2015-07-28 Planning Comm Minutes
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
July 29, 2015
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 29,
2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard
Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent:
Mary Magnuson. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City
Engineer John Mazzitello.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of June 23, 2015 Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 23, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES,
AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Approval of June 23, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes
COMMISSIONER COSTELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 23, 2015 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MEETING, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Hearings
PLANNING CASE #2015-27
AMEK Custom Builders, Inc., 2185 Glen Toro Road
Wetlands Permit
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a Wetlands Permit for vegetation
removal and construction on the subject parcel. The proposed construction activities are within
100 feet of a wetland and do not meet the requirements for administrative approval.
The subject parcel is 48,630 square feet, zoned R-1, and guided for rural residential development
in the Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently undeveloped and the applicant has been
contracted to construct a new single family dwelling on the property.
Planner Wall shared an image of a site plan that was included as part of the Planned Unit
Development approval in 1998. At that time the City approved the PUD agreement, Preliminary
nd
Plat, and Development Agreement for the Glen Toro 2 Addition development. That development
consists of nine lots of which five have been developed. The original approval and subsequent
amendments did not address the incorporation of the City-issued wetlands permits. Staff identified
this wetlands permit issue upon the applicant’s submission of a building permit and subsequent
review of the previously-approved project files.
Due to the location of the building pads, the majority of the construction activities would take
place outside of the 100-foot buffer area. As part of the PUD, the setbacks were approved to be
flexible based on the lot layouts and proposed structures. As a result of the proposed building pad
being located outside of the 100-foot buffer area, the applicant and architect did request
commencement of certain construction activities without having obtained the appropriate wetlands
permit. Staff brought that request forward to the City Council for consideration at a special meeting
held on July 15, 2015. The Council did authorize staff to issue the building permit for the proposed
dwelling on the subject parcel upon completion of the plan review by the Building Official.
Planner Wall reiterated that this request is limited to those proposed activities that would occur
within the 100-foot buffer area, which only includes vegetation removal and construction and
grading of a portion of the driveway. According to the applicant, no mature trees will be removed;
only brush and overgrowth.
Mr. Matt Schmidt, a representative of AMEK Custom Builders, Inc. came forward but had nothing
to add to the staff report.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-27 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF
FACT THAT THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT WITHIN THE BUFFER AREA
WILL NOT HAVE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE WETLAND AND WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.A certificate of occupancy for the new single-family dwelling on the subject parcel is
withheld until the wetlands permit is approved by the City Council.
2.All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 4, 2015 meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2015-24
Southview Design, 1680 Mayfield Heights Road
Critical Area Permit and Variance Request
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting a Critical Area Permit and
Variance Request to construct a retaining wall on the subject parcel. The subject parcel is 1.42
acres, zoned R-1, and guided for low-density residential development on the Comprehensive Plan.
Planner Wall reminded the Commission of Planning Case 2015-01, where the Council did approve
a Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Wetlands Permit, and Variance Requests for
demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new single-family dwelling on the
subject parcel. That site is currently under construction.
Preliminary construction plans included in the previous application did not include the proposed
driveway turnaround area and retaining wall. Therefore, a Critical Area Permit for the construction
and a Variance for the height of the retaining wall are required.
Planner Wall shared an image of the property and the proposed items. He then explained how the
proposed construction was in compliance with City standards. Engineering staff have reviewed the
proposed retaining wall and found the plans to be reasonable given the constraints of the site.
He then stated the requirements for issuing a Variance Request and how this application meets
said requirements.
Commissioners asked questions regarding the different heights of the proposed retaining wall, why
this was not included in the original application, the length of the driveway, and the need for a wall
if the driveway turnaround were adjusted.
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
Ms. Jacqueline Chase, owner, Mr. Tim Johnson of Southview Design, and Mr. Scott Santanni of
Santanni Custom Homes Inc. came forward to address the questions posed by the Commission.
Extensive discussion occurred regarding the placement of the driveway turnaround area and the
height of the retaining wall.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-24 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1.The proposed retaining wall structure is a reasonable use of the property and meets the
general purpose and intent of the Code, including the driveway expansion setback and
retaining wall materials, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2.The proposed turn-around/driveway expansion and associated retaining wall will allow for
safer and more convenient vehicle movements, eliminating the need to back down the
driveway.
3.The existing slopes on the subject parcel and the Critical Area Overlay District’s retaining
wall height standard cause a practical difficulty in constructing the proposed project to the
height required to structurally-support the proposed turn-around/driveway expansion.
4.The proposed construction activities will not remove any additional vegetation and the
proposed design will not direct headlights into the adjacent dwelling to the north; the
character of the neighborhood will not be altered.
AND WITH THE CONDITION that the applicant obtains a building permit
Commissioner Roston expressed that he had concerns and was not prepared to recommend
approval. He would like to know what alternatives were considered and what can be done to avoid
needing a variance; such as going the other direction, moving it further down the driveway, or
recognizing that the neighborhood does not always have turnarounds. He recommended tabling
the application and that the applicant work with staff to demonstrate why the other approaches do
not work.
Commissioner Viksnins echoed Commissioner Roston’s concerns.
AYES: 2 (NOONAN, FIELD)
NAYS: 4 (ROSTON, HENNES, COSTELLO, VIKSNINS)
ABSENT: 1
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4
The motion failed.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-24 BASED UPON:
1.The failure of the applicant to establish that there are practical difficulties in complying
with the ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the property that were no created
by the applicant.
2.Further it appears that the reasons given were for aesthetic purposes, which are not grounds
for granting a variance.
3.The applicant has not demonstrated that there are not other options available.
Commissioners asked if rather than denying the request if it could be tabled to allow the applicant
the opportunity to work with staff to address some of the concerns that have been raised. Planner
Wall noted that the 60-day rule would expire September 8, 2015 so this could be laid over until
the August Planning Commission Meeting.
It was noted that if the application were denied then the applicant would not be able to reapply for
six months. Based on this fact Commissioner Viksnins withdrew his second of the motion.
Commissioner Roston then withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Costello expressed her desire to see this item tabled.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS TO
TABLE PLANNING CASE 2015-24 UNTIL THE AUGUST 25, 2015 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
PLANNING CASE #2015-25
Mendakota Country Club, 2075 Mendakota Drive
Variance Requests
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking to construct an accessory
structure that requires several variances. The subject parcel is Mendakota Country Club, is
approximately 145 acres, containing clubhouse and golf course use. The property is zoned R-1 and
guided as a golf course in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant intends to construct a 2.5-story,
4,942-square foot accessory structure on the southwest side of the clubhouse to allow for additional
storage space.
The accessory structure is proposed to have three levels, a basement drive-in level with an
overhead garage door, a main level, and an attic storage space. The proposed accessory structure
does meet the applicable setback standards; however, it exceeds the height, number, area, and size
standards for the R-1 district.
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5
Planner Wall then explained the requirements for a variance request and how this situation meets
those requirements. Staff recommended approval.
Mr. Bob McKinney, Mendakota Country Club Golf Course Superintendent came forward and
noted that the country club needs additional storage space. The fire marshal has warned them a
number of times to get their hallways and doorways cleared of items that should be in storage.
Commissioners asked questions regarding the accessory structure elevation.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-25 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1.The property’s use as a country club/golf course is reasonable and multiple accessory
structures are required for storage of equipment and materials.
2.The Code’s accessory structure standards for residential districts cause a practical difficulty
for a country club/golf course due to the size and nature of the use.
3.The proposed accessory structure meets the applicable setback standards.
4.The property already contains numerous accessory structures exceeding the Code
requirements and is screened by perimeter vegetation from surrounding roads and uses.
5.The proposed accessory structure will be constructed of similar materials and colors to
match the clubhouse building and will not negatively impact the character of the
neighborhood.
6.The property is already more than 100 acres in an R-1 district \[added by Commissioner
Roston\]
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.The applicant obtains a building permit.
2.The storage pods are removed after construction of the proposed accessory structure is
completed.
3.All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 4, 2015 meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2015-26
Robert Alvarez, 1176 Ivy Hill Drive
Variance Request
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking to construct a deck and requires
a variance from the R-1 district’s rear-yard setback standards. The subject parcel is approximately
21,000 square feet and contains an existing single-family dwelling. The applicant intends to
construct a deck wrapping around the west and northwest corners. As proposed, a portion of the
deck within the rear yard would require a variance. The existing dwelling was constructed in 2006.
Between 2004 and 2005 the Planning Commission and City Council did discuss a number of
different planning applications regarding potential building pads in the subject parcel and a series
of planning applications including various requests. Ultimately no variances were granted and the
existing dwelling was issued a building permit for construction in its current location.
The R-1 district’s rear-yard setback standard is 30 feet or 20% of the average lot depth whichever
is greater. In this case, due to the orientation of the existing dwelling which fronts Ivy Hill Drive,
the required rear-yard setback is 30 feet. Attached decks are considered to be part of the principal
structure; therefore, the same setback standards apply. As proposed, the deck would encroach nine
feet into the required 30-foot rear yard setback area.
Commissioners asked questions regarding the length of the nine-foot encroachment.
Based on the scope of the proposed project, staff recommended denial of the nine-foot variance
request as they feel it does not meet the requirements for approval of a variance. Staff feels that
there are other design options that would allow for a reasonable use of the property, which would
reduce the encroachment or no variance at all.
Staff provided at least three other options to the Planning Commission, which were reviewed by
Planner Wall:
A.Consider a three-foot variance to allow construction of a landing/walkway from the patio
door to the portion of the proposed deck extending into the side yard.
This option allows access to the compliant portion of the proposed deck in the side yard
from inside the house and decreases the excessive encroachment being requested in this
case. According to the building code, three feet is the minimum width of a landing required
for a walkway. In this scenario, staff would further recommend the three-foot
encroachment extend no further than three feet from the northwest corner of the existing
dwelling.
B.Consider a three-foot variance to allow construction of a landing/steps to the existing patio
door and eliminate the portion of the proposed deck encroaching into the rear yard.
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7
This option addresses the safety concern raised by the applicant regarding access to the
existing patio door. A compliant landing at least three long and steps could be constructed
to provide safe access to the rear yard from the existing dwelling. However, it would not
provide access from the dwelling to the compliant portion of the proposed deck extending
into the side yard.
C.Eliminate the portion of the proposed deck encroaching into the rear yard and construct
steps to access the compliant portion from the side yard.
This option does not require a variance and, in staff’s opinion, still allows for reasonable
use of the property by providing access to the compliant portion of the deck extending into
the side yard. As with Option B, it would not provide access from the dwelling to the
portion of the proposed deck extending into the side yard or address the potential safety
issue.
Mr. Robert Alvarez came forward to address the Commission. Discussion occurred regarding the
options that staff brought forward. Mr. Alvarez indicated he would be supportive of Option A, as
proposed by staff, but would like to increase the proposed 3-foot encroach to 4 feet.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
TABLE PLANNING CASE 2015-26 TO THE AUGUST 25, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
PLANNING CASE #2015-28
City of Mendota Heights
Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Video/Electronic Display Scoreboards
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights was considering amendments
to Title 12, Chapter 1, Article E of the City Code concerning video/electronic display scoreboards.
Representatives from St. Thomas Academy appeared before the City Council on July 7, 2015 to
discuss their plans for a new scoreboard for the main athletic field and track on campus. As a result
of that discussion staff was directed to bring forward a code amendment to establish standards for
that proposed use to be considered as a scoreboard and not a sign.
In April 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance 460 allowing electronic display signs for
institutional use in residential zoning districts. While scoreboards were intentionally excluded
from the definition, video/electronic display components encompassing an entire scoreboard were
not discussed as part of that code amendment process. As proposed, video/electronic display
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8
scoreboard would be considered a permitted accessory use for an institutional use in the residential
district. Therefore, no additional approval would be necessary as long as the conditions are met.
Commissioners asked questions regarding the location of the proposed scoreboard.
Staff provided a copy of the proposed ordinance, shared examples of ordinances from other cities,
and discussed the conditions to be included.
Commissioners asked additional questions about how this came before the City Council, what
actions were being requested of the Commission, if “scoreboard” is a defined term, advertising on
the scoreboard during events, and the conditions.
Mr. Paul Solmon, Director of Facilities for St. Thomas came forward to address the Commission.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 483 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING VIDEO DISPLAY
SCOREBOARDS FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES
with the following suggestions:
1.The removal of the first sentence under Item 7 that reads “Advertising of products, events,
persons, institutions, activities, businesses, services or subjects not related to the event
taking place on the premises or sponsored by the permitted institutional use are prohibited”
but keeping the remainder that reads “Organizations sponsoring the scoreboard may
include identifying information within the area allowed for the scoreboard in a combined
amount not to exceed thirty (30%) percent of the total scoreboard area.”
2.That a definition of “scoreboard” be further evaluated to determine if it is necessary.
3.That staff reach out to the school district, Henry Sibley, and any other potential
stakeholders asking for their input and participation before the City Council meeting.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 4, 2015 meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2015-29
City of Mendota Heights
Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Interim Uses
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights was considering amendments
to Title 12, Chapter 1, Article G of the City Code concerning interim uses in the Industrial District.
In 2014, the City Council began exploring potential sites for an off-leash dog area in the City. It
was determined that a combination of vacant, adjoining city-owned property in the Industrial
District would be the best option. Council then directed staff to amend the City Code to allow
interim uses, which was adopted by Ordinance 479 as in Planning Case 2015-22 by the City
Council. Staff was also directed to establish an off-leash dog area as an interim use in the Industrial
District, which is what was proposed in this case. This interim use designation would provide for
a temporary facility while the City undergoes the upcoming redevelopment and comprehensive
planning processes.
Planner Wall then shared a copy of the draft ordinance, which contained ten conditions.
Commissioners had discussions regarding how the City acquired the land, development
opportunities for the land, and limiting the use to properties owned by the City of Mendota Heights.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 484 AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING OFF-LEASH
DOG AREAS.
With amendment to Section 1A to read “The minimum parcel size shall be five (5) acres, which
may include a combination of adjoining lots under control by the City.”
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 4, 2015 meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2015-30
City of Mendota Heights, Unaddressed City-owned Property
Interim Use Permit
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights is requesting an Interim Use
Permit to establish a temporary off-leash dog area on vacant city-owned property in the Industrial
District. This property is approximately 13 acres in size and is located south of Acacia Boulevard
and east of Pilot Knob Road. The newly adopted Title 12-1L-6-1 of the City Code includes
standards for consideration of an interim use and staff feels the proposed use is compliant with
those standards, including the amendment to section 1A. The City Council will review the permit
requirements and discuss other operational issues as this moves forward. If approved it is intended
to be open this year.
Commissioners had discussions regarding fencing and parking.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Kimberly Franson, 2170 Pilot Knob Road, noted that she lives adjacent to the proposed dog
park. She has been meeting with staff and expressed concerns dealing with the issue of an interim
use permit for a dog park. Those concerns are:
1.If a dog park were to be put into the field it should be as least intrusive in the area as
possible; a fence would be too intrusive on the wildlife; she would have no problem with
a dog straying into her yard – monies set aside for fencing should be used for improvements
to the dog park; she would fight the installation of a fence.
2.She would recommend lighting be installed and added to the ordinance for safety issues
and liability.
3.It would be very important to have water available in the park – water playground.
4.Property value if the dog park is not done well.
5.On-street parking on Acacia Boulevard would be all right; she would also be fine with
parking on Pilot Knob Road in front of her home; she does not want parking restricted on
Pilot Knob Road.
Ms. Franson was encouraged to attend the City Council meeting and express her concerns about
fencing during the Draft Ordinance 484 portion of the meeting. Planner Wall stated that Ms.
Franson’s concerns would be included in the Council packet for review before and during the
discussion on Draft Ordinance 484.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11
ABSENT: 1
Commissioners discussed the time sensitivity of this request, the fence issue, and the findings of
fact.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-30 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF
FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE POLICIES AND
STANDARDS OF THE CITY CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.The interim use shall be terminated by December 31, 2020 or upon the properties being
sold by the City, whichever comes first, but may be renewed as provided for by the City
Code.
2.The interim use permit is periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable
codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly.
3.A fence permit is obtained.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 4, 2015 meeting.
Verbal Review
Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2015-19
Eileen O’Shaughnessy and Art Perlman, 731 Woodridge Drive
Critical Area Permit
•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2015-20
Dick Bjorklund, 2511 & 2525 Condon Court
Preliminary Plat
•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2015-21
St. Thomas Academy, 949 Mendota Heights Road
Variance Request
•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2015-22
City of Mendota Heights
City Code Amendments Concerning Conditional and Interim Uses
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12
•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE 2015-23
Sean Doyle and John Karas, 650 North Freeway Road
Lot Split and Variance Request
•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2015-18
STEP Academy, 1345 Mendota Heights Road
Appeal from Zoning Determination
•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Board of Zoning Appeals to deny
the appeal.
•Planner Wall included a copy of a court action regarding the matter which was in favor of
the City.
Announcements
Night to Unite is scheduled for Tuesday, August 4, 2015.
The next City Council Meeting will start at 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 4, 2015 in
observance of Night to Unite.
Next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 25, 2015.
On July 15, 2015, early in the morning, it was reported to the City Engineering department
of water coming out of sanitary sewer manhole on Decorah Lane. When the jet hose was
turned on Decorah Lane collapsed into a sinkhole. With tremendous cooperation of the
City of West St. Paul’s Utility Department, a sewer bypass pump installed was installed,
the hole excavated, and the pipe replaced in a day. It took a few days to get the hole filled
and pavement installed; but from identifying the break to reopening Decorah was less than
six days.
Memorials recognizing the one-year anniversary of Officer Scott Patrick’s death are on
Thursday, July 30, 2015. Additional information can be found on the City’s website.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:34 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
July 28, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13