Loading...
2006-02-28 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting February 28, 2006 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2006 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:30 pm. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners McManus, Lally, Povolny, Dolan, Harms, and Hesse. City Staff present were City Engineer Sue McDermott and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Chair Lorberbaum introduced three new commissioners: ♦ Commissioner Maureen Harms has been a resident in Mendota Heights since her youth, and currently is married with two children, ages 6 month and 3 '/Z years old. Commissioner Harms is corporate attorney. e Commissioner Mike Povolny has lived in Mendota Heights for about 23 years, and is a businessman who manufactures specialty lighting equipment. Commissioner Povolny has a 22 -year old daughter and a son who is 9 years old. Commissioner Povolny has previously served on the Airport Relations Committee. ♦ Commissioner Joe Lally lives on Delaware Avenue, is married with two children. Commissioner Lally has lived in Mendota Heights also since his youth, attending St. Thomas Academy, and is a corporate attorney. Elections Chair Lorberbaum open the floor for nominations for Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 2006. Upon hearing no further nominations, )COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HARMS, TO ELECT SALLY LORBERBAUM AS CHAIRPERSON FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2006. 7 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum open the floor for nominations for Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 2006. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ELECT ERIC HESSE AS VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2006. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Approval of January 31, 2006 Page 2, 60' paragraph, second line, should read as follows: "Commissioner Dolan referred to the applicant's letter to the City, dated December 30, 2005, which states that the Norling's have compromised on the house plan and asked what the compromise was. Mr. Mittelstaedt said one compromise Feasen-was to change the direction and approach of the driveway and showed on the map how the driveway is situated. Mr. Mittelstaedt said the roofline was also a challenge." (,---,)Page 4, Is' paragraph, should read as follows: Planning Commission Meeting Februwy 28, 2006 "Commissioner Dolan said it does not appear that the City sees a lot of applications for gates. In regards to reconstruction of driveways in existing locations, the City may want to continue reviewing these cases in case +''°�anee an application is a safety hazard where it is. It would be good for the City to at least lease have the ability to review and impose some conditions, and feels uncomfortable authorizing to atAhar -ize hese requests without any City input, and same goes with the gates." Page 5 under Further Discussion the paragraph should read as follows: "Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to have the Planner come back with this gate proposal with the addition of some of the comments heard, including the conditional use permit. Mr. Grittman said he does not believe the Planning Commission is under any pressure to have this processed quickly Mane. Page 7 5d' paragrgh, should read as follows: "Commissioner Dolan asked if the plan reflects any comments made from the neighbors. Mr. Hoffinan said this was the plan shown to the neighbors and comments were received. One of the most notable comments was the desire to leave the 68 acres as is. There were about seven homeowners Nantes represented. One issue relates to traffic speed of 45 mph on Lemay Road. Other issues related to site lines, and the developer believes that the tree buffers will soften that site line. Water quality concerns have been raised. Page 8, 4"' paragraph, should read as follows: Ellsworth Stein, Lakeview Avenue, is a member of ARC (Airport Relations Commission) ^ NG (^ eFt 14eise n,.,,•,..,;s4&H) asked if the units will be 2 -story. Acting Chair said they are 2 '/2 story with a walkout. Mr. Stein said he wonders if the developer is aware that there is a spring under where the proposed road will be going. Mr. Stein said there are also power lines in that area. Mr. Stein asked if the developer will be requesting a noise waiver like they did for Augusta Shores. Acting Chair said that would be an appropriate thing to do. ,COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION DOLAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 'JANUARY 31, 2006 AS CORRECTED. 3 AYES 0 NAYES 4 ABSTENTIONS (Commissioners McManus, Lally, Povolny, Harms) MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #06 -04 Richard E. Nelson 796 Havenview Court Wetland Permit Mr. Grittman shared a map showing the location of 796 Havenview Court, in which the applicant is seeking approval of a wetland permit that would acconnnodate a landscaping project at the rear portion of the property. Mr. Grittman pointed out the existing trees, shrubbery and some posts sticking in the ground. The project consists of removing some of the non - native shrub growth and also the metal posts that were along a retaining wall at one time, moving the shrub area back toward the wall and planting the remainder of the area adjacent to the wetland with native growth. The City's ordinance is in place to ensure that any land alternation within 100 ft of a wetland edge is done in a way that does not negatively impact on the quality of the water resources in the community. In this case, by removal of the ornamental shrubs and replace with native grass plants, Staff recommends approval of this permit. !;ommissioner Lally asked if there is any information on the topography and how the drainage will be affected. Mr. Grittman said he -_does not have it on the present map, but he believes the plan calls for removing existing concrete and be replaced with plantings. 2 Planning Commission Alleeting February 28, 2006 Commissioner Lally asked how the maintenance will be handled should the applicant sell the property. Mr. Grittman said once the plantings are established, they should be rather self - maintaining in a few years. Commissioner Lally asked if the pond has increased or decreased in water level significantly over time. Commissioner Povolny said he visited the site and had no questions at this time. Commissioner Dolan asked if there was any history on this property, and he noticed some issues that were occurring in 2003. Mr. Grittman said he was not aware of the history. Mr. Richard Nelson, 796 Havenview Court, said he purchased this property in August of 1995. Mr. Nelson said they have been working to improve the property ever since. Mr. Nelson said he started this project about 1997 without knowledge of the legal components, and then had a Cease and Desist Order. Since that time, he has been in the process of coming up with the final design. Mr. Nelson explained that the metal posts were installed because he intended to build a retaining wall, and how the landscaping will be done. The plan is now to place a berm, or a natural wall, instead of a retaining wall. Mr. Nelson has hired a landscaping company that will be doing the maintenance for up to two years, and then the applicant will take over. Commission McManus asked what the post depth is. Mr. Nelson said the posts are down approximately 2'/ ft. It is the applicant's intent to cut them off. Commissioner McManus said he does not see any erosion issues. Mr. Nelson said that is because the pipe's serve to hold the yard and keep it from eroding. Commissioner McManus asked about the water level. Mr. Nelson said the water has fluctuated over the years, ranging from 1 -ft. to 15 -ft. up the embankment. Mr. Nelson said at one time, Pagel Pond was a part of Pagel Farm, and when all the storm sewers were place in there, the level of the pond was raised. Commissioner McManus asked about the plastic draining pipes. Mr. Nelson said the drain pipe was installed by the builder of his home, and this pipe is hooked into Mr. Nelson's sump system. The water runs up to the house, and goes under the lawn and down the hill. Ms. McDermott said this is the preferable place to drain a sump pump. Commissioner Povolny asked why the bases of the pipes were going to be left in the ground. Mr. Nelson said they could come out with the bobcat that will be working there. Commissioner Povolny said he would suggest that they be taken out. Commissioner Povolny asked for a timeframe on this project. Mr. Nelson said it will start as soon as the ground is stable enough for a bobcat to get in without damaging the lawn. The entire project should take no more than ten days to two weeks. Chair Lorberbaum asked Staff if the pipes should be taken out. Mr. Grittman said the pipes could be taken out to give a better aesthetic look. Mr. Nelson said this whole area had been filled previously. When this area was bulldozed, the dirt went down the hill, and there were trees that were literally covered up. Mr. Nelson found about 6 trees that were buried, as well as numerous pieces of building material. Mr. Nelson said he found the foundation of Pagel Farm and did not disturb any natural topography, but actually restoring it the way it was. Commissioner Harms said she thinks the applicant has done an excellent job marrying a practical need with an aesthetic purpose. Commissioner Hesse asked the applicant if he could share some history on the Cease and Desist order he received. Mr. Nelson said he cannot share the legal aspects but that the DNR go involved and brought the County into the matter. Mr. Nelson needs to go back to the County showing he has a legal permit to continue the rest of the excavation and planting. Commissioner Hesse said he is concerned about how long this project has been going on and would like to have some dates to let the City know when this project will be completed. Mr. Nelson said the only thing that would affect the schedule will be a significant amount of rain. Commissioner Hesse asked if there was a silt fence in the area. Mr. Nelson said there is not, and that is one of the issues that the DNR Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 2006 noted in their deposition to the County. Mr. Nelson said there will be one erected. The excavation will take one day to complete, then the building of the berm walls and natural plantings will be completed, hopefully within a 2 -week period. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, is Mr. Nelson's neighbor. Mr. Losleben said the school board was originally going to build a school on this property, but sold 80 acres to Mary Anderson. In the middle of this process, Mary Anderson went through bankruptcy and Pulte Homes picked it up. The site that Mr. Nelson has is the old farm site. The barn foundation is actually under Mr. Nelson's home foundation. Mr. Losleben said he watched as the developer bulldozed that area and fill in over the foundations. Mr. Losleben said it appeared nobody cared about the fill at that time. The pond had lots of oaks and weeping willows but all are dead now because the pond level is not higher than the original level. Mr. Losleben explained how the pond was affecting his pond, and when heavy rains came, a lot of water ran down into the Friendly Hills neighborhood. Mr. Losleben said he was in favor of the improvements that Mr. Nelson is proposing. The bigger issue is that a lot of people come in from other areas of the country and don't know the City Ordinances, and some people who live here don't care. Mr. Losleben said it would be a good idea if the City would remind residents once a year about these ordinances. Mr. Nelson said in 1996, the neighbors were a lot closer than they are today and he had secure the services of Blue Water Science to create an essay regarding the characteristics of the pond. The neighbors living around them divided the cost between them to pay for these services. Mr. Nelson gave that information to the City to keep. Seeing no one else come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION POVOLNY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 Ayes f. 0 Nays )COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE PROPOSED NATIVE GRASSES AND WILDFLOWERS ARE MAINTAINED TO CONTROL GROWTH AND OTHER ADVERSE AFFECTS ON NEWLY EMERGING NATIVE SPECIES AND ARE MONITORED FOR PERSISTENT WEED PROBLEMS. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbaum asked if the motion includes the cutting down of iron pipes to surface level. Commissioner Povolny said if the applicant cuts these pipes off and wants to take them out later, it will be twice as much work, so it would be easier to take them out now than later. Commissioner Dolan said he would accept this friendly amendment that the pipes are totally removed. Mr. Nelson said the pipes will stabilize what's there now because there is no natural traction there and something needs to be stuck in the ground to stabilize it. Commissioner McManus asked if the Commission is micro - managing an issue which may not be pertinent and at best, it is very pertinent to leave those things in there because it is a very steep hill. Commissioner McManus said he would not understand why anyone would want to take them out of there, and does not see the need for the amendment. Commissioner Dolan said he had no idea that the pipes had any purpose, and if they serve a purpose and it makes sense to keep them there, he would be in favor of allowing that to occur and will go back to his original motion without the amendment. ;Commissioner Hesse said he would like to add a friendly amendment to the motion to establish a timeframe. 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 2006 Commissioner Povolny said there is a hill there, and if there is a lot of rain during the spring, the moisture content in the ground will make it impossible for the contractor to get in there, and he may not be able to do anything until June, July or August. Commissioner Povolny suggested a completion date to be "by the end of the summer ". Mr. Nelson said that is correct as there is a lot of fill in the area. Commissioner McManus said government officials are just as much to blame for this thing dragging on forever as the owner is, and the City should encourage the homeowner to do it as fast as he can. Mr. Nelson said if he gets this permit, he will take it to District Court so they will allow him to finish the work. Commissioner Dolan said he will accept the friendly amendment that the work is completed by the end of the summer. Chair Lorberbaum seconded the friendly amendment. Chair Lorberbaum asked Staff about the timeframe of starting the project. Mr. Hollister said that generally speaking, the recipient has 6 months from the time they received the permit until the date they actually commence construction. From this date, the recipient would have one year to complete the project, unless there is an extension granted. In the case of a wetlands permit, the applicant will have 90 days from the issue date to commence the work. Mr. Grittman said the Commission can make the recommendation that the work must commence by a certain day other than 90 days, and then it must be completed within 12 months, unless the Commission recommends otherwise. Chair Lorberbaum said if the date is set to commence no later than July I'`, the applicant should be pretty safe. Commissioner Dolan said he will accept the friendly amendment that the work is started no later than July 15`. Chair Lorberbaum seconded the friendly amendment. 7 Ayes 0 Nays Mr. Hollister said the next City Council meeting has been rescheduled until March 6t' at 8:00 pm due to Precinct Caucasus. Case 06 -03 Visitation School 'Wetlands Permit Mr. Hollister said upon examining the application, Staff has determined it to be incomplete. Visitation said it would take them awhile to get the outstanding items to the City and therefore, the Commission may want to table this item until the March 28"' meeting. Mr. Hollister said a public hearing was advertised, and it may be desirable for the Commission to open the public hearing, and upon verification that no one is in the audience that wishes to speak, the public hearing can be continued to the March 28`l' meeting. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to table this hearing. COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION HESSE, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE MARCH 28' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Ayes Nays Case 06 -02 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Text Amendment — Driveway Gates Mr. Grittman said Staff has forwarded a draft of a proposed zoning ordinance amendment. There were two components to that ordinance, one related to driveway replacement for existing non - conforming driveways and the second is for gates that would be proposed to be constructed across driveways. The Planning Commission passed the replacement portion of that ordinance onto City 'Council, but asked Staff to revise the gate portion of the ordinance with a couple of comments, primarily changing the process for Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 2006 pursing a proposed gate and a few other details. i Staff has brought back a revised ordinance for the Commission's review. The first draft basically allowed driveway gates under a certain set of conditions as a permitted type of fence. The Planning Commission indicated that they would be more comfortable with an ordinance that would require requests for driveway gates to go through the conditional use permit process. This will allow for some review authority over those driveway gates, malting sure they not only meet technical requirements of the ordinance, but are also justified by some unique condition of the property. The primary discussion at the previous meeting regarded safety and visibility issues. The revised ordinance has been drafted with the following changes, namely creating a sub - paragraph which is mostly a form change. ➢ Under Item d.ii: "The applicant shall show that the gate is needed to mitigate an unsafe condition related to the visibility of the driveway and the gate area from the principal building, intersection of the driveway with the public street, or other unsafe conditions as approved by the City ". ➢ Under Item d.vii: "Gates shall be considered fences for the purposes of this ordinance, requiring a building permit, and subject to all other applicable fence regulations, including, but not limited to, building materials ". Commissioner Dolan asked for clarification of the language in d. l I and asked if there is a case when a driveway would not abut a street? Mr. Grittman said the intent is if they are enclosing the driveway, there are cases where driveways may loop around a property and not be in the front yard or side yard abutting a street, which would not apply in this case. The assumption is that emergency vehicles may not get access to the interior of the property. Commissioner Dolan asked how the Planner determined the length as noted in d.i. Mr. Grittman said that was enough room to have a vehicle pull off the paved surface while waiting for the gate to open. Commissioner Dolan referred to d.vi, and asked if the fire department should be included in the review process as is the police department. Mr. Grittman said Staff believes the police department would routinely forward this to the fire department. Commissioner Dolan referred to d.vii and asked if the ordinance amendment will require the applicant to have a variance in addition to the CUP if they want a gate taller than 60 in. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Chair Lorberbaum said the City currently allows chain link fences and asked if the gate can be chain link as well. Mr. Grittman said that would be correct. It is Staff's understanding that one of the purposes of the conditional use permit process for these types of gates was to provide the City the opportunity to review materials. Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to have some language that prohibits chain link gates. Mr. Grittman said that if the fence is chain link, and the gates cannot be chain link, then the applicant will have to install an alternative gate material that varies from the fence material that is otherwise approved or permitted. Commissioner Dolan asked if this could be left open for discussion and the City can put a condition on the approval; there may be some instances where chain link would work. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the City will have the right to say no. Mr. Grittman said that would be correct if the City believes the gate would be inconsistent with the purpose or other communities in the neighborhood or on the property. Chair Lorberbaum said she believes that the conditional use pen-nit is the way to go, and asked Staff what the difference is in the cost of applications. Mr. Hollister said a conditional use permit costs $350.00, a variance costs $100.00. Commissioner Povolny asked Chair Lorberbaum if she is thinking of the chain link fence as it is used in a commercial setting, with rollers. Chair Lorberbaum said that is one example, and there is also an existing chain link gate in the neighborhood. Commissioner Povolny said there should be some wording that would describe a chain link gate as an industrial gate. Mr. Grittman said his concern is that the fence ordinance allows those fences to be right in the same location, or potentially closer to the front property line, as long as they are only 3 -ft in height. He is not sure how the City would justify allowing chain link fence material and not the same material for the gate. It would be within the City's right to say "no chain link fences" because they are not consistent with the quality of materials that is desired for fencing in the front yards. If this was a clause, it would be easy to follow up with gates as well. l ,Commissioner Lally asked Mr. Hollister how many requests has there been in the past year. Mr. Hollister said driveway gates are a very recent phenomenon and there were two requests in 2005, which were the first to his knowledge. Both of these gates were Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 2006 approved with conditions, and part of what the City is attempting to do is writing the conditions that we've started to place on these requests into the ordinance itself, primarily with concern about emergency vehicle access. Staff is not proposing this ordinance amendment to make these driveway gates easier to obtain, but is actually trying to make them more difficult to obtain because the Police Department would prefer no one had them at all. Commissioner Lally asked if there is a timeframe and/or criteria for the police department review process. Mr. Grittman said for the police, it's an issue of malting sure they have access and giving the police department proper notification of where the gates are so they are aware of them. The City has no objection to the fire department having this information as well. Commissioner McManus said this draft is well written and seems to apply only to gates where a driveway goes into a road, but has no mention to driveways leading into alleys. Mr. Hollister suggested that the ordinance say "right of way" instead of street. Commissioner Harms said there is a substantial barrier that is being placed from a financial standpoint, and asked what the rationale typically is when selecting one process or the other for a particular application. Why would the City not continue to use the variance process with some kind of understanding that these conditions will be looked for in approving any kind of variance. Mr. Grittman said if this were to be done by variance, which is how it has been done in the past, conditions are not written into the ordinance and the applicant is subject to the general regulations which require the finding of some unique condition of the property which creates a hardship. The Planning Commission feels comfortable that there are safety issues in previous cases that have qualified as a hardship in those cases. It would not be a consistent ordinance listed requirement. The idea of this amendment is to remove the hardship finding and list in the ordinance the specific criteria that would be required across the board. Instead of trying to remember what conditions have been applied to previous cases, this ordinance lists them out. Commissioner Harms said the hardship concept seems to be embodied into the need to identify a finding, and it seems the City makes it more difficult for applicants to have approval for gates by making it more expensive. Commissioner Harms said she does not see why the City would want to go this particular route versus the variance process. Mr. Grittman said they have inserted into the conditional use permit some of the physical condition finding that has been used for variances. The concern is that those conditions are not written anywhere in the variance process, and Staff will need to rely on memory. Having these conditions makes it easier for ;everyone. Chair Lorberbaum said the Commission did not look at the financial aspects when discussing this amendment. Commissioner Harms said it creates a different presentation to the residents, and wonders whether the City wants to create that extra barrier. Commissioner Hesse said the conditional use permit process is considerably easier to pass applications through as a hardship is not required. The conditional use permit process gives everyone a more clear direction and does not have to rely on interpretation, which can sometimes bog the process down. Mr. Hollister said the ordinance right now is inadequate to deal with the phenomenon of driveway gates. The only reason why the two homeowners who previously wanted to install driveway gates appeared before the Commission was because it has been the Planner's interpretation driveway gates are considered fences. This is how the City has been treating them. The reason why those two homeowners had to come before the City with a variance application is because the driveway gate, which is considered a fence, was higher than 3 -ft. and closer than 30 -ft. to the right of way. Hypothetically, a resident in Mendota Heights with a long enough driveway and a big enough lot could gate off their driveway with a 6 -ft. gate /fence provided it was at least 30 -11. from the right of way, and the City would have nothing to say about it. There is clearly a loophole, or inadequacy in the ordinance. Through this ordinance amendment, the City is creating a definition and a category for driveway gates as they are not currently defined in the ordinance. Conceptually a conditional use permit makes more sense than a variance, as the City is defining a new use. Chair Lorberbaum said this will give the City the opportunity to make sure gates are consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Dolan asked why the cost was different for the two processes. Mr. Grittman said the notification is wider so more properties are notified and there is an automatic public hearing where with variances, the applicant needs to get adequate number of signatures and can therefore avoid notification requirements. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else come forward to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to )close the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 2006 COMMISSIONER HARMS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. l 7 Ayes 0 Nays COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW BE ADDED TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT REVIEW IN ITEM #6, AND DRIVEWAY ABUTTING A STREET BE CHANGED TO A DRIVEWAY ABUTTING A RIGHT OF WAY. Further Discussion Commissioner Harms said the Commission seems to be persuasive in offering to the residents some kind of value trade off, which is important if there really is that uncertainty in the variance process. Commissioner Harms said she wondered if the extra burden is worth it as well, such as widening the notification area, and having automatic public hearings — is that really necessary, and are we overdoing it? Mr. Hollister said all of these questions are excellent reasons why Commissioners should attend the workshop that the Commissioners have received information on. The League of Minnesota Cities offers these land use sessions, and these are the precise type of questions they cover. Mr. Hollister explained how these workshops are extremely helpful. Mr. Hollister said a lot of these statutes that the City applies are dictated by state law. Commissioner Povolny asked if the gate height is 5 -ft or 6 -ft. Mr. Grittman said the code requires fencing within the first 30 -ft from the right of way to be 3 -ft., but by conditional use permit, they may go as high as 6 -ft. Mr. Grittman said the reason this was chosen was because fences that enclose yards with swimming pools in need to be at least 5 -ft in height and rather than go all the way up to the maximum 6 -ft height in gates, Staff felt that in most cases, a 5 -ft high gate will serve the purpose of closing the driveway and meet the minimums for any pool enclosures that might be necessary. The City's practice in the past was to discourage higher fences as a general rule. Commissioner Povolny asked if the gate is not defined, would it include two posts with a thick chain connecting them? Mr. Grittman said if it obstructs access to a driveway it would be considered a gate. Ayes Nays VERBAL REVIEW— Site McDermott PLANNING CASE #06 -01 Mittelstaedt Brothers Construction — Wetlands Permit ® City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #06 -02 City of Mendota Heights — Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Driveway Replacement • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Chair Lorberbaum thanked former Vice Chair Joe Betlej for chairing the January 31" meeting. Chair Lorberbaum encouraged everyone on the Commission to attend the upcoming workshops. COMMISSIONER HARMS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION LALLY, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:55 PM. f7 Ayes 0 Nays Planning Commission Meeting Februwy 28, 2006 Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary