Loading...
2019-04-15 Planning Comm Minutes Workshop CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WORKSHOP MEETING APRIL 15, 2019 A workshop meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 15, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 6:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Also Present: Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, City Administrator Mark McNeill DISCUSS UPDATES TO THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 10 Implementation Chair Magnussen called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Mr. Noonan noted the Commissioners’ receipt of the written comments which had been provided by Ultan Duggan. He said that those comments should be referred to staff, and that the City Council could consider them. Mr. Ruzek then began a discussion of the implementation steps for each chapter, as summarized in Chapter 10. Chapter 1—Introduction--No comments Chapter 2—Land Use--Mr. Noonan asked of the Commission was to provide feedback on Timeframe and Priority Levels. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative, but noted that prioritization would be subject to the resources available to the City. Mr. Katz said that he had counted 23 “high” priorities, 22 “medium”, and only 3 that were “low”. He said that there may not always need to be an action step that needed to be assigned to keep it as a high priority. Mr. Corbett asked if there was progress reported on those items which have action steps. He also asked if the Airport Noise implementation had measurable goals. It was noted that the Airport Noise issues had items which were out of the City’s control; however, the City’s Airport Relations Commission monitored noise complaints and trends. Chair Magnussen said there the draft Comprehensive Plan document presented a “tension”—the previous draft listed action steps which didn’t always correspond with goals. She said that this version added goals, but had fewer implementation steps. She felt that if there was too much implementation, the process would have to start over. Mr. Mazzitello said that these goals were not in rank order of importance. Mr. Ruzek agreed, and said that this was a comprehensive plan, and not a work plan. He said that the Comp Plan should focus on policy, and that individual work plans would address implementation specifics. Mr. Katz asked that periods as punctuations be made consistent throughout the document. He also questioned if the airport noise issues should be reprioritized as “low”, given the City’s lack of ability to change airport policy. Mr. Mazzitello said that, given the number of people in Mendota Heights who view airport noise as a concern, he felt that it should stay as “medium”. The Commissioners agreed. Chapter 3—Transportation—Commissioners agreed to change the timeframe in 3.3 (airport noise impacts) “on-going”, instead of “long term”. In “Bonus Goal 1”, the term “near-term” was eliminated from roadway projects. Chapter 4—Parks and Trails—Mr. Mazzitello asked if “short term” for 4.1 was accurate. The consensus was to change that to “on-going”. Mr. Noonan suggested combining two of the bonus goals. Mr. Ruzek removed the bonus goal under 4.3. Chapter 5—Housing—Mr. Mazzitello suggested changing the bonus goal regarding the creation of 23 affordable housing units to “long term”. The Commissioners agreed. Chapter 6—Economic Development—Mr. Mazzitello recommended changing the priority of 6.3 (economic development tools) from “high” to “low”. The Commissioners agreed. Chair Magnussen questioned whether Goal 6.5 and Bonus Goal 2 were the same. It was agreed to drop Bonus Goal 2, adding the term “Industrial District”, and making it a “medium” priority. Mr. Mazzitello asked that “and redevelop” be added to 6.4. Mr. Noonan asked that Tim Benetti be asked whether “develop” and “redevelop” should be added to 6.4 and 6.5. Chapter 7—Natural Resources—The Commissioners discussed whether the timeframes for 7.1 should be changed to “medium” or “short term”; whether 7.2 should be “ongoing”; and 7.5 should instead be “medium” or “long term”. There was no consensus. The Commissioners also discussed whether a future advisory body for Natural Resources should be a Committee or Commission? Chair Magnussen noted that having a Commission was important to many people who have commented. The consensus was that the narrative in Chapter 7 would reference any Natural Resources advisory body as being a committee, which could evolve into a Commission, and that the Implementation Goals, Policies, and Tables would all reference “Commission”. Chapter 8—Resilience—Mr. Noonan stated that Goal 8.2 referencing weather and climate issues should be a “long term” timeframe, rather than “medium term”. Priorities were discussed. Mr. Mazzitello felt 8.1 (infrastructure) should be a “high”, rather than “medium”. Mr. Noonan recommended changing food production (8.7) from “high”, to “low”. Mr. Petschel recommended changing 8.5 from “high”, to “low”; Chair Magnussen said that the City by itself can’t change climate change, but it can make small contributions. Mr. Noonan suggested making 8.5 (climate change goals and greenhouse gasses) “ongoing” in timeframe, and a “medium” priority. Mr. Petschel asked the same treatment for 8.4 (solar energy). Chapter 9—Critical Area—No comments from the Commissioners. Other Comments: Chair Magnussen asked for other comments. Mr. Mazzitello suggested adding an eighth policy as 2.2.8, which would read, “LR development and redevelopment should avoid the creation of new “flag lots”, where the “flag lots” has less than the standard 100 feet of frontage”. Chair Magnussen called for other comments. Audience member Leslie Pilgrim asked for clarification on the flag lot discussion, which was answered by Mr. Mazzitello. Audience member Sue Light asked for a definition between a committee and commission. Concerns were expressed that a Committee might not have the same impact as a Commission. The discussion referenced the earlier-referenced proposed language in Chapter 7. Audience member Cindy Johnson said that she had attended a meeting the previous weekend, and reported that of the 26 cities represented, there was a wide variety of ways in which Natural Resources advisory groups were structured. Costs of the two alternatives were discussed. It was decided that the Planning Commissioners didn’t need to make a recommendation that evening, but were in concurrence that a Natural Resources advisory group should be referred to as a Commission in the goals, but be a committee which might evolve, in the narrative. Audience member Jill Smith asked for clarification on density in 2.8. She said there should be a Low Density PUD, and asked why densities have increased—MR going from 4 to 8 units per acres, and HR from 8.5 units, to up to 25 units per acre. Mr. Mazzitello responded that all of the H R designations had developed at a higher rate, and increasing the number of units more accurately reflected what had actually been developed. He noted that Summit, and Eagle Ridge ae greater than 8 units per acre. Chair Magnussen recommended to change the MR to “not to exceed” 8 units per acre. Ms. Smith stated that 8, and 25 units per acre were not much of a limitation. ADJOURN There being no further discussion, Chair Magnussen adjourned the meeting at 7:42 PM Minutes Taken By: Mark McNeill City Administrator