Loading...
2019-01-22 Planning Comm MinutesJanuary 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 18 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 22, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 22, 2019 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, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda Chair Field suggested that the agenda be revised by handing the Zoning Code Amendment first and then the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update last. The agenda was approved as revised. Approval of December 20, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20, 2018, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-01 METRO STORAGE LLC ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY USES IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL ZONE Community Development Director Tim Benetti reminded the Commission of the discussion that took place at their November 27, 2018 meeting regarding a national self-storage facility’s request to put in a new generation self-storage facility in the community. As the staff report indicated, the city currently has no allowances for self-storage facilities in either the commercial or industrial zones. The industrial zone calls it out as a specifically prohibited use for personal self-storage. Mr. Benetti shared the excerpt of the minutes regarding this topic from the November 27, 2018 meeting. Based on the comments made at the meeting, Metro Storage LLC has decided to pursue the seeking an amendment to City Code 12-1G-1, which would allow ‘personal self-storage facility’ uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial district. They are looking to place a new 80,000 square foot, indoor only, self-storage facility in the community. January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 18 Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Mr. Benetti shared excepts from industrial study titled “Mendota Heights Industrial District Redevelopment Plan of 2016”, which included a reduced list of trends and a partial list of recommendations. There are a number of surrounding communicates that do allow storage facilities as a permitted or conditional use: Eagan, West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, Burnsville, Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Cottage Grove, St. Louis Park, Apple Valley, and Woodbury. Of these communities, Cottage Grove subject these uses to 12 additional conditions. These communities allow these types of uses in the commercial / business districts only, industrial districts only, or a combination of both business/industrial zones. Based on the Commissions expressed willingness to consider or support this use only in the I- Industrial district, with conditions, staff prepared a draft ordinance for consideration. This item was presented under a public hearing process and a notice of this hearing was published in the local Pioneer Press newspaper. Commissioner Magnuson asked, in his review of the surrounding area ordinances, if Mr. Benetti found any that limited the size of the facility. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Referencing the list of Cottage Grove conditions, she noticed that some of these conditions were not included in staff draft ordinance and asked why that was. Mr. Benetti replied that as far as the hours of operation, Mendota Heights does not limit hours currently but it could be added as part of a Conditional Use process if the Commission wishes. Most of the facilities do not typically have hours because of the limited use and people come and go as they choose; they us e security cards or security keys to gain access whenever they need to. As far as screening goes, he was fearful that by putting up some kind of screening measures someone might take advantage of that and start storing items outside of their units, which is something the city is trying to avoid. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if staff found any other cities that explicitly prohibited self- storage facilities. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative and noted that Mendota Heights is one of the few that specifically prohibited self-storage uses. Commissioner Corbett noted that it seemed lacking to him that there is no information on why that decision was made in the past – to prohibit self-storage facilities. He then asked if there has been an attempt made to look back – or could an attempt be made. It seems to him that it would be prudent to look and see why the city explicitly said no. Mr. Benetti replied that he was also curious; however, a search of the city’s system was done without any results. Commissioner Noonan stated that the tape would provide a better record than just seeing the minutes. Mr. Benetti replied that he was unsure if they added to the list of prohibited uses or if it was a comprehensive list at one time. Staff may be able to go back and search something and do a much more diligent search. Chair Field opened the public hearing. January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 18 Mr. John Riley of Condor Corporation, owners of Lexington Heights Apartments in Mendota Heights, noted that his family has done several real estate development projects in the area over last 40 years. He then introduced several others from his team: Steve Neilson, Dave Garland, and Bob Heilman of Metro Storage. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development at Metro Storage, LLC 13528 W. Bolton Blvd., Lake Forest, IL provided a brief history of Metro Storage LLC and their proposal. Metro Storage LLC is a privately owned company with 142 storage facilities in 14 states, the third largest privately held storage company. They also have footprints in Latin America and Brazil. History  Privately owned company with 142 facilities in 14 states  Third largest privately held storage company  Has footprints in Latin America and Brazil Typical Metro Storage Facility  107,400 gross square foot building with 80,000 square feet of rentable space  Exterior would be precast or modular block concrete, metal panel, and anodized aluminum storefront and glazing  On-site leasing office where client would sign their lease, get the keys, and then proceed to the loading area  Typical weekdays hours are 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., staff hours from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays would have even more curtailed hours  Music provided through the facility; light and bright facility with lots of natural light  Safety is important; there are security systems that monitor all public areas, both on-site and over the web  Customers would have a proprietary pin number to access the facility  Communication devices available throughout the facility for assistance  Typically have two interior truck bays that can hold a large box truck; Blaine and Burnsville both have drive-through truck bays  Exterior illumination – fully shielded LED, which go off when the facility closes at 10:00 p.m. – unless the municipality requests exterior lights to remain on for police patrols  Asphalt or concrete paving Industry  Approximately 50,000 self-storage facilities in the United States  10% owned by REITS; vast majority are privately operated o REITS: real estate investment trusts; companies that own or finance income- producing real estate in a range of property sectors  Nearly one in ten households use self-storage o Four major user groups: Residential, Commercial, Student, and Military  Drivers o Life changes (selling a home, moving long distances, parents, divorce, etc.)  Most self-storage facilities are over 90% occupied o Metro Storage has seven facilities in the metro-area; all are over 90% occupied January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 18 Proposed Facility  Northland Drive and State Route 55  Natural shielding from the roadway due to the 8-foot berm already there and trees along a second side  Access off of Northland Drive via a private drive Chair Field reminded Mr. Heilman that the Commission has not been tasked with reviewing any site plans, but instead are reviewing the request for an ordinance amendment. He did not wish to give any sense of comfort that they are approving any of the site plans. Mr. Heilman stated that he was trying to give the Commission a sense of what the generation of development is these days. The current generation – generation #5 – is of this type of a storage facility. Typically a multi- story, fully conditioned store. Back some 20-30 years, the type of development was a one-story, ambient, non-conditioned facility with garage doors. That is not what these facilities are like these days; majority of them are the three story, drive-through, and no doors on the side that face the street. Both Blaine and Burnsville have conditions added to their uses that garage-type doors would not be facing the main arteries. The access door to the facility is a store-front type door that matches the rest of the façade; an aluminum and glass door that allows the client to drive into the facility and it opens/shuts right away. Mr. Heilman shared photographic images of the different types of facilities they develop. He also shared an example of a city that created an overlay district to allow commercial -type facilities – including storage facilities – in their industrial zone. In regards to size limitations, typically he has seen the only limitations being due to zoning codes related to the piece of property. Screening is typically done by landscaping buffering or berms. For some reason fences or walls are big in Florida so that is provided there. They may do attractive 8- foot high cedar fences in other areas. It depends on what the community desires. Commissioner Noonan noted even though they are not going to be speaking about a site there was a reference to a proposed square footage of 109,000 square feet. He then asked how many employees would be working there. Mr. Heilman replied that typically they have a property manager, a storage consultant, and a maintenance technician. They would rotate through a few different stores during the week. At any one point in time, they would average 1.5 employees during the week. From 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. there will always be at least one employee on-site; unless they are at lunch or going to the bank to make a deposit. Commissioner Magnuson asked if they do any screening of the customers in terms of what they are planning to store. Mr. Heilman replied that they have a very strict lease; no hazardous materials, no flammables, no ammunition, no propane tanks; basically nothing that could become a problem. She then asked if there had been any issues. Mr. Heilman replied that there has not been any issues with anything inappropriate. In his five years with the company there have been carelessness. They do not allow smoking on their properties; however, it is hard to control someone if they decide to light up and drop a cigarette. No major issues have been identified; they are very careful and the property managers are very well trained in that aspect. The manager does a walk-through of the facility twice per day – looking, listening, and seeing if they can smell anything out of the ordinary. January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 18 Commissioner Toth asked why they chose Mendota Heights. Mr. Heilman replied that basically in their foot print in Minneapolis there is a large hole of storage on this side of the river; they feel that there is a market base in the area that is under served. Commissioner Toth then asked if the market base was for this type of facility or a general storage facility; the closest facility that has storage is approximately 3.5 miles from Mendota Heights. Mr. Heilman replied that they look at a 3-mile radius; their base marketing. Commissioner Toth asked about capacity. Mr. Heilman replied that there are two types of capacity; economic occupancy and physical occupancy. Currently, they are over 92% in all seven facilities in the metro area. This marketplace, right no w, is at 90% or above. This particular market is so under served that even with the inclusion of this proposed site, the market would still be under served. Rather than closing the public hearing, COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND TO TABLE ORDINANCE NO. 538 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW FURTHER RESEARCH TO BE UNDERTAKEN AND FOR INFORMATION TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AT THEIR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS WHY PROHIBITION WAS SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE; AND TO EXERCISE THE 60-DAY EXTENSION COMMISSIONER CORBETT SECONDED THE MOTION Discussion When asked, Mr. Riley answered that the tabling of the Ordinance and adding the 60-day extension would be agreeable to the parties. Commissioner Magnuson suggested that if the Commission had any issues with the proposed language, in the interest of time and to not wordsmith during the meeting, they bring those issues to staff prior to the meeting. At that time, staff could re-draft the proposed Ordinance and bring it back to the next meeting. Staff agreed and it was clarified that these edits would not provide any indication of approval of the draft ordinance. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Chair Litton Field invited Planning Consultant Phil Carlson of Stantec to give his presentation. Planning Consultant Phil Carlson of Stantec opened by explaining that the update of the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been a process of many months; there have been discussions with the community and with the Commission; public hearings; and the initial draft plan itself was prepared by Stantec. It was then discussed in Planning Commission meetings and January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 18 amongst staff. At some point it was reformatted, reorganized, and some additional chapters created or revised to include Natural Resources and Resilience; which took on a life of its own with the citizen communities that helped significantly in putting that together. There have been a number of workshops and public hearings where the Commission provided comments; Stantec has tried to put all of those, or a sense of all of those, into the draft. Mr. Carlson extended his, and Stantec’s desire to provide a Comprehensive Plan that the Commission and the city deserves, that the Commission thinks represents the community, and that they want to forward to the City Council for action and adoption. This latest round incorporated a significant re-write of the Resilience chapter; there has been work on the Natural Resources chapter; updates to some of the maps in the Land Use chapter; however, they may be others. Commissioner Noonan expressed his preference in hearing of any comments or questions from the public and then address those as necessary. The Commission echoed those sentiments. Chair Field noted that the public hearing was still open and invited the public to comment or ask questions. Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, expressed some generalities about the planning process and her concerns about where the city is going from here. She stated that the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan take precedence over zoning. What is in the plan must not go beyond general aspirations, and not details or changes in those details. Details for those aspirations or goals can be elaborated in zoning regulations, a management plan, or other documents approved by the Council. For this reason, no changes in land use should be made through the Comprehensive Plan, either in language or on maps, until such future time as an acceptable development proposal is made that warrants such a change. Another reason is that this method of individual land use and zoning changes allows for providing full information to the community and their input regarding the change at hearings for such individual change. What is being reviewed is a draft proposal and it is very difficult to track changes from the 2030 plan. Furthermore, the changes between each draft are unclear. She requested that each draft is read-lined to show current changes so that the reviewer does not have to keep comparing the entire document for changes. She identified numerous errors and inconsistencies in previous drafts. It is important to have the final version of this document be as accurate as possible, so there is no misunderstanding regarding the facts or meetings. She suggested that since this is a continued hearing regarding the plan and other changes may be made prior to submitting this to the City Council, that a vote on the draft be delayed until the next Planning Commission meeting. This would allow for the document to be considered in lieu of the comments at the hearing this evening, since this is a continued hearing, and before being forwarded to the City Council as a whole. January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 18 She requested that before the next meeting a red-line version from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and subsequent changes from meetings and hearings, be provided to make it easier to review and to appropriately comment. Chair Field asked what particular land use changes she was referring to. Ms. Smith replied that she was referring to the various land use changes that have been part of the maps, changes from the existing Comprehensive Plan to different uses. As a follow up, Commissioner Noonan noted that one of those changes was probably the guidance of Augusta Shores; changed to medium density. That was reflecting what’s on the ground; he then asked if she would disagree with the re-guiding to reflect existing; as opposed to re-guiding a vacant site, which would have different development potential. Ms. Smith replied that she was less concerned about that [re-guiding to reflect existing] and she did not understand why that wasn’t changed initially. This is very difficult in the Twin Cities area, regarding the requirement that the Comprehensive Plan take precedence over zoning – because they have very little ability to plan ahead for proposed changes. On the other hand, if they make changes to the Comprehensive Plan, in today’s regulations, then there is really little opportunity to deny anything in the future, whether it is appropriate or not, in the proposed future of the city to amend that. It is very important that things are done sequentially. Do not change things from the way they are – and, if appropriate changes take place or are proposed and make sense within the city and have appropriate reasons and are consistent with the surrounding area, that is done at the time and not preempt those opportunities for the changes that are prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Smith continued by stating that frankly, in her experience, including these changes on maps is very important. Do not change designations on maps unless they are sure that they have something to go on. If something is changed in the Comprehensive Plan, there is little opportunity – they need to make sure they have the right proposal for this, and if they don’t then, if it is in the Comprehensive Plan, there is little opportunity to deny this. Chair Field asked Ms. Smith, since she had identified the category in a very broad form and then when given the example of Augusta Shores saying that was OK, he noted that they did some things with parks and open land as respects to golf courses – and he assumed she would say that was OK – asked that if the Commission decided to carry this forward maybe she could share with the Commission – assuming the public hearing remains open – her idea of what the changes are that should not be made. They have put in a lot of work to have a blanket indictment made, especially since there is some really good things here. Ms. Smith replied that she does not disagree with everything that has been proposed. Going forward with things in place, as they have been in the past, is not a problem. However, changing land use designations along Victoria, land use designations along Victoria and Highway 13, things that are really not in accordance with existing conditions. A Commissioner also noted that the proposed changes along Victoria and Highway 13 were removed and are not currently listed on the map. January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 18 In an effort to move on, Chair Field requested that Ms. Smith return with examples of what she disagrees with and not generalizations. Commissioner Noonan also asked for examples of other items she disagreed with, other than land use. Ms. Smith replied that, to her, general aspirations included a number of things specified within the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. She is very much in favor of the Natural Resources program, and that many of the issues aspirations go beyond what should be in the Comprehensive Plan, and all are very important issues for the city. Beyond that there is a Tree Preservation Ordinance that could also be included. She believes that the aspirations for preserving the benefits of the community and the beauty of the community should be addressed more specifically in other areas; but should be addressed in general in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Noonan noted that this comment did not match up with what she initially said and asked again that if she were to return and have comments on changes in land use, she should be specific to point out where she suggested details in the Comprehensive Plan go too far. Ms. Smith noted that she intended her comments to be generalizations; however, she would be happy to provide specifics to the Commission via a memo. Chair Field replied that he would be delighted to receive her memo. Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, expressed his appreciation for the Commission’s response to the concerns of the citizens with respect to changing some land use categories that were before them. He read in the plan today that the city would be limited to 15,000 square foot lots in the future. He did read all 187 pages of the Comprehensive Plan today. He did not read it critically, but he did go through it all. There are five lakes listed for the City of Mendota Heights; Rogers Lake was not among them, which is the largest body of water in the city. He wondered if it had been annexed by Lilydale or Mendota. He also noted, in the way of nits, that there is a section on Transportation dealing with the improved safety for pedestrian and vehicles as a consequence of the changes made on Dodd Road with the pedestrian island. He suggested that ought to be revisited in the view of the fact that in the last two weeks the signs on that island have twice been flattened. The way that intersection was configured before the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) got a hold of it worked perfectly well. He did go through and compare the land use of 2030 with the existing land use and with the proposed land use. The only way he could figure out what those changes were was by looking at and comparing the maps – not a very good idea. Unlike the customary process, there was no narrative or findings proposed by the Planning Commission with respect to each of those proposed land use amendments. Mr. Friel then itemized what he found because he was unsure if what he found was accurate:  The land between Lemay Lake and Augusta Lake was changed from Parks & Open Space to Medium Density Residential At this point, Commissioner Petschel interrupted and made a note to staff that he believed there to be a map that should be labeled Figure 2-6, which has all of the deltas – the last map in the Land January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 18 Use section. He noted that it did not provide a narrative, but it is where one would go to find all of the deltas. Mr. Friel continued:  The parcel at Lexington and Highway 13 is proposed from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential o He reminded the Commission that this was proposed once before and it was voted down by the Council  Ivy Falls parcel from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential  Parcel at Wentworth and Dodd Road from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential  Parcel at Marie and Victoria from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential  Easterly Kensington parcel from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential  Westerly Kensington parcel from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential  Parcel at Dodd and Mendota Heights Road from Rural Residential to Medium Residential There is neither a written narrative nor findings to support a proposal to change any of these land use classifications. Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Friel would like to keep the parcel of land south of Mendota Heights Road adjoining Delaware, as a Medium Density PUD. Mr. Friel replied that he was not proposing to keep it any use, he was just relating what he believed the map showed. Commissioner Petschel noted that there was plenty of public discussion as to simply reconciling what is on the land at these particular places, versus how they are currently guided. Mr. Friel explained that he is being misunderstood. In making his comments he had no intentions of dealing specifically with whether the changes should be made or not, his complaint is that there was no information to support the proposals that are in the maps. Therefore, he cannot tell why the changes are being done; what if there was a valid objection to its being done. In general, he would be opposed to changing park land to any other use; and he would be against changing low density residential to any other density residential, unless there were good and sufficient reasons. He concluded that perhaps, but for the Lexington and Highway 13 re-guiding proposal, all the re- guiding proposals are being instituted as the zoning code provides for it by the city through the action of the Planning Commission. He assumed that the Lexington and Highway 13 re -guiding proposal was in response to a second application by the property owner. Chair Field replied that nothing here is necessarily reflective of a specific application. Mr. Friel ended by stating that he objects to what he terms as ‘batch’ land use changes. It is inappropriate and it denies the people who live in each of those separate areas due process of law. The fact that the Commission has such a lack of attendance this evening, at this important public hearing, demonstrates the correctness of that statement. January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 18 Ms. Cindy Johnson, 1755 Victoria Road South, expressed her appreciation to the Commission for allowing residents to speak and for all of the fabulous meetings held for quite some time. She mentioned that she also noticed in the Land Use Maps that there were some discrepancies:  The existing Land Use Map is incorrectly highlighting Highland Heights Development as High Density Residential when it is a Medium Density Residential  Eagle Ridge is incorrectly highlighted as High Density Residential, when only the apartments along the perimeter are High Density Residential; the rest are Medium Density Residential  The property that has the Dakota Communities for special needs adults – Victoria and close to Lexington – is highlighted also as High Density Residential and Dakota Communities an R-1 Residential and does not need to be listed as High Density Residential She too was trying to look back and forth and trying recall from the 2030 plan and noted that there were some discrepancies in what it was called before and what it is being changed to. Commissioner Petschel noted that the mistakes is one of the things the Commission is trying to correct. He then asked if she saw any issues with the proposed changes. She replied that she believed it to be correct in the final 2040 Planned Future Land Use for properties, the change from 2030 to 2040. Ms. Johnson then stated that she is one of the Master Gardeners that works collaboratively with the City of Mendota Heights and city staff, along with other Master Gardeners and Master Water Stewards, on Natural Resources and other projects. Other members of the community, along with the Master Gardeners and Master Water Stewards, were invited by staff several months ago to participate and collaborate in drafting the Natural Resources chapter, as is done by many cities. They appreciated that invitation and expressed thanks to Mr. Benetti and other staff members. As she reviewed the completed version of the Natural Resources chapter (Chapter 7) on the website, it is not the chapter that the Commissioners had stated they were to work from at the previous workshop – the version from Commissioner Mazzitello – which left the entire narrative in place prior to the goals and policies. She would like to see that portion returned. Since this is a completely outdated version, the Implementation chapter that is available on the website is also not correct. She has concerns as to how the priorities were vetted out – that was not something they had discussed in collaboration with city staff. It appeared to her that these did not coincide with the work they did in collaboration with the city. They were hoping to be able to take a look at Chapter 7 (Natural Resources) and say it was good to go; unfortunately, as the Comprehensive Plan is written now it is not anywhere near the correct version. She would proposed the corrected version be given to the community for review. Commissioner Noonan agreed with Ms. Johnson; in fact Commissioner Mazzitello and he said the exact same thing to staff. If there was a desire to push forward and discuss the Natural Resources January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 18 section, the first recommendation he would have advanced was to delete all with respect with the goals and the policies, while not touching the narrative and to insert Commissioner Mazzitello’s work there and have that as the focus of the discussion. With respect to the implementation, she was 100% correct. If they are to have a meaningful discussion on implementation, then they need to make sure that the goals and policies are what was forming the basis for the implementation. Ms. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, had a few specific comments:  Goal 2.4: Reduce the impact of aircraft noise within the community o 2.4.3 Advocate an equitable distribution of aircraft traffic and a more equitable runway use system  The word ‘equitable’ would be left up to so much interpretation and may not be to the good of Mendota Heights – she proposed a different word be used  Resiliency chapter o There are conflicting goals that need to be resolved (for instance, 8.1.4 Increase the tree canopy and 8.5.1 Protects the direct sunlight to rooftops and principal structures). She also thought there should be clarification on the intent so that, for instance, her neighbor cannot say that her tree is blocking his roof and so it has to go. o 8.5.2 Encourage developers to establish covenants that do not restrict the development and use of active and/or passive solar energy systems  Mendota Heights should carefully control the developers and should not put direction in the plan for developers Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, echoed the comments made by Ms. Johnson because she could not follow the bread crumbs from the last workshop to what was written by Commissioner Mazzitello to what was presented online. The Natural Resources narrative that was from the draft version of November 19, 201 8 was the version that was not broken; it could be looked at as the introduction that goes back in. Also, she commented on the Critical Area – Chapter 9:  On the maps she was not really able to follow a lot of the gray dotted lines and black dotted lines o Something they might want to look at in a lot of these maps is the black solid line that defines city boundaries – it should be better defined what that line is  Chapter 9 also has a section titled Views Toward the River from Public Places o She believed that Picnic Island should to be included in that section – she had drafted some verbiage and provided the Commission a copy In light of the scope of revisions and discussion items from himself, Commissioner Noonan, and from the public, COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING REMAIN OPEN UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 18 MEETING, WHEN HOPEFULLY THE HEARING WOULD ACTUALLY BE ON THE DRAFT FINAL 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMISSIONER NOONAN SECONDED THE MOTION AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Discussion Commissioner Mazzitello noted that Commissioner Noonan had an extensive list of comments and he himself had an extensive list of corrections in his plan. The initial thought was they would go through chapter by chapter and he and Commissioner Noonan would relay their observations and comments for Commission consideration. Commissioner Noonan stated that he knew that Commissioner Magnuson had some comments as well. Commissioner Magnuson agreed that she had a number of comments and suggested if there were policy comments or general comments, that they be discussed. If there were grammar, nits, wording, formatting – they be provided to staff for incorporation into the document. Commissioner Petschel asked if his assumption that Commissioner Mazzitello wanted to move onto Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 correct. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that he would like to start with the Acknowledgements, before they even get to Chapter 1. Commissioner Petschel then asked if the questions and concerns regarding a lack of specificity or the opaqueness of the Land Use designation changes be a good place to start. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed this would be a good place to start. Commissioner Mazzitello made the following comments:  It would be appropriate in the Acknowledgements to recognize the volunteer resident input that went into the construction of this Plan as part of the list of individuals that contributed to its development as well; including, but not limited to: o Dakota County Master Gardeners o Volunteer Residents o Residents who testified at Public Hearings o Residents who reached out to Commissioners and Councilmembers with comments Some acknowledgement of that volunteer effort on part of the residents would be nice to see. There were no objections.  Referencing page 1-4, top paragraph, second to the last line, which read: Excellent schools and a well-educated populace complement the traditional but progressive character of the City”, suggested that the word ‘progressive’ be removed. He did not necessarily object to the reason why that was included in the narrative; however, the word carries with it a political connotation that he did not believe has a place within the Plan. If agreed, the sentence would then read “Excellent schools and a well-educated populace complement the traditional character of the City”. No objections were raised.  Chapter 2 Land Use: page layout format is inconsistent with the rest of the chapter. January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 18 o Figure 2-2 Focus Areas: the properties on Victoria, just to the east of Lexington, are highlighted as a Focus Area – these are the large lots that contain the older structures and asked why they were included if they were specifically had those stricken from having Land Use changes. It was agreed to have that updated in the next version. It was noted here by some of the other Commissioners that the maps included in the Plan were inconsistently labeled; some were labeled as Figures, and some had no labels on them. Commissioner Magnuson noted that the color in the keys change for the designations from map to map. A color should be assigned to a designation and then carried through to each of the maps from the 2030 Plan and the 2040 Plan. Chair Field stated that his parcel, and his neighbors, in the section identified as Somerset Area on the Focus Areas map, particularly with the way they are isolated with Hidden Creek, believed that their land use does not qualify for redevelopment and the topography would take care it secondarily. He believed they should be removed from the Focus Area. Commissioner Noon an stated that in terms of transparency, these should be identified as areas they had discussions on and were focused on – they were talked about. The real operative piece is the 2040 Land Use Plan. Even though it is not as clear as it would like to be, it does provide the narrative that these are the areas the Commission looked at and ultimately, what was recommended is continued on the 2040 Plan and is summarized on the plan that follows the 2040. It should be left in as an item that was discussed, and then what was ultimately decided is what is on the 2040. Commissioner Mazzitello continued:  In reference to page 2.4, he asked if verbiage was provided to Mr. Benetti from a workshop that was held with City Council in October. There should be a Goal 2.2.7 that says something to the effect of “Provide a mechanism to allow for maintenance to non- conforming properties to become less burdensome”. The rationale behind this is actually on page 2.6.  On page 2.5, as pointed out during the public testimony, Policy 2.4.3 advocating for an equitable distribution of aircraft traffic – he proposed that this policy be stricken from the Plan. The Commission agreed.  Page 2.6 Future Land Use Categories / Residential – there should be a statement at the end of the section something to the affect, and verbiage was provided to staff in October, ‘there exists in the city non-conforming properties developed smaller than lot size and with less frontage due to development prior to the establishment of the zoning code’ – this would drive the Goal 2.2.7 on the previous page. This would also address the whole LR -5, LR-9 issue. The intent for the proposal in the first place was to allow for work to take place on those properties without the burdensome of variances and other permits needed. Commissioner Noonan, commenting on Table 2-1, which lists the Existing Land Uses by Gross Acres and by Acres Net of Wetland, asked why the total of each column is equal. It was agreed January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 18 that there should have been a subtotal row for each column, and then the total wetland added back into the Acres net of Wetland to come up with an equal total in each column. Staff agreed to correct this misconception. This same adjustment would be made to Table 2-2. Commissioner Mazzitello continued:  Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use – he assumed this map was to depict what is physically on the ground as land use. Staff concurred. He then indicated that he believed there to be a number of properties that are not correctly identified. For instance, Ivy Falls Townhome Development is identified as High Density Residential. He listed other examples as well.  2040 Planned Future Land Use map and 2040 Planned Future Land Use for Properties with Planned Land use Changes from 2030 to 2040 – stated that everything that is changed within this Plan is very easily explainable, but one. He then asked what the Commission’s desire was for the property on Highway 13 and Lexington. Commissioner Petschel replied that it would be easily explained by simply saying yes or by changing the map – using a single narrative. However, there is not a consolidated list of the changes. It is probably redundant, but at least it would be less confusing. Commissioner Noonan clarified that the suggestion was to include a Summary Table explaining the property and the change or an index to the map.  Getting back to the Highway 13 and Lexington property, Commissioner Mazzitello reminded them that when the initial application came to the Planning Commission, the Commission recommended approval of the change in Land Use; however, the City Council denied the change in Land Use – the same City Council that is seated today. He then asked what the Commission’s desire to do with respect to designating that piece of property – given the public testimony and the Council’s previous action. After much discussion, the Commission decided to leave the designation as is. Commissioner Noonan, referencing Policy 3.2.2 that read “The City will seek county, regional, state or federal funding to expand transit services in and around the city” stated that he did not believe that the city seeks funding for transit services; he suggested that it say that the city would support the appropriate transit agencies in seeking funding of the county. That way the city is supportive but not leading the charge. Chair Field noted that this was agreed to during a workshop. Commissioner Noonan then referenced page 3-12 and noted that he commented at the workshop meeting and thought there had been an agreement made that instead of the language in the very last sentence under Delaware Avenue, which presupposes what would be built there, that similar language be put in that ‘if the interchange is no t built, long-term alternatives will need to be considered’. The Commission agreed to this edit. Commissioner Mazzitello continued:  Pages 3-20 and 3-21: Airport-Related Goals and Policies #2 and Aircraft Noise Policy #3 – again used the term ‘equitable distribution’ and he suggested both be stricken. The Commission agreed. January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 18 Commissioner Magnuson referred to page 3-22 and made some general comments to staff in that there were some things throughout the Plan that she believed were carried over from the 2030 Plan that could use some language updating and updated photos. She would hate for someone to think that they took the 2030 Plan and slapped on a 2040 Plan cover – especially after all of the hard work everyone has put in. Under Parks and Trails, Commissioner Noonan had one comment: there were numbers thrown out throughout this section – 771, 1,200, 598 – which he found very confusing. He requested that these be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent. Also, in regards to Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, he believed were reflected in the Mazzitello version of the Natural Resources section and do not need to be repeated here. He proposed that these two policies be deleted. Commissioner Magnuson expressed her disagreement in that if Goal 4.3, where these policies were listed, were considered as an environmental issue having these policies would create an environmental system. Commissioner Mazzitello suggested that this become one Policy, making reference to Chapter 7 and the Guidelines outlined therein. This was agreed upon. Commissioner Noonan then commented on Page 4-7, under Future Park needs and references the formula, he believed it was discussed at the workshop that it was not really necessary to reference the formula given the fact that the city provides parkland over and above it. Including the formula robs the city of some flexibility. Commissioner Mazzitello continued:  Page 5-1, second paragraph, last two sentences – he suggested they be combined to read “Mendota Heights needs to provide housing options for current residents to stay in the city regardless of changes in family size, income, aging, or other issues, and be welcoming to everybody who wish to live in Mendota Heights”.  Page 6-4 under Economic Overview that makes reference to (see Appendix X), wanted to ensure that it is actually identified and attached to the Plan. o Commissioner Noonan also referenced Chapter 1 where it talks about Appendix material providing summaries of the feedback from open houses, which was not included in the copies provided and wanted to ensure they would also be included in the Plan.  Chapter 7 Natural Resources: since everyone has already received copies of Commissioner Noonan’s comments he suggested that, rather than editing Chapter 7 at this time, it be replaced with the entire narrative of the November 19, 2018 addition and the Goals and Policies as submitted by himself on December 5, 2018. This would then be a topic of discussion at the February 2019 meeting prior to acting on the Plan. He also noted that the formatting was incorrect.  Chapter 8 Resilience – again, the formatting is incorrect. Commissioner Noonan made a general comment on Page 8-2 in that it reference the Dakota County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Mendota Heights Emergency Operations Plan – as stated before, that it is incumbent upon the County and the City to communicate to the extent that it can, what are January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 18 in the plans that should be actionable in case of an emergency taking place – something like “The city supports communication or education of the public as to what actions should be taken under these Plans, should an emergency situation take place”. Commissioner Mazzitello explained that that at the November 21, 2018 meeting he supplied five supplemental comments to this chapter he worked on with Mr. Carlson, and it was to add a Policy 8.3.5 that says “Review emergency communications procedures to ensure the public is adequately informed in the event of an emergency”. Commissioner Noonan suggested that an advance knowledge component or understanding be made available. In reference to Policy 8.2.3 – Conduct a Population Climate Vulnerability Assessment . . . Commissioner Noonan stated that he had no clue what that meant. He suggested that this be put in plainer language. He also referenced Ms. Christensen’s comments regarding Policy 8.1.4 and Policy 8.5.2 – the potential inconsistencies should be worked out. Commissioner Petschel also noted that every time they have reviewed this document they have voted to remove Policy 8.5.1 and yet it remains. Commissioner Magnuson asked if anyone else felt that the narrative on alternative transportation on page 8-8 appeared to be out of place. It is right after the topic of Gross and Rooftop Solar Resources and right before the 2040 Resilient Energy Generation and Consumption Goals and Policies. She suggested it be moved to right before Goal 8.6: Adopt climate mitigation and/or energy independent goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or right after Goal 8.6. Commissioner Noonan referenced Policy 8.6.3 that talks about beginning the application process to the Minnesota Green Step Cities Program – again the Commission needs to understand what this program is so they know what is being asked. In reference to Policy 8.7.3 that reads “Consider housing options along transit corridors as a strategy for reducing the consumption of fossil fuels”, Commissioner Noonan asked what corridors were being referenced. He believed this to be misleading since there is no place to do this activity; it is meaningless to include it. The Commission agreed to delete this policy. Page 8-10, second paragraph that talks about ‘planning policies and reduce or reinforce structural barriers that prevent our food supply . . .’ is a general bold statement does not spell out what policies – it’s pretty light on the details. His final comment was on the paragraph on page 8-11 which talks about Access to Food Markets and suggests that reliance on the automobile can be problematic. The Plan should also recognize market realities; that had been intents to provide local food markets that have not been supported. Commissioner Mazzitello continued:  There had been conversations regarding adding Policy 8.3.5 referencing Communications, Procedures, and Public Notifications. Mr. Benetti has the language on that.  Also, on Page 8-5 under Resilient Energy Generation and Consumption, in the second to last sentence that reads “Mendota Heights must set goals and policies that treat sustainable January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 18 . . . “ – he suggested that the word ‘must’ be changed to ‘desires to’ so that it is not obligatory.  On Page 8-9 Policy 8.6.4, the word ‘Encouraging’ should be ‘Encourage’  On Page 8-11, Small Scale Food Production in Mendota Heights – he asked that a third bullet be added titled “Beekeeping” with the substantial language he sent to Mr. Benetti on December 21, 2018.  Policy 8.8.5 – should read “Support innovative practices such as mobile food markets and mobile food pantries/food shelves that can bring food closer to elderly and other under- resourced residents.” In reference to Chapter 9, Commissioner Noonan asked staff to consider Ms. Pilgrim’s comments with respect to the mapping as he could see the confusion. For instance, on page 9-4 there is a line that says ‘city and township boundaries’, yet what has been done is that there is a solid black line. There needs to be consistency. Mr. Benetti explained that these were stock maps provided by the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and he did not believe they could be revised. It was suggested that this feedback be provided to the Met Council as it would be in their best interest to be informed. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that it appeared to him that some of these maps seemed to be sourced and asked where they came from. Commissioner Magnuson, referencing Page 9-1, noticed that there was a sentence that stated that the Critical Area was designated by Governor’s Executive Order in 1976, then it talks about that on January 4, 2017 the Minnesota Rules, chapter 6106 replaced the Executive Order, and then in the next paragraph it says that in 2016 the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources revised the rules and regulations, which were incorporated into this plan. The dates are inconsistent. The reality is that the Department of Natural Resources proposed the rules in 2016, which were then adopted in 2017 and incorporated into the plan. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that there are a lot of problems in Chapter 10 Implementation that need to be corrected before this Plan gets sent to the City Council. For example, the goals defined in the tables for the various chapters do not match the Goals and Policies that are in the chapter. Secondly, there are priority levels set that the Commission has not discussed. Commissioner Noonan made the following general housekeeping type comments and suggestions:  The footers need to be made consistent; in some cases it says Implementation and then a page number, and in other cases it is just a naked page number  The headers need to reflect the current version throughout  Ensure that all figures are labeled  The maps have a whole plethora of different dates on them, dating should be consistent Commissioner Magnuson stated that, in spite of all of the negativity heard this evening, the Commission believes that everyone did a remarkable job and she expressed the Commission’s January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 18 appreciation for all of the hard work they put in – and it is obvious that a lot of hard work went into this Plan. Staff and Commission Announcements This being Chair Field’s last meeting, Commissioner Noonan expressed appreciation for his leadership, direction, the calm voice, and calm demeanor that some needed. Chair Field will be missed and wished all the best in his next phase. Mr. Carlson stated that he has had the privilege in his work to see many, many, many Planning Commissions – not just this one. He could truly say that Chair Field has done an outstanding job; his demeanor, professionalism, and intelligence in guiding this Commission are unique and remarkable. The City and its residents owe him a debt of gratitude. Mr. Benetti asked if the Commission would like to schedule a workshop meeting before the regular meeting in February 2019. He echoed Commissioner Mazzitello’s observance that a workshop would be appropriate and helpful just to do another fine tooth combing of the plans once the edits are done. Chair Field replied that this would be well advised. It was agreed by all to have the workshop meeting take place beginning at 6:00 p.m. prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED TO ADJOURN COMMISSIONER CORBETT SECONDED THE MOTION AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 CHAIR FIELD ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 9:35 P.M.