1993-02-23 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23, 1993
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was
held on Tuesday, February 23, 1993, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at
7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Koll,
Friel, Dreelan, Dwyer, Hunter, Duggan and Tilsen. Also present
were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planning Consultant John
Uban and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser.
INTRODUCTION OF
NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER
Chair Dwyer introduced new Planning Commissioner Stephen
Hunter who was recently appointed by the City Council to fill
the unexpired term of former Planning Commissioner and now
City Councilmember Sandra Krebsbach. The Planning Commission
welcomed Commissioner Hunter.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chair Dwyer explained that each year, the Commission elects
from its membership a Chairperson and Vice Chair person.
Commissioner Duggan moved to nominate Commissioner Dwyer as
Chairperson of the Planning Commission for the year 1993.
Commissioner Friel seconded the motion.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Friel moved to nominate Commissioner Duggan as
Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission for the year 1993.
Chair Dwyer seconded the motion.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Koll moved approval of the January 26, 1993
Minutes as submitted.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: Hunter
February 23, 1993
Page 2
HEARING:
CASE NO 93 -06:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS -
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
Assistant City Engineer, Klayton Eckles, was present for a
hearing, initiated by the City of Mendota Heights, to revise
the City's Comprehensive Plan to meet Metropolitan Council
requirements regarding the environment.
Eckles explained the comprehensive plan amendment concerns
reducing non -point pollution affecting our wetlands and
rivers. He explained the methods of reduction are adoption of
NURP Pond Standards, Best Management Practices for erosion
control and compliance with DNR shoreland regulations.
Eckles further stated the City may choose how to enforce the
requirements. He further stated that at the January 26th
meeting, Commissioner Friel had suggested that the City
Council adopt the NURP Standards and BMP's by reference in the
City's Zoning Ordinance.
In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Engineer Eckles
stated the City will have some flexibility in enforcing the
standards. He explained that site constraints will be
considered in NURP Pond requirements, that the City already
enforces erosion control policies and the DNR requirements
will have little or no impact to the City because Mendota
Heights is almost fully developed.
Commissioner Friel expressed concern with degradation of
Wetlands due to the enforcement of the NURP Pond Standards.
Engineer Eckles explained that for every wetlands filled in by
the City, the City must create more wetlands at a ratio of
2:1. Commissioner Friel stated the City should avoid runoff
of storm water into the river system.
Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public.
There was no one present to discuss Minor Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
Commissioner Tilsen moved to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
February 23, 1993
Page 3
Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council
approve a Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add the
following language to Section VI-A-1 of the Land Use Plan
(Part II of the Comprehensive Plan):
The City of Mendota Heights will apply National Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) Standards for the design of new
storm water ponds and the MPCA's urban best management
practices titled "Water Quality in Urban Areas" or
equivalent to the review of any proposed development
occurring in the City to reduce nonpoint source pollutant
loadings in storm water runoff. The City of Mendota
Heights will incorporate these standards and requirements
in its storm water management plan and land use controls
to implement this policy.
Commissioner Friel further moved to recommend that the City
Council add language which will provide protection to Wetlands
which formulate a ponding area or are adjacent to ponding
areas.
Commissioner Friel further moved to recommend that the City
Council adopt the NURP Standards and BMP's by reference in the
City's Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
HEARING:
CASE NO. 93-03:
CELLULAR ONE -
CUP FOR AMENDED PUD/VARIANCE
FOR HEIGHT OF ANTENNA POLE
Chair Dwyer briefly explained that Cellular One is proposing
to erect a cellular telephone transmission facility on a site
in the Riverwood Place Business Park located along Highway 13.
He explained the site is located next to the CDI Medical
Facility and across the highway from the Lilydale Mall.
Mr. William Strub, owner of the site which is in an existing
Planned Unit Development, was present to discuss Cellular
One's request. Mr. Strub informed the Planning Commission
that the subdivision consists of four lots and that the two
remaining lots are located to the rear of the present
Riverwood Place Business Park. He explained that CDI Medical
Facility has approached him with an option to purchase Lot 2
within the Riverwood Place Business Park. He stated that CDI
is only interested in purchasing the Lot if no ringroad is
February 23, 1993
Page 4
constructed as suggested by the City Planner. He stated that
there will be only one vehicle traveling in and out of the
Cellular One building per month. He further stated that the
eight owners of the Riverwood Place office building are all in
favor of CDI's proposal to construct a professional building
that could house a doctor's office.
Mr. Strub also stated that CDI is in favor of Cellular One's
request and that they will submit a letter, as requested by
the Planner, that their operation will not interfere with
Cellular One's operations.
Mr. Warren Dunlap, Property/Site Acquisition Manager for
Cellular One, gave a brief presentation and explanation
regarding Cellular One's request in constructing a cell site
which will provide the best telephone service for customers
living, working and traveling in Mendota Heights and to the
City of St. Paul. He explained that it is essential that a
cell site be located near the intersections of Highway 13 and
Interstate 35-E. He further explained that Cellular One has
been experiencing a capacity problem with the downtown St.
Paul cell site and to help correct this problem, it is
necessary for Cellular One to construct an additional cell in
this area which will provide a strong signal level to the
immediate area, while off loading some of the calls on the
downtown St. Paul site.
Mr. Dunlap explained that Cellular One's Engineering
Department has located the proposed site, Highway 13 and I-
35E, as a cell site cell which will provide the necessary
coverage to the immediate area while not interfering with any
of the existing cells which are adjacent to the proposed new
cell site location. He explained that a cell site consists of
an equipment building, made of to architecturally match the
existing buildings in the development and a self supporting
steel pole, seventy-five feet (75°) in height.
Mr. Dunlap further explained that a cell site can only handle
45 calls at a time and that the frequencies are reusable.
Mr. Peter Beck, attorney representing Cellular One, introduced
three photographs of existing cell sites. Mr. Beck pointed
out the different antennas used on each cell site. He
reiterated that the proposed mono antennae pole will be
seventy-five feet (75') in height.
Mr. Beck informed the Commission that Cellular phones are no
longer considered a "YUPPY" toy and that the construction
industry uses this technology heavily. He further stated that
technology gives very little option in siting antennas. Mr.
Beck explained the proposed equipment building will be
constructed near the NSP tank farm and will blend in well with
February 23, 1993
Page 5
the surrounding area.
Mr. Beck explained that the Planner and City staff suggested
that Cellular One apply for a Conditional Use Permit and
Variance and that the City's Zoning Ordinance clearly
contemplates the proposal. He further stated that a variance
may not be needed and that the Conditional Use Permit is being
requested. In response to Mr. Beck's comment, Chair Dwyer
inquired how Mr. Beck could articulate a hardship in
constructing a seventy -five foot (75 °) pole as required by the
City's Zoning Ordinance under Variance procedures. Mr. Beck
responded that the City's Ordinance clearly identifies the
proposed use under the Conditional Use Permit process as it
refers to an essential service structure and that it would
seem appropriate to eliminate the need for a variance.
In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Planner Uban
stated that if the clear intent of the Planned Unit
Development has been changed to combine Lot 2 with Lot 3 then
the need for a circular drive does not have to be fulfilled.
He further stated he has not seen the proposed plans for the
new medical facility.
Commissioner Friel stated he is unclear as to what road system
was originally approved within the PUD. Mr. Strub responded
the road was a conceptual issue in 1983. He further stated
that CDI will retain an easement through their property. Mr.
Strub further explained the PUD was amended in 1990 to allow
CDI to construct their building and at that time an easement
was retained.
Mr. Strub explained CDI would like the easement currently in
the driveway eliminated so that CDI can come in with a new
plan.
Commissioner Friel stated the Planning Commission should
review the legal description needed to file the easement to
access the driveway. He further stated the easement should be
recorded as part of the PUD. Mr. Beck responded that any
development of the back lots would require this process.
Commissioner Friel inquired if public safety vehicles have
adequate turnaround radius. Mr. Beck responded that the site
would be fully accessible to public safety equipment.
In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan, Chair
Dwyer stated there is a distinct difference between the
Cellular One request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing an
essential services structure within a B -1 District and the
Pentel request for a Variance within the R -1 Residential
District.
February 23, 1993
Page 6
Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public.
There was no one present to discuss the request.
Commissioner Tilsen stated it would be prudent for the
landowner to require an easement through the property. He
further noted his concerns with ingress and egress. Mr. Strub
responded that CDI does not want circular access.
Mr. Beck stated Cellular One would accommodate emergency
access. Mr. Beck further stated Cellular One would
accommodate an access or driveway easement through their
property to accommodate any future needs for Lot 2. Public
Works Director Danielson stated the Fire Marshall will be
given the opportunity to review the proposed plans.
In response to a question from Commissioner Dreelan, Mr. Beck
stated Cellular One would comply with obtaining written
confirmation that the facility will not conflict with the
operation of CDI.
In response to a question from Commissioner Koll, Mr. Dunlap
explained the slope ratio of the proposed berm is 4:1. Mr.
Beck stated with the vegetation and berm, it will cover
roughly 1/2 of the proposed building. He further stated
Cellular One maintains the grounds.
Commissioner Tilsen moved to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that City Council
approve an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit of
Riverwood Place PUD allowing the construction of a seventy -
five foot (75') mono pole antenna and equipment building
according to the plans submitted and dated January 29, 1993
and the granting of a Conditional Use Permit allowing a
seventy -five foot (75°) mono pole antenna to be constructed as
an essential services structure conditioned upon the
following:
1. That an access or driveway easement be granted to the
Cellular One site from the Riverwood Place Phase I PUD
site over the currently paved driveway extending from
Trunk Highway 13 to the Cellular one site and through the
Cellular One site to accommodate any future needs for Lot
2.
February 23, 1993
Page 7
2. That an appropriate turnaround be provided on the
Cellular One site for public safety needs.
3. That landscaping be completed as per the landscaping plan
submitted and dated February 23, 1993.
4. That the following City Planner recommendations be
complied with:
a. All activities which create electrical emissions
shall comply with the minimum requirements of the
Federal Communications Commission.
b. Confirm in writing that the facility does not
conflict with the operation of CDI.
c. The facility should only be used for the
transmission of cellular phone conversations.
Additional antenna requests would have to go
through an amendment of the Conditional Use Permit.
d. Street lighting to be installed to provide safe
ingress and egress on the private road.
5. That the tower height be limited to seventy -five feet
(75').
Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
HEARING:
CASE NO. 92 -31:
MAZZARA -
SUBDIVISION -
SOMERSET PLACE
Chair Dwyer explained that Mr. Mazzara appeared before the
September, October, November and December Planning Commission
meetings to present a proposal to develop a three lot, 10 acre
single family development as a Planned Unit Development. He
explained the Planning Commission had previously recommended
approval of the development with conditions. He further
explained the City Council had reviewed the proposal in
January and desired to approve the plan as recommended, but
that they directed the developer to process a preliminary plat
instead of a Planned Unit Development. Chair Dwyer explained
that because City Council felt this preliminary plat
represented significant changes, they ordered that a public
hearing be held at the Planning Commission.
February 23, 1993
Page 8
Chair Dwyer informed the Commission and audience that the
Wetlands area is now being proposed to be protected by a
scenic easement which will be filed with the plat. He
inquired if the protective covenants would be filed with the
plat and further inquired if Mr. Mazzara has submitted the
covenants for review by staff. Mr. Mazzara stated that
covenants had been submitted in the past.
Commissioner Tilsen noted the front yard setback requirements
are now less than what the Zoning Ordinance requires due to
the Wetlands setback. He further stated he would like the
developer to consider the proposed lots to be a minimum of 2
1/2 acres. He stated that this could be accomplished by
changing the angles of the lot lines of Lots 1 and 2. He
further stated he would like to see an easement agreed upon
with respect to trails within this development.
Commissioner Duggan inquired as to why this proposal is now
being reviewed as a Subdivision and not as a Planned Unit
Development. He further inquired if the developer has
complied with the requirements as set forth within the
Subdivision Ordinance. Public Works Director Danielson
responded that he and Administrative Assistant Batchelder
reviewed the items as submitted by the developer and
determined that the developer has complied with the
Subdivision Ordinance requirements.
Commissioner Dreelan stated she would like to see the septic
system drainfields be fenced to prevent compaction by traffic
during the construction of the homes. She further stated that
access to the septic systems should be maintained for pumping
purposes.
In response to a question from Commissioner Friel, Mr. Mazzara
stated the scenic easement is much more extensive than
previously discussed. He stated there will be thirty foot
(30') easement along the Garrett's property line.
In response to a question from Commissioner Friel, Public
Works Director Danielson stated a cash park dedication will be
given.
Commissioner Koll stated she would like the Planning
Commission to be given the opportunity to review individual
home designs. She stated the homeowners on Delaware Avenue
have expressed their concerns with the site lines of the
proposed homes and that the proposed homes conform with the
natural terrain. Chair Dwyer responded the City does not have
the authority to require this of the developer through the
Subdivision Ordinance. He further stated the Planning
Commission does acknowledge the concerns of the homeowners in
February 23, 1993
Page 9
the area. Mr. Mazzara stated he can also appreciate the
concerns of the neighborhood residents but that the three
homeowners would like to retain some rights to the land.
Chair Dwyer added that if this were a Planned Unit
Development, the City could the dictate the type of housing
within this development.
Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public.
Chair Dwyer read a letter as submitted by Thomas and Linda
Garrett of 540 Wentworth Avenue. He informed the Commission
and audience, as per the Garrett's letter, that their position
is that the property not be divided into more than two
homesites. He noted the Garrett's concerns for the wetlands
and wildlife. He stated that Garrett's are concerned that the
character of the properties in this area would be severely
compromised with the building of three home, together with the
septic system land usage. He further stated the Garrett's
have stated that entry onto Wentworth Avenue is already very
dangerous and that it can support very little additional
traffic.
Mr. Derauf, 600 Wentworth Avenue, inquired as to why the
development is now considered a Subdivision and not a Planned
Unit Development and if the wetlands is included in
determining the acreage of each lot. Chair Dwyer stated that
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance dictated that this
development be considered as a Subdivision and not a Planned
Unit Development. He further stated the Wetlands is a part of
the acreage calculation for each lot and that wetlands
setbacks will be adhered to. Public Works Director Danielson
stated that Dakota County is just completing their aerial
survey of the area and will be submitting them to the City
soon.
In response to a question from Commissioner Koll, Mr. Mazzara
stated the straw bale barriers, as indicated on the plans, are
placed for erosion control. Commissioner Koll commended Mr.
Mazzara on the placement of the homes and driveway. She
inquired to how many trees will be removed. Mr. Mazzara
responded that they plan on moving the trees by way of
machines and that they do not expect to lose .too many trees.
Chair Dwyer asked the developer to explain why he is proposing
three homes and not two homes. Mr. Mazzara explained that the
proposed development will have little impact on the site. He
stated numerous studies have been completed on the site with
relation to the wetlands, septic systems and building pads.
He stated that they have taken a very sensitive approach in
the natural environment.
February 23, 1993
Page 10
Chair Dwyer inquired if Mr. Mazzara would submit the covenants
for City Council review. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if Mr.
Mazzara would be object to a minimum of 2 1/2 acre lots and if
he would object to a trail easement. Mr. Mazzara stated he
would not object to a minimum of 2 1/2 acre lots but that he
would object to a trail easement as he would like to see a
masterplan of the area completed.
Commissioner Duggan moved to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Hunter seconded the motion.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
There was a brief discussion regarding the definition of
private road right-of-way. Public Works Director Danielson
stated the property owners are responsible for maintaining the
road but that it is considered a public street in that the -
public may use the road. He stated there will be no formal
invitation for the public to use as there will be no street
signs designating the road.
Mr. Mazzara informed the Planning Commission that it has been
his intention to develop this property having a great respect
for the land and the neighborhood. He stated that the
Garrett's have been and will continue to be a part of the
development process as their property abuts this development.
Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council
approve the request for a preliminary plat and thirty feet
(30°) front yard setback variance for Lot 1 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That there be no Wetlands outlot.
2. That the Wetlands area, as shown, be protected by a
scenic easement that would be filed with the plat.
3. That a fifty foot (50') right-of-way be platted,
enclosing the private roadway.
4. That a thirty-five foot (35') wide utility easement be
added along the eastern boundary.
5. That a twenty foot (20°) wide, paved driveway be
installed within the right-of-way.
6. That the building pad for Lot 1 stay one hundred feet
(100') away from the Wetlands.
7. That no future Wetlands Permits be allowed.
February 23, 1993
Page 11
8. That septic system drainfields be fenced to prevent
compaction by traffic during the construction of homes.
9. That access be maintained to septic systems to allow for
pumping.
10. That the minimum acreage of the lots be 2 1/2 acres.
11. That the developer work with the City once the trail
master plan has been completed to determine a trail
through the site if needed.
Chair Dwyer seconded the motion.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Dwyer called a recess at 9:43 o'clock P.M.
Chair Dwyer reconvened the meeting at 9:55 o'clock P.M.
HEARING:
CASE NO. 93 -04:
SIGN ART -
SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE
Mr. Kevin Snyder, manager of Sign Art, was present to discuss
his request to place a monument sign that is seven feet by ten
feet (7'x10') in the front yard along Dodd Road with a zero
foot setback. Mr. Snyder stated that he has reviewed Planner
Uban's planning report and that he agrees with Planner Uban's
comments and suggestions.
Chair Dwyer stated that a sign could be constructed without a
variance but that shrubbery would need to be removed if the
sign were to be placed at the normal setback requirement.
Commissioner Friel stated that he disagrees with the square
footage calculations for the existing and proposed signs as
computed by Planner Uban and staff. He stated that the entire
awning area of the existing signs should be included in the
square foot calculations, not just to within six inches (6 ")
of the letters. He stated that the entire area of the
proposed sign should be used for sign area calculations and
not just to within six inches (6 ") of the letters.
Mr. Snyder stated the background and edge of sign will not be
illuminated. Commissioner Friel responded that whether the
sign is illuminated or not it is still an attraction. Mr.
Snyder stated the sign is proposed to sit perpendicular to
Dodd Road.
February 23, 1993
Page 12
Commissioner Friel stated the Zoning Ordinance permits total
square footage of signs in the B -1 District to be 201.68
square feet. He stated the Zoning Ordinance states no single
sign on the property can exceed 50 square feet.
Mr. Snyder inquired if a sign permit would have been needed if
he just installed an awning on the building. Commissioner
Friel stated the existing sign on the building is not an
awning. He inquired if that sign permit had been granted
erroneously.
Planner Uban stated Sign Ordinances are difficult to create
and interpret. He stated he computes signage, when applied to
the building, by measuring six inches (6 ") beyond the
lettering.
Planner Uban stated the sign ordinance applies to lettering
and graphics. He further stated that awnings are not measured
and that the Zoning Ordinance may need to be changed to
include calculations of awnings. Commissioner Friel stated
the sign on the building is a graphic of an awning. Planner
Uban stated it seems to be an awning.
Chair Dwyer stated that Mr. Snyder is only requesting a sign
setback variance and that he has been put into the position of
a problem is did not knowingly generate.
Commissioner Dreelan stated the signage completed on the
property is a definite improvement to the area.
Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public.
There was no one present to speak on this issue.
Commissioner Dreelan moved to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion..
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Dwyer stated that if the current signs on the property
are not in non - compliance with City's Ordinance, the Planning
Commission cannot approve this request for an additional sign,
even if the request is for a sign setback variance.
In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Mr. Snyder stated
he is willing to comply with the City's Ordinance requirements
and would be willing to continue the matter for the City to
realize a better interpretation of the Ordinance.
February 23, 1993
Page 13
Commissioner Duggan moved to table the request for a sign
setback variance subject to Sign Art and City staff determine
proper size of existing signs and determining the amount of
total square footage left on the property to install another
sign. He further moved that the Planning Commission is
comfortable with the request of a twenty foot (20') sign
setback variance.
Commissioner Friel seconded the motion.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Friel inquired if staff could research the
initial building permit for 2170 Dodd Road to find out if
there were conditions placed on maintaining the existing
hedge.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Chair Dwyer briefly explained that Commissioner Friel has
requested the City to consider amendments to the City's Zoning
Ordinance regarding accessory structures within the R-1 Zoning
District.
Commissioner Friel explained there is a need for properties
larger than minimum (15,000 square foot) to have larger and
more than one accessory structure. He further added that
where an accessory structure in excess four hundred (400)
square feet, the setbacks shall not be closer than ten feet
(10').
Chair Dwyer moved recommend the initiation of an Ordinance
Amendment and to conduct a public hearing to be held on
Tuesday, March 23, 1993 at 7:30 o'clock P.M.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS
GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICES
The Planning Commission briefly discussed the annual Land Use
Planning Workshops offered by the Government Training Service.
February 23, 1993
Page 14
VERBAL UPDATE
Public Works Director Danielson provided a verbal review for
the planning items at the previous City Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Planning Commission
adjourned its meeting at 10:39 o'clock P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberlee K. Blaeser
Senior Secretary