Loading...
2011-11-22 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 22, 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, Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval of 4zenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of October 25, 2011, Minutes Commissioner Noonan requested the following corrections: page 3, 5`h paragraph and page 4, 4`h paragraph should start with Chair Norton instead of Chair Noonan. Mr. Sedlacek noted the following correction: page 1, should indicate Planning Case #2011 -30 instead of #2011 -03. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2011, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Commissioner Hennes) Hearings PLANNING CASE #2011 -32 City of Mendota Heights Ordinance 440, Amending Title 12, Chapter 4 of the City Code pertaining to aircraft noise reduction Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of the City of Mendota Heights and recommendation of the Mendota Heights airport relations commission (ARC) to amend Ordinance 440, Airport Noise Attenuation, to shift the requirements of the code from a previously published map of zones to an actual map of noise contours. He advised this change would have three elements: 1. Changes the area to which the code applies from the previous 65 dnl map zone to the actual area of 60 dnl. 2. Creates a regulation more closely tied to actual conditions by annually updating the noise contour map within which noise attenuation would be required. 3. The effective result, in Mendota Heights, of actually reducing the affected areas (despite the lowering of the dnl threshold) due to remapped noise contours from those used in the original code. Mr. Grittman noted depending on Minneapolis airport operations, the dnl noise contours will likely change. Thus, the code may have varying application from year to year. However, this impact would appear to be offset by the more accurate reflection of existing conditions, and the consistency established between the codes of other affected jurisdictions. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 Commissioner Viksnins questioned why this issue was before the planning commission. Mr. Grittman stated the city was revising Title 12 Chapter 5 of the zoning code regarding aircraft noise which required review by the commission. Commissioner Hennes asked how the noise contour map was devised. Mr. Grittman stated the contours were drafted based on real noise levels throughout the city by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek reviewed the Ordinance language amendments in detail with the commission, while explaining how Mendota Heights' properties would be impacted. The airports relations commission recommends the proposed revisions reducing the dnl from 65 to 60. This level provided a more accurate reflection of the current noise level in the city. Staff recommended the commission support the amended ordinance as presented. Commissioner Field asked if the contour map would continue to change going into the future. Mr. Sedlacek indicated the map could change on a yearly basis. However, he did not anticipate a great deal of change in Mendota Heights as the contours were limited. Staff would be responsible for updating and maintaining the map for the city. Commissioner Viksnins questioned how the map would become incorporated into city code. Mr. Sedlacek commented the ordinance made reference to the airport's noise contour map as it would be changing on a yearly basis. MAC would maintain the map. Commissioner Noonan inquired if new construction and remodeling required noise attenuation. Mr. Sedlacek stated that new construction, as well as redevelopment, required noise attenuation. Mr. Grittman further explained the differences between redevelopment, versus reconstruction and remodeling. He stated additional definitions could be placed in the code for further clarification. Commissioner Noonan asked if the entire house required noise attenuation through a remodeling project, or just the newly expanded area. He expressed concern with this regulation as entire structures would not be brought into compliance with current standards through a remodel. Mr. Sedlacek noted only the expanded area required noise attenuation. Councilmember Liz Petschel addressed the commission stating noise attenuation regulations varied greatly from 65 dnl to 60 dnl. She agreed the language within the code should be clarified to explain the differences between a remodel, rehabilitation, and redevelopment. Councilmember Petschel commented the legislature had previous discussions to move the airport. Through these discussions, it was decided the airport would remain, and that homes should be noise attenuated to 60 dnl. She reviewed the 2030 Comprehensive Plan of MAC stating the airport is planning for increased operations, but has no plan for noise attenuation. She explained how flight operations hav been affected by 9/11 and the Delta/Northwest merger. Councilmember Petschel stated the airport was looking to create greater efficiencies, increasing flight sizes while decreasing the number of flights due to increasing gas prices. In addition, the airport was looking to use more efficient aircraft, all actions which would reduce the noise levels in the community. She noted all surrounding communities have supported the proposed ordinance amendments and updated contour map as a means to protect themselves from changes in airport noise. Commissioner Roston questioned how staff would make a determination between remodeling and redeveloping a parcel. Mr. Grittman requested that the commission provide additional feedback to staff on this issue. Public Works Director Mazzitello explained the original ordinance was enacted in 1987. The language in question has been in place for 24 years and each building permit was currently reviewed on a case -by -case basis. He did not feel further definitions were necessary and that the code amendment should proceed as submitted. Staff could insert these definitions at a later date. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED CODE, CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its December 6, 2011, meeting. Old Business a. Discussion of Wetlands Permit Processing Planner Stephen Grittman explained the planning commission had reviewed this item at its September meeting and indicated that the terms under which an administrative review could occur should be listed as existing positive conditions, rather than as the absence of certain negative conditions. Staff has updated the text to reflect that adjustment. The revisions would allow applicants to proceed with the permitting process at an administrative level, if certain standards are met. He requested further comment from the commission and to call a hearing at a future meeting, if deemed necessary. Commissioner Magnuson requested clarification on items 3 and 4. Mr. Grittman stated a minor project would be allowed to proceed to the commission without a public hearing. He indicated item 4 would allow permits to proceed through an administrative approval process, which bypasses the commission. Commissioner Magnuson suggested the minor development or project language be more clearly defined within the code. Mr. Grittman stated item 3 could be eliminated to reduce the level of confusion. The commission agreed with this recommendation. Commissioner Roston clarified that if permits were denied at a staff level, the permit could still follow the full process and come before the commission with a public hearing. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case. At this time, a presentation would be made to the commission with recommendations. Commissioner Magnuson requested the word "may" be changed to "shall" regarding when cases will be brought to the commission for review. The commission agreed with this recommendation. Commissioner Field asked what member of staff would be reviewing the permits. Mr. Grittman stated the city administrator would be responsible for reviewing and signing off on the requests. Chair Norton thanked the commission for the discussion this evening and directed staff to file a formal application to consider the wetlands permit process at a future public hearing. b. Discussion of Critical Area Permit Processing Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 Planner Stephen Grittman explained the critical area ordinance regulates any construction or land alteration activity in the designated Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. This area is designated pursuant to federal regulation and includes most of the land adjacent to the bluffs overlooking the river as well as some property beyond the bluff areas. Regardless of location, all projects require a critical area permit. He requested the commission discuss the critical area permitting process and provide staff with direction on how to proceed. Commissioner Roston suggested the examples be moved above the conditions and made part of the text. The commission agreed with this recommendation. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if paragraph D was necessary. Mr. Grittman stated paragraph D creates a process for minor developments and greater defined these projects. He recommended the paragraph remain. Commissioner Magnuson asked how a porch covered addition would fit into this permit process. Chair Norton stated this type of addition, when not enclosed, was a conditional use permit within the critical area. The intent of the code would be to greater define the permits. Chair Norton thanked the commission for the discussion this evening and directed staff to file a formal application to consider the critical area permit process at a future public hearing. C. Institutional Accessory Building Conditional Use Permits Planner Stephen Grittman explained that at a past planning commission meeting, a request for accessory building construction was considered for the Visitation Convent and School. The process to accommodate this request, as it has been for other institutional uses, required conditional use permit approval, coupled with consideration of variances related to number, size, and total square footage of accessory buildings in a residential district. Staff proposed parcels larger than four acres have .5% as the applicable amount of square footage. This would allow for a standard or threshold for accessory buildings throughout the city. Commissioner Noonan asked if the ratio suited large parcels in the city and if 8,700 square feet was enough accessory building space. Mr. Grittman stated Somerset and Mendakota could be reviewed but he was confident that accessory building space was not currently at these levels. Commissioner Noonan questioned if accessory buildings had to match the primary structure building materials. He did not feel this was necessary in the case of maintenance buildings on a golf course. Mr. Grittman stated the city's position was to have institutional properties be aesthetically pleasing when surrounding residential neighborhoods. He explained that each case would be reviewed by the commission on a case -by -case basis. Commissioner Field suggested the allowable footprint of residential accessory buildings be defined within the code. Chair Norton stated this was a comment he made to reduce confusion while placing a limitation on the height of the structure. Mr. Grittman stated this change could be made within the code. Commissioner Roston recommended the percentage be changed to 1% to reduce the confusion and allow for additional storage to residents. Commissioner Field stated he currently lives on four acres of land and was limited to 425 feet of storage within an accessory building. He felt this size did not correctly correlate with the amount of space that he had. Mr. Grittman stated garages and detached garages were addressed elsewhere within city code. He stated this language could be reviewed by the commission at a future meeting. Commissioner Roston asked if it would be easier to refer to a percentage or a footprint within the code. Mr. Grittman recommended the percentage remain. The commission discussed if the percentage applied to the entire structure or just the footprint. Commissioner Roston recommended that the square footage be measured based upon the footprint of the structure. 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 The commission agreed with the recommendation. Chair Norton thanked the commission for the discussion this evening and directed staff to file a formal application to consider the institutional accessory building conditional use permits at a future public hearing. d. Commercial Property Maintenance Standards Planner Stephen Grittman referenced the draft of a potential commercial /industrial property maintenance code, noting the outline utilizes a list of topics that is loosely designated to parallel the city's residential property maintenance code. The maintenance requirement topics have been grouped to follow both that code and the issues most likely to be raised based on applicable zoning regulations. He indicated these codes were maintenance codes and would apply to conditions at the time the property was developed. Commissioner Field questioned if Mendota Heights operates under a complaint based enforcement for maintenance standards. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case as the city did not have a code enforcement department. He stated an enforcement department would not be created through this ordinance. Commissioner Noonan commented the language regarding clean, safe, and sanitary may be open to interpretation by the public. He expressed concern with this part of the code. Mr. Grittman stated the idea was to lay out a general interpretation of what is expected by the city. Commissioner Magnuson asked the significance of the term "public nuisance" within the code. She expressed confusion between the violation of this code and the public nuisance code. Mr. Grittman explained there was a public nuisance code that defined certain violations in greater detail. He recommended the language be further reviewed by the city attorney. Commissioner Viksnins asked if commercial property owners would be notified of the new maintenance standards. Mr. Grittman stated the city could notify property owners and phase in the effects of the standards over the next year. Commissioner Field questioned if staff spoke with neighboring communities regarding their maintenance standards. Mr. Grittman indicated he did speak with several other cities in Dakota County before presenting the information to the commission this evening. Chair Norton thanked the commission for the discussion this evening and directed staff to bring the matter to city council for their comment and review. December Meetin Mr. Sedlacek requested the commission discuss the need to hold a meeting in December. Staff did not anticipate any planning files in December. Commissioner Fields indicated if a planning case is received, the commission would meet and otherwise forego the December meeting. He questioned when was the deadline for planning cases. Mr. Sedlacek stated the deadline for the December meeting was December 5th COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO HOLD A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN DECEMBER ONLY IF AN APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE DECEMBER 5TH CLOSE OF BUSINESS DEADLINE. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Verbal Review 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2011 -30 City of Mendota Heights Ordinance 439 Amendment • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:21 P.M. AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary 2