Loading...
2017-10-24 Planning Comm MinutesOctober 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 10 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Commissioner Doug Hennes was absent/excused. Staff Present: Consulting Planner Phil Carlson (Stantec), Community Development Director Tim Benetti, and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 26, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER JOHN MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Hennes) Approval of October 11, 2017 Special (Workshop) Minutes Chair Field noted that this particular meeting was not recorded but as the Comprehensive Plan, which was the main topic of the workshop session, is a critical part of the Commissions work that they approve the minutes for the record. COMMISSIONER JOHN MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2017. Commissioner Mazzitello pointed out a quote on page four that was not closed; typographical error of the minutes. Commissioner Magnuson also noted that Goal 3 seemed to have an incomplete sentence. Staff agreed to make these adjustments. Commissioner Noonan abstained from voting as he was not present at the workshop meeting. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 10 ABSTAIN: 1 (Noonan) ABSENT: 1 (Hennes) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2017-26 SEAN HOFFMAN, 711 WOODRIDGE DRIVE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Sean Hoffmann was seeking a critical area permit to construct a new cedar-wood pergola fence and remove some invasive trees in their rear yard. The property is located in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, which requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals. As this is a public hearing item, notices were posted in the local Southwest Review and letters were mailed to owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received one inquiry from a residential neighbor. After responding to the question over the phone the neighbor was very pleased that nothing was being done physically in the bluff area as far as any grading or any additions. She then stated that she had no issues with the request. Mr. Benetti shared aerial images of the property and pointed out its location in proximity to residential streets, the neighboring properties, and the critical area bluff line edge. The property is 0.66 acres in size and contains a 2,870 square foot single story residential dwelling. In June 2014 a landslide event occurred in the bluff area a couple houses down from this property, resulting in the installation of a very large and expensive concrete retaining wall by that homeowner. Mr. Hoffmann indicated that a similar landslide event took place almost 17 years ago on his property, which also resulted in the installation of concrete block retaining walls in the bluff area. Some of the requested work would be to help facilitate protection of these wall features. Mr. Hoffmann would like to remove some box elders (approx. 1 to 1.5 inches in diameter) along the backside of the wall, 5-6 Sumac Shrubs, two Siberian Elms, and an Amur Maple; of which are considered undesirable and invasive plants. Mr. Benetti explained that the desired pergola structure would be installed and anchored on the existing concrete patio and no part of the bluff line would be affected by this installation. No grading or soil disturbance or excess vegetation removal would occur as part of this project. Mr. Hoffman also asked to put in up an open, cable-wired style fence along the backside of the bluff line, basically where the lawn meets the bluff line. This would be an added safety measure for his young children playing in the rear yard, as the drop-off from the edge of the lawn at the bluff line is severe and the grades are very steep. As part of this analysis, staff did look at the plans to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage, promote orderly development, and to preserve and enhance the Critical Area’s value. Mr. Benetti October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 10 also shared the pertinent provisions in Section 12-3-7 of the code as it pertains to this request and how the plans meet those provisions and standards. The pergola, although it is a structure per se, it does not require a building permit as it does not fall under the building code regulations. The city’s building official determined that a pergola, no matter the size, because it does not have any extraneous code enforcement or code measures it becomes more of a landscape feature. Therefore, they do not need a building permit for the pergola; however, they will need a fence permit. The planned fence is cable-wired fence which would provide much better views through the fence; meets the 30% opacity standards; and should be less obtrusive or noticeable from the adjacent properties and; therefore, is in general compliance of the Critical Area standards for new features. Staff sent the application materials to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and to the City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department. The DNR acknowledge receipt of the application request and had no objections. They did provide recommendations related to the future maintenance or prevention of vegetation growth near the retaining wall (sprayed with herbicide). No comments were received from the City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department. Commissioner Noonan asked why staff recommended that the trees and vegetation removal be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm as there are many homes in there that may not be in the bluff area but are under undertaking significant tree removal to deal with invasive species and such. It seemed to him that it worked against the whole notion of looking after their own property and the sweat equity that could be put into their own property. Mr. Benetti replied that this condition may be more of a holdover from the first case he worked on when he came to work for the City of Mendota Heights. In that case, he worked with Consultant Planner Phil Carlson who heavily supported the fact that, in that case, the work that had to be done on that property should have been done by a professional landscaper. Mr. Benetti had been carrying that over since then and since Mr. Hoffmann had indicated that is landscaper or lawn professional was going to do the work, he left it in there as an add-on condition. However, it is his property and he could do the work himself if he wanted to. Commissioner Magnuson, stating that she did not want to over-lawyer this, asked that if the Commission decided that the pergola is not a structure within the meaning of the critical area permit, shouldn’t they just take it out of the findings entirely. Mr. Benetti replied that the Commission could remove it if they wished. Commissioner Magnuson read condition #5 in part; “the proposed wooden pergola features does not increase the extent (livable space) or height of the existing principal structure” and noted that it seems to say that it is a structure but it complies with the critical area code. That would mean that the City would have to conclude that the patio was part of the existing structure and she was unsure that it was. Mr. Benetti agreed that this portion of the condition could be removed if the Commission wished. Commissioner Magnuson then asked if someone were to build a landscape feature in their yard, would they have to get a critical area permit. Mr. Benetti replied that it would depend on what they were doing; the extent of their work. If a property owner were building a structure – like a shed or such like – that would require a permit. October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 10 Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation that the existing retaining wall was built approximately 17 years ago, which Mr. Benetti provided. He then asked, as the trees continue to grow, if there were currently any signs of failure to that wall. Mr. Benetti replied that he looked at the retaining all from the road and did not see any signs on the main (bottom) wall. He also noted that the request does not contain any engineering of the wall; he simply wanted to remove existing plantings to prevent future damage. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Sean Hoffmann did not have any additional comments to add to the staff report. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Hennes) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-26, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, AS AMENDED: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, and is consistent with the general policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan; including (but not limited to) the following goals and statements: a. Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community. b. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment. c. Provide for maintenance and further natural restoration of ecological systems. d. The prevention and mitigation of irreversible damage to (the MRCCA) and the preservation and enhancement of its natural, aesthetic, cultural and historic values is in furtherance of the health, safety and general welfare of the city. 2. The Applicant will make a concerted effort to remove a minimal number of invasive trees on the subject property; and keep and preserve existing significant trees in and around the bluff line area. 3. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. 4. The proposed work is in keeping with the character of the area. 5. The new fence [and pergola feature] will not be obtrusive or detract from any views from nearby properties; and the proposed wooden pergola feature does not increase the extent (livable space) or height of the existing principal structure. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 10 1. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. 2. Removal of trees and vegetation limited to the box elders near the bottom retaining wall; the two (2) Siberian Elms and one (1) Amur maple located near the top edge of the bluff line; the sumac shrubs along the top edge of the bluff line; and any buckthorn or other undesirable invasives that may be present or evident during removals. 3. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 4. A separate fence permit must be obtained prior to fence installation work. Commissioner Noonan explained his reasoning for the removal of Condition #1 by stating that on two separate occasions the Commission had included that type of condition largely in the case of individuals jumping the gun – getting in and doing substantial and intensive removal of vegetation and the Commission felt that in order to mitigate the impact that was done they needed to bring in a professional firm. Chair Field replied that leaving this in would create the folklore that it is required on all; this is a distinction properly made. However, if Mr. Benetti feels in a particular case that it is warranted, he should not be shy about making that recommendation. All agreed. Transcriptionist note: [ ] = insertion of text; strikethrough = deletion of text AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Hennes) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 7, 2017 meeting. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update A) CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED VISION, MISSION STATEMENT, & GOALS/POLICIES Consulting Planner Phil Carlson of Stantec lead the continued discussion of the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update, noting that this is the third in the scheduled Planning Commission Meetings. Mr. Carlson noted that goal this evening was to review the Vision Statement that was crafted at the last meeting, review the issues analysis (S.W.O.T.), and to continue the discussion on the goals and policies. Vision Statement (draft) “Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family-oriented, residential community with a spacious, natural feel and the amenities of a city” October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 10 Chair Field noted that his concern is that it leaves out – the City has a very vibrant industrial park – and the fact that the City is more than a residential community just does not strike him as he thinks about this statement. Discussions were had on the suggestion to simply remove the word ‘residential’; what the ‘amenities of a city’ are; to include words like institution, educational, competitive, advantageous, and well regarded educational and religious institutions. Suggested statement: “Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family-oriented, residential community with a vibrant business and industrial base, highly regarded educational and religious institutions, and a spacious, natural feel with the amenities of a city.” Discussions followed. S.W.O.T. Analysis The Planning Commission created a list of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; which was also available for public comments at the Fire Station Open House on Saturday, October 14. The top S.W.O.T. lists follow: Strengths • low taxes • low crime rates • overall accessibility (transportation) • natural and spacious feel Strengths were very similar between the commissioners and the public Weaknesses • limited amenities • financially constrained (need diversity) • lack of commercial / retail services • limited development opportunities • airport noise The first four listed were on the Commissioners list of top weaknesses; however, ‘financially constrained’ was replaced with ‘airport noise’ on the public’s list. Opportunities • Aging population (encourages younger populace to move in) • Vikings development • Bourn Lane Properties (city-owned lands off Hwy 13 & south of Resurrection Cemetery) • Select Redevelopment Again, the first four listed were on the Commissioners list of top opportunities; however, ‘Select Redevelopment’ was not on the public’s list of top four – they added ‘proximity to Minneapolis / St. Paul cities / MSP Airport’ October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 10 Threats • Development in Adjoining Communities (especially traffic) • Aging infrastructure • Increase air traffic • Age of housing stock The first four listed were on the Commissioners list of top threats; however, ‘age of housing stock’ was not on the public list, they had stagnation – due to maturity of community Air traffic was listed as a weakness on the Commissioners list but as a threat on the public’s list. Stagnation due to maturity of community was an issue that was mentioned but was not one of the Commissioner’s top priorities. Overall, the top issues were remarkably agreeable. The Commissioners worked on getting these lists down to a handful of issues. Mr. Carlson summarized the Issues/SWOT analysis as follows: Development & Redevelopment • Commercial/Retail Options • Redevelopment Opportunities • Impact of Vikings Facility (positively and negatively) • Character, Design, Natural and Spacious Feel Housing • Generational Turnover • Character, Design, Natural and Spacious Feel Proximity to Airport • Business Opportunities • Noise Infrastructure • Aging, Cost He pointed out that ‘natural and spacious feel’ spanned all areas; residential, commercial, industrial, and parks/trails. At this point, the Commission picked up where they left off at the October 14th workshop meeting in terms of discussing the goals and policies listed in each category and suggesting edits, deletions, and additions as necessary. Land Use 1. The land use plan will serve as the foundation for land use decisions in Mendota Heights October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 10 2. Preserve, protect and enrich the established residential environment and character of the community 3. Support industrial and commercial development in designated areas 4. Enhance and protect the natural environment 5. Reduce the impact of aircraft noise within the community 6. Protect reasonable access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems Housing 1. Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units 2. Meet future needs with a variety of housing products Parks and Open Space 1. Provide the optimum amount of active and passive open space for the enjoyment of all Mendota Heights residents 2. Provide a park system that assures the quality of facilities will match resident’s desires and standards of living 3. Use the park system as a means to enhance the environment of each neighborhood and the City as a whole 4. Support the Dakota County 2030 Greenway Corridors Plan/Vision Transportation 1. Provide a safe, high-quality, and cost effective multi-modal transportation system 2. Expand transit options serving Mendota Heights Water Supply Sanitary Sewer 1. Effective and efficient operation and maintenance of the City’s sanitary sewer system 2. To provide sanitary sewer service that is adequate to meet current and future development needs 3. Mendota Heights provides a cost effective sanitary sewer system that is equitably financed Surface Water 1. Manage surface and groundwater resources using approaches that meet or exceed regulatory requirements by following the City’s local surface water management plan, the local watershed plans, and permits administered by the MPCA, BWSR, USACE, MNDNR, and any other governing agencies that are applicable and have jurisdiction authority within the City of Mendota Heights Economic Development 1. Promote economic development in Mendota Heights through a comprehensive approach to business needs 2. Promote business attraction, retention, and expansion in Mendota Heights 3. Promote economic development through public financing tools 4. Continue to develop community commercial areas that serve the whole community October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 10 5. Continue to develop business park areas that provide jobs and serve the local and regional economy Next Steps Community meetings/open houses for public information/public engagement have been identified as follows: Thursday, November 2 – 5:00 – 8:00 pm – City Hall Council Chambers Wednesday, November 8 – 5:00 – 8:00 pm – Somerset Elementary School Wednesday, November 15 – 5:00 – 8:00 pm – Friendly Hills Middle School Then in 2018, there will be other meetings scheduled: January Planning Commission – Alternatives March Planning Commission – Implementation May Planning Commission – Draft Plan June Planning Commission – Open House & Hearing August – City Council Adoption Commissioner Mazzitello noted a copy of an email he sent to City Administrator Mark McNeill that included a suggested Mission Statement: “Our Mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in the community by providing quality public safety, infrastructure, and planning for orderly and sustainable growth” A Mission Statement is designed to back up the Vision Statement, and provide more clarity as to how the Vision will ultimately be realized. The Commission decided to ponder the draft mission statement and discuss it at a future meeting. They did agree that it could be shared at the community meetings as a draft and for possible feedback. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • Planning Case 2017-22, Conditional Use Permit to Woodspring Hotels, was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. They are currently in submittal for a building permit. • Planning Case 2017-24, Wetlands Permit was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission • Planning Case 2017-25, Wetlands Permit was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 10 • Michael Development is very, very close to getting the demolition work started, probably by next week Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that the city will be accepting brush drop-offs for the City’s bonfire event. Brush can be dropped off at Mendota Plaza right off of South Plaza Drive beginning Thursday, October 26, 2017. Commissioner Magnuson noted that she read in the newspaper that apparently Highway 110 is being renamed to Highway 62. There are plans to re-sign and a number of things. Mr. Ruzek replied that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is proposing to change the name of Highway 110 to Highway 62 to eliminate some confusion. There is a website on the project. This change is proposed for July 2018. They will dual-name the street for at least a year if not two as ‘Old Highway 110’ and ‘Highway 62’. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:28 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Hennes)