2014-02-25 Planning Comm Minutes
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
February 25, 2014
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February
25, 2014, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Vice-Chair Doug Hennes, Commissioners Howard
Roston, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: Chair Litton Field,
Jr., Robin Hennesey. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works
Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello.
Adopt Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of January 28, 2014 Minutes
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2014, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
Election of Chair and Vice Chair
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
APPOINT LITTON FIELD, JR. AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
APPOINT DOUG HENNES AS VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
Introduction of Consulting Planner
Vice-Chair Hennes recognized City Planner Nolan Wall to introduce the City’s new consulting
planner and noted that this also represents a change on the part of the City in terms who it hires
for its consulting firm.
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1
Planner Wall gave a brief background on the RFP process in determining the City’s planning
consulting firm:
Council authorized an RFP for planning services in October 2013
Seven proposals were received; three firms were interviewed in December 2013
Staff was directed to contract with Stantec Consulting Services as the City’s new consulting
planner
Planner Wall then introduced Ms. Tina Goodroad, Project Manager with Stantec Consulting
Services.
Consulting Planner Goodroad provided a brief background on her history and experiences.
Hearings
PLANNING CASE #2014-04
Rod and Sue Stombaugh, 2266 Field Stone Drive
Conditional Use Permit
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that this application is a request for a CUP to construct a
covered front porch entryway within the front yard setback on the property located at 2266 Field
Stone Drive, owned by Rod and Sue Stombaugh.
The parcel contains a single family dwelling on 0.49 acres, is zoned R-1 and guided for low density
residential use in the comprehensive plan. The lot is located on a partial cul-de-sac, which causes
a curvilinear front yard setback line. The existing dwelling is compliant with the setback; however,
the proposed construction would encroach. The code does allow for this type of encroachment as
long as certain conditions are met.
Staff recommended approval of this application.
Commissioners asked questions regarding the conditions necessary for approval.
Vice-Chair Hennes opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice-Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR COVERED
FRONT ENTRYWAY BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2
1.The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent
with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
2.The partial cul-de-sac frontage creates a curvilinear front yard setback line to parallel the
street and the current location of the dwelling results in the encroachment in the proposed
design of the covered front entryway.
3.The proposed covered front entryway cannot be accommodated within the required
setbacks without altering the design given the location of the existing dwelling.
4.The encroachment, as designed, is not incompatible with the uses and character of the
neighborhood or for a single-family residential dwelling.
5.The proposed structure is compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that
allow it by conditional use permit.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
Vice-Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 4, 2014
meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2014-05
Jerry Trooien, on behalf of Alden and Joyce Landreville, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway
Lot Split Request
City Planner Nolan Wall stated that this request is for a lot split at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway.
The parcel is owned by Alden and Joyce Landreville and contains an existing single-family
dwelling on 5.0 acres with access on Sibley Memorial Highway.
The applicant has entered into a contract to purchase the entire subject parcel. If approved and
recorded, the applicant intends to construct a new single-family home on the newly created parcel,
utilizing the existing driveway access from Sibley Memorial Highway.
The subdivision would create two lots, both of which meet the 15,000 square foot standard for this
particular zoning district. Parcel A would be the existing parcel with the existing dwelling. That
parcel would be reduced to 3.41 acres. Parcel B would propose to be 1.63 acres. Both lot widths
on Sibley Memorial Highway would meet the 100-foot standard. Both parcels would also be
compliant with the R-1 zoning district and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Planner Wall noted that the subject parcel is entirely in the critical corridor area of the Mississippi
River so an additional set of standards were reviewed. However, the larger context of
improvements as a result of this lot split would have to be dealt with under a conditional use permit
application – which is not being considered at this time. The applicant has been made aware of
this, has had discussions with staff, and has provided information based on those additional
regulations.
Parcel B would share access from Sibley Memorial Highway. The possibility of creating a new
access onto Parcel A was discussed; however, there would be concerns with MnDOT about
allowing additional access onto a state highway. In addition, it would require significant land
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
disturbance in order to make a driveway that would comply with the standards needed for an
additional driveway. Staff is comfortable with the shared driveway.
In addition, the applicant provided some lengthy documents regarding easements and covenants
that would be in place at this time, moving forward, to answer some of the questions about a shared
driveway and know that some of those issues would be discussed and would be available and
agreed upon before that parcel is sold and developed in the future.
Staff recommended approval of this application subject to the following conditions:
1.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council
approval and before issuance of any additional permits by the City.
2.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a
building permit.
3.The applicant shall submit a critical area permit application prior to any applicable
improvements on Parcel B.
4.The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the front
property lines and 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the rear property lines
to be denoted on the map submitted to Dakota County.
5.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with
associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department
as part of any building permit application.
6.The shared access easement agreement must be agreed to by both property owners, and
signed, notarized, and recorded against both properties prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
7.Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City’s land Disturbance
Guidance document.
8.The applicant works with the Fire and Police Departments to ensure access to the gate
securing the shared driveway prior to any construction on Parcel B.
Vice-Chair Hennes opened the public hearing.
Mr. Alton Todd, 991 Caren Court, asked for clarification on the distance between the proposed
building pad and the property line. Planner Wall replied that the distance is 20.2 feet. He also
explained that the building pad is only the area where a home could be built within to comply with
setback and slope requirements. It is not the house footprint.
Mr. Todd also asked if the requirement for separation of other potential structures would be the
same with respect to the property line. Planner Wall replied that accessory structures are bound to
different setback standards than a dwelling would be. Any structure within the critical area, besides
a building permit, would need to go through the critical area permit process.
Mr. Andrew Garner, 1631 James Road, asked if there was a proposed structure and if it would
definitely be residential. Planner Wall replied that there is no proposed structure but that it would
be residential. He then asked about guidelines in regards to the height of the structure. Planner
Wall reminded everyone that the request before the Planning Commission was related to the lot
split. There are standards that the applicant would need to adhere to at the point in time they do
intend to build a new single family dwelling.
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4
Mr. Daren Carlson, 992 Caren Court, had a few questions in terms of bluff setbacks. Planner Wall
again reminded everyone that the critical area requirements themselves were not being discussed
as part of this lot split – only in the fact the building pad that the applicant has shown would comply
with the critical area setbacks and slope requirements. However, he believes that initially forty feet
from a bluff line is the standard for the setback \[bluffs would be slopes greater than 40%\]. There
are also requirements for any grading or improvements within 18% slope areas.
Mr. Carlson then asked about the condition listed in regards to a ‘park dedication fee’. Planner
Wall replied that any new residential lot in the City of Mendota Heights is required to pay that
$2,700 park dedication fee, no matter the size of the lot.
In regards to the actual critical area application, Mr. Carlson asked if that would go through another
hearing process and be approved or not approved based on the actual design of the structure.
Planner Wall highlighted the critical area application process.
Ms. Peggy Gibbs, 1657 James Road, asked if somewhere in the discussions and plans for the
proposed parcel if staff and the planning commission could discuss burying the power lines in the
area as there are multiple power outages.
Commissioner Roston recused himself from this particular portion of the discussion.
City Engineer John Mazzitello replied that the electrical utilities within Mendota Heights are
privately held. They are the property of Xcel Energy. In this particular case, he would be willing
to provide contact information to the applicant or any resident who are interested in investigating
having those lines buried. He noted that typically Xcel Energy would typically want to have all of
the adjacent property owners concur to as they would charge the property owners for that service.
Vice-Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1.The newly-created parcel meets the R-1 One Family Residential Zoning District standards
for lot area and width.
2.The newly-created parcel will have adequate building area for a conforming single-family
dwelling within the Critical Area Overlay Zoning District and without the need for setback
variances.
3.The proposed lot split will not create any nonconformities with the existing parcel and
improvements.
4.The proposed shared driveway is necessary to allow access to the newly-created parcel
without creating an additional access onto a State Highway.
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5
AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council
approval and before issuance of any additional permits by the City.
2.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a
building permit.
3.The applicant shall submit a critical area permit application prior to any applicable
improvements on Parcel B.
4.The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the front
property lines and 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the rear property lines
to be denoted on the map submitted to Dakota County.
5.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with
associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department
as part of any building permit application.
6.The shared access easement agreement must be agreed to by both property owners, and
signed, notarized, and recorded against both properties prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
7.Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City’s land Disturbance
Guidance document.
8.The applicant works with the Fire and Police Departments to ensure access to the gate
securing the shared driveway prior to any construction on Parcel B.
Commissioner Roston suggested the following changes to the conditions:
6.The shared access easement agreement must be agreed to by both property owners and
approved by the City Attorney, and signed, notarized, and recorded against both properties
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Reason: so the City has the right to enforce the shared access easement agreement
8.The applicant works with, and obtains approval of, the Fire and Police Departments to
ensure access to the gate securing the shared driveway prior to any construction on Parcel
B.
Commissioner Magnuson asked that the following be put into the record:
That it be made clear that in voting on and potentially approving this lot subdivision in no
way rendering any decision whatsoever on any aspect of the Critical Area Permit. That will
stand on its own when it comes before this body and the City Council,
That the Planning Commission is not approving or offering any opinion whatsoever on the
driveway easement. The Planning Commission may have reviewed it but is making no
suggestion that it is appropriately draft or an appropriate document for these purposes.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS APPROVED THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS AS
SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
Vice-Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 4, 2014
meeting.
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6
PLANNING CASE #2014-03
City of Mendota Heights
Code Amendment for Electronic Display Signs
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that this request is a City proposal to amend the code to allow
electronic display signage. He then provided background on how this proposal came to be.
Included in the packet of information provided to the Commission before this meeting was a table
comparing similar regulations from other communities.
Planner Wall noted that the draft amendment was sent to institutional uses in the City for comment
and responses received were included in the information packet. It is believed, at the present time,
that there are sixteen uses in the City that would be classified as an institutional use within the R-
1 and R-1A district.
The proposed amendment would allow electronic display signs for institutional uses by
Conditional Use Permit in the R-1 and R-1A zoning district. Potential applicants would have to
come to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council as part of
a Conditional Use Permitting process.
The proposed amendment also includes two definitions:
SIGN, ELECTRONIC DISPLAY: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, non-
pictorial, text information in which each alphanumeric character is defined by a small
number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs),
fiber optics, light bulbs, or other illumination devices within the display area. Electronic
display signs include computer programmable, microprocessor-controlled electronic
displays.
INSTITUTIONAL USE: Uses operated as schools, places of worship, cemeteries, or
government facilities.
Conditions proposed in the draft ordinance are meant to mitigate potential negative impacts while
still allowing utilization of the newest technology. As noted in the staff report, additional
conditions and standards may also raise enforcement issues so the potential impacts of the
standards and conditions need to be considered in light of enforceability.
Planner Wall then reviewed the conditions of the proposed code amendment:
Condition Standard
Sign Area Not to exceed 100 square feet per surface
Sign Height Not to exceed 9 feet from sign base
Electronic Display Area Not to exceed 50% of total sign area, only one
contiguous display area per surface
Property Line Setback Distance 10 feet from external property lines, no closer than
50 feet from a surrounding residential property line
Message Change Interval Not more than once/four hours, except for
emergency warnings and time/temperature readings
Hours of Operation 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7
Condition Standard
Message Characteristics Static letters and numbers only, no animation, video
or audio, scrolling, flashing, twirling, fading, or
color change
Electronic Display Characteristics Black background, one-color font
Font Size Minimum 4” in height or larger
Message Limitations No off-premise messages
Malfunction Settings Automatic turn-off when malfunction occurs or
when notified by City of noncompliance
Sign Aesthetics Monument-style, natural stone/brick/masonry base,
and landscaping
Brightness Not to exceed 0.3 foot-candles at a specified distance
depending on the sign size, must be equipped with
auto-adjust brightness settings
Additional Signage Parcel 40+ acres, 300-foot setback, screened from
surrounding residential uses
Commissioners provided feedback, comments, and suggestions after each one. Additional
discussions were had on the draft ordinance.
Vice-Chair Hennes opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mark Fortman, Director of Operations for Independent School District 197, stated that at this
time the school district has no plans for a monument type sign. As mentioned in the letter sent to
staff, the district believes that the change rate, color, and the animation may be a little too
restrictive. They would like to see a more frequent change rate and maybe another color; however,
they are very appreciative of the consideration the City is taking on this issue and, again, they have
no plans for monument type sign at this time. He also addressed the issue of screening and
mentioned the changes being made this summer to their property.
Mr. Richard Davern, Director of Finance and Operations at Visitation School, expressed their
appreciation for consideration of this issue. The addition of technical capabilities would be very
helpful. The school is basically very supportive of the guidelines; however, they would like the
capability of changing the sign a little more often than four times per day to maybe once per hour.
Mr. Ed Joseph, representative of Holy Family Church, also expressed his appreciation. He
encouraged the Commission to move rapidly on this issue as there is enough history in the other
local communities and this is not new technology, it has been around for quite some time. He
believes it could be moved on any issues could be addressed more specifically when the
applications are considered. The church is interested in putting up a sign as soon as possible as
they have a lot of different benefits, banquets, sales, etc. They would also like to be able to change
the sign more often.
The Commissioners and staff discussed various ways of communicating with the residents
surrounding the institutions uses within the City informing them of the proposed code amendment
to give them an opportunity to provide their feedback and comments.
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND TABLE THE REQUEST TO ALLOW
PLANNER WALL TO INVESTIGATE ANSWERS TO THE COMMISSIONER’S
QUESTIONS AND MAKE EDITS AND ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT AS NECESSARY FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
PLANNING CASE #2014-06
United Properties, Vacant parcels on Northland Drive in the Mendota Heights Business Park
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Amendment
Consultant Planner Tina Goodroad explained that United Properties has submitted an application
th
for a Preliminary and Final Plat to be known as Mendota Technology Center 4 Addition, which
would combine two existing lots into a single lot. They also asked for a Conditional Use Permit to
amend an existing Planned Unit Development that was originally approved in 1997, with a few
different amendments since for other projects within this industrial developed area for building
designs etc.
The property is located just north of I-494, south of Northland Drive, and just west of Pilot Knob
Road. The proposal is to combine into one single new subdivision an existing outlot and existing
th
lot that would become Lot 1, Block 1, Mendota Technology Center 4 Addition. The property is
zoned I – Industrial and is guided industrial on the comprehensive plan.
The original PUD included the existing outlot and for that reason a PUD amendment needs to be
completed. That is the reason for the Conditional Use Permit; otherwise this would most likely go
through as a straight site plan.
When the original PUD was approved and Outlot A was part of the original plat with five other
lots, a park dedication was determined at that time based on the Park Dedication Contribution
formula at that time; equating to $26,800 to be paid when it developed. According to City records
no park dedication payment has been made, therefore the park dedication fee will be required with
the approval of and before release of the Final Plat. The applicant is aware of this condition.
Planner Goodroad reviewed the site analysis, development chart, parking and loading dock
requirements, landscaping and screening, site lighting, building materials and architecture, and
signage; all of which had been provided to the Commissioners in their information packet.
Staff recommended approval of this application.
Commissioner Roston asked why this parcel was originally platted as an outlot.
Brandon Champeau, Assistant Vice President Development Manager at United Properties was
available to answer questions.
Vice-Chair Hennes opened the public hearing.
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice-Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
Commissioner Viksnins noted that although he is unaware of any direct involvement in this
application, he would abstain from voting as his law firm does a lot of business with United
Properties.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF
TH
MENDOTA TECHNOLOGY CENTER 4 ADDITION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1.A Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved in 1997 for the development
of the Mendota Heights Business Park.
2.The plat of Outlot A and proposed construction of an office/warehouse building nearly
completes development within the Mendota Heights Business Park.
3.The proposed building meets the lot area, setback, and green area requirements of the I-
Industrial Zoning District.
4.The proposed reduction in parking stall length for a portion of the site is consistent with
other uses in the Business Park and will allow for a reduction in impervious surface and
assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment.
5.The proposed landscaping plan meets the overall intent of the ordinance with additional
screening.
6.The building elevations provide for a high quality addition to the business park and are
compatible with surrounding properties.
7.The applicant will ensure all necessary easements are identified and agreed to, to include
drainage and utility easements over storm water treatment ponds and utility easements as
required by the utility companies, prior to approval and recording of the final plat.
8.A 2-foot reduction in the codified depth dimension of parking stalls is allowed for stalls
that abut 90-degrees to a curb in order to facilitate a reduction in impervious surface and
assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment.
9.A Development Agreement is signed between United Properties and the City of Mendota
Heights.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: 1 (Viksnins)
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10
UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF
FACT:
1.A Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved in 1997 for the development
of the Mendota Heights Business Park.
2.The plat of Outlot A and proposed construction of an office/warehouse building nearly
completes development within the Mendota Heights Business Park.
3.The proposed building meets the lot area, setback, and green area requirements of the I-
Industrial Zoning District.
4.The proposed reduction in parking stall length for a portion of the site is consistent with
other uses in the Business Park and will allow for a reduction in impervious surface and
assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment.
5.The proposed landscaping plan meets the overall intent of the ordinance with additional
screening.
6.The building elevations provide for a high quality addition to the business park and are
compatible with surrounding properties.
7.The applicant will ensure all necessary easements are identified and agreed to, to include
drainage and utility easements over storm water treatment ponds and utility easements as
required by the utility companies, prior to approval and recording of the final plat.
8.A 2-foot reduction in the codified depth dimension of parking stalls is allowed for stalls
that abut 90-degrees to a curb in order to facilitate a reduction in impervious surface and
assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment.
9.A Development Agreement is signed between United Properties and the City of Mendota
Heights.
AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide additional plantings to meet the ninety
(90) percent opacity along the west property line and a performance bond collected as
allowed for by the City Code.
2.A final lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to installation.
3.The applicant shall provide additional information regarding any potential visibility of
rooftop mechanical units to ensure compliance with the ordinance.
4.Final sign package shall be submitted for review and issuance of a sign permit.
5.Park dedication fee of $26,800 is collected prior to issuance of a building permit.
6.The applicant shall comply with the conditions provided by Xcel Energy in the
encroachment approval letter dated January 31, 2014.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: 1 (Viksnins)
ABSENT: 2
Vice-Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 4, 2014
meeting.
Verbal Review
Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2014-02
Mark Gergen and Ruth Richardson Lot Split at 1134 Dodd Road
•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11
PLANNING CASE #2013-22
Visitation School Conditional Use Permits and Variances
•Resolution 2014-08; Approval of a CUP for additional wall sign; Variance for number
of signs and sign area; and Variance for sign height of the new school gate sign
Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
o
•Resolution 2014-10; Denial of a CUP for a second nameplate entry gate sign and
Variance for a new entry gate sign
Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
o
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:53 P.M.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12