2016-05-24 Planning Comm Minutes
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
May 24, 2016
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 24,
2016 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 Michael
Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Howard Roston and
Christine Costello. 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 April 26, 2016 Minutes
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2016, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2016-16
Mendota Mall Associates/Paster Properties
Mendota Plaza Second Addition Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
Amendment, Preliminary/Final Plat, and Wetlands Permit
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that an application was received for a Conditional Use Permit
for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, as well as Preliminary and Final Plat Applications,
and a Wetlands Permit. This hearing was publically noticed; however, the application is not ready
to move forward.
Since this was publically noticed and there could be members of the audience who wish to provide
comment, it was suggested that the public hearing be opened and public comments be heard.
However, staff would not be making a presentation on this application and the Commission was
requested to make a formal action by tabling the application and provide staff with instructions to
extend the 60-day timeline requirements under the Statute.
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1
Chair Field opened the public hearing; however, there were no comments made by the public at
this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
TABLE PLANNING CASE 2016-16 AND EXTEND THE 60-DAY REVIEW TIMELINE.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
B) PLANNING CASE #2016-11
All Energy Solar, 1002 Oxford Court
Conditional Use Permit
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a conditional use permit to
construct a roof-mounted solar energy system at 1002 Oxford Court. He then shared an image of
the property located at the end of a cul-de-sac off of Walsh Lane. The property is surrounded by
R-1 properties; Victoria would be the nearest street to the east.
The City Council recently adopted Ordinance 485, which created standards for alternative energy
systems, as part of Planning Case 2015-34, which permitted solar energy systems as a conditional
use in all districts subject to a number of conditions. Planner Wall then reviewed the standards
and conditions required in relation to this request and Conditional Use Permits in general; and
shared how this application meets those standards and conditions.
There were no additional questions from the Commissioners.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Allen, 1002 Oxford Court, came forward but had no comments to add to the report.
Mr. Brian Allen, 1642 Carroll Avenue, St. Paul, the contractor, came forward to answer questions
from the Commission.
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification on the size and location of the solar panels. Mr.
Allen noted that the panels would cover less than the 80% maximum roof area as allowed in the
ordinance.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the framing network as the bonding path is the most common
method to use. Mr. Allen replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Brian Allen asked why Ordinance 485 was adopted as needing to go through a conditional use
permitting process as it sounds like everything is pretty well spelled out as to what is required for
the permit. If all of those things are met he questioned the need to come to the Planning
Commission and the City Council to gain approval for a permit when it could be a pretty standard
process. Chair Field replied that the City, in its wisdom, decided to handle it in this fashion.
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2
Planner Wall noted that when the ordinance was brought forward that was the policy decision the
City Council made. Commissioner Noonan replied that when the ordinance was brought forward
it was something the City had no experience with and did not know what the reaction would be
from neighbors. Mr. Allen commented that the ordinance is pretty well spelled out and is well
written. He encouraged the Planning Commission to pass this information on to the Council to
make this a standard permitting process.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ALL ENERGY SOLAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT:
1. The project is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant obtains a building permit prior to installation of the proposed solar energy
system.
2. If the proposed solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperable for a continuous
period of twelve (12) months, it shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a
public nuisance.
3. If abandoned, the property owners shall remove the abandoned system, including the entire
structure and transmission equipment, at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit.
Commissioner Magnuson recommended that the application be corrected to include the accurate
numbers as to the size of the solar panels and the area of the roof to be covered. Staff agreed to
modify the staff report before it goes to the City Council.
Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016
meeting.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
C) PLANNING CASE #2016-14
True North Solar, LLC, 701 Mendota Heights Road
Conditional Use Permit
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to
construct a roof-mounted solar energy system at 701 Mendota Heights Road, which is the ISD-
197 Friendly Hills Middle School campus.
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
Planner Wall shared an image of the proposed project area location. The requirements and
conditions of this application are the same as was covered in the previous application \[Planning
Case 2016-11\]. However, the height of this proposed system would extend 17 inches above the
existing roof structure that it is located on; however, it is not the highest point of the roof itself. He
then explained how this application meets the requirements and conditions of the applicable
conditional use permit standards.
The Commission had no additional questions for staff.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Michael Kampmeyer, 260 Salem Church Road, Sunfish Lake of True North Solar, LLC in
Edina came forward but had no additional comments to add to the staff report.
Commissioner Hennes asked what percentage of the school’s energy needs would be met by
installing this solar system. Mr. Kampmeyer replied that he was unsure of the actual number of
kilowatt-hours, but it would most likely offset approximately 10%-15%.
Mr. Jim McLaughlin, 2480 Mendota Heights Circle, asked if the surrounding landscaping would
be impacted by the installation of these solar panels. Mr. Kampmeyer replied that the school and
thus the solar panel system is set far enough back from the road that no landscaping would be
impacted and the trees would be maintained. Mr. Kampmeyer also indicated that there would be
no trees removed from around the pond; there are actually no trees to be impacted now or in the
future that they can see.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT:
1. The project is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant obtains a building permit prior to installation of the proposed solar energy
system.
2. If the proposed solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperable for a continuous
period of twelve (12) months, it shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a
public nuisance.
3. If abandoned, the property owners shall remove the abandoned system, including the entire
structure and transmission equipment, at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit.
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016
meeting.
D) PLANNING CASE #2016-12
Richard Dugan, 2165 Timmy Street
Variance Request
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant had submitted an application to reconstruct
a deck onto a single-family dwelling, which requires a variance setback from the applicable side-
yard setback requirements.
Planner Wall shared an image of the property and described its location, zoning, and future land
use designation.
The previous property owner constructed the existing deck that wraps around the northwest corner
of the existing dwelling, into the side and rear yards. Based on the information provided by the
applicant, the existing deck is located approximately 2.5 feet from the northern boundary line in
the side and rear yard and is non-compliant with the current code requirements of a 10-foot setback
standard. Since the deck is proposed to be demolished and reconstructed the applicant was required
to seek the appropriate approvals necessary for any proposed encroachments into the required
setback areas.
Planner Wall then shared a site plan provided by the applicant. The applicant indicated that the
existing dwelling is located approximately 11 feet from the north property boundary line and it
contains a patio door that opens into the side yard to access that portion of the deck extending into
the rear yard. The existing deck does extend 8.5 feet from the dwelling into the side yard. The
proposed deck would extend 4 feet into the side yard for a length of 35 feet, which would require
a 3-foot variance.
Planner Wall then shared the standards of review and explained how this application meets those
standards. He also shared a recommended site plan to propose a different option for the
Commission’s consideration as staff contended that the portion of the proposed deck that
encroaches into the side yard setback – the four foot walkway to access the rear yard – could be
further reduced and that no variance is justified for the proposed deck that extends off of the west
side of the dwelling into the rear yard.
Staff recommended approval of the revised 2-foot variance request as proposed by staff and shown
in the revised site plan included in the packet with conditions.
Commissioner Hennes requested clarification that the applicant is rebuilding the entire deck area,
not just the walkway. Planner Wall confirmed that the entire deck area would be reconstructed.
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the applicant is set on a particular size of the deck for square
footage purposes and also asked if the deck could be added onto in the opposite direction. Planner
Wall replied that as long as the applicant stays within the existing footprint they can come as far
in the opposite direction as they wanted to.
Commissioner Noonan asked if the original deck had a variance granted. Planner Wall noted that
staff was unable to find any record of a variance or permit granted for the existing deck. The house
was constructed in 1976 and the circumstances of the construction are unknown.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Richard Dugan, 2165 Timmy Street, came forward and explained that the deck was already in
existence when he purchased the home in 1987. He would like to rebuild the deck and stay within
the 10-foot setback; however, he feels that a three-foot walkway would look like an add-on
aesthetically. He is already giving up four or five feet and would like to keep as much of the
remaining as possible. A four-foot walkway would be more aesthetically-appealing.
Commissioner Hennes asked, beyond the issue of the walkway, how the applicant feels about
losing the portion of the larger deck area as proposed by staff. Mr. Dugan replied that he would
like to keep as much of the deck as possible but is willing to do whatever he has to do. He also
noted that he couldn’t add onto the opposite side as there is a patio there; however, he could
probably add a little bit to the west but that remains to be seen.
Commissioner Noonan asked the applicant to share how he uses the walkway between the side
door and the deck. Mr. Duggan replied that the access to the walkway is from the kitchen and
some furniture is stored there and when gatherings take place on the deck guests gather around on
that side. Basically it is usable space the way it is currently; however, even at four feet wide as he
proposed it could still be usable space to put furniture. Commissioner Noonan also asked for
confirmation that the proposal is to reduce that portion from eight feet to four feet in width. Mr.
Duggan confirmed that this was the case.
Commissioner Hennes asked where the other entrance to the deck \[marked patio door on the plan\]
opens up from. Mr. Dugan answered that it is from the dining room. Most guests prefer going
through the kitchen door rather than the dining room because of the location of the dining room
table. He also noted that the kitchen door opening onto a three-foot wide walkway would make
for a tight fit.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A THREE-FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6
CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-FOOT WALKWAY FROM THE EXISTING PATIO DOOR
TO ACCESS THE SIDE YARD AND COMPLIANT PORTION OF THE PROPOSED DECK
IN THE REAR YARD BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Construction of the proposed deck/walkway within the required setback to access the side
yard and compliant deck structure in the rear yard, through an existing above-grade patio
door, is a reasonable use of the property and meets the purpose and intent of the City Code
and Comprehensive Plan.
2. Due to the subject parcel’s existing conditions, a practical difficulty is demonstrated in
order to construct a walkway/landing within the required side yard setback to access a
compliant deck structure from within the existing dwelling and provide safe access to the
side yard.
3. As proposed, the request would significantly reduce the existing encroachment and would
not allow for useable deck space in the side yard or negatively impact the essential
character of the neighborhood.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. The proposed encroachment shall extend no further than four feet from the northwest
corner of the existing dwelling to provide access to the compliant portion of the proposed
deck in the rear yard.
2. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the applicant shall obtain a building
permit for construction of the deck.
Councilmember Noonan noted that he moved for the four-foot walkway is that it maintains the
elbow-room necessary for the kitchen door and provide for that passage. Most importantly, it
lessens an existing encroachment significantly and improves the situation while still providing the
functionality that has existed for 30-plus years.
Councilmember Petschel noted that a typical three-foot hallway has the access doors from the
rooms opening into the rooms and not into the hallway. The door swing is an important
consideration.
Planner Wall clarified his understanding was that the motion for consideration for the proposed 4-
foot-wide walkway included staff’s recommendation that the encroachment only extend beyond
the corner of the house to access the rear yard deck, which would be constructed in conformance
with the setback requirements. Planner Wall also recommended the corresponding proposed
condition be revised. Commissioner Noonan affirmed staff’s understanding of the motion and
recommended revised condition.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016
meeting.
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7
E) PLANNING CASE #2016-13
Scott and Nancy Knowlton/John Steenberg, 810/804 Ridge Place
Lot Split and Variance
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicants were seeking approval to subdivide an
undeveloped portion of 810 Ridge Place to be combined with 804 Ridge Place. A lot split requires
City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota County. In addition, a variance is
necessary to create a parcel that is non-conforming to the required minimum lot width standard for
the applicable zoning district.
Planner Wall shared an image of the properties and described their location, zoning, and future
land use designation.
Currently, the property at 810 Ridge Place is 3.81 acres and the property at 804 Ridge Place is 4.81
acres. Planner Wall then shared an aerial view of the properties noting the location of the existing
dwellings. A copy of the survey was included in the Commission packet.
The property owners of 810 Ridge Place (Lot 6 on the survey) requested approval of a split of
1.95-acre parcel to sell to the property owner at 804 Ridge Place (Lot 7 on the survey). The subject
parcels would maintain the existing side yard setbacks along the interior lot line as well as the
existing lot widths on Ridge Place. Since the entirety of the existing lot line was not being adjusted,
the proposal was considered a lot split and not a lot line adjustment. If approved, the property in
question would be combined into Lot 7 and it would not intend to be developed at this time.
The City Code allows the subdivision of parcels provided that the resulting lots are compliant with
the requirements in applicable zoning district. In this case, the proposed lot split has no frontage
or a dedicated right-of-way and does create a temporary non-conformity with the R-1 district’s
minimum lot standards. The existing lot sizes and widths of the parent parcels would remain
compliant with the applicable standards. In order to ensure the non-conformity created by the
proposed lot split is eliminated within a reasonable amount of time, a condition of approval has
been included that requires the private property owner to combine and dissolve the property in
question into Lot 7 by October 31, 2016.
Specific to the variance request, Planner Wall shared the standards of review and explained how
this application meets those standards.
Chair Field asked what recourse the City would have if the condition stipulated that the property
owner be required to combine and dissolve the property no later than October 31, 2016 is not met.
Planner Wall replied that staff would follow-up to ensure that this is done in compliance with any
conditions that would be approved. However, if the Commission wished, staff could follow-up
with the City Attorney to have some kind of bond issued in association with the condition.
Commissioner Hennes asked for clarification on the purpose of this lot split, as it was his
understanding that the purchaser wishes to look out upon his backyard rather than the neighbor’s
back yard even though it all looks the same. Planner Wall replied that essentially that is the nature
of the request but he would defer to the applicant.
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8
Commissioner Noonan suggested that an indication be provided to the County Registrar that a
deed would not be recorded until the combination and dissolution takes place concurrently.
Mr. Scott Knowlton, 810 Ridge Place, - the seller, came forward but had no additional comments
to add to the staff report.
Mr. John Steenberg, 804 Ridge Place, - the buyer, came forward and addressed the question raised
by Commissioner Noonan by replying that he has a big window overlooking the backyard.
Currently the view is great but he has no idea who would be living next door in the future and does
not wish to take the chance on that new neighbor putting in a fence and thereby obstructing his
view. He is just trying to head off a potential problem and retain the land he recreated on as a nine-
year-old boy back in 1961 when his dad built the house.
When asked, Mr. Steenberg stated that he would have no problem with the stipulation that a deed
would not be recorded until such time as the lot lines are dissolved and recombined.
Additional discussions occurred with Mr. Steenberg and Mr. Knowlton as to the timing of the deed
being recorded as Mr. Knowlton would like to sell his home sooner rather than later as he is now
retired and would be moving. However, Mr. Steenberg would rather wait to have the deed
recorded after October 15 due to the timing of his real estate tax payment.
Mr. John Steenberg, 804 Ridge Place returned and, in regards to Condition #2 \[The applicants
shall dedicate the required drainage and utility easements along the new interior side lot line, as
shown on the Certificate of Survey included in the application materials, with Dakota County\],
commented that the first 162 feet of that diagonal is just immediately south of Ridge Place and is
part of the original line. That was platted in 1957 and all of the utilities are in there; everything is
in the street of Ridge Place and Wachlter and the 66-foot easement on Wachtler towards Highway
110. He has no problem with the drainage easement concept as everything is draining right now.
However, there are three mature oak trees within the 10-foot right-of-way in that front 162 feet.
He would hate to see those trees removed for any kind of an easement. Public Works Director/City
Engineer John Mazzitello replied that this easement is required by City Code as a requirement for
any new lot line being established and is a very common practice throughout the State when
properties are platted. However, it does not mean that there would be any activity down the
easement. Mr. Steenberg requested that if the time comes and the trees would be removed that
further discussion be had at the City Council level.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE REQUESTS, BASED
ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The property in-question is not proposed to be split in order to create an additional
buildable lot.
3. The temporary non-conformity created by the proposed subdivision will be eliminated once
the property in-question is combined and dissolved by the property owner of Lot 7.
4. The proposed subdivision ensures that Lot 7 has ownership of the existing view-shed,
without constraining potential future improvements into the rear and side yards on Lot 6.
5. The proposed subdivision will have no visual impacts on the existing conditions of either
property and the new interior side lot line configuration will provide an alignment that is
consistent with the parcels to the north along Ridge Place.
6. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the essential character of the
neighborhood.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Upon closing on the sale of the property in-question, and no later than October 31, 2016,
the property owner shall be required to combine and dissolve the property into Lot 7 (804
Ridge Place).
2. The applicants shall dedicate the required drainage and utility easements along the new
interior side lot line, as shown on the Certificate of Survey included in the application
materials, with Dakota County.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:
1. The City Attorney to give an opinion as to what recourse may be available if the lot lines
are not dissolved and incorporated into the property in the time allocated in Condition #1.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016
meeting.
F) PLANNING CASE #2016-15
Michael Hayes, 2305 Apache Street
Variance Request
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking to demolish and reconstruct an
addition to an existing single-family dwelling and requires a variance from the side yard setback
requirements in the R-1 zoning district.
Planner Wall shared an image of the property and described its location, zoning, and future land
use designation. A previous property owner constructed an addition onto the back of the garage,
which is to the side of the house near the southern property boundary line, which functions as the
side yard. The applicant has submitted a building permit application to demolish and reconstruct
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10
that addition, which is 98 square feet, to accommodate a wheelchair access ramp into the dwelling
from the garage.
The existing attached garage does encroach 5.2 feet into the required side yard setback area;
however, no exterior improvements are being proposed or included as part of this project. The
proposed addition is to be reconstructed within the same footprint as the existing condition and
would encroach approximately 1.6 feet into the side yard and requires a variance. That 1.6 feet is
the greatest extent that it would encroach. Since the nonconforming condition is proposed to be
demolished and reconstructed the applicant is then required to seek the appropriate approvals
necessary for any proposed encroachment.
Planner Wall then reviewed the three standards of approval for a variance and explained how this
request meets those standards.
Mr. Michael Hayes, 2305 Apache Street, came forward and answered the question raised earlier
by stating that the area to be demolished is currently a tool room that they would be reconstructing
as an entryway for the wheelchair. He also noted that he purchased the property in July 2015 and
has no information on the original construction.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-15 BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Reconstruction of an addition onto the existing single-family dwelling is a reasonable use
of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The existing encroachment will not be expanded and the improvements are necessary to
reconstruct the addition in compliance with applicable code requirements.
3. Only a small portion of the existing addition is non-compliant with the 10-foot setback and
encroaches less than the existing attached garage.
4. Reconstruction of the addition in compliance with the setback requirements requires the
wheelchair ramp be moved inside the garage and does not allow adequate parking space
for a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.
5. The existing conditions were not created by the applicant and demonstrate a practical
difficulty in meeting the required setback in order to reconstruct the existing addition in
compliance with applicable codes.
6. The reconstructed addition’s roofline will now match the existing attached garage’s and
the wheelchair ramp will not be visible from outside the dwelling with the garage door
closed, which will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed encroachment for the reconstructed addition shall not extend further than the
existing condition, as shown on the survey included in the application submittal.
2. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the applicant shall obtain a building
permit for construction of the proposed addition.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016
meeting.
G) PLANNING CASE #2016-17
Derwin Weightlifting, LLC, 2535 Pilot Knob Road
Conditional Use Permit
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a conditional use permit to locate
a weightlifting training facility and vacant space within an existing multi-tenant building at 2535
Pilot Knob Road. City Code does allow commercial recreation uses by Conditional Use Permit in
the Industrial District.
Planner Wall shared an image of the property and described its location, zoning, and future land
use designation. Derwin Weightlifting, LLC provides weightlifting coaching and training for
athletes at various skill levels. They proposed to occupy approximately 1,400 square feet within
approximately 2,700 square feet of existing space next to Mendota Crossfit. Mendota Crossfit is
planning an expansion in to the remaining existing space and they have indicated that they do plan
to have some crossover training between those businesses.
The applicant suggested limited weekday operations from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and their
weekend hours have yet to be determined. Attendance has been indicated to vary from 10 to 15
people at a time.
Planner Wall shared the use amendments made to the ordinance earlier this year and explained
how this application would meet those use requirements. He also explained the standards of review
for a conditional use permit and how this application meets those standards.
Staff did propose to add a similar condition to that in-place for Mendota Crossfit, which limits
hours of operation from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.
th
Mr. Brian Derwin, Owner of Derwin Weightlifting, LLC, 8035 Upper 145 St. W., Apple Valley
came forward but had no additional comments to add to the staff report.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT:
1. The proposed use is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements and the use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. All training and associated activities shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed
building.
2. Outdoor storage and display of materials is prohibited.
3. A sign permit shall be required prior to installation of any additional tenant signage on the
subject parcel/building.
4. A building permit shall be required prior to any applicable demolition or build-out of the
proposed tenant space.
5. The hours of operation will be limited to 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016
meeting.
Verbal Review
Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2016-08
th
Evergreen Knolls 4 Addition, Preliminary and Final Plat
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
PLANNING CASE #2016-09
City of Mendota Heights, City Code Amendments concerning the aircraft noise attenuation
ordinance
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
PLANNING CASE #2016-10
Administrative Wetlands Permit for a fence at 605 Hampshire Drive
Approved by staff in compliance with the applicable codes
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13
PLANNING CASE #2016-18
Critical Area Permit for replacement of an accessory structure at 1081 Douglas Road
The ordinance does allow for certain minor developments to be exempt from certain standards
within the critical area regulations, one of which being a public hearing before the Planning
Commission for minor development or minor improvements, which this qualified as. Therefore,
this application was taken directly to the City Council
Approved by City Council
Staff Announcements
In regards to the DNR’s Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area rulemaking process, the
DNR is holding open houses. They have reached a point where they have a draft document
that looks much like what was reviewed by the Commission approximately one year ago.
The open houses are scheduled for June 14 at 4:30 p.m. in Hastings; June 15 at 4:30 p.m.
in Anoka; and June 16 at 10:00 a.m. in Minneapolis. Additional information can be found
on the DNR’s website. Residents living in the Critical Area were encouraged to seek out
additional information on how this would impact their properties.
The Annual Clean-up Day was held on Saturday, May 7 with perfect weather. 373 vehicles
came through, which is the highest participation recorded. Still waiting for numbers to be
received as to how much material was collected.
Saturday, June 4 is the Annual Park Celebration at Mendakota Park, preceded by the
Mendota Heights 5K. If not open already, registration will be open next week.
2016 Road Reconstruction Project will be in full swing by the time the Commission meets
in June. This project includes the reconstruction of Mendota Road, the frontage road off
of Highway 110 on the north side, between Oak Street and Delaware. Along with that the
pavement in the Warrior Drive subdivision will be rehabilitated.
Dodd Road Corridor Study is underway.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:50 P.M.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello)
May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14