2016-08-23 Planning Comm Minutes
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
August 23, 2016
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August
23, 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 Howard
Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel.
Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Assistant City Engineer
Ryan Ruzek.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Chair Field noted that Planning Case 2016-30 and Planning Case 2016-32, which had been noticed,
had been withdrawn and there would be no public hearing.
Approval of July 26, 2016 Minutes
Commissioner Magnuson noted a couple of errors in the minutes:
Page 3, Line 100 that reads “. . . staff is then proposing two ordinance for continued
discussion.” should read “. . . staff is then proposing two ordinance amendments for
continued discussion.”
Page 9, Line 369 that reads “Commissioner Roston replied that he did not feel that the
language he suggested would not . . .” should read “Commissioner Roston replied that he
did not feel that the language he suggested would . . .”
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2016, AS CORRECTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2016-31
Jaeger Construction, LLC
Conditional Use Permit at 2300 Pilot Knob Road
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to
erect a fence at 2300 Pilot Knob Road. He then shared an image of the subject parcel in relation to
surrounding property uses and streets. The subject property is 6.24 acres and is bordered by right-
July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1
of-way on three sides. There is 126,000 square foot office/warehouse building that was originally
constructed in 1989 and was recently purchased by Johnson Brothers Liquor Company. The Code
requires a conditional use permit for fences over six feet with a security arm for barbed wire in the
Business and Industrial Districts. In addition, external loading areas must be completely screened
from the ground level view from contiguous properties and adjacent streets, but does exempt
access points from that particular code requirement. The Code also requires that screening or
buffering must provide a minimal opacity of 90% during all seasons. The existing loading dock
area is not completely screened from contiguous properties or adjacent streets, as are numerous
properties in the Industrial District that were developed prior to the current standards.
Planner Wall then shared a diagram showing the proposed fence and noted that the proposed seven-
foot tall chain-linked fence would have privacy slats of an undetermined color. The fencing along
Pilot Knob Road would have winged-slats, which according to the manufacturer’s specifications
achieve 90% opacity. The fencing along Highway 13 would have normal privacy slats with an
unknown opacity, but according to the applicant it is anticipated to be approximately 75% opacity.
Photos provided by the applicant were shared with the Commissioners.
As a result of the existing vegetation there is no way to ensure that it would remain as is nor could
it be verified that it will achieve 90% opacity during all seasons when combined with the proposal,
which is 75% opacity fence with a regular privacy slats.
Planner Wall then provided some other areas where the City had approved fencing in the recent
past in the Industrial District that influenced staff’s recommendation in this case. Since a number
of properties in the Industrial District have wood privacy fencing, which is of a higher quality and
more expensive than the proposal, in order to be consistent with those previous approvals for
surrounding properties, staff is recommending 100% opaque wood fencing along Pilot Knob Road
that would provide a complete screened loading dock area from the street. Staff also recommended
that the 90% opacity fencing \[chain link with winged slats\] be installed along Highway 13.
Staff believes either proposal, the applicants or staff’s recommendation, would meet the standards
for granting of a Conditional Use Permit. However, staff’s recommendation that in order to be
consistent with past approvals in the Industrial District, that their recommendation be the one up
for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Staff did recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit request with conditions.
Commissioner Noonan asked if the real standard to judge fencing is the opacity rate. Planner Wall
replied in the affirmative. However, the Code reads that the opacity requirement is 90%, which
can be a combination of landscaping, berming, and fencing. In this case, while staff acknowledges
that there is existing vegetation in that area, due to the fact that it is difficult to quantify what that
screen is over the seasons – because it is deciduous – and the fact that the majority of that
vegetation is actually located on public property, which is right-of-way, the extent that it exists
long-term is questionable. In order to ensure that it is fully compliant with the 90% opacity
requirement, staff is recommending that the 90% opacity fence be installed along the property
boundary line.
July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2
Commissioner Hennes asked if there were any specificity to barbed wire. Planner Wall replied that
the Code simply states that if a fence is over six feet and it has the security arm for barbed wire in
the Industrial District that a conditional use permit is required. Commissioner Hennes then asked
if the fence were less than six feet with barbed wire the conditional use permit would not be
required. Planner Wall stated that the Code simply reads, “fences over six feet in height and with
the security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit.” In this case it is a six-foot
high fence and with the additional extension for the barbed wire, it would be approximately seven
feet tall.
It was noted during this discussion that the subject parcel does not have a fence currently in
existence.
Chair Field stated that it would be his understanding that the purpose of the chain link would be
absolute security as opposed to a wooden fence. The applicant could put a chain link fence behind
the wooden fence and still comply with staff’s recommendation. Planner Wall confirmed that this
is true.
Commissioner Petschel asked, in the examples provided, if the fences were primarily for privacy
or for security. Planner Wall replied that the fencing was for screening/privacy and security and
they all have gates. He then asked if barbed wire was pretty consistent throughout the Industrial
area. Planner Wall was unable to provide an answer; however, the three samples provided did not
have barbed wire.
Mr. Barry Jaeger, representing Jaeger Construction and the property owner, came forward to
answer questions from the Commission. He noted that Jaeger Construction has reviewed the
recommendations made by staff and are willing to accept them. The barbed wire is a security issue
with the products that they will be providing. He also noted that the gate would be a standard chain
link fence gate and not wood because of the weight.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the chain link fence would have slats. Mr. Jaeger replied in the
affirmative.
Commissioner Hennes asked if there had been any issues with vandalism. Mr. Jason Phillips, Vice
President of Operations for Johnson Brothers Liquor, replied that their main operation is in St.
Paul. They do have barbed wire security fencing around that facility, but they have not had any
security issues to speak of.
Commissioner Roston noted that he would need to recuse himself from this matter.
Mr. Phillips expressed his appreciation for the consideration and felt that staff has done a nice job
of understanding and interpreting the Code and making recommendations. They are perfectly
satisfied with it. They are excited to be opening this operation in Mendota Heights. They are
currently under construction with an anticipated move-in date of October 1, 2016.
Commissioner Noonan explained that the barbed wire troubles him in the sense that it is sort of
out-of-place and is different than what is there now. He asked if that was an absolute. Mr. Phillips
July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
replied that it is a strong interest on their part and they believe that it provides a deterrent value
that is important to them just in consideration of both the work they do, the product they have and
they are interested in not having problems. If this deterrent helps to prevent that, then everyone is
better off.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the barbed wire is the rolled type of barbed wire. Mr. Phillips
replied that it is the straight barbed wire; it is not like a prison.
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 PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-31, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by screening
the loading dock area on the subject property, while providing additional security for the
property owner.
2. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit
and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The existing vegetation bordering the surrounding right-of-way increases the
screening/buffering of the subject property from the adjacent roadways.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction.
2. Wood fencing achieving 100% opacity shall be erected along Pilot Knob Road.
3. Chain-link fencing with dark-colored privacy slats achieving 90% opacity shall be erected
along Highway 13 and the portion perpendicular to Pilot Knob Road in front of the
building.
4. The fence shall be located entirely on private property.
5. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed
to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public
or private.
6. The gate coming off of Pilot Knob Road be consistent with the privacy slat fencing that
surrounds the remainder of the property.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND TO THE
ADDITION OF CONDITION SIX.
July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Mr. Phillips replied that they would be in agreement with the addition of Condition Six.
Mr. Jaeger asked if gates were required to have the same opacity as fencing. Planner Wall replied
that driveway access points or access points to loading dock area do not have to attain the full
screening; however, the applicant has indicated that they are willing to do that and that is why it
has been incorporated in the motion.
Mr. Phillips noted that they would prefer to have a see-through gate for safety reasons; however,
they are not going to make that a requirement.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field called the standing motion.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: 1 (ROSTON)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2016
meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE #2016-33
City of Mendota Heights
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 2500 Lexington Avenue South
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights is considering an amendment
to the Land Use Plan in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide the future land use designation
for the property located at 2500 Lexington Avenue South from B-Business to I-Industrial.
Planner Wall shared an image of the subject parcel in relation to other surrounding uses and streets.
The property contains a vacant 13,000 square foot office/warehouse building and is surrounded by
high density residential, office, and industrial uses.
The Council passed Ordinance 502 as part of Planning Case 2016-28, which did conditionally
approve rezoning the subject property from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial at their August 2,
2016 meeting. The approval also included a condition that the City and the Metropolitan Council
approve a subsequent Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5
Planner Wall then shared an image of the current Land Use Map in relation to the subject parcel,
which is zoned Business but is surrounded by Industrial and Residential uses. The land use plan is
intended to depict the general desired locations of future land uses. As part of any proposed
amendment request, a determination should be made that the proposed use is compatible with
surrounding existing and future land uses. In addition, adjacent governmental units and affected
school districts are typically required to be notified and given the opportunity to comment. In this
case, the proposed amendment does meet the adjacent review waiver criteria due to its size, its
non-impact on future growth forecasts, and its location within the City.
Planner Wall shared an image of the proposed land use map noting that the only change being this
property, which as a result of the Conditional Rezoning to Industrial, would also then be re-guided
Industrial within the future land use map.
As was discussed as part of previous planning case before the Commission, the Industrial District
does offer a wider variety of use options than the B-1 District that better fit the existing building’s
layout. Depending on the future use of the property and the subsequent code amendment that was
also approved by the City Council, which created additional standards for potential warehousing
uses that are located adjacent to residential structures, staff feels that the adequate standards are in
place to regulate potential negative impacts that would result in a change of use on this property
from other surrounding uses.
Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with conditions.
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 PETSCHEL, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-33, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The conditionally-approved zoning on the subject property is not consistent with the
current future land use designation.
2. The proposed future land use designation is consistent with the conditionally-approved
zoning and surrounding existing/planned land uses.
3. The City Code contains performance standards and other regulations to address potential
negative impacts a new use of the subject property may have on surrounding uses.
July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2016
meeting.
C) PLANNING CASE #2016-34
City of Mendota Heights
Proposed City Code Amendment – Alternative Energy Systems
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights is considering an amendment
to Title 12-1-D, E, F, and G of the City Code concerning alternative energy systems encompassed
in Draft Ordinance 505 included in the Commission Packet.
The City Council adopted Ordinance 485 that created standards for alternative energy systems as
part of Planning Case 2015-34. The intent was to ensure the same standards are applied to each
solar energy systems in an effort to encourage sustainable standards that do not adversely impact
the community. Since that time, the City Council has approved four conditional use permits for
roof-mounted systems; three of them for residential properties and one was for a residential zoned
property, but was actually the Friendly Hills Middle School Campus.
Since adoption of the ordinance, City Council received feedback from applicants that have gone
through the process that the ordinance provisions themselves are workable; however, the required
review process takes too long. Therefore, the City Council directed staff to propose amendments
that streamline the review process for certain systems.
In addition and upon review of recent applications, staff is proposing some additional minor
amendments to the existing standards concerning maximum area and color.
Planner Wall briefly reviewed the proposed amendments:
1. Roof-mounted solar energy systems reclassified as a permitted accessory use (Section 5)
2. Ground-mounted solar energy systems remain as a conditional use and separate maximum
area standards for residential and business/industrial districts are included (Sections 2 & 4)
3. Color standard revised (Section 3)
4. Reference to requiring a conditional use permit in all districts removed (Section 1)
Staff recommended approval of DRAFT Ordinance 505.
Commissioner Noonan asked where it says in the ordinance that a ground-mounted needs a
conditional use permit where a roof-mounted just needs a building permit. Planner Wall replied
that right now the Code reads “solar energy systems are a conditional use in all zoning districts.”
The bulk of the proposed changes are in each individual district, which has a list of what are
permitted uses and what are conditional uses. The only changes to the standards themselves relate
to the maximum area and the color provisions.
July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7
Commissioner Roston asked if staff is seeing a lot of applications coming in for these systems.
Planner Wall replied that staff has seen four since it was adopted and they have come in at least
three consecutive months.
Commissioner Roston then asked if staff believes that enough requests have come through that
they are confident no additional issues could come up or should this percolate for a few more
months to a year. Planner Wall replied that potentially this could be a policy consideration for the
Council; however, the direction is coming directly from them to consider how to streamline the
process. The ordinance provisions in place have seemed to be workable, at least for the roof-
mounted systems that have come forward, and that is what staff is pursuing at this point. No
ground-mounted system requests have come through and are not part of this recommendation.
Commissioner Petschel asked why the limit is 80% of the roof area. Planner Wall replied that it
would be to allow for access to the system. Commissioner Petschel noted that he could already
think of two cases where this is going to be revised. When he visits customers in California it is
not uncommon to see parking lots entirely covered with solar panels where they basically have
structures over the parking lots that are shading the cars and are power installations. Planner Wall
commented that those would be ground-mounted systems.
Commissioner Petschel noted that he has seen entire parking lots covered with structures
containing solar panels, which, if proposed in the future, would not comply with the amended
maximum area standards. He also noted that there are major solar installers indicating that their
future business models do 100% of the roof or essentially the entire roof. Instead of getting a new
roof and then putting a solar panel system on top of it, they will simply integrate the solar panels
into the actual roofing systems. Planner Wall noted that building integrated solar energy systems
are currently exempted.
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 MAGNUSON, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-34, DRAFT ORDINANCE 505, AS
PRESENTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2016
meeting.
Verbal Review
Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2016-24
All Energy Solar, 1295 Kendon Lane
Conditional Use Permit for Solar Energy System
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
PLANNING CASE #2016-28 and #2016-29
Sean Carey, 2500 Lexington Avenue South
Rezoning and Code Amendments
Approved by the City Council, which triggered the application before the Commission
tonight
PLANNING CASE #2016-25
City of Mendota Heights
Code Amendment to Opt-out of the Temporary Family Healthcare Dwelling Unit Law
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
PLANNING CASE #2016-26
City of Mendota Heights
Code Amendment concerning the hotel definition and first floor elevations standards
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
Staff and Commission Announcements
Chair Field expressed his appreciation to Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek for attending and
to staff for all of their hard work.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:45 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9