Loading...
2011-09-27 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 27, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval ofAuQust23, 2011, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 2011, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #11 -20 New Cingular Wireless 894 Sibley Memorial Highway Conditional Use Permit for wireless antenna modification Planner Stephen Grittman displayed a map of the subject site and indicated the property is zoned B -1, limited business and guided as limited business. He presented the request of New Cingular Wireless for approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow modification to its existing wireless communication tower located south of Sibley Memorial Highway and east of I -35E at 894 Sibley Memorial Highway. The applicant is asking to upgrade its communication equipment located on the tower to replace six existing antennas with a three -sided nine antenna array, add six tower - mounted amplifiers, a tower - mounted surge protector, and replace the existing antenna t -arm with a low profile antenna platform. No change to the tower height is proposed and the addition of the antenna platform will be the primary visual change to the facility. Mr. Grittman indicated the proposed antenna and related equipment modifications to the communication tower are expected to have no physical impact on neighboring properties. The addition of three new antennas and support platform will have some visual impact, but not out of character with the commercial area in which the tower is located. With this in mind, staff recommends approval subject to three conditions as detailed in the staff report. Commissioner Roston asked whether suggested condition 2 that the new antennas and related equipment shall comply with all FCC regulations is necessary. Mr. Grittman stated the city has occasionally added that condition for this type of installation to clarify federal regulations also apply and to address neighbor's concern relating to potential interference. Matthew Kundert, 2625 Monroe Drive NW, Rochester, representing the applicant, stated the project is as described by staff and stood for questions. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Richard Gabriel, 887 Sibley Memorial Highway, stated he is the property owner directly to the east. He indicated the tower property is landlocked and only accessed through his parking lot. Mr. Gabriel stated with the explanation of the project he has no objection to the application. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO NEW ANTENNA AND RELATED EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION; 2. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FCC REGULATIONS; AND 3. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE ELECTRICAL CODES. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its October 4, 2011, meeting. In recognition of Matthew Kundert's attendance, Chair Norton reordered the agenda to next consider Planning Case #11 -27. PLANNING CASE #11 -27 New Cingular Wireless 750 Main Street Conditional Use Permit for wireless antenna modification Planner Stephen Grittman presented a map of the subject site and request of New Cingular Wireless for approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow an upgrade to its existing wireless communication antennas located on the clock tower of "The Village of Mendota Heights" development located at 750 Main Street. The applicant would like to replace the six existing antennas with six new antennas, add six tower - mounted amplifiers, and add a tower - mounted surge protector. The equipment is part of the tower structure so there would be no significant visual changes to the clock tower as part of this antenna replacement. The proposed upgrade would enhance the operation of their communication service. Mr. Grittman stated the proposed antenna replacement will be nearly undetectable from a visual standpoint and have no physical impact on neighboring properties. With this in mind, planning staff recommends approval of the CUP subject to three conditions as detailed in the staff report. Matthew Kundert, 2625 Monroe Drive NW, Rochester, representing the applicant, stated this is a minor project and described accurately by staff. He stood for questions. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO NEW ANTENNA AND RELATED EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION; 2. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FCC REGULATIONS; AND 3. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE ELECTRICAL CODES. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its October 4, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -26 Frank Pilney 1867 Warrior Drive Wetlands Permit for a seasonal room Planner Stephen Grittman presented a map of the subject site and request of Frank Pilney for approval of a wetlands permit to construct a porch/seasonal room over a portion of an existing deck at 1867 Warrior Drive. The project would cover about half of the deck and extend two feet beyond the edge of the deck toward the wetland. The new addition would result in a setback from the wetland of approximately 80 feet. The property is zoned R -1, one family residential and the zoning ordinance requires a wetlands permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a wetland to assure the alteration will not negatively impact the quality of the adjoining water resource. Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and stated the project appears to meet the intent of the wetlands ordinance and will not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland. Additional posts and footings will accommodate the two foot extension. He noted the location of the retaining wall that creates separation between the rear yard and wetland that is in natural vegetation. The applicants have indicated their intent to leave the natural vegetation buffer as it exists. Planning staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit, subject to one condition as detailed in the staff report, since the proposed project should not have a negative impact on the wetland, especially with the native vegetation plantings to filter runoff into the wetland. Frank Pilney, 1867 Warrior Drive, stated this is an existing deck and the project would extend only two feet beyond. Commissioner Magnuson noted one of the findings of fact presumes no soil or vegetation will be disturbed as a result of the project. Mr. Pilney confirmed that is the case. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its October 4, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -28 Robert and Katherine Thompson 979 Caren Road Critical Area Permit for an accessory building Planner Stephen Grittman displayed a map of the subject site and presented the request of Robert and Katherine Thompson for approval of a critical area permit to allow the construction of an accessory shed within the northwest portion of their rear yard at 979 Caren Road. It was noted the subject site is zoned R -1, one family residential and located within the Mississippi River corridor. According to the zoning ordinance, any work conducted within the Mississippi River corridor requires a critical area permit. Staff's review is structured to assure visibility from the River and vegetation/drainage impacts do not occur as part of the proposed project or are mitigated. It was noted the parcel is somewhat flat and would not impact bluff views. Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and indicated that considering no landscaping, paving, soil loss, grade or slope alteration is planned, the proposed accessory building should not have a negative impact on the aesthetic integrity and natural environmental of the Mississippi River critical area. As a result, planning staff recommends approval of the critical area permit to construct the proposed rear yard accessory building subject to two conditions as detailed in the staff report. Commissioner Roston asked if the accessory building is in compliance with the zoning regulations. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Magnuson asked if any resident comments have been received. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek reported the resident to the east called to ask what is being requested and once explained expressed no objection to the application. Robert and Katherine Thompson, 979 Caren Road, applicants, introduced themselves and indicated the accessory building will be used to store their lawnmower, painted to match the house, and located so it will blend into the neighborhood. Ms. Thompson stated they contacted their neighbors who indicated they had no objection. Ms. Thompson advised that they will be on vacation October 4, 2011, and not available to attend the city council meeting. Mr. Sedlacek explained the city likes to have the applicants in attendance in the event the city council has questions. If that were to occur, the application may be tabled to the city council's next meeting. The applicants were agreeable to the matter potentially being tabled. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS Mr. Grittman noted an error in the staff report and clarified the recommendation is for an accessory shed, not a fence. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE A BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE STRUCTURE, PER THE REPRESENTATIONS IN THE APPLICATION; AND 2. NO GRADING OF OTHER LAND DISTURBANCE OCCURS AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its October 4, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -29 Dodge Nature Center 656 Highway 110 Wetlands Permit to restore an existing pond and dam Planner Stephen Grittman presented a map of the subject site and request of the Dodge Nature Center for approval of a wetlands permit to allow the restoration of the "Lilly Property Pond" within the nature center property. Staff has reviewed the project to assure it meets the city's requirements as well as agency requirements and found there are few land use impacts since the wetlands are contained on the applicant's property. Mr. Grittman explained that the project is a wetland enhancement which will restore wetlands to a previous condition. Planning staff does not have any concerns with the proposed restoration and engineering staff is in the process of reviewing project. Mr. Grittman stated that planning staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit subject to two conditions: review and approval by the city engineer. Commissioner Viksnins noted the staff report finds that the project enhances the wetland and asked if that is a necessary finding or if the standard is that the project not negatively impact the wetland. Mr. Grittman explained the wetland ordinance requires the project not negatively impact the wetland. Commissioner Viksnins noted staff is recommending two conditions of approval and asked how the land disturbance guidance document differs from the city engineer review. Mr. Grittman explained the city engineer will use the land disturbance guidance document as a baseline for his review. He recommended both conditions be included in the planning commission's recommendation. Commissioner Hennes asked about the location to be restored. Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek used a map to point out the location of the project and explained the outlet control structure is no longer holding water in the pond as it did originally. 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Commissioner Noonan noted the pond was intended to hold and dissipate water so the repairs are integral to maintain the integrity of the drainage system. Mr. Grittman stated, with regard to stormwater /flood control aspects of the improvements, he assumes that is the result of this project. Commissioner Noonan noted the design report mentions several failing structures which would impair or negatively impact the wetland if left unchecked. Mr. Grittman clarified those impairments have already occurred as part of the failure. Commissioner Field disclosed that he is a past president of the Dodge Nature Center and currently serving on that Board but staff has advised this does not result in a conflict of interest. Dave Napier, Dodge Nature Center Buildings and Grounds Director, stood for questions. Commissioner Field asked Mr. Napier to address the failure of the dam. Mr. Napier stated the dam was built in 1963 and is leaking below the pond's bottom so it has dried up. He explained the DNR has indicated it is good to occasionally drain a pond because it allows the embankment to grow different vegetation and enhance wildlife habitat. The pond was originally built to allow the water to be brought down and refill so the same type of system will be installed but it will be a modern, state -of -the -art structure. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER; AND 2. THE PROJECT IS FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its October 4, 2011, meeting. New Business Discussion of Critical Area Permit Processing Mr. Grittman explained this item is before the planning commission based on discussion staff had with public officials on critical area permit (CAP) processing. The ordinance specifies a process for application review, including an expedited process; however, the city council has directed all CAP applications to go through the planning commission for public hearing and recommendation and then the city council for approval. The current code includes an expedited process which allows a CAP to go directly to the city council without planning commission review and recommendation but the ordinance does not include parameters. Mr. Grittman stated staff has prepared code amendment language to define seven conditions for projects that would be permissible to go 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 directly to the city council to shorten the review process for minor and low impact projects. The amendment also includes sample projects that would be eligible. Mr. Grittman explained that in the past, before city council policy direction to send everything through the planning commission, there was concern that an expedited process would not result in full vetting prior to issuing building permits. Some larger projects were approved under that process without the thorough review typically given by the planning commission. Because of that, the city council adopted policy to direct everything through the planning commission. Mr. Grittman noted the proposed language would set parameters to use an expedited process and if those parameters are not met, the application would follow the process through the planning commission for review and recommendation. Commissioner Hennes asked if tonight's application for the accessory building would have been expedited. Mr. Grittman stated it would have been eligible but he did not determine if the rest of the property exceeded 18 %. Commissioner Hennes asked if this expedited process will eliminate one half of CAP cases heard by the planning commission. Mr. Grittman stated he did not conduct an analysis but it may eliminate about one half of the cases. Commissioner Roston asked if the first condition for eligibility, no part of the subject property shall have slopes greater than 18 %, relates to the entire property or just the project site. Mr. Grittman stated it would be calculated on the entire property. Commissioner Roston asked if it makes sense to subject the entire property to that requirement, noting a project may be 500 feet from a slope. Commissioner Roston asked whether sample projects should be included. Mr. Grittman stated that language was added and the intent was to try and create illustrations. Commissioner Roston preferred the criteria to be objective so it is clear when the criteria are met rather than providing examples. Commissioner Roston asked if there is a process to assure neighbor objections can be reviewed by the planning commission. Mr. Grittman stated the council always has the authority to refer the application back to the planning commission. Commissioner Magnuson stated it was mentioned by staff that it was the policy of the city council that all CAPS get reviewed by the planning commission prior to city council review. She asked whether it is the city council's standing whether they want to be the first to review these applications. Mr. Sedlacek explained that during several instances with CAPS applications it was asked whether it was necessary to bring the project through a six -week process. Mr. Sedlacek stated the city council recognizes the skill of the planning commission and would prefer applications of this nature come only to the planning commission to be fully vetted. However, the code indicates only the city council can make a land use decision and the planning commission is advisory. The city council has addressed this concern and wants to simplify the process but also to assure it is done correctly. Chair Norton asked if the city council considers consent agendas. Mr. Sedlacek indicated it does but CAP applications have been considered as a regular agenda item to allow the opportunity to hear input. Commissioner Noonan asked how long the current process takes. Mr. Sedlacek stated it is a minimum of six weeks depending on when the application is submitted. Commissioner Noonan asked if the expedited process is approved, will the city council will feel beholden to discuss the issues and become infuriated with doing the work the planning commission would normally do. Mr. Grittman agreed that is a possible outcome and if the city council found itself in that position it may decide to refer applications back to the planning commission. Chair Norton noted that would then lengthen the application process. Commissioner Hennes stated he supports including illustrations and suggested added phrasing to indicate: "a typical project would be..." 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Mr. Grittman stated that language could be moved to an introductory paragraph. The planning commission agreed with that suggestion along with revised language. Chair Norton stated that language could also be included in application materials. Commissioner Magnuson asked why six weeks are needed for CAP applications and if applications can be processed more quickly. Mr. Grittman explained that would necessitate waiving the public hearing requirement. Commissioner Field stated he supports an expedited process for applications that are uncontroversial. He indicated that while he values the work of the planning commission thinks there are often cases that take people's time to attend two meetings and a six week process is a long time. Commissioner Field explained the process used by St. Paul where a board of zoning appeals considered noncontroversial cases. Cases are then only brought to the planning commission if the application required expertise in reviewal. Commissioner Viksnins asked what other cities provide an expedited processes. Mr. Grittman stated he does not know. Commissioner Viksnins stated there appears to be support on the planning commission for this proposed language but it may be beneficial to learn what process is used by other municipalities. Mr. Sedlacek reviewed that in 2010 there was a legislative push to change the wetland definition and rules. At that time, it was found Mendota Heights was the most stringent as it relates to the critical area in requiring public hearings for all projects. Commissioner Viksnins stated he supports the first exemption because a project may impact a slope even if 300 feet away. Commissioner Magnuson referenced the fifth exemption, the proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter and any other applicable regulations. She noted the porch considered at last month's meeting required a variance but the fifth exemption indicates the project has to meet all requirements so it could not involve a variance consideration. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct and a variance would require a public hearing process. Mr. Grittman stated if the planning commission supports this language it could direct staff to schedule a public hearing or the amendment could be further discussed. Commissioner Roston noted the intent is to expedite the process but the city council may be concerned about holding hearings for all of the applications. He raised the option to amend the ordinance to allow the planning commission the right to approve CAP applications subject to the right of appeal to the city council. Mr. Grittman stated he will research the process to make the planning commission the deciding authority for CAPS. The planning commission discussed the process used by St. Paul through a zoning board of appeals. Commissioner Field stated it would be interesting to learn how municipalities with similar critical areas handle the permitting process so there is a point of comparison. Mr. Grittman clarified there is no intent to relax the requirements, just to expedite the process. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO CREATE AN EXPEDITED PROCESS TO THE OCTOBER 25, 2011, MEETING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Discussion of Wetlands Permit Processing Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Mr. Grittman explained the current zoning ordinance provides two basic methods of approval for wetlands permits: a full public hearing before the planning commission with a subsequent final consideration by the city council; and, an "expedited" process that goes directly to the planning commission without a formal hearing with a subsequent final consideration by the city council. Mr. Grittman stated the first process consumes abut 45 days and the second may be slightly shorter. This consideration would structure an administrative review and approval process for projects that do not impact the wetland. Mr. Grittman noted with this amendment, projects that are otherwise consistent with city requirements and likely to have little impact on the wetland area, or adjoining properties, may proceed on a quicker timeline. The draft ordinance language would provide three options to city staff: 1) approve as submitted; 2) approve with conditions; or, 3) refer to the planning commission for the regular process. The third option is intended to avoid an administrative denial for which the applicant would then need to file a separate appeal. Mr. Grittman explained that for administrative review, the permit request would result in no change from existing grades, no increase in building or structure square footage, no porch enclosure of an existing deck larger than 200 square feet, no increase in impervious surface coverage, and no reduction in natural vegetation cover. Commissioner Field stated staff is capable of administering such cases and knowing when an application would require planning commission review. Commissioner Noonan asked if any of the three wetland permits considered tonight would have qualified for administrative approval. Mr. Grittman stated the Dodge Nature Center project would not because it involved work in the wetland and the porch enclosure on an existing deck would not because the impervious percentage was being increased. Commissioner Viksnins noted the proposed language for the critical area permit process identified projects that would be subject to the exemption; however, proposed language for the wetland permit process indicated everything is subject to an expedited procedure unless it falls into certain categories. Mr. Grittman stated the former method (projects subject to exemption) may be easier to track and suggested this language be revised to provide parallel examples. Mr. Grittman stated he can change the approach. Commissioner Field supported considering the wetland permit and critical area permit processes in tandem. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE WETLAND PERMITTING PROCESS TO ALLOW TIME FOR FURTHER LANGUAGE REFINEMENT BY STAFF. AYES NAYS Discussion of Aircraft Noise Attenuation Mr. Sedlacek explained that he had served on the airport relations commission (ARC) for some time and would be presenting this information. He presented the request of the ARC to consider updating the aircraft noise attenuation code (chapter 5 of the zoning code) in several ways. The original code developed in 1987 established aircraft noise reduction zones that were put onto a map and based on airport noise projections at that time. Since that time, there have been a number of changes to airport operations and noise flight tracking and available data. The first change proposed by the ARC is to update the data the city uses for airport noise reduction. The ARC is recommending the city use the 2007 Forecast Mitigation Noise Contour, a map created by the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) as a result of litigation between MAC and several neighboring communities. Mendota Heights was not part of that litigation but ARC recognizes that the map is reliable data and recommending is to use this new map in place of the 1987 noise abatement map with four zones. Mr. Sedlacek stated ARC is also recommending a change in the minimum threshold for noise attenuation. The aircraft noise attenuation code asks that the city have residents mitigate their homes out to the 65 day -night level 0 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 (DNL), the average of noise over a 24 hour span in decibels. He explained that 65 DNL was used previously but other communities have now adopted the 60 DNL. The ARC recommends Mendota Heights require noise attenuation standards out to the 60 DNL. Mr. Sedlacek noted the four zones contained in the 1987 map in which sound attenuation is required. With the ARC recommendation to use the 60 DNL, the noise zone would be reduced from the previous lines so the net impact of both the ARC recommendations is a reduced area that would have to be noise attenuated. In that sense, it is a positive change for residents that were required to noise abate before but not if an amendment is approved. Mr. Sedlacek presented the 1987 map and new map created by MAC and described how the noise attenuation areas have been reduced. He referenced table 1 and reviewed the types of building materials (siding roofing, windows, and construction practices) that would provide noise attenuation, noting the city enforces this code by requiring the building permit to be signed off by a registered acoustical engineer. That is how a resident is to meet this standard when the property is identified as being within a noise zone. Mr. Sedlacek stated the ARC feels strongly about this but wants to be sure that the planning commission and city council are comfortable with a revision to change the zoning code. He suggested this issue be discussed and questions framed that can be presented to ARC. Commissioner Hennes stated he lives on Rogers Lake in an airport zone and his house had been soundproofed when he moved in nine years ago. He asked if he would need to retrofit or make adjustments to his home under this revision. Mr. Sedlacek noted Swan Drive on the east side of Rogers Lake is currently within noise zone 4 but according to the airport data, is no longer within the 60 DNL. In that case, there would be no requirements. Commissioner Roston asked if you live in an area of impact and want to build an addition would this revision trigger an obligation to make it compliant. Mr. Sedlacek stated that is the current law and ARC is recommending the noise zone footprint be reduced based on current data from the airport. Commissioner Roston asked why the city is dictating noise attenuation in home construction, noting it is not effective if windows are open. Mr. Sedlacek stated that is a good question and explained the airport has the opinion there should be no residential properties within airport noise zones. Mendota Heights said there would be houses within those zones but the houses would meet these standards. He noted that Mendota Heights was the only community in the 1980's to implement these code requirements because the community recognized that people would build within airport noise zones so the homes should meet a higher standard. Commissioner Roston asked if a building permit is pulled within a noise zone the structure would have additional expense including noise attenuation standards and review by an acoustical engineer. Mr. Sedlacek stated that is correct. Commissioner Magnuson asked if that requirement is only when a building permit is pulled or simply because the house is located within an airport noise zone. Mr. Sedlacek explained it impacts new construction or expansion of an existing structure and if within an airport noise zone the new expansion would have to meet noise attenuation standards. Commissioner Hennes asked why the noise zones have become smaller. Mr. Sedlacek stated the planes are not as noisy and the width of the departure corridor from the parallel runways is narrower. Commissioner Magnuson noted this only applies when the plane departures follow that flight path. Mr. Sedlacek concurred. Commissioner Noonan noted other cities have adopted the 60 DNL and asked if other cities have adopted the 65 DNL. Mr. Sedlacek advised that Mendota Heights is the only city that has not gone to a 60 DNL for noise attenuation. He explained it was the contention of some cities that the airport promised to do noise mitigation to the 60 DNL if the cities allowed the north/south runway. Now other cities have included language in its code to formally recognizing 60 DNL for noise attenuation. 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Commissioner Noonan asked if someone wanted to construct a 4- season porch would they have to retrofit the entire house. Mr. Sedlacek stated it would only apply to the expanded area of the new construction. He indicated this was discussed by the ARC and noted that all of Mendota Height's houses in the airport noise zones are sound attenuated. However, it gets to the point raised by Commissioner Roston in how forceful the city wants to be in requiring retrofit of existing homes. Chair Noonan asked if most of the homes are sound attenuated because of MAC improvements or because those homeowners received funding to obtain sound attenuation. Mr. Sedlacek stated he is unsure whether any Mendota Heights homes received financial support from MAC but most of the homes were constructed under these regulations. Commissioner Viksnins felt it would be appropriate for ARC to make the recommendation to the city council. Mr. Sedlacek stated ARC will make such a recommendation but staff felt it appropriate to present to the planning commission to discuss and provide comment. Commissioner Viksnins deferred to the ARC who have expertise in this area. The planning commission concurred. Mr. Sedlacek stated he will provide the planning commission feedback to the ARC and anticipates ARC will make application for the amendment. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11 -23 Bob Sullwold Variance to front yard setback • Recommended for denial by the planning commission. Applicant revised application based on planning commission feedback to reduce the variance. Approved by the city council based on the revised application. PLANNING CASE #11 -14 White Pine Holdings Conditional Use Permit Amendment • Denied by the city council as recommended by the planning commission, encouraged applicants to address issues identified by the planning commission, and shortened time to reapply to 90 days. Commissioner Field asked about the status of the Mendakota sign request. Mr. Sedlacek stated the applicant pulled the sign permit but staff has seen no progress on the project. It was noted the applicant has one year to complete the project from the date the permit is pulled. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:25 P.M. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 11