they are not looking at some of the side streets. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that any intersection improvements would involve the City of Mendota Heights and MnDOT. Mr. Ruzek replied that it would require a partnership; however, most likely the cost would fall back onto the City of Mendota Heights. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) Vice Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5, 2017 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE #2017-20 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS & IDEAL ENERGIES - 1101 VICTORIA CURVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE CITY’S NEW GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR ARRAY FIELD Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the City of Mendota Heights and Ideal Energies have requested a Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Wetlands Permit to install a new ground-mounted solar array field next to City Hall. City Hall consists of two parcels that equal approximately 17.4 acres, most of which is encumbered by right-of-way and some wetland prime areas. The developable site is just over 6 acres. The property is located in the R-1 Single-family Residential district. Under the City’s zoning code, any stand alone or above ground solar array field must approved under the conditional use permit process. In February 2017, the City Council authorized staff to work with Ideal Energies in seeking two separate solar energy grant applications offered by Made in Minnesota and Xcel Energy. The City has already installed rooftop panels on the Fire Station and the Public Works Building, and was initially intending to install panels on the City Hall roof; however, it was determined the current roof trusses are not structurally equipped to support the added weight load of the panels, and would require over 1,000 new penetrations (holes) into a roof that was just repaired – so the City elected to proceed with the ground mount system. The grants from Made in Minnesota (MiM) and Xcel Energy would help bring down the costs for the building. During the lifetime, typically a 25-30 year programming, there would no cost forwarded to the City. It would be fully funded by the grant. The field would be made up of three separate arrays; the first being approximately 13’ x 106.6’, the second being approximately 13’ x 130’, and the third being approximately 13’ x 80’. The August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 22 maximum height would be approximately 14’ and consist of blue and silver panels featuring anti- glare technology. All solar field arrays must be set back at least 15’ from all property lines and at least 30’ from all dwellings. The two arrays would be approximately 15’ from the building and, therefore would require a variance. The limitations in size of ground mounted systems is tempered by what is allowed under the accessory structures. It was believed that the intent of that was for a typical single-family residence to not have its entire backyard taken up by a solar array. The City is out of the ordinary in that they have the luxury of a lot of space and is more of an institutional use than residential. That being said, the City still needs to comply with certain rules and standards. Since the three solar arrays exceed the 1,000 square foot area standard, and exceed the 425 square foot single structure area standards, a variance is required. Under the ground mounted systems standards, staff felt that the site also does not need to include or indicate any screening measures because the site is separated enough from residential uses and other institutional uses. Any screen measures would be a waste of added resources and expense. Mr. Benetti explained that statements of understanding that had to be found when considering a variance request and how the application supports those statements. He also noted that because this project was within 100 feet of the wetland area a wetland permit was required. The good news was that there would be no impact or affect to the wetland area. Commissioner Petschel asked if the savings to be received from Xcel Energy apply to City Hall or to all city-related operations. Mr. Tyler Scott of Ideal Energy replied that the way the solar is integrated is directly with City Hall; so City Hall would use the solar power and would see the savings. Commissioner Magnuson asked how durable the panels were. Mr. Scott replied that, in terms of the baseball field being located nearby, the panels are tested against hail by taking a 1-inch ball bearing and shooting it at 55 MPH at a panel as a direct hit. The panels withstand that; however, he is unsure how that compares to a foul ball on a little league field but they are very durable. Councilmember Magnuson then asked about security seeing as there would be no fencing around the array. Mr. Scott answered that there have not been any security issues to date. Vice Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 22 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-20, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR NEW ALTERNATIVE ENERGY (SOLAR) SYSTEM BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owners. 3. The installation and implementation of this new Alternative Energy system at the City Hall will help reduce the overall energy consumed by the facility, and is in the best interests of the City’s residents and businesses (taxpayers) by helping to reduce annual operating costs of City Hall and other facilities. 4. The City intends to install and use the Alternative Energy System on the property in a reasonable manner; the plight of the landowner in selecting this area for its new Alternative Energy System was due to circumstances unique to the property; and the new Alternative Energy System will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 5. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The City’s contractor/consultant for this new Alternative Energy (Solar) System must provide proper utility connection and safety documentation to the City Building Official and Public Works Director. 2. The City’s contractor/consultant applies for any required building permits, including electrical permits. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) Vice Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5, 2017 meeting. Unfinished Business No items scheduled Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the Orchard Heights Development on the Olin Family was presented at the last Council meeting and was denied on a 5-0 vote. The same issues that were brought up at the Planning Commission meeting were addressed directly to the August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 22 developer. For all intent and purposes, he was not willing to make some suggestions or lose some density or some lots. City Council did approve the Precision Homes Critical Area Permit at the last meeting. The Planning Commission should expect to see a second Critical Area Permit request for the new house they plan to build. Staff has not seen any demolition permits filed yet. Staff and Commission Announcements The Planning Commission would have a special meeting on Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. to consider an Interim Use Permit for Minnehaha Academy to use the Brown College site at 1340 Mendota Heights Road. Assuming that the application would be approved, the City Council is scheduled to convene immediately thereafter to consider the same resolution. Commissioner Magnuson, regarding the subdivided property on Hunter Lane and Culligan, asked if the City pays attention to the overgrown weeds, grass, and total unkempt look of the property. Mr. Benetti replied that staff received a complaint call today and it has been added to his growing list of things to look into. Commissioner Mazzitello gave a hearty welcome to Commissioner Toth to his first Planning Commission meeting. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HENNES, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:24 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field)