Loading...
2017-11-28 Planning Comm MinutesNovember 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 11 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 28, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Vice-Chair Doug Hennes, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Chair Litton Field, Jr. (excused). City staff present: Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek; Community Development Director Tim Benetti. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of October 24, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (FIELD) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2017-28 KEITH SCHWEIGER, 697 WESLEY LANE LOT SPLIT – SUBDIVISION REQUEST Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Keith Schweiger has submitted an application for a lot split of the property located at 697 Wesley Lane. This item was presented under a public hearing and notices were published in the local paper and also notices were sent out to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject site. The property is located at the corner of Wesley Lane and Wesley Court, Dodd Road is off to the far west. It is currently zoned and will stayed zoned R-1 and is guided as LR – Low Density Residential on the land use plan. The lot consists of 0.813 acres in size and a 2,100 square foot single-family, one-story residence on the property. There is a single access point on Wesley Lane. November 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 11 Mr. Benetti shared images of the existing residence and the lot’s location relative to surrounding streets and properties. This lot was originally created in the Rolling Woods 1st Addition in 1987. The surrounding lots range in size from 100 feet frontage to 110 feet frontage; this lot is 202.76 feet by 132 feet in size. In January 2017 a similar application was filed by Mr. Mark Gergen to do virtually the same lot split as now. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of that application; however, before it got to Council Mr. Gergen was working out some potential impacts with the neighbors and solve some drainage issues and concerns that were raised at that previous public hearing. Mr. Gergen later requested that the application be withdrawn from final consideration in June 2017. The property went back onto the market and went through a number of potential buyers. Now Mr. Schweiger is here asking for this lot split. The only difference is that the Gergen plat had a proposed layout of two different style homes on each lot and the current request is simply showing a representation of a 60-foot by 60-foot building pad. This is not the actual size of the building, it is just a general location for setback allowances. The proposed parcel A, the west area, measures 100.02 feet by 175 feet for a total of 17,762 square feet; therefore, it meets the 100-foot width minimum and the 15,000 square foot area minimum. The access to the parcel would be from Wesley Lane with the current driveway location being adjusted or moved five feet further to the east to allow for ease of snow plowing and leaf removal. This had been a major concern for the neighbor as the driveway sits on the property line. The proposed parcel B, the east area, measures 102 feet by 107 feet for a total of 17,688 square feet. The access to this parcel would off of Wesley Court only and meets the city code requirement that all driveways must be a minimum of 30 feet from any property corner. The plan calls for a number of trees to be removed – approximately 10 trees from parcel A and approximately 12 trees from parcel B. Some of these are over story and consists of a variety of elms, evergreens, etc. The original request was for a total of 12 trees to be removed and the request from staff was to preserve as many trees as possible, especially along the Wesley Lane frontage. Unless the current trees proposed to be removed are diseased or in poor shape or dying, staff requests that the applicant explain why the extra trees are being removed. Staff encouraged the applicant to maintain the existing berm and vegetation along Wesley Lane and recommended a one-to-one tree replacement. These are recommendations, not requirements. Mr. Benetti then explained the zoning requirements that must be met and shared how this lot split meets those requirements. Under the Gergen application a lot of concerns were raised in regards to drainage; nothing officially has been submitted with this application. However, staff will make sure than any new development that goes into the sites will be reviewed thoroughly by the Engineering Department with the new grading and drainage plan. Commissioner Noonan asked for an explanation of Condition 3, which reads “The lots shall include infiltration of 1 inch over all new increased impervious surface and there shall be no increase in run off from the existing conditions.” Mr. Benetti deferred this question to the City Engineer. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the City adopted a local surface water management plan – the last update November 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 11 was in 2006. In combination with that the City adopted a land disturbance guidance document that requires that any disturbances over 5,000 square feet must meet the City’s stormwater requirements. The current requirements are to infiltrate the 1 inch over all new impervious surface. Commissioner Noonan stated that in the past the Condition would simply say that a lot split had to meet the City’s policy; however, now it is specifically being called out. He then asked if this statement was true. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Petschel asked what was meant by ‘infiltration’. Mr. Ruzek replied that basically the owner will need to construct a rain garden or similar sort of system on-site to hold back and push some of the stormwater back into the ground where it would not be getting if there is an impervious surface covering the ground. Commissioner Magnuson noted that Condition 6 says “…they shall plat one 6’-8’ evergreen tree for each evergreen tree removed…” and asked that it be corrected to read “…they shall plant…” Commissioner Noonan asked if Condition 6 was City Policy or if this was something different. Mr. Benetti replied that this is staff recommendation; anytime these over story trees are removed on a nice lot like this, staff would like to see – as it benefits the community and the neighborhood – tree replacement. Staff wants to encourage more activities like this by asking for something more under an application process. There is no true nexus in the ordinance. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that Condition 6 is a special condition specific to this application because of the existing condition of the lot. Mr. Benetti concurred. Commissioner Toth asked if any of the potential drainage issues of the past been addressed. Mr. Benetti replied that he was not fully involved in the previous application; however, he believes that some of the concerns raised were referencing the low spot on the east side. This ‘swale’ carries some of the water from the adjacent residential neighbors. There was concern raised during the last application process; however, the building footprint on this new application is not the same as on the previous. He reiterated that the grading and landscaping plans will be analyzed, reviewed, and approved by city staff before any building permits are approved on each lot. The applicant, Mr. Keith Schweiger, who currently resides at 2291 Ocala Court, has been a resident of Mendota Heights for 30 years. It is his and his wife’s goal to move out of their two story home and move into a single story home. This lot became available and they purchased them. His brother is actually considering purchasing one of the lots. He had nothing to add to Mr. Benetti’s report other than to state that he has no desire to cause any disruptions in the area and his plans meet all of the city requirements without variances. Commissioner Magnuson asked if Mr. Schweiger was in agreement with the tree replacement recommendation. Mr. Schweiger noted that some of the trees are diseased and scraggly looking; however, there are a lot of beautiful trees there that he wants to keep as they beautify the lot. He is going to try to save as many as possible. He gave his verbal agreement to follow the recommendations in Condition 6. Vice-Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. November 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 11 Mr. Patrick Smith, 695 Wesley Court, spelled out the reasons he and his family moved to Mendota Heights and into this neighborhood specifically. He listed the covenants he and his neighbors have committed to, knowing that covenants are private agreements and are not under the prevue of the Commission or the Council. He noted the surrounding resident’s strong opposition to amending the covenants to allow for this lot split to occur and encouraged the Commission and Council to remember the ‘character of the neighborhoods’ when making decisions such as this one. Commissioner Noonan asked for the location of the 18 neighborhood residents who are opposed to this lot split – or at least were opposed six months ago when the original application came through. Those residents are located on the north side of Wesley Lane, all of Wesley Court, and Mager Court. The residents to the west of the proposed lot split did not vote; however, they are on 100-foot size lots. He then stated that it appears that it was OK for them to be on 100-foot lots but this lot needs to stay at 200 feet. It sounded to him that the residents are saying ‘do as I say, not as I do’. Commissioner Magnuson asked if Mr. Smith owned the property to the northeast, the one with the water issues. When he confirmed, she asked him about the water problems – what problem has it caused. He replied that if anyone were to stand in his yard and look to the south – just east of the existing home – there is a swale. That swale comes off of Wesley Court and from the home, and it channels through his lot and his backyard to the natural egress, which is to the house to the northwest. The existing drainage pattern is causing the problem – there is standing water on the west side of his home and there has been standing water in the back. When Commissioner Noonan stated that Mr. Smith should take comfort from the fact that one of the conditions is that the Engineer Department must approve the grading and drainage plans to address this issue. Mr. Smith replied that he would rather cover the cost of his own lot if it would prevent this lot from being split. The Commission had further discussion with Mr. Smith to try to ascertain why he so strongly objected to this lot split – splitting a 200-foot lot into two 100-foot lots – when most of the lots in the surrounding area are 100-foot lots. Mr. Smith replied that addressing the drainage issues is the responsible thing to do; however, his community would like to pre-empt that and let the Commission and the Council know that – as they look at the macrocosm of the character of neighborhoods, this is their neighborhood – they live here. Everybody bought into that neighborhood knowing that there were restrictions that were in place because it is part of the purchase process. Part of that was to protect them and part of that was to also ensure quality of life; and quality of life comes with diverse lot sizes. Commissioner Noonan did not agree with the comment about diverse lot sizes because the lots he was seeing in that area were of regularly shaped 100-foot lots, yet the lot that is the subject of this application as one that appears to be out-of-character with the nature of the neighborhood. When Mr. Smith tried to bring up the covenants that the residents agreed to, Commissioner Noonan replied that doesn’t matter as the Commission makes the decision, not the neighborhood. He reiterated that the covenants speak for themselves, they are private mechanisms that can be enforced as neighbors. However, the Commission is looking at what the planning circumstances are – consistency with the comprehensive plan, consistency with what the character of the neighborhood is in terms of the other lots, and with what the zoning says. November 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 11 Mr. Smith agreed that the splitting of the lot would meet the standards as set by the City. His desire was to present to the Commission and the Council the thoughts and feelings of the residents in the area. Ms. Diane Caruso, 675 Wesley Court, owns her lot and the one next door – which is vacant. Preserving the character of the neighborhood is her main concern with the lot split. She expressed her desire to go on record that she opposes it as well. Ms. Sarah Ruff, 686 Wesley Court, noted that her driveway goes onto Wesley Court. As it is currently proposed, there will be another driveway directly across from hers – her grandchildren play in her driveway. This is not an ideal situation and creates a hazard for children playing. She also shared the sentiments that had been expressed by Mr. Smith and Ms. Caruso. When asked she replied that her lot is 100 feet wide and the driveway next door to this split is not directly across the street. Commissioner Toth asked to see the plot map again and confirmed that if one were to take and draw a line directly down the center of the lot under consideration that it would be the same size and shape as the surrounding lots. Ms. Mimi Krueckeberg, 680 Wesley Court, noted that her family was the second to move into the area back in 1988. At that time they made a big deal about them signing this covenant and talking about it. She asked which one has the final say, the Planning Commission that says the request meets the City’s requirements or the Covenant. The Covenant says that until all of the lots are built there is only one house per lot. Ms. Caruso still holds an empty lot; therefore, the residents believe the covenant still stands because not all of the lots have been built on. Mr. Benetti replied that cities do not enforce nor do they regulate association rules or covenants – they are strictly a civil matter between residents or neighborhoods. This application is a subdivision request that is, pursuant to the City ordinances, allowable subject to a recommendation and a favorable approval through the City Council. Commissioner Magnuson recommended that before this matter comes before the Council for deliberation and determination the residents may want to consult with a private lawyer to determine what their rights and obligations are under the covenant so they have a better understanding of that prior to the time the City Council is asked to make a decision. Mr. Kenneth Larson, 703 Wesley Court, stated that he was the one who, in the original application, raised the concern about the driveway with the snow plowing, etc. He also said that in purchasing his lot the covenants were a plus to him, not a problem. There was no feeling of jealously or envy of someone who had a bigger lot nor did he feel that their lot should be split. There are many occasions when a large public building, like a school, is closed and under the threat of being torn down. However, someone comes in and turns it into a condominium with covenants, which is a plus to the condominium owners. They get a refurbished building and the City does not have to worry about the large lot being split apart. The idea of splitting lots has come up many times at Council meetings and a lot of unhappy neighbors have moved. He is not concerned about the lot being the size that it is and if it had been marketed properly there would have been many people who would have loved to live in that big house on the larger lot. Commissioner Noonan asked Mr. Larson how far his driveway was from the property line. Mr. Larson replied that his driveway is approximately one foot from the property line. Mr. Noonan then noted that the proposal is to move the driveway on the subject parcel, which currently abuts the property line, five November 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 11 feet away from that property line – thus creating a better situation. Mr. Larson agreed that it would be better; however, he would still have the issue with the snow plowing. He also noted that he has had to replace his sprinkler heads yet again this year. Mr. Schweiger returned to address some of the concerns made by saying that he has no desire to disrupt the neighborhood; if he did not believe that this fit and was not doable he would not do it. He has been a resident of Mendota Heights for 30 years. He believes that even with the lot being split that the new lots will be bigger than the existing lots on Wesley Lane. Conformity wise it will be bigger than the majority of the existing lots on Wesley Lane. It is their intention to build nice homes there to enjoy in whatever years they have left. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO 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 2017-28 LOT SPLIT – SUBDIVISION REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot split and construction activities meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is requested. 3. The proposed subdivision and additional new housing will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along Wesley Lane. 4. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots on Wesley Lane. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 2. All grading work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. 3. The lots shall include infiltration of 1 inch over all new increased impervious surface and there shall be no increase in run off from the existing conditions. 4. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on both sites and until each have been properly restored. 5. Front-yard setbacks from Wesley Lane for future structures on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be a minimum of 35.5 feet; and the setback along Wesley Court shall be 30-feet. 6. The Applicant agrees to preserve and protect as many mature/over-story trees on the subject site; shall submit a detailed landscape plan for each new lot as part of any new building permit November 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 11 application review; and shall plant one 6’-8’ evergreen tree for each evergreen tree removed, plus one 2” to 3” caliper sized deciduous tree for each deciduous tree removed. 7. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 feet wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. 8. On Parcel A, the existing asphalt driveway will be removed, and graded so as not to aggravate drainage problems, and the ground restored with suitable ground cover, as approved by the City Engineer before a certificate of occupancy is issued. 9. On Parcel A, the new driveway shall meet a minimum 5-ft. setback from the westerly lot line, and this setback will apply to any retaining wall or similar shoring system if needed. 10. Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 11. The existing home must be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 12. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (FIELD) Vice-chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 5, 2017 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2017-29 GONYEA HOMES ON BEHALF OF JASON & THOMASINE EGGERS, 2260 WAGON WHEEL COURT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Gonyea Homes on behalf of Jason and Thomasine Eggers seeking a Conditional Use Permit to build a 1,427 square foot garage and also to build a new 4,440 square foot residential dwelling. The garage requires a Conditional Use Permit on its own and the overall footprint of the new dwelling and garage requires a Wetlands Permit due to the proximity of the wetlands nearby. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the site in relation to its location to surround lots, streets, and Rogers Lake. He also noted that in December 2016 the City adopted Resolution 2015-93, which approved a preliminary final plat of Caroline’s Lake Second Addition. This was a two lot subdivision by the Ratchye/Light family of their original 3.02 acre lot along Rogers Lake, which created two lots of 0.71 acres and 2.31 acres. The 0.71 acre lot was kept by the Ratchye/Light family and the Eggers recently purchased the 2.31 acre lot. He also shared an image of the proposed home’s footprint, noting that all setbacks are easily met. This lot would have only one access point, that being from Wagon Wheel Court. The proposed home would be a single story dwelling with dormer windows on the dwelling and on the garage. The garage would also have two 16-foot wide overhead doors on the front. November 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 11 Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met in order to issue a conditional use permit and how this application would meet those standards. Staff believes that the expanded garage facility, with the overall footprint of the 4,440 square foot home, would fit in very nicely – especially considering the size of the lot. It also meets the general purpose and spirit of the current city code and comprehensive plan. Mr. Benetti then shared the reason for the wetlands permit and the standards to be met in issuing such permit. The house would sit approximately 80 feet off of the edge of the wetland and approximately 155 feet from the edge of Rogers Lake; therefore, there would be no impact to any of the water bodies under this plan. Also, staff will ensure that the applicant adheres to the stormwater pollution prevention requirements. The applicant does plan to remove a number of trees; however, quite a few of them are elm and cottonwood. This is a heavily wooded lot and they are removing what they need to site the home; however, staff would like to ensure that they provide some type of replacement as part of a restoration plan. Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification on the utility connections, specifically Condition 2. Mr. Benetti replied that this was a fee that was provided for under the 2015 subdivision process. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that there is an existing set of utilities that serves the Ratchye/Light home, which is a little bit further south than this one. They installed new utilities into Wagon Wheel Court. The new home that is being constructed is proposed to connect to the older utilities that the lot used to be connected to. They are going to be looking at a street connection by using the existing utilities that are already run up to this building pad. They could connect new utilities up to Wagon Wheel Trail without paying that fee. Wagon Wheel Court was a recent development and the properties that were platted with the Wagon Wheel Court property pays this fee. It is the City’s policy that any new connections also pay the same fee as the existing homes. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that Condition 5 is the standard grading and construction activity rule that conforms to the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. However, in the previous case the infiltration of a 1 inch over impervious surface was specifically spelled out. He asked for an explanation of why that condition was not included in this application. Mr. Ruzek replied that it was specifically called out on the last application due to that being a repeat application where drainage was expressed as a major concern. That concern was not specifically raised in this application; however, according to the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document it is also subject to that same requirement. Commissioner Toth asked if this lot could be split again down the road. Mr. Benetti replied that it could be possible. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that dimensionally this lot could be split again; however, if one were to look at where the wetland lines are and where the utility lines are being run – it would be a real challenge to develop a lot if it were split off. Mr. Rick Packer of Gonyea Homes, 1000 Boone Avenue North, Suite 400 in Minneapolis, was available for questions from the Commission. He expressed his appreciation to staff for their favorable recommendation going through the conditional use permit and wetlands permit. He stated that the utility connection fee was a surprise to them and they did their due diligence on this and the connection fees. Usually when a resolution is passed by the City Council it is recorded against the property; however, they could find no evidence of that. But if they were adopted by the City Council and made part of a resolution he understood that the Commission could not do anything about that. November 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 11 Mr. Ruzek clarified that if the driveway goes onto Wagon Wheel Court they would need to pay the $21,390.86 Public Utility/Improved Public Right-of-Way Fee. If the driveway were to go to Wagon Wheel Trail, the assessments on Wagon Wheel Trail were $8,500. In regards to tree preservation, they will talk with the property owner about an appropriate replacement plan. The property owners, Jason and Thomasine Eggers of 2260 Wagon Wheel Court, expressed their excitement about becoming part of the community here. Part of the appeal of this lot and the neighborhood is the fact that there are mature trees there and he sees no difficulties in adding a tree restoration plan. Vice-Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. Mr. Ira Kipp welcomed the Eggers to the neighborhood and encouraged them to protect the wetlands as much as they can. He would like to see a recommendation to the new owners to keep working on the removal of buckthorn from the property that was started by the previous owner. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, 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 2017-29 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OVER-SIZE GARAGE AND WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The use of the subject parcel as a new single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The planned development of the new dwelling with an oversized garage of 1,427 sq. ft. is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed residential home and large garage easily meet the required setbacks and other standards established under the R-1 One Family District. 4. The proposed garage and residential structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. 5. The proposed over-sized garage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 6. The proposed new residential home project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive area of the wetlands or Rogers Lake area, due to the proximity and separation of the structure from said water features. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: November 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 11 1. Since access is being proposed off Wagon Wheel Court, a Public Utility/Improved Public Right- of-Way Fee of $21,390.86 is paid to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. If any utility connection is made on to Wagon Wheel Court, a utility connection fee of $17,609.33 must be paid to the City prior to issuance of a building permit 3. No grading or construction activity on the subject site will occur on slopes over 25%. 4. The Applicant/Owners shall submit a final grading plan, utility plan and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 5. 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. 6. No disturbance, grading work or any type of construction activities shall occur within 25 feet of the established wetlands edge. 7. A detailed Landscape Plan must be submitted for review to the Planning Department showing tree replacement and all new vegetation to be re-planted within all disturbed areas of the subject site. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (FIELD) Vice-chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 5, 2017 meeting. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • Planning Case 2017-26, Sean Hoffman, Critical Area Permit was approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission • Public Engagement/Open House Meetings: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Review Meetings o Averaged 15 – 20 people at each meeting (3 nights) o Received good feedback o Heard a lot of issues and concerns about what is happening at Dodd Road and Highway 110 • Michael Development Final Plat was approved by the City Council o The motel has been completely demolished and site cleared. o Developer now working on getting the footing foundation work done as soon as possible • 2040 Comprehensive Plan process is ongoing o Consulting Planner Phil Carlson is compiling all of the comments and general information o Participation by the Commission on the goals and policies discussions was appreciated o Mr. Carlson plans to bring the compiled information to the Council at a later meeting and get their input/feedback o To be brought back to the Commission and start working on the main elements and maps of the Plan o A lot of work to be done in the next six months and Commission participation is critical • Staff is looking to move next month’s Planning Commission meeting to Thursday, December 14 due to the Christmas Holiday. As there are currently no items on the agenda there is the possibility that the meeting could be cancelled for December. November 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 11 • This is Vice-chair Hennes last official meeting if the December meeting is cancelled. Commissioner Noonan, being uncomfortable with making policy changes or decisions as they go along – such was done in the first case heard this evening in regards to the one-on-one replacement of trees, suggested that some thought be given to establishing a standard policy that could be applied across the board. He also noted the calling out of the infiltration on the first case heard this evening; yet only referencing the Land Disturbance Guidance in the next case. For the sake consistency, if they are going to call it out in one place they should call it out every place; or simply let the Land Disturbance Guidance stand for itself. Adjournment COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:15 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (FIELD)