2019-04-02 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
April 2, 2019 – 7:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Consent Agenda
a. Approve March 19, 2019 City Council Minutes
b. Approve February 26, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Acknowledgement of the February 26, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
d. Acknowledgment of the January 16, 2019 Airport Relations Commission Meeting Minutes
e. Approve Temporary Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy for April 26 - 27, 2019
f. Approve Temporary Liquor License for Beth Jacob Congregation for May 5, 2019
g. Approval to Replace Check Valves at the Main Lift Station
h. Approve Ordinance 539 Updating the Tobacco-Free Policy in City Parks
i. Approve Ordinance 540 Updating the Stormwater and Erosion Control Ordinance
j. Accept Retirement Notice of Terry Blum and Authorize Recruitment to Fill Public Works
Superintendent Position
k. Approve Resolution 2019-25 Community Roadside Landscape Partnership Application for
Mendota Road Landscaping Improvements
l. Approve Job Description and Authorize Recruitment for a Natural Resources / GIS Intern
m. Acknowledgement of February 2019 Fire Synopsis
n. Approval of Claims List
o. Approve Contract for Fire Station Construction Materials Testing Services
p. Approve Contract for Fire Station Wet Pipe Fire Sprinkler System
6. Public Comments
*See guidelines below
7. Public Hearing - none
8. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2019-24 Approving a Critical Area Permit and Variance to John and Theresa
Cosgriff, for property located at 1875 Hunter Lane (Planning Case No. 2019-05)
b. Par 3, Recreation Programs, and Parks Annual Report
9. Community Announcements
10. Council Comments
11. Adjourn
Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda
provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the
agenda. All are welcome to speak.
Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person
and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the
City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious.
Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to
make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not
enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation.
Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as
a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the
citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the
issues raised.”
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 1 of 14
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also
present. Councilor Duggan was absent.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
OATH OF OFFICE – POLICE OFFICERS
Chief of Police Kelly McCarthy introduced new police officers Eric Hagelee and Leif Vandersteen.
Mayor Garlock presided over the ceremonial swearing in.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar for approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the
consent calendar as presented, pulling items j.) Approve Amendment to Professional Services contract for
the Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements.
a. Approve March 5, 2019 City Council Minutes
b. Acknowledge February 12, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes
c. Authorize 2018 Auditing Services with BerganKDV
d. Approve First Amendment to 2019 Waste Abatement Community Funding Joint Powers Agreement
with Dakota County
e. Approve Resolution 2019-21 Approve Administrative Critical Area Permit - 1217 Victoria Curve
page 3
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 14
f. Approval of 2019 Street Sweeping
g. Resolution 2019-23 Traffic Control Signal Agreement for Pilot Knob Road and Highway 494
h. Approve Professional Services Contract with Rainbow Treecare for Emerald Ash Borer Protection
i. Resolution 2019-22 Community Roadside Landscape Agreement for Monument Beautification
j. Approve Amendment #2 to TKDA Professional Services contract for the Marie Avenue and Wesley
Neighborhood Improvements
k. Approve the Hiring of Two Public Works Maintenance Workers
l. Approval of Claims List
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
J) APPROVE AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE MARIE
AVENUE AND WESLEY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
Councilor Miller asked for an explanation of exactly what a land bridge is. Public Works Director Ryan
Ruzek explained that the low spot on Marie Avenue, between Trail Road and Sutton, is basically a
wetland of poor saturated soil. To span the poor soils, the city built a land bridge, with underground
footings and support piers. The only thing visible indicating that this is a bridge are the three expansion
joints that cross the roadway.
The proposed plan is to remove the asphalt and use a concrete surface. As for repairs to the bridge, they
have to repair a couple of the expansion joints and some bridge decking. Once the asphalt is pulled off
they will be able to assess the bridge decking to see if there are additional repairs that may be needed.
Councilor Petschel moved to authorize Amendment #2 to the TKDA professional services contract for
the Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Street Improvement Project.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Jack Koegel, 2301 Swan Drive, addressed the Council regarding the increase in his property taxes.
His house value has gone up $200,000 in seven years. His point is, he loves living here and does not mind
paying additional taxes for the school or fire station, however, he wants the city to work hard on keeping
taxes lower going forward. City Administrator Mark McNeill asked if he has spoken with Dakota County
about the valuation of his home. Mr. Koegel had not, but he will.
page 4
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 14
Councilor Petschel noted that Mr. Koegel is not alone, they are hearing this from many residents.
However, the city bases taxes on the valuation set by the county.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) ORDINANCE NO. 538 ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE USES AS
A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this request from Metro Storage LLC to
amend City Code Title 12-1G-1 to allow personal self-storage facilities as a conditional use in the I-
Industrial District. Metro Storage LLC is seeking to place an approximately 80,000 square foot indoor
only self-storage facility in the Industrial Park. Currently, City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 includes a list of
prohibited uses within the Industrial District, of which personal self-storage facility is included.
A public hearing was held on this request at the February 26, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting,
where they recommended denial on a vote of 6-1.
Councilor Paper asked what an 80,000 square foot building would pay in property taxes. Mr. Benetti
estimated this facility would pay a total of $150,000 to $160,000 per year. Mr. Benetti replied that a full
office type building would have more value because of the improvement value that goes into it.
Councilor Paper asked what the difference would be between a warehouse and a storage facility. Mr.
Benetti replied that, in the city’s definition, a warehouse is storing or warehousing of goods and services
for the activity or use that is on that site. A storage facility would not fit that definition, this would be
warehousing of personal goods and materials at a fee cost.
Councilor Petschel, having been part of the discussion in 2016 when the prohibited list was generated,
stated that the Council at that time depended on the Comprehensive Plan, which clearly identified the
major goal in the Industrial Park which is to create jobs. This use was prohibited because it did not
create new jobs.
Councilor Miller asked how long this parcel of land has gone undeveloped. Mr. Benetti replied that the
parcel was owned for a number of years by the adjacent property owner, General Pump. They held onto
the parcel for a possible expansion of their business, but it has now been sold to a local businessman.
The following individuals were available for questions:
Mr. John Riley, Condor Corporation, Mendota Heights
Mr. Steve Nielsen, Condor Corporation, Mendota Heights
Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development at Metro Storage, LLC
Mr. Kevin Friedman, Director of Acquisitions at Metro Storage, LLC
Mr. Connor Nichols, involved in marketing the property
Mr. Dave Carland, Venture Pass Partners
page 5
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 14
Mr. Riley commented that this would be a $10M development, very high for this parcel. The property
has been vacant for 20 years. Mr. Nichols has been marketing the property but there has not been a lot of
interest. Some of the inquiries for the property were for uses like auto body shops, car washes, places of
worship, and car rental agencies. Those are not job generating uses either. The site itself is challenging.
He also explained that market studies show a high demand for personal storage facilities.
Councilor Miller asked who would be managing the facility. Mr. Heilman replied that Metro Storage is
family-owned and has been in business since 1973; they develop, own, and operate 142 storage
facilities. They would have a property manager, an associate property manager, and a maintenance tech
that float around from facility to facility. There would be someone onsite every day, during the day.
Councilor Miller asked if there was anything that would be off limits to store in the facility. Mr.
Heilman replied that each state has their own lease form which explains what cannot be stored
(hazardous materials, propane tanks, ammunition, etc.). Councilor Miller asked how they regulate that.
Mr. Heilman replied that the facility is staffed from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Move-ins are typically
required to happen while there is someone present. The facility is operational from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m.; requiring a proprietary key to get into the building when staff is not there.
Mayor Garlock asked if they have periodic inspections of the site. Mr. Heilman replied that rounds are
done twice a day; by law they cannot enter the storage units.
Councilor Paper asked what they have seen as far as compliance with the restricted materials. Mr.
Heilman replied that they have had very few issues. There is fire suppression in each building, which is
reviewed by the municipality’s code department.
Councilor Miller asked why they were requesting three stories. Mr. Heilman replied that based on the
uniqueness of this parcel, they have matrices that go into creating a facility that makes sense. One of the
biggest drivers is the size of the parcel; it has to be three stories to get the amount of square footage
needed, provide access around it, provide stormwater retention, and make the property function in a way
that meets code.
Mr. Riley returned and commented that besides the high tax value, it is very low on city services.
Councilor Paper asked how the tenants are screened. Mr. Heilman replied that they do not do
background checks, but the property manager is trained to work with a customer on what is being stored,
their tenancy, and they screen the customer.
Councilor Paper asked how many units this three story facility would have. Mr. Heilman replied it
would have approximately 800 units, varying in size.
Councilor Miller stated that having this listed as a prohibited use in the Industrial District is important.
Before he would be comfortable approving this request, he would want to do more research.
Councilor Petschel expressed her concerns by saying that a lot of time was spent on approved uses in the
Industrial Park, both by the Planning Commission and by the City Council. She reiterated that the
page 6
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 14
guiding document was the Comprehensive Plan and the goal was that the Industrial Park would create
jobs. Also, the city has a beautiful Industrial Park with some beautiful architecture. The architecture
related to these facilities is very utilitarian, mainly because of its purpose. The problem is that, once
approved, there would be a proliferation of this use.
Councilor Paper stated that he likes the idea of this amenity within the community. However, he feels if
this were allowed, there may be more requests. This is providing 1.5 jobs and the purpose of the
Industrial District is to have job creation. Also, this property was previously in holding and was not
marketed. He would like to wait to see what else could be developed now that the property is being
marketed, rather than moving forward with this request now.
Mayor Garlock asked the Council if they would like to table this item; providing Councilor Miller time
to research his concerns, for the property owner to look at other the marketing possibilities, to research
the possibility of a two story building rather than three stories, and to discuss the additional conditions
suggested by Planning Commissioner Mazzitello [for a self-storage unit to be eligible for a Conditional
Use Permit it must be abutting a State Trunk Highway and within 1,500 feet of an Interstate].
City Attorney Andrew Pratt reminded the Council that they are not considering zoning for this specific
parcel, they are considering zoning for the entire Industrial District. It would be possible to fashion a
more specific ordinance to make it clear that there are only a few parcels in the entire Industrial district
where this use can be placed.
Mr. Benetti noted that the extension on this application expires April 27, 2019. If this were to go beyond
April 27, 2019, the city would need the applicant’s permission.
Councilor Miller moved to table ORDINANCE NO. 538 AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1,
ARTICLE G. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AS
A CONDITIONAL USE to a future workshop date to be determined.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3 (Miller, Paper, Garlock)
Nays: 1 (Petschel)
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
City Administrator Mark McNeill asked for direction on what follow-up the Council would like. Three of
the four Councilors replied that they would like to visit other Metro Storage sites.
B) RESOLUTION 2019-18 DENY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1840 HUNTER LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-03)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained a request from Ms. Julia Weisbecker, 1840
Hunter Lane, requesting a lot line adjustment for one of two parcels located on her property. The request
includes a variance permit for a portion of the lot to have a lesser street lot width than what is required
by City Code; thereby creating a flag lot type design.
page 7
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 14
The westerly parcel is 127’ x 171 with 22,390 square feet of area. The easterly parcel, where the main
house is located, is 130’ x 171’ with 25,783 square feet of area. The survey shows a gap between Ms.
Weisbecker’s properties and the property to the south. A quiet title action was required to remedy that
situation. Ms. Weisbecker is looking to sell off the back half of her property, with the lot line adjustment
creating a strip on the south side. The east parcel would remain at 25,783 square feet. The westerly
parcel would shrink a little because they are dedicating a 14-foot strip along the west end into a Hunter
Lane right-of-way.
There is a 15-foot access easement that was dedicated by the previous owners to Ms. Weisbecker. The
driveway, as it stands today, has moved into the neighboring property. The neighbor has agreed to
provide a temporary driveway easement until the driveway is repaired, then it will be moved back into
the original easement strip location.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of what the proposed lots would look like should this application be
approved. At the February 26, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission
recommended denial of the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance request by a unanimous vote of 7-0,
based on the findings of facts that the applicant had not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite
practical difficulties in order to justify the Variance and that economic considerations alone do not
constitute a practical difficulty.
The City Council was asked to either affirm the recommendation made by the Planning Commission by
adopting the resolution denying a lot line adjustment with variance OR to reverse the recommendation
made by the Planning Commission by adopting the resolution approving a lot line adjustment with a
variance based on the amended findings of fact, as prepared by the City Attorney and staff, supporting
such approval with conditions.
Councilor Paper noted that the concern voiced by the Planning Commission seemed to be that the city
would be setting a precedence for approval of flag-type lots. Mr. Benetti replied that all variance
requests should stand on their own merits. The City Attorney agrees with this sentiment. He pointed out
that the new Findings of Fact #D states that approval of this variance does not apply or give precedential
value to any other properties throughout the city.
Councilor Paper, in regards to the driveway, asked for a definition of repair. Mr. Benetti replied that he
would define it as a full repair or a full reconstruct. Seal coating would not be considered a repair. The
new conditions state ‘reconstruct’ rather than ‘repair’.
Councilor Miller asked if anyone had viewed the condition of the current driveway. Mr. Benetti replied
that he has seen it but could not give an approximate life value to it.
Councilor Petschel stated that when this area was a village, homes were platted without regard to
placements. She remembered the deliberation on why the flag lots had become such an issue. One of the
challenges that was not considered at that time was fire/life safety. Some driveways were long, narrow,
gravel-lined, making it difficult for fire trucks to access the lot. Her understanding was that platting on
this proposed lot, and the adjacent lot, went back to between 1957 and 1967. This is one of the old
previously allowed lots that, under the ordinance, would not be allowed today. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
page 8
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 14
In some cases, where there is an easement for driveways, a new owner could decide that he no longer
wants to allow that easement along his property for someone else’s driveway. This situation can get
messy. Mr. Benetti indicated that the request of both property owners is to create a fee title strip, not an
easement. A fee title strip would transfer ownership of the driveway to the owner of the property that the
driveway goes to.
Councilor Petschel sympathized with the Planning Commission in not wanting to set a precedence
because most of Hunter Lane looks like this. Their concern is that by approving this they are
automatically approving platting just like this on the rest of the properties on Hunter lane. Mr. Benetti
replied that there are other lots on the other side of Hunter Lane, where there are parcels situated behind
the main residential parcel. If the owners of these lots requested to build on the rear parcel, they would
need to create access to that parcel from either Hunter Lane or an adjacent road system. Therefore, they
would have to ask for a similar situation to this. Councilor Petschel asked how this hypothetical situation
would be any different than what is being request now. Mr. Benetti replied that the difference is there is
already an access easement there; which suffices as a legal right to get back to this lot. The new owner is
simply asking to have it formalized as a permanent fixture back to his property. Again, each variance
request should be considered on its own merits.
Councilor Petschel asked if it would be a reasonable argument be that this was platted prior to the
ordinance; and that a new request for a new plat would be coming in post-ordinance. City Attorney
Andrew Pratt replied that this would be a reasonable assumption.
Councilor Paper asked for confirmation that this situation occurred prior to the prohibition of flag lots;
this was confirmed. He then asked if the other parcels in this general area, that are platted out in a
similar fashion, were all platted post-prohibition or are there other similar potential situations coming
down the line. Councilor Petschel replied that the latter was correct – there are other similar potential
situations coming down the line.
Mr. Benetti noted that most of those lots are behind residential homes off of Hunter, whereas, this
situation is reversed. The residential home is on the back lot and the front lot is the open lot. The
difference is the other lots on Hunter Lane do not currently have access points to the rear lots as this one
does. Also, this fee title strip would eliminate the possibility of ambiguity down the road for ownership.
Comments from the public included:
Mr. Charles Campion, 1836 Hunter Lane, stated that it was his understanding that there is a lot across
the street from the subject parcel that already has been platted to do the same thing. That one has always
been set up to be able to be split. He has no problem with anyone building a house there; however, there
is no drainage coming off of that lot. As soon as they dumped the dirt on a lot, the remaining lots will
have flooding issues.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that there was a high point about two properties south of
the applicant’s property. Water is intended to run along the lot line, between the properties. The snow
bank along Orchard Place was preventing the water from making it to the street so it ponded in the yard.
Public Works removed the snow bank along the side of Orchard Place. A new home would be required
to put in stormwater retention, based on the city’s new water quality and quantity standards. The new lot
is proposing to dedicate the 30’ drainage easement, the same as the surrounding properties.
page 9
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 14
He continued by explaining that some of the properties on Hunter do have a lot line through the middle
of them, however, staff would have to look to see if there are any buildable areas within the critical area.
Mr. Michael Orme, representative for Ms. Weisbecker, pointed out that the lots are already platted and
both are buildable. It should be understood that a flag lot is already in existence. The utilities will run
along the fee title strip. The current title issues eluded to earlier will be cleaned up.
Councilor Paper moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-18 APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
WITH VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY AT 1840 HUNTER LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-03).
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
Councilor Petschel pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request by a
vote of 7-0. It would be helpful if City Attorney Pratt would share with them the information that was
shared with the Council that was found to be enlightening.
C) APPROVAL OF VILLAGE LOTS DEVELOPMENT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained the proposed Request for Proposal (RFP) for the sale of
Outlot D and three lots that are within The Village development. This land was included in the original
Planned Unit Development for The Village and was originally intended to be 14 detached townhomes
and five home/offices (combination residential and commercial use). Because of the recession of 2008-
2009, the property went into tax forfeiture and the city became the owner.
The city discussed the development of these lots and there is no obligation for the Council to proceed
with the original townhome concept. He said that in the past, there have been negotiations for a medical
office building and a five-story apartment building with 150 units. Neither of those projects proceeded
further.
In January 2019, the Council gave direction to staff that they wanted to see the development of these lots
pursued over the next two years. This proposed RFP would be what the city would use to advertise the
availability of these lots for development. The RFP will include the following:
• Top quality architectural design, landscaping, materials
• Environmental low impact development techniques
• Residential development – no more than 100 living units
• Mixed use possible (commercial first floor with residential units above)
• Single building or multiple building layout
• Three-story limit; flat-top roofed preferred; sunroom or cabana on the roof could be considered
• Connections to local trails and sidewalks
• Relocation of Maple Street; the city would not pay for the relocation of any utilities
• Underground parking preferred
page 10
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 14
The RFP would ask for an offer in price; however, that would not be the only thing that would be
considered in terms of what the Council would like to see in development. The purpose of the RFP is to
identify the types of developers that are interested. When the RFPs are returned, the Council would
review and reach consensus on the preference for the development.
Mr. McNeill noted that other residential and commercial uses are permitted under this Planned Unit
Development (PUD). Once the final concept is approved, there would likely need to be an amendment to
the PUD. A public hearing would be scheduled at that time.
There is a paragraph in the RFP that talks about privacy when it comes to what can be made public.
Basically, the state law says that the names of the developers would become public information once the
deadline for submittal is received; however, the specifics of those RFPs are not public information until
such time as negotiations have been completed with the preferred developer.
Councilor Paper asked if a deadline of April 12th would leave enough time for the developers to prepare
their RFP and he asked for an April 30th deadline. The remainder of the Councilors agreed.
Comments from the public included:
Ms. Carol Wallace, 715 Linden Street, read prepared statements. Residents have not yet been invited to
a forum like the business community has. Their hope is that residents will have a chance to weigh in on
a more meaningful way through this process. The city has made it publicly clear that staff and council
prefers 72 to 100 units in The Village and her concern is that this may discourage some developers. The
neighbors want a chance to be a part of the process in selecting the right project for their own backyard.
Mr. Joe Kaplan, 715 Linden Street, stated that he and his wife welcome the development of this lot
which is consistent with the original plan for this parcel. They hope the Council will proceed in the
direction that actually does maintain the character and allure of Mendota Heights.
Mr. Merrill Zieman, 715 Linden Street, president of the association, stated the association fully supports
the comments made before and the people he has spoken to all agree with what has been said as well.
Ms. Barb Theisen, 714 Linden Street, stated that she bought their townhome in 2016. They looked at the
development as it was laid out, and they knew that the Outlot was right across the street from their
townhome. She does not support a 100 unit apartment building right outside their door. They did not
buy into this area expecting high density residential. One thing she did not see in the RFP was an option
for commercial development.
Mr. Fred Wallace, 715 Linden Street, recalled that at the last Council Work Session, he specifically
remembered the comment made about the Council speaking to the businesses to receive their input.
However, he came to the City Council meeting that evening and asked that that same consideration be
given to the residents of the area. Regarding the RFP, 70 units would be a large building for that site. He
pointed out that the Council forgets that this land was supposed to be part of their homeowners
association. He understands that residents have to adapt to changing times; however, this request to have
the residents accept a 70 to 100 unit apartment building is unreasonable. There is a group of residents
within the homeowners association that wants to raise funds to make this purchase at its current value.
page 11
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 14
They have informed him that they have met that amount and if it’s a situation where the city needed a
quick sale, they are showing a great commitment to protecting their neighborhood.
Councilor Miller noted a sentence in the RFP that reads “However, while a development of this size was
preferred for the Council, it was also decided that other residential or mixed use proposals would be
considered if submitted.” To that point, he asked for confirmation that the Council would be keeping an
open mind when reviewing the proposals as they need to find the right fit.
After lengthy discussion on the benefits of opening up the RFP to cast as wide of a net as possible, City
Administrator Mark McNeill suggested that he and the Community Development craft some parameters
for that; include some office buildings, a sit down restaurant, etc.
Mayor Garlock reiterated that the Council would review and look at every proposal that would come in
for this site.
Councilor Paper explained that the Council had workshops on this RFP and came to a consensus on
what should be included. However, if there was something that was missing that someone felt strongly
about, he would not have a problem including it. But he did not see any reason to go back and recreate
the RFP.
Councilor Miller reiterated his request that everyone keep an open mind; he did not necessarily want to
rewrite the RFP. If the RFP is open to all proposals, then he is good with that.
City Administrator Mark McNeill confirmed that the only change to the RFP was to extend the submittal
due date to April 30, 2019.
Councilor Paper moved to approve the Request for Proposals for the development of three city-owned
lots and Outlot D in The Village at Mendota Heights as amended, and direct that notice be made, and
advertising be done of its availability.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
D) RESOLUTION 2019-20 PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS, SERIES 2019A
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that at the last Council meeting, they authorized entering
into 20 separate contracts that would lead to the remodeling of, and addition to, the fire station. A
decision needs to be made as to whether this would be funded through a 15 year or 20 year term bond.
This is a $7M bond, the shorter the term of the bond, the larger are the overall savings in interest paid.
The impact on a typical property valued at $365,000 would be $103.76 annually for a 15 year bond, or
$84.77 for a 20 year term. The total interest over the additional five years would be $783,000.
page 12
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 14
Councilor Petschel clarified that even though the cost of the fire station has increased because of the
unfavorable bidding climate, when they originally brought this to the residents, the impact on the
average home was $91.00/year. If the city were to pay this off over 15 years, that impact would be
$103.76/year – making a difference of $12.76/year.
Each Councilor and Mayor Garlock expressed their desire to go with a 15 year term.
Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019 - 20 PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF
$7,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS, SERIES 2019A.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
E) AWARD CONTRACTS FOR PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Parks & Recreation Commission developed a sub-
committee to meet with two vendors for playground improvements at Wentworth and Hagstrom King
parks.
The authorized budget for Wentworth Park was $140,000. The recommendation made by the
subcommittee was to accept the proposal from Flagship Recreation. Mr. Ruzek reviewed the
recommendations that were included in the Wentworth playground improvements, which include
replacing the 5 to 12 year old equipment with a topsy-turning spinner, teeter totter, ground mounted
spring rider, and new swing sets with a companion swing, a climbing net structure, dual slide, climbing
wall. The existing landscape structure will remain as it is in excellent shape. The container will remain
the same. The surfacing will be excavated and new wood fiber surfacing will be installed. Drainage
rock would be added.
Mr. Ruzek shared the renderings provided by Flagship Recreation. The cost of the improvements was
estimated to be $149,000, which would have been a turnkey installation. There is a line item of
approximately $4,300, which would be the bonding cost to the vendor but the city could waive those.
Some additional savings could occur if Public Works employees were do the modifications to the site
work, bringing the actual cost closer to the budgeted amount of $140,000.
Mr. Ruzek also shared the fact that staff has submitted a grant application of approximately 40% of the
cost; the maximum amount the grant was eligible for was $250,000 and staff requested $190,000.
Notification of acceptance/denial of the application would come early summer of 2019. The estimated
install date for Wentworth Park is July 2019.
Councilor Petschel asked how the cost of the warming house factors into this project. Mr. Ruzek replied
that currently it does not factor into this project. The $140,000 budget was only for the playground
project. There is a maximum budget amount of $150,000 for the warming house replacement. Both of
these projects are being funded through the Special Parks Fund.
page 13
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 14
Councilor Petschel asked for confirmation that the Wentworth Park Playground Equipment, the
Wentworth Park Warming House, and the Hagstrom-King Playground Equipment were to all be funded
out of the Special Parks Fund, leaving a balance of $550,000. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied
that the total amount in the Special Parks Fund assumes that Phase 2 of the Michael Development would
be coming in this year (approx. $250,000).
Councilor Miller asked what type of wood mulch would be installed. Mr. Ruzek replied that it would be
the same playground surfacing that the city has been using. It is all natural shredded mulch.
Councilor Paper asked why the replacement of the current swing set is needed. Mr. Ruzek replied that
the existing swing needs a complete refurbishment. Swings are relatively inexpensive so a replacement
is almost comparable to having it sand blasted and repainted.
When asked about replacement of some other pieces of equipment, Mr. Ruzek explained that most of the
pieces at Wentworth Park are original from the 1999 Park Referendum. The equipment is very much
outdated and there are safety concerns.
Councilor Paper asked if there was anything that could be refurbished like what was done at Mendakota.
He strongly questioned the need to replace the old with new if it is pretty much the same pieces. Mr.
Ruzek replied that keeping the posts and footings in the ground probably would not save the city that
much money. After continued discussions on the need for all new equipment, Mr. Ruzek noted that staff
could talk with the vendor to see if there are some pieces that could be reused.
The authorized budget for Hagstrom King Park was set at $160,000. The recommendation made by the
subcommittee was to accept the proposal from Mn-Wi Playground in the amount of $160,000.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that Hagstrom King Playground Improvement is proposed
to be a complete reconstruction. The existing container is a plastic wall that goes around the outside in a
square pattern. The plastic has damage from lawn mowers and is falling apart in the corners. The
proposal includes a new container, which would be a concrete curb and gutter, all new surfacing, and a
substantially larger footprint and new layout. The vendor was asked to include a Zip-line structure and
they have included a dual zip-line, one with a seat for ADA Compliance and one with a disk on a
suspended rope. There is a spinning structure, a tire swing structure, new swing sets including a
companion swing, salvaged 2-5 year old equipment, dual slides, and a number of other features.
Staff is looking to move the entire container about 10-15 feet to the west so they can utilize some
existing trees for shade.
Councilor Paper asked if there was anything else that could be reused, besides the salvaged 2-5 year old
equipment. Mr. Ruzek replied that he would inspect the equipment that is out there. There was
continued discussions on disposal or refurbishing of the existing equipment, plastic rather than concrete
container edges, placement of additional equipment and the necessary safety zones, and other potential
cost saving measures.
page 14
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 13 of 14
Mayor Garlock moved to award the Wentworth Park Playground Improvements to Flagship Recreation
for a not-to-exceed amount of $144,542.66 with the understanding that staff would work with Flagship
Recreation to bring the costs down by refurbishing / reusing existing equipment and to not include the
tree toppers.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
Mayor Garlock moved to award the Hagstrom King Playground Improvements to Mn-Wi Playground
for a not-to-exceed amount of $160,000 with the understanding that staff would work with Mn-Wi
Playground to bring the costs down by refurbishing / reusing existing equipment and to look at
alternative material for the container.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
F) DISCUSSION OF CHANGE TO CITY HALL HOURS
City Administrator Mark McNeill reminded the Council that City Hall is currently open 8:00 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Staff has noticed especially in the summer months that contractors
are waiting in the parking lot for City Hall to open so they can get their permits, etc. It is proposed to
open city hall at 7:00 a.m. and close at 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday. On Fridays, City Hall
would be open at 7:00 a.m. and close at 11:30 a.m.
Councilor Petschel moved to approve the change in business hours for City Hall, to operate from 7:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Fridays, to be effective
April 29th through September 27th. The changes would be posted in the Heights Highlights, on the City’s
website, and on the City’s Facebook page. After this first summer of implementation, the hours should
be evaluated.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that registrations are open for spring/summer recreation
programs. The city is taking applications for seasonal positions in Public Works, Golf Course, and
Recreation Programs. The Par 3 is anticipated to be open by April 15th, weather permitting.
page 15
March 19, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 14 of 14
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Paper expressed his appreciation to Public Works for their excellent work with the localized
flooding. He welcomed new employees Jerrod and Tom to Public Works.
Councilor Miller echoed Councilor Paper’s comments regarding Public Works. He added that with the
warm weather, it is probably not safe to walk on Rogers Lake anymore.
Mayor Garlock congratulated Minnehaha Academy Girls Basketball who won the State Championship in
the Class AA.
Councilor Petschel observed that there is still a lot of snow that needs to melt and there are still a lot of
storm basins that are plugged. She encouraged residents to clean out the storm basins near their homes.
ADJOURN
Councilor Paper moved to adjourn.
Councilor Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1 (Duggan)
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 16
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Workshop
Held Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at
City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 12:37 p.m. Councilmembers Miller, Paper, and
Petschel were present. Council member Duggan was available on video conferencing. Staff in
attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl
Jacobson, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, and Community Development Director Tim Benetti.
REVIEW OF DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR VILLAGE LOTS
City Administrator McNeill provided background on the development of the Village Lots and stated
previously determined goals of a high quality, residential or mixed use development was most
desirable. McNeill noted that density of a new development was a concern and that feedback from
developers indicates that 70-100 units is preferred. McNeill noted that an appraisal conducted two
years ago valued the property at approximately $813,000 and that an updated appraisal is needed.
The Council discussed the relocation of Maple Street and the cost to do so. Staff estimated that the
cost to line up with Hilltop is approximately $200,000 and to move utilities would cost around
$500,000. Potentially, the costs could be shared with a developer, if they were interested in moving
the street.
McNeill reviewed the draft Request for Proposals (RFP). Councilmembers agreed to seek a multi-
family residential development, with the option of considering a mixed use development if a proposal
was submitted. McNeill stated that the RFP would have a 60-day response window. Councilor
Duggan asked that developers submit 3D drawings in their proposals.
Councilmembers discussed the need to keep Maple Street for the purposes of egress. Further noted,
was the Dodd Road Traffic Study which showed that the Village needed egress and potentially traffic
controls and that access to the existing commercial areas needs to remain in some fashion.
City Administrator McNeill stated that the RFP will be on the Council agenda for March 5. McNeill
suggested that staff would first review the responses for council consideration. Community
Development Director Benetti noted that there are approximately 23 or 24 developers on the interest
list. If the City received 15-20 responses that would be a good rate of return. Councilor Miller asked
to see all responses and said that a series of workshops may be needed to review the proposals.
page 17
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF 2019-2020 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
City Administrator Mark McNeill reviewed the goals established from the January 7th Goal Setting
Session. A continued discussion of these goals was held. Staff will bring final list to a future council
meeting.
Councilmembers requested a follow up with MN DOT and requested that an update be included in a
future edition of the city’s Friday News. Additional discussion regarding the traffic changes at the
middle school was had. Councilor Petschel suggested that resident input is needed on the change.
UPDATE ON FIRE BID OPENING RESULTS
City Administrator McNeill updated and reviewed the bid results for the Fire Station project. He said
that bids came in $1.2 million over budget. The construction manager has talked with the bidding
contractors and work schedules are full for 2019, and there is little competition. Six of the project
areas received only one bid.
Councilmembers discussed options for covering the overage including increasing the bonds, which
would require following the same process including a public hearing and petition; using Water
Tower Funds; and using proceeds from the sale of the Village lots. Councilmembers agreed that the
proceeds from the sale of the Village Lots should be applied to the Fire Station, as well as Water
Tower funds.
Administrator McNeill stated that the bids are good for 30 days and award of contracts will take
place at the next City Council meeting.
Councilmember Paper asked about the use of tax exempt bonds to benefit HealthEast a private
business using space at the Fire Station. Administrator McNeill stated that the question may require
the opinion of the City Attorney. The City has a long standing relationship with HealthEast for
emergency medical services. A discussion regarding the need for a formal agreement or
Memorandum of Understanding between the City and HealthEast may be needed. Staff agreed to
work the City Attorney to conduct research and possibly draft an agreement for consideration.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 2:26 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 18
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 23
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 26, 2019
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 27, 2017 in
the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael
Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None
As the newest member of the Planning Commission, Andrew Katz introduced himself and provided a brief
background.
Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2019
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO
APPOINT MARY MAGNUSON AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO APPOINT
JOHN MAZZITELLO AS VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of January 22, 2019 Minutes
Commissioner Toth requested two changes to the January 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes:
Page 7 of 18; Chair Field was who asked what particular land use the speaker referred to, not
Commissioner Toth as the minutes stated
Page 7 of 18; One of the Commissioners noted that the proposed changes along Victoria and
Highway 13 are not currently listed on the map, not Commissioner Toth as the minutes stated
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2019, AS AMENDED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
page 19
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 23
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2019-01
METRO STORAGE LLC
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TITLE 12-1G-1
Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development
Director Tim Benetti reminded the Commission that this was a zoning code amendment from Metro Storage
LLC who were seeking a new ordinance to the industrial category in the Industrial District to allow for
personal self-storage facility. Currently, personal self-storage facilities are considered on a list of prohibited
uses in the Industrial zone. Metro Storage was seeking the opportunity to place a new 80,000 square foot
indoor only self-storage facility in the community. This item was presented at the January 22, 2019 meeting.
With the public hearing, this item was tabled for more information, this is now a continuation of that public
hearing.
The City Code does not identify any allowances for self-storage facilities in either the Business or the
Industrial zone. Under Code 12-1G-2-2, there is a list of prohibited uses and within that list is enclosed
personal self-storage facilities. During the January 22, 2019 the Commission asked how that had become a
part of the prohibited list. During their research, staff discovered and presented the following:
January 4, 2016 – City Council discussed at a workshop meeting the final implementation strategies
of the city’s Industrial District Redevelopment Plan and instructed staff to proceed with exploring
potential revision and additions to the uses.
January 26, 2016 – Draft Ordinance 491 was presented to the Planning Commission with certain
uses added, revised, or struck from the Zoning Code. This matter was tabled in order for staff to
gather additional information.
February 23, 2016 – Follow-up report was presented to the Planning Commission with two different
options for them to choose from. Option 1 did not include a list of prohibited uses; however, Option
2 did – including ‘personal self-storage facility’. No explanation for that decision was evident in
the minutes.
March 3, 2016 – City Council took up the recommendation of the Planning Commission and
adopted Ordinance 491, which officially amended Article G, Industrial District zoning standards
and provided the current list of prohibited uses found under Title 12-1G-2-2
Mr. Benetti continued by stating that he spoke with the former city planner and he did not recall an y
discernible comments, objections, or support for the list of prohibited uses. He also noted that recorded
evidence of the meetings have been destroyed, based on the city’s one-year retention policy.
Mr. Benetti presented draft Ordinance 538 for the Commission’s review. This draft ordinance provided
language for allowing personal self-storage uses in the Industrial District, but only as a conditional use with
specific certain site standards.
Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development at Metro Storage, LLC 13528 W. Bolton Blvd., Lake
Forest, IL make himself available should the Commission have questions.
Chair Magnuson re-opened the public hearing.
Ms. Belina Reisman, a resident of Mendota Heights, asked if this was to open up the zoning or the ordinance
to this type of business. Chair Magnuson explained that this would be an amendment to Title 12-1G-2 of
the City Code. This amendment would do two things:
page 20
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 23
1. Delete ‘personal storage facilities’ from the prohibited use provisions
2. It would permit these ‘personal storage facilities’ as a conditional use within the Industrial Zone
only, subject to the criteria that were formally listed
Chair Magnuson continued by noting that the Commission currently does not have a proposal in front of
them for a storage unit and they are not looking at any particular storage unit at this time. The applicant
would like to place a storage unit in the Industrial District, but tonight the Commission is looking only at
the possibility of amending the ordinance to permit that type of personal storage unit to be located within
the Industrial Zone.
Mr. Thomas Smith, Hampshire Drive, expressed his opposition to the idea of providing a conditional use
for the storage facility based the provisions as he understood them; basically a three-story unit. Chair
Magnuson replied that there is not a specific proposal under consideration. The Commission has seen some
schematics provided in terms of the type of facility that they are hoping to propose, with approximately 800
particular storage units within there; however, that is something that has not yet been discussed or proposed,
and the Commission does not have anything like that in front of them.
Mr. Smith stated that if the design ultimately is put before the Commission advocates a three story facility,
he would speak out against it. The current buildings in the Industrial Park are all two story. A three story
facility would be out of character and inappropriate.
Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-01
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 538 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G.
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AS A
CONDITIONAL USE for the following reasons:
1. He believed it to be fundamentally at odds with provisions within the Comprehensive Plan, which
speaks of encouraging employment generating uses. The testimony had at the last January 22, 2019
was very clear that the number of employees who would be associated with this use are minimal.
2. He has not heard anything to convince him that there is a rationale or reasons to alter the list which
was presented and adopted by the City Council establishing the prohibited uses.
COUNCILMEMBER CORBETT SECONDED THE MOTION
Commissioner Mazzitello reminded the Commission that he brought up at the previous meeting where this
was heard of how some of the past actions Commission and the Council have taken to amend zoning code
with respect to allowed and permitted and conditional uses where they have tailored conditions within the
code specifically to address one site so that the permitted or conditional nature of the use would not be an
prevalent through the entire zoning district. There is not a specific proposal at this time; however, the
applicant has informed the Commission in their narrative letter where they are thinking of developing this
facility. It is a vacant lot on the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Trunk Highway 55. This site has
been vacant since the inception of the Industrial Park (approximately 40 years) and has not been developed.
If there were an employment generating use consistent with the desire of the Comprehensive Plan and the
Industrial Park, that lot would have been built by now.
page 21
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 23
One of the reasons it has not been developed is access. An employment generating business, use, or activity
is going to have employees/customers/truck traffic challenged to get into and out of the site.
Commissioner Petschel asked for a map view of the area being discussed. He also noted that the
Commission should be very specific and should not consider an individual location. The Commission
should not distract anyone with the notion that they are only considering it on this particular location.
Commissioner Mazzitello concluded that if the Commission were to consider this application in the same
spirit in which they have considered other use changes in the past; such as beekeeping, dog training, vehicles
sales, trampoline park, indoor athletic facilities – the Commission could consider this ordinance with
additional conditions for that in order for a self-storage unit to be eligible for a Conditional Use Permit it
must be abutting a State Trunk Highway and within 1,500 feet of an Interstate. Then there would be only
one site within the Industrial Zone eligible for that Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Noonan asked this wouldn’t be spot zoning, to which Commissioner Mazzitello replied that
it would still be in the Industrial Zone. It would be an Industrial use surrounded by other Industrial uses –
it has been done before.
Commissioner Noonan expressed his disagreement and stated that the way the Commission treated other
zoning applications were on the basis of the merits and the fact in support of the policy. In this case, there
were some fairly substantial hurdles to clear:
1. Contrary policy in the Comprehensive Plan
2. There is a prohibition, which he has not heard a reason why there is merit in terms of eliminating
the prohibition, other than it is a matter of convenience. There was extensive discussion and the
decision made in 2016 was well-reasoned and supported by Council.
He did not want to get caught up in thinking about a location and thinking about the difficulty of this
particular location. If it is difficult for employees and clients, it sure will be difficult for the public pulling
stuff in to provide for storage.
Commissioner Petschel stated that he is sympathetic and cheers argument; he also appreciates and would
like to support the property owners in the Industrial District to maximize the value for their property; if it
is an empty lot that could be best served as a storage facility – great. But then again, he is extremely
sympathetic to the notion that it’s not that lot that he is worried about – it’s when other businesses or other
facilities that do employ people are then converted into storage facilities. He does see them being converted
back into places of greater employment. He is also against the Commission referring where certain
businesses go; no matter that this was a brilliant proposal on how to potentially legally do it. It did not know
if that was a wise venture.
The whole prohibited businesses list is problematic because there are some very clear prohibitions – such
as an asphalt production facility. It still speaks for itself.
Chair Magnuson called for the vote.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 1 (Mazzitello)
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting.
page 22
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 23
B) PLANNING CASE #2019-02
ISD #197
VARIANCE TO EXCEED BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARDS IN THE R-1 DISTRICT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from ISD 197 on behalf of
Friendly Hills Middle School, requesting a Variance for a new gymnasium/performance facility. Friendly
Hills School is located in R-1 District and guided as S-School under the Institutional Use of the current
Comprehensive Plan. Public and Parochial schools are considered a permitted use under the R-1 zone.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the school layout and noted that the property is approximately 30 acres in
total size with approximately 90,000 square feet of educational facilities. There are two access points off
of Mendota Heights Road.
Mr. Benetti explained that they are proposing to shut down one of the access points from Mendota Heights
Road and create a singular access across from the residential roadway to the south (Lockwood), which
would provide access to the delivery area and leads back to the main outdoor surface parking lot for staff,
visitors, and parent drop-offs.
The item before the Commission is their desire to construct a 64’ x 126’, 8,064 square foot addition on the
back side of the gymnasium. The plan also includes a new hard-surface play and soft-play area, a vehicle
turn-around area, and new striping for some outdoor courts.
The elevation plans as provided by the school’s architects indicate the new building would match the
existing gymnasium, with a flat-top roof, slightly lower than the 35’ height of the existing school facility.
The R-1 Zone requires all structures not to exceed 25-feet in height.
Even though it is not part of this application, staff noted all driveway openings are typically reviewed and
analyzed by the Public Works Director and City Council may be called into be consulted or asked to decide
any new changes.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the criteria that must be considered when reviewing a variance request and then
explained how this project meets those criteria. Staff recommended approval of this Variance request.
Commissioner Noonan noted that there was a lot of information on the site plan, even though that was not
under consideration. He asked why the site plan did not come forward with the Variance request. It would
have been nice to consider the full package. Mr. Benetti replied that the Commission normally would not
consider a site plan for permitted uses. It is a staff function that would get approved by Council. He included
the site plan to ensure the Commission had an indication of where the new addition was going on the
backside of the building.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he found this odd as there would be significant changes to the traffic
flow in the area; a fundamental planning consideration. He would have thought that would have been
brought to the Commission for discussion and to enter an opinion. However, if that is not the process then
so be it. Mr. Benetti replied that in his experience, a site plan would be a nice tool for the Commission to
review and the Council to approve. Had this been a Conditional Use Permit or an amended Conditional Use
Permit, a site plan would have gone with that Conditional Use Permit and then the Commission would have
been able to do a full review. However, as this is a permitted use it is not under any purview of the
Commission.
City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the school district has been requested by the city to perform a
traffic study related to the proposed traffic changes. However, the results of that study would not be
page 23
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 23
available for approximately 4-5 weeks. The City Council will see the results of that study before they make
a decision on any access points.
Mr. Peter Olson-Skog, ISD 197 Superintendent was available for questions.
Commissioner Noonan noted that this has been presented as a stand-alone application for a gymnasium
addition and a performance area. He asked, if the district’s plans to alter the access to the site are not
approved by City Council, would this expansion go forward. Mr. Olson-Skog replied that yes, the expansion
of the gymnasium would go forward regardless of the Council’s decision.
Commissioner Petschel asked for more details on what the addition would be used for. Mr. Olson-Skog
replied that they are describing it as a multi-purpose facility. There would be choir concerts, band concerts,
athletic competitions/activities, and the proposal is to equip it in such a way that it would be a highly usable
space for many different purposes.
Commissioner Toth, noting that the proposed addition elevation is at 31.5’ and would meet the existing
elevation of the gymnasium that is already on the school property, he asked if there were any plans for
mechanical structures on top of the building. Ms. Jenny Tuttle with LSE Architects replied that the
mechanical structures would be located on a lower roof area and would not exceed the 31.5’ building
elevation.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that she had no objection to the Variance for this facility.
However, she voiced concerns about the potential changes to the site plan and the new access point. If it
should become difficult to access this site, or if access limitations occur in the future; she felt that this would
be somewhat of a piece-meal approach to the whole thing. If this approved now without looking at the full
site plan, that the city could be put in a position of having to approve a change to the traffic flow within the
site.
Commissioner Noonan made note of the response made by the Planner that the only jurisdiction that the
Commission had was to deal with the Variance request. The Commission would not have the opportunity
to be presented the site plan and opine as to the appropriateness of the site plan. Ms. Smith asked if it would
be possible for the Commission to defer the decision until they have further information about the entire
site. Commissioner Noonan replied that the site plan would not be returning to the Commission; there is no
site plan review process by the Planning Commission on permitted uses, it goes directly to the City Council.
Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that he bicycles west on Mendota Heights Road very often
in the mornings, before school starts. At the present time, it is not unusual to see cars wishing to enter the
existing access on Mendota Heights Road backed up all of the way to Huber. He understood that they
Commission could not make any decisions on that, but he felt they should be aware that there are some
access issues presently.
Transcriptionist notes here that there was one email received from Mr. Jim Dietz expressing his opposition
to this application. That email has been made a part of the public record.
Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
page 24
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 23
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-02 VARIANCE REQUEST, BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The scale and scope of the variance needed to justify and approve the extended height of the
proposed gym addition structure are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City
Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and may be approved as presented.
2. The Applicant have proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or reasonableness in this case for
granting of a variance to allow an the gym addition structure to exceed the normal maximum height
of single family residential structures in the underlying R-1 Zone; and it should be noted the new
gym height will match the existing gym height, and be less than the overall height of the principal
(main) school facility.
3. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not
a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore
does warrant the approval or granting of said variance.
4. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the
school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is
a general accepted expectation that this gym addition improvement can be considered a reasonable
improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the
community.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permit for the new structure identified herein,
including any fences or electrical permits as necessary.
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.
Commissioner Noonan commented that this is another incident on an institutional use in the R-1 zone and
asked that the work plan include development of distinctive institutional zoning so the Commission would
not have to deal with institutional variances and applying residential standards to it. Commissioner
Mazzitello expressed his agreement to that statement.
Chair Magnuson suggested that Findings of Fact 2 be edited to read ”The Applicant have proven or
demonstrated a practical difficulty or and reasonableness in this case for granting of a variance to allow an
the gym addition structure to exceed the normal maximum height of single family residential structures in
the underlying R-1 Zone; and it should be noted the new gym height will match the existing gym height,
and be less than the overall height of the principal (main) school facility” where a strike-through is a deletion
and an underscore is an addition. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed to these amendments to his motion.
Commissioner Toth, as the seconder, agreed as well.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting.
page 25
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 23
C) PLANNING CASE #2019-03
JULIE WEISBECKER, 1840 HUNTER LANE
LOT ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE
Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development
Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Julia Weisbecker, 1840 Hunter Lane, was seeking a Lot Line
Adjustment and Variance for one of two parcels that she owns. This item was presented under a public
hearing, all people within 350 feet of the subject property were mailed notices and no comments or
objections have been received.
The west parcel is 127’ x 171’ or approximately 22,390 square feet. The east parcel is 130’ x 171’ or
approximately 25,783 square feet. The east lot contains a 3,745 square foot dwelling, which has a single-
lane bituminous driveway from Hunter Lane. These are two legal parcels of record. The packet of
information received by the Commission included four surveys.
The first survey deals with a quiet title action because there is a 3.5’ gap between the 1840 parcels and the
1850 parcel to the south. The quiet title action is to work on the agreement between property owners when
there is a discrepancy or dispute between property lines. This was discovered when the new surveys were
called for on this property.
Eventually, the east parcel will contain the 3,700 square foot home. There is a driveway that comes off the
rear of the parcel from Hunter and slightly veers off into the 1850 property as well. The west parcel is
designed for a future home pad; however, one has not been approved on that site. They are filling in the site
as approved as part of the separate grading permit by Ms. Weisbecker from the City Council.
The lot line adjustment was simply asking to adjust the south line by approximately 24 feet. The reason is
that the new homeowner of 1840 Hunter wanted to make sure that, in order to avoid any easement rights or
disputes in the future, he requested that he be able to have a fee title strip that would be affixed to the back
parcel for the driveway or access easement. They also need to provide for a little additional easement to
make sure that the encroaching driveway will be taken care of in the future.
It is only an approximately 5’ easement on the south side; if this driveway ever has to be fixed, repaired, or
reconstructed staff has asked for a condition that it has to be put back into the easement area.
Once they affix the 24’ foot strip, it would create a flag-lot, which is something the city no longer allows.
City Code requires that all single-family parcels have at least 100-feet along a public roadway frontage. To
accommodate the new owner’s request for a permanent access/driveway strip, Ms. Weisbecker seeks a
variance to the 100-foot wide standard as part of this lot line adjustment.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the criteria that must be considered when reviewing a variance request and responses
were provided by the applicant to assist the Commission in determining if a Variance is warranted in this
case.
Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions.
Commissioner Noonan noted that staff reported that the city does not allow flag-lots and asked if that was
outright prohibition in ordinance. Mr. Benetti replied that by default it is because every new developable
lot created has to have at least 100-feet of frontage on a city street. By affixing this parcel to the back of the
lot, it would not meet the 100-foot frontage requirement.
page 26
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 23
Commissioner Noonan noted that the lot at 1840 Hunter has the required frontage. Mr. Benetti replied that
it does not have the required frontage. It does not have any frontage. They are trying to fix their land-locked
situation by adding this strip. Eventually, they would be dedicating the 14-feet of the westerly area to the
city as part of the additional Hunter Lane right-of-way. Commissioner Noonan then asked why the current
flag-lot configuration considered a non-conforming use. Mr. Benetti replied that it is a legal lot of record
and he was not sure if it could be called a legal non-conforming lot. It is a legal non-conforming, but not a
legal non-conforming use.
Commissioner Petschel asked for confirmation that staff was unable to find any records that allowed for
this split. Mr. Benetti replied that he went back and was able to find previous owner names, but was unable
to find anything. He believed this could have been corrected had the former owners joined in with the plats
to the north or to the south. Unfortunately, they never did.
By the city’s code and definitions, these are considered legal lots of record and they can be developed per
the city’s code.
Commissioner Corbett asked if they intended to develop the western lot, thus creating the hardship. Mr.
Benetti replied that there is no hardship because Ms. Weisbecker wanted to leave things the way they are.
There is a reasonable requirement to developing the lot. Any correction would be adjoining the lots and
combining them into one; that would make it conforming. The new buyer of 1840 Hunter is simply asking
for their own fee title strip because they recognize that access easements can get flakey over time. He would
prefer to have his own fee title strip.
Commissioner Petschel asked if someone came to the Commission with an elongated lot with a house in
the back, would the Commission allow them to split their lot like this. The reply was a resounding negative.
Commissioner Petschel continued by saying that the only enabling condition that allows this even be
considered is the fact that it is already split. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Commissioner Noonan then commented that the owner of the front lot could come in and ask for a building
permit and get it as of right now. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was true. Commissioner Noonan continued
by stating that the only reason there is an application now is for the desire to have fee title to a driveway,
rather than doing a real estate transaction whereby the front gives an easement to the back. Mr. Benetti
confirmed. As of right now, Ms. Weisbecker owns both lots. Pretty soon there will be two different
ownerships involved. The new owner of the back parcel, 1840 Hunter, has a personal and legal desire to
secure their own rights to that driveway and not subject to any easement rights.
Chair Magnuson asked for confirmation that there is currently an easement of record there. Mr. Benetti
confirmed. She continued by noting that the driveway does not follow the easement of record, but it does
exist – so there is an access point. If that easement were simply continued or widened through another
easement of record, there would not be any land lock issue; this is a preference for the new owner but not
something that is necessary absolutely in order to create access to Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Commissioner Corbett noted that starting at 1850 Hunter and heading closer towards Highway 62, all of
those lots are basically the same size. He asked this there was any way that those lots could be split up in
the same way. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative, unless they had at least a minimum of 100 feet of frontage;
however, splitting them like this would probably be next to impossible because every newly created lot has
to have at least 100 feet of frontage onto Hunter or the next road.
However, per Commissioner Mazzitello, they could ask for a variance and split off the front portion of their
lots and this could take place down Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
page 27
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 23
Commissioner Noonan stated that approving this request could provide a precedence to guide future actions,
potentially. Commissioner Petschel stated that he thought this was predicated as a fact that the lot was
already split and that no one could come forward and try to do a front/back split and get approval. He asked
if this was setting a precedence or just recognizing a unique situation.
Commissioner Katz raised the concern of there is going to be a cul-de-sac coming in through the backside
of the lot the house is on and some of the lots on that side are still for sale. He then asked, in theory, if
someone could ask for a variance to connect Hunter Lane to whatever that new cul-de-sac is going to be
called, and then there would be a new road between them. Then there would be two houses where there is
currently just one and then may be another road that goes back through to this cul-de-sac and dividing that
neighborhood even more into more segmented lots and connects them all. Mr. Benetti replied that, in theory,
this could occur; however, he does not foresee that ever happening.
Chair Magnuson stated that she was unsure how these properties ended up how they were; however, this is
not the only property like this on Hunter Lane. Across the street is another home that has two lots back-to-
back. Conceivably, the Commission would be setting precedence.
Mr. Benetti echoed Commissioner Petschel’s comments about not being too worried about setting a
precedence because Variances have to stand on their own merit and their own test as they are presented.
The Commission would have the choice to say yes or no and make recommendations.
Commissioner Toth, referring to the term flag-lot, noted that they were allowed in Mendota Heights in the
past, but no longer. He asked why the city make the decision to not allow flag-lots within the city. Mr.
Benetti replied that he was unsure, but believed that it was more of a preferred choice not to have homes
set behind homes and set behind homes; a decision made 15+ years ago.
Ms. Julie Weisbecker expressed her appreciation to the Commission for considering her application. She
shared a non-legal document that she received from the previous owner stating that this split occurred
sometime around 1967.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charles Campion, 1836 Hunter Lane, has lived in the area for approximately 23 years and does not
remember this lot being split. He understood that they are two lots of record; however, they were always
presented to him as one lot.
He remembered going through the process of having the buggy trail removed between his lot and this before
he could build. This whole two lot discussion has hit him by surprise. He woke up one day and they were
digging dirt on the lot. He called the city right away and they came and put a stop to it. This does not comply
with the rest of the lots in the neighborhood. There are other lots in the area that there are houses behind it,
but they are larger lots than this. By moving and giving this Variance, he believed would set a precedence
in the neighborhood to do this more.
There has never been any conversation on how they are going to fill in between the houses. A developer
bought some lots down the road and he is also involved in this one. He started bringing the dirt over from
down the street and dumping onto this lot. This has been a sore spot for them since the beginning and he
does not agree with it.
Mr. Paul Dorn, 1129 Orchard Circle, was the agent of record when this lot was purchased by the
Weisbecker’s approximately 10 years ago. He is working with Ms. Weisbecker now through this process.
He noted that there would be a house built on the vacant no matter what the decision is on the Variance. In
page 28
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 23
his experience, if this were reversed and the house was sitting in front and they were trying to gain access
to something behind, that would be different. However, they are already have a house of record, have a
legal platted lot in front that has the frontage and meets the requirements. From the standpoint of the fee
simple versus the easement, the benefit of the fee simple is, especially for mortgage companies, etc., it
creates a much cleaner ability for title and to be able to get a mortgage on the property. This is the cleanest
way for the city to be able to grant something that is a very unique and is not setting a precedence.
During this process, they have discovered that the properties to the north and to the south have drainage
easements running through this property. They worked with Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek on making
sure that they now grant, behind were the proposed house would be on the front lot, a drainage easement
also to make sure that the drainage is going to be beneficial and not create another problem that way. The
homeowner has been willing to make sure they work with that as well as granting that right-of-way
easement in front.
Upon request, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek shared the locations of the drainage easements as well
as other easements.
Commissioner Toth, noting that he drove by the property and noticed quite a bit of fill, expressed his
concerns about drainage from there. He asked how that would be managed due to the increase in elevation
due to the fill. Mr. Dorn replied that they have been working with the public works department on this for
a number of months and they have tried to adhere to everything the engineer has requested.
Commissioner Petschel asked for an explanation of how this Variance request due to a practical difficulty.
Mr. Dorn replied that the Variance would create a cleaner title for the future property owner and for the
property owners to the south. Leaving the easement as is would create a huge lift potentially as far they are
going to support this, and could potentially hamper any future mortgage negotiations.
Chair Magnuson asked rather than overcomplicating this with another easement for the people on the south,
why weren’t they taking this opportunity to clean up that encroachment and move the driveway into the
property line and make it then complying rather than having the owners to the south have to grant an
easement for some indeterminate period of time. This would be a good opportunity to fix that encroachment.
Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson asked for confirmation that if the Commission denied the Variance request, they would
not be creating a landlocked parcel because there is access to the lot via an easement already in place.
Granting the Variance would just be creating a different mode of accessing Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti
confirmed.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-03 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that this is a unique situation had with these lots. He agreed with the
testimony heard that fee simple ownership does make for a cleaner title; however, the practical difficulty in
this situation is one that the burden of proof has not been met. If a fee simple is cleaner, then fee simple a
page 29
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 23
100 feet of frontage and be done with it; then a Variance is not needed. Better yet, combine the two lots and
then there is no Variance needed. He believed the impudence for this application is one of economics, which
they are not supposed to consider anyway.
Commissioner Petschel agreed with these comments. He agreed with Mr. Dorn and the applicant that this
would be a superior solution if it were allowed. However, he did not understand how they could grant a
Variance for this and not for any other applicant that came in with a non-conforming lot, saying that their
lot does not apply.
Commissioner Mazzitello provided the following Finding of Fact for Disapproval:
1. The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite practical difficulties in order
to justify that the Variance; and
2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty
As the second on the motion, Commissioner Katz accepted the Finding of Fact for Disapproval.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting.
D) PLANNING CASE #2019-04
MARK MORIN, 963 CHIPPEWA AVENUE
LOT SPLIT (AND LOT COMBINATION)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mark and Kris Morin are the owners of the
property adjacent to the subject parcel (530 Simard Street). The subject property, located at 963 Chippewa
Avenue, was formerly owned by Mr. Morin’s late mother and is now in estate proceedings and is to be sold
off separately by the Morin’s. This item was presented as a Public Hearing and notices were mailed to all
property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. No comments or objections have been received.
The subject parcel was located at the southwest corner of Chippewa and Simard, is located in the R-1
Residential District. This lot originally consisted of two platted lots; Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Guadalupe
Heights Addition. The lots were combined many years ago and have been considered as one parcel since.
There is 205 feet of frontage along Chippewa and 120 feet along Simard. The lot area is just over 26,000
square feet.
The subject parcel has a 1,925 square foot single-story rambler with a 3-car attached garage. The request is
to split the property into two parcels, with Parcel B retaining the existing Morin family estate homes. This
Parcel B would be 119’ x 133.4/150.26’, or approximately 0.35 acres of land; making it compliant with the
R-1 standards. However, Parcel A would be 86’ x 120’, or approximately 0.25 acres; making this Parcel A
non-compliant with the R-1 Residential District standards. Parcel A would be a corner lot and would require
100 feet of frontage on both sides.
Mr. Moran is simply asking that in separating this, he would sell off Parcel B as its own lot and then he
would retain Parcel A and combine it with his current property (530 Simard Street) as additional yard space.
Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions.
Commissioner Noonan asked if the combination of the lots would have the County create a separate PID
or would it be one PID combining the adjoining properties. Mr. Benetti replied that typically, since there
page 30
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 23
are two different PID’s now, once a piece of property is added to another, they usually assigned a new PID
number with it to save on confusion in the future.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he did not see any statistics dimensionally or square footage-wise for
530 Simard in the staff report. He asked if the addition of Parcel A to 530 Simard, which would now have
over 300 feet of frontage, create as splittable lot that currently does not exist. Mr. Benetti replied that it
would not. Commissioner Mazzitello then asked if the corner lot provision would still be in play. Mr.
Benetti replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Mark Morin, 530 Simard Street, was available for questions. He noted that he would not be looking to
develop the lots but would leave them just as they are.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
There being no one coming forward, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-04 LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) &
COMBINATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed lot split meets the spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed subdivision and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the
surrounding uses or neighborhood.
3. The two lots resulting from the lot split will keep a single-family development intact; while the new
non-conforming lot to be created by this split will be combined with the neighboring property only,
thereby eliminating the need for a variance for a reduced lot size or lot width standard for properties
located in the R-1 District.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The newly created parcel identified and described as “Parcel A” on the attached survey map
prepared by Frank A. Cardarelle (dated Jan. 29, 2019) shall be combined with the property
identified as 530 Simard Street (PID No. 27-31300-02-042).
2. The applicant shall dedicate, by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota
County, a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the north and east property lines of
Parcel A; a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the west and east property lines, and
a 5-foot wide easement along the south property line of Parcel B; and a 5-foot wide easement on
each side (10-ft. total) of the shared line between Parcels A and B.
3. Approval of this lot split does not in any way provide a special or unique circumstance, or hardship
for the Applicant or future owners of Parcel A in claiming a right to develop a new single-family
dwelling development on said Parcel A.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting.
page 31
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 23
Unfinished Business
A) MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development
Director Tim Benetti noted that currently on the city’s website there is the latest version of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan dated 2-26-19. Three chapters were provided in the Commission Packet as they were
the ones that had additions or revisions.
Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that the intent this evening would be to schedule another
work session to have a final discussion on the form of the Comprehensive Plan; to allow the Commission
to reflect upon the testimony to be had this evening; to make any revisions; and then ultimately put it
together in a nice neat package and bring it forward to March’s Planning Commission meeting for
ratification. Mr. Benetti recommended that, since they missed their last workshop meeting, this would be
the opportunity for the Commission to go over some of the changes that have been added, in particular the
narratives and some of the focus areas that were added in. Staff would like to provide a good and thoughtful
explanation to the Commission and the public of why they did what they did. Staff would also like to know
if there would be anything that the Commission would like have edited or removed from the list and the
mapping. They just want to make sure that everything is buttoned up pretty good before, hopefully one last
time, to the last public hearing before the Planning Commission and ultimately carry that recommendation
to the City Council. A workshop session is where they can get that good thoughtful ideas back and forth
with each other. However, tonight there is a continuation of the public hearing and they want to make sure
they hear from the public.
Mr. Benetti did note that on page 2-15 of the draft Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the narrative
is missing a number. The number 19 narrative should have been identified as Mendota Meadows with the
recommendation by staff that this area be revised from its current MR-PUD to a Public Open Space. The
next item, which should be labeled number 20, is Mendota Woods, and all of the following narrative
numbers should be adjusted up by one. This has been corrected in the version on the city’s website.
Mr. Benetti explained that even though they have added more focus areas, they are not advocating for any
land use changes or rezoning changes on those parcels. They are simply placeholders, like was done in the
2030 plan, which were identified for some potential opportunity for development or redevelopment areas
or infill sites. At this point, they are simply leaving 2040 land use as the guide for all of those sites right
now.
Chair Magnuson proposed that if Mr. Benetti has any other matters to be brought to the Commission’s or
the public’s attention that may be important to point out in the documents that have been disseminated he
should do that. The Commission would then take testimony from the public and then the Commission would
have conversation about scheduling a workshop meeting sometime in early March 2019. She personally
has a number of relatively minor comments, which she believed would be conducive to a workshop but not
something they would want to spend a lot of time laboring over in this setting.
Chair Magnuson explained that this was a continuation of the public hearing that was had on January 22,
2019. She assured everyone that if they testified at that hearing, the Commission paid very close attention
and they remember. She encouraged everyone to not repeat things that the Commission has already heard
as all of their comments have been taken into consideration, whenever they have been made.
page 32
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 23
Mr. Robert Bonine, a 50 year resident of Mendota Heights, explained that he represented a group of people
– The Mendota Heights Community Resource Association – and had a document to read (a copy was
provided to the Commission):
They reviewed and compared three land use maps included in the proposed 2040 Comprehensive
Plan; Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4; this was the only way they could determine what land use
amendments were being proposed
There were no narratives describing these proposed amendments; no rationale for motivating these
amendments; no reasons indicating their necessity or facts supporting any perceiveness of them;
therefore, citizens have no idea if these amendments should be supported or opposed
Without this information, a public hearing is nothing more than a sham and theatre providing no
real opportunity for the public to speak knowledgeably about them. Comprehensive Plan
amendments without rationale are, by definition, arbitrary and capricious
Comprehensive Plan amendments, once approved by the City Council and the Metropolitan
Council (Met Council), require that the city amend its zoning ordinance to conform. Therefore, a
Comprehensive Plan amendment is really a defacto amendment of the city’s zoning ordinance and
requires a hearing; when the city undertakes required rezoning it is an empty gesture for its outcome
is mandated by the state statute
The map comparisons before the January 22, 2019 meeting showed four amendments already
approved, each at one time in a separate hearing from the others. The eight proposed in this new
version are all to be heard together and included in the proposed 2040 Plan. However, it became
clear that some of the existing uses shown on the existing uses map, were erroneous –
acknowledged by staff and some Commission members. If the existing land use is unknown, how
can any changes be rationalized
Because of the lack of supporting information, they are unable to determine whether the proposed
changes should be supported or opposed
Until each of these amendments is considered at a separate proceeding with a separate public
hearing, they speak in opposition to each of them. Without supporting information available, they
believe the Commission may be in violation of the Open Meeting Law in respect to these eight
proposed amendments
The only proposed amendment with a narrative; that being the proposed amendment from LR to
MR of the parcel at Lexington and Highway 13; this proposal has already been considered and
rejected by the Council 18 months ago. Therefore, there is no justification for amending the
Comprehensive Plan for this parcel unless there is a determination supported by evidence that the
original land use designation was erroneous
For these reasons, they asked that the Commission eliminate from their recommendations to the Council
all of the land uses contained in the city’s proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. If there are good reasons to
consider these amendments, those reasons should be articulated separately for each site and that separate
public hearings be held on each so the public can make informed and intelligent judgments on whether to
support or oppose them. (Note: Mr. Bonine’s written comments are appended to these minutes – per the
request of the commission).
Commissioner Noonan asked when this group put together these comments, did they have the opportunity
to review the details contained on pages 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, and 2-16 – the summary of the land use changes
from 2030 to 2040. When asked, Mr. Benetti indicated that this comparison had been available on the city’s
website since last week and is still available. Mr. Bonine replied that he did not see those. Mr. Bonine
reiterated that his group believes that each of the proposed changes deserves a public hearing rather than
being clustered together in one package of 6 or 8.
page 33
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 23
Commissioner Corbett asked if the Commission were proposing a change for something that is already
existing on the ground, would they object to those types of changes. Mr. Bonine replied that it is understood
that if the Commission makes these changes, then they have to be adopted because they are part of the plan.
They are really requesting carefulness and have public hearings as appropriate. Any criticism would come
up when they are considered individually.
Mr. Chris Galler, 2306 Lemay Shores Drive, expressed his concern about land between his property and
the Augusta development – there is an isthmus in there and at one time there had been discussion that this
would potentially be looked at for future high density residential. The cliffs are pretty high in that area and
it is pretty steep.
Of larger concern is the area near Bourne Lane; it is owned by the city currently. When they first moved in
it was designated as city-owned or public land. Now on the Comprehensive Plan they see that it is proposed
to be sold to a business of some type. They have noticed that there is not any green space dedicated, other
than green space owned by the development. There is no public infrastructure, no parks, or anything like
that. They questioned whether or not that should be rezoned. He suggested that the city at least provide a
buffer zone for the residents who back up to this property. Clarification would also be helpful to the
residents living in the area.
Mr. Steve Treichel, 2174 Lemay Lake Drive, had a script but threw it away yesterday because he knew that
there was a new 2040 Comprehensive Plan on the website. He was very pleased with what he saw.
He then referenced Figure 2-5 and noted that #5 on the map is attributed to Augusta Shores. Augusta Shores
does have two outlots that are properly indicated at the north end of Lemay Lake. That should be identified
as #5 and where the current #5 is should be a new #6 – Lemay Shores. Lemay Shores owns that property
as Outlot B. However, he was very pleased to see all of the green space indicated in that area.
Mr. Benetti replied that the two outlots on the north end of Lemay Lake were originally guided as LR, as
was the entire Augusta Shores. They revised that to Medium Density, which is reflected. They took out the
LR category and made it to Park Open Space because they are currently under a conservation easement.
They did the same thing with the isthmus area for Lemay. What they could do is keep #5 as is and point
out that it is in relatively the same area.
Mr. Treichel noted that when looking at the land use changes, virtually all of it stays with existing use; so
there are very few changes.
Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, explained that she was following up on a request from the last
meeting. When she attended the January 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting and addressed the issues
regarding proposed land use changes in the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan, she was asked if
there were any changes that would be acceptable without full review. She confirmed that she would send a
response to the Planning Commission on this topic and has done so. She summarized her response for the
record as:
Her previously stated premise was that any land use changes should receive the opportunity for full
city and community input and justification before being enacted
She noted that there were some proposed changes that could more easily be made to conform to
existing use and development
However, any changes in land use should not be made through the Comprehensive Plan process
but acted upon individually with a more typical individual review process
o There could be a potential change in use through redevelopment and perhaps it would be
premature to make a change now
page 34
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 23
Mendota Heights has limited opportunities for development that meets the needs of the community
o Changing generic land uses could lead to proposals that do not fall within the city’s
priorities
Other specific considerations for not changing land uses through the Comprehensive Plan are:
o The city retains greater control over future acceptable uses and proposals without granting
blanket rights to all options within the land use category
o Method of individual land use and zoning changes for specific proposals allows for
providing full information to the city and community regarding how these proposals
conform to city goals and development standards
She expressed her appreciation for the Commission’s consideration of these points; that land use changes
through the Comprehensive Plan. She urged the Commission to eliminate these changes in the text and on
the maps in the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan. (Note: Ms. Smith’s written comments are
appended to these minutes – per the request of the commission).
Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that what she is saying is that any land use changes that were
to be proposed in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan should be removed from the plan and the city should go
back to what is contained in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Smith confirmed. Commissioner Noonan,
referencing the comments made by the previous two speakers, noted that there was discussion about Lemay
Shores and Augusta Shores about changing the land use designations, not only of the residential portion,
but also the piece between the two subdivisions. The piece between the two subdivisions is currently guided
Low Density Residential. The proposal is to bring it to Park. He then asked her if she was suggesting that
this should be stripped out and that a formal hearing take place to consider that re-guiding. Ms. Smith
replied that this is exactly what she was saying. She believed that making changes through the
Comprehensive Plan process could cause problems in the future.
Commissioner Noonan then asked her what her position would be on changing guidance to reflect what is
currently on the ground. For instance, Lemay Shores and Augusta Shores are guided as low density
residential. However, when looking at what is actually there, it is medium density. So then would she have
any problems changing what is really on the ground to what it should be? Mr. Smith replied that, as she
mentioned before, there are certain instances where it would be very easy to go through the process of
changing these. However, for a number of reasons, she believed that it would be better to go through the
individual processes. It would be a more equitable process to go through the regular channels.
Mr. James Eland, 2363 Lemay Shores Drive, expressed his support for what Mr. Galler said and what he
heard about the isthmus being turned into a park. Like Mr. Galler he was very concerned about this Mt.
Everest of dirt that has been moved in at the end of the development. He questioned what that was going to
be; he raised concerns about the type of business going in there, the lights, the noise, the buildings, the
parking, the traffic – all concerns of residents who live in Lemay Shores.
In addition, he used to live on Rogers Court and his kids had access to Rogers Lake, Mendakota Park, and
parks down on Decorah and Friendly Hills; however, the area bounded by Lexington and Highway 55 and
Highway 62, from Lexington all of the way to the river – there is not a public green space, picnic table,
tennis court – nothing. He hoped that the Planning Commission would consider a green space in that part
of the city.
Commissioner Noonan asked if he agreed with the recommendation that is being advanced in the Plan to
change the isthmus from Low Density Residential to Parks and Open Space. Mr. Eland replied that he
would totally support that. Commissioner Noonan then asked if he saw any reason why the Commission
should not take action on that as opposed to considering it at some time in the future. Mr. Eland replied that
he saw no reason for waiting.
page 35
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 23
Mr. Tom Hanson, Lemay Lake Drive, stated that he liked what he has seen and expressed his appreciation.
He also stated that whoever had the brilliant idea of the Dog Park, they should consider making it
permanent.
Mr. Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, returned to the map labeled Figure 2-5. He noticed on
the new table that there is a new #32 at the northwest end of town that does not show up in the key to the
map. It also looked like, just from reading the table itself, that the site that is listed on the map as #29 City
Parcel, Highway 13 at Ivy Falls looks like that should be at or on #30 for accurate positioning.
Mr. Lazarus continued by drawing attention to the site that is listed as #10, that Mr. Bonine was referring
to, the Lexington & Highway 13 site, which is now back for the second bit of the apple for this owner.
Some of the Commissioners were part of the process in June 2017, when the application for this kind of re-
guiding into the medium density was first brought to the Commission. As it was noted it was subsequently
turned down by the City Council. The best that can be said of this right now is the only merit that is really
there is just exactly what is quoted here; the owners want this designation. That does not even go into the
relevant merits that to be considered for this kind of thing.
Just a little bit further in the updated part of the plan, if one were to look at the Figure 2-6 Focus Properties
Map, where this property takes its third bite at the apple. It is listed on page 2-19, unlike the heading of this
section of the Plan that reads, “The City is not recommend ding any land use or rezoning changes on these
sites at this time or as part of this plan”; however, it was just read in the previous section that they are
recommending this change – even though it had been turned out previously. He asked again that this rotten
apple be stricken from the Plan and let these kind of things go as an application for a zoning change. This
is not an infill property, it is not a vacant lot, it is not a distressed property; this has been the LR 15 property
since that zoning category first came into the ordinances decades ago. The best that this property has ever
been able to say about why it should have medium density is that the neighboring properties across the
highway and up the hill at Outlook (in Lilydale) are that way
He stated that the changes in the Comprehensive Plan from 2030 to 2040 look like they – every one –
conforms consistent with the current use or the current activity on the property.
In terms of Appendix A, Mr. Lazarus noted that there was a 2016 report and it is to help out and support
the thinking of the Commission. Since the Appendix had not been updated and does not seem to fit the
current exact shape of the Plan or even support it, Mr. Lazarus suggested that it be stricken from the plan
because it just becomes a footnote that becomes chafe but is part of a very popular document if it is left in
and it shouldn’t be.
Ms. Rina McManus, 1026 Victoria Court, read prepared comments highlighted as follows:
High level vision and focus of the Comprehensive Plan
Understands the need to plan for the future using regional goals and guidelines
o Feels that this could accomplished without compromising the vision and mission
Not all of the suburbs need to be citified
Making plans for more high density and medium density development would alter the character of
the community and negate the stated intent in the land use chapter to protect the quiet suburban feel
of the neighborhoods
She appreciated the recent addition of the Focus Areas
It was imperative that no changes occur without notification and involvement of the residents that
would be impacted
page 36
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 19 of 23
The comment in the Focus Areas first paragraph assures residents that there would not be blanket
changes with an expectation that any proposal for future changes be considered on an individual
basis
In the Land Use and Transportation chapters, it is noted that the city is experiencing an increase in
traffic volume in and through the community
Air traffic volume and patterns has been identified as a major concern
Motor vehicle traffic has more substantial negative impact on the public health and safety of the
residents
o Increased traffic adds congestion, increased driving times, affects air quality, adds noise,
impacts the environment, reduces property values, takes up community space, and
generally compromises the quiet residential feel
o The Land Use, Transportation, and Natural Resources chapters all have a stake in this issue
She recommended the addition of another goal in the Land Use chapter to reduce or mitigate the
impact of motor vehicle traffic within the community
o Work in partnership with state agencies and Dakota County to identify the areas most
affected
o Advocate for appropriate barriers to mitigate noise and pollution
Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, asked if the isthmus mentioned earlier was private land. If it is, then
it is not really green space that residents could readily partake of.
She continued by referring to page 1-9 and noted a loaded statement contained therein with a footnote. The
statement reads as follows:
Orderly and Efficient Land Use
o Plan for new growth at overall average densities of 5 units per acre
The footnote reads “The Met Council policy only applies to new residential development in the City and
does not affect existing development or neighborhoods.”. She then asked the Commission to ensure that
this footnote is spotless because it qualifies that very strong statement of density to five units per acre. She
questioned the definition of neighborhood and suggested this be really specified to prevent gray areas;
define neighborhood so it is not an open question.
Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, corrected Commissioner Noonan by sharing a map from the
2030 Comprehensive Plan shows the isthmus between Lake Lemay and Lake Augusta as Park Space. He
shared the map with the Commissioners, who then shared the map they were using. It was suggested that
these two maps be reconciled.
Mr. Smith, referring to comments made by Mr. Bonine regarding giving land owners for each of the changes
that are enumerated a separate hearing, commented that if the Commission has discussed these changes
without having land owners involved, there may be violations of Open Meeting Law. If the Commission
has not discussed these changes among themselves, then the changes can be considered arbitrary and
capricious. He assumed they were submitted to Stantec and that the Plan on the website dated February 26,
2019 came from Mr. Carlson. His point was that in either case, the land owners affected by these changes
presumably have not been consulted. There are a lot of changes enumerated and questioned if each of them
require a hearing. He suggested the Commission think about that; they owe it to each land owner affected
by the change to figure out if they would have any concerns.
He strongly encouraged the Commission to correct the many errors in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to
ensure a good quality report is given to the Council and to the Metropolitan Council.
page 37
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 20 of 23
Chair Magnuson ensured everyone that the Commission has not had any meetings outside of the public.
They have been extraordinarily transparent in this process; they have had community meetings, workshops,
and has been dealing with this plan countless times at the Planning Commission and the public has had the
opportunity to both come, have always been welcomed to testify, the plans have been posted on the website
for the city and they are available to the community for those who are interested. The Commission has been
very, very open to comments, they have made changes based on those comments, and they will continue to
do so. Please do not suggest to the Commission that they have been violating the law or that they have some
sort of an agenda here that has not been transparent and open because it would be very, very wrong.
Mr. Steve Treichel, 2174 Lemay Lake Drive, returned and suggested that what would really help everyone,
since the Commission has put out so many different iterations, is that they put out a document control
software to prevent shuffling of papers. Everyone in the community would have the same information that
the Commission has. The problem that everyone has is that they are not on the same page and they have
the wrong data. Wrong data = wrong conclusions.
Ms. Julie Shell, Lemay Shores Drive, is a 25 year resident of Mendota Heights. It was her and her neighbors
understanding was that the isthmus, between Lemay Shores and Augusta Shores, is owned by the Lemay
Shores Association. When it was heard that the city was planning on putting eight homes on that land, they
were freaking out. Their builder had assured them that the city would be installing a paved trail to connect
the two neighborhoods. She assumed that was one of the mistakes on the map.
She also shared their concerns about the south building project; when they were dumping dirt there all last
summer – nobody knew about it, what was going in there – it felt like they did not know what was happening
and felt like it was not transparent; why was it being done. It was not their land, it belongs to the city, but
they felt very out of control about this. They flattened it out and removed the trees; now they can really see
Highway 55 clearly from their hill. Then the one of the Councilors had it in an email that this land was
going to be a field of flowers; the Mayor told another resident that this was going to be a soccer field. This
made them very unsure who to trust and believe.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, in an effort to alleviate the confusion, explained that the Outlots that
are owned by both Lemay Shores and Augusta Shores, are privately owned Outlots. They are covered under
a conservation easement and the city does have drainage and utility easements covering all of the Outlots .
The peninsula now has a gravel trail which will be paved by the developer this spring. The trail that connects
the two developments is a public trail. The city owned site south of the development, it is undetermined
what the future of that site will be. Until that is determined, the site will be seeded with a prairie mix so
there may be a field of flowers there. It is zoned business and they are not looking at changing that zoning;
however, it could be anywhere from a business, residential, park land, open space – there is zero indications
at this time.
In developing the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the consultant changed the guidance of the properties from
low density residential to the actual use of medium residential. When he did that, he also changed the
guidance of the outlots. Staff then requested that he specifically separate the Outlots from the house lots.
Commissioner Mazzitello, addressing the question about the isthmus, stated that she was the third person
who came up and stated that they were told that there would be development on the isthmus. The first
person said high density residential, the second person said an extension of the twin homes, and then she
said it was going to be an 8-house development. None of those were ever going to be. There are people in
the city who spread bad information. He advised the public that the three gentlemen sitting to the left of the
Commissioners would be the ones to ask if they hear any type of a rumor or innuendo about the city or what
ma y or what could happen.
page 38
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 21 of 23
Mr. Don Selg, 867 Bluebill Drive, testified last fall and went through a lot of detail regarding resiliency.
He made the following points that he came across since then:
The World Health Organization sees the global situation as in the risk of going into a thermal
runaway condition, and what is seen outside now is part of that
o Colder than normal with higher snow fall amounts
He came across information in regards to what is the greatest cause of premature death in the entire
world
o That is the annulation of polluted air
o Worse than all of the cancers, heart trouble, etc.
This is a bipartisan issue that affects everyone. It is here and it is now. He emphasized the important of all
of this and asked that when the Commission is making their decisions, take into consideration not only how
it affects everyone now, but the future generations.
Ms. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, made the following notes of corrections:
Page 2-7 references six categories of residential uses; there are only four
Page 2-15 the numbering and the map are out of sync
Page 3-12, given the amount of traffic they are anticipating, especially on Delaware, the city should
state pretty strongly that Mendota Heights will fight for the Argenta Interchange to be built at the
location that is 1,500 feet east of the existing overpass, keeping those levels acceptable in Mendota
Heights. She hoped that the city could put a goal in there that would say “protect the Mendota
Heights traffic levels from the encroaching development in the adjoining communities, keeping
the increased traffic in the newly developed areas”.
Figure 3-5 the 2030 Preferred Alternative Noise Contour – it appears that they are vastly expanding
the area of the noise area; widening the corridor. She asked for an explanation. The 2030 Preferred
Alternative route is much wider than the 2014 lines. Mr. Benetti noted that staff met this morning
with Councilor Liz Petschel, who is part of the Airport Relation Committee and the resident expert
on airport issues and realized that this map appears to have been based on 2014 data. According
to Councilor Petschel, the airport provides updated information every year. The map in the system
right now is incorrect and will be updated.
Page 4-7, she believed at the last meeting that Commissioner Noonan talked about taking the
formula out for the standard park space per population; it is still there
Increasing the tree canopy (8.1.4) and modifying the ordinances to protect the access to direct
sunlight from all rooftops of all principle structures (8.5.1)
8.7.3 Consider housing options along transit corridors
Page 8-10 is a lot of baloney (Resilient Food Systems)
Page 10-15 refers to Reviewing existing City ordinances with respect to fire and personal gas-
powered equipment to promote healthy air quality; in the past that gas-powered equipment
statement was removed from 8.3.4 so it should not be here either and from the Implementation
Table on page 10-16
Also on page 10-16, the tree canopy versus direct sunlight should be removed
Supplemental Information Appendix A – about half way through the footer the changes to read
“Cottage Grove 2040 Comprehensive Plan” and is dated August, 2016
The Commission asked that she provide Mr. Benetti with a written list (appended to these minutes).
Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, returned to clarify something regarding transparency. She realized
that the city has done a lot to make this transparent. However, she also believed that many people, as smart
as they are in the community, do not understand the land use process because they have never been exposed
to it before. They do not understand the implications of what is in the Comprehensive Plan for the future.
page 39
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 22 of 23
The Comprehensive Plan sets the goals and, in this case, land use for the next 20 years. In the metropolitan
area, when something like that is changed in the Comprehensive Plan, the city is required to change the
zoning. It used to be that what could be done in planning for the future was come up with a plan for what
was thought might happen in the future. It is not that way anymore. Right now, if it is in the Comprehensive
Plan the zoning needs to be changed.
She wanted to explain that she was not chastising the Planning Commission or the city for what the
community does not know. She was simply saying that just because the city has been talking about the
Comprehensive Plan for a while, many people do not understand its role in city planning.
Ms. Cindy Johnson expressed her appreciation for the effort and work that has been put into the
Comprehensive Plan by staff and consultants. After reviewing the Comprehensive Plan that was posted
online on Thursday, February 21, 2019 there are numerous edits and additions that were requested by the
Commissioners at the last public hearing that have not been included in that online document. Rather than
her trying to list them off herself, she hoped that the Commissioners have their notes and would follow-up
to ensure those items would be added or corrected as stated from the previous public hearing.
However, there are some items that she believed had not been covered yet:
Figure 2-2, the Victoria property that is orange on the map is not medium density but it is low
density residential; therefore, should be yellow
Pages 2-13 through 2-16 and Figure 2-5, the descriptions do not match up and the numbers are
wrong (32 numbers but only 31 descriptions)
She echoed that she was pleased that the isthmus was designated as Park Open Space, but she would
also ask that it stay or be preserved or added to natural areas in order to protect the water quality
and enhance the water quality of Lake Lemay and Lake Augusta.
Page 2-18 and 2-10, Titled Focus Areas, #10 Victoria Road lots – she thought those areas were
stricken at the last public hearing and confirmed by Mr. Benetti; now they are back
o From previous public hearings prior to the last one, various residents and property owners
expressed leaving these as low density due to the underground stream in the area
o States the desire to ‘develop more intensely’ and is inconsistent with other language within
the Plan
Figure 4-1, the map seems to be incorrect. The proposed NERT trail shown in the key is shown as
going down Highway 62 which is incorrect because it was built that on the Sibley High School
property and it is different; it also no longer called the NERT trail but is called the River-to-River
Greenway.
She was happy to see the correct version of the Natural Resources chapter 7 in this version and so only has
a few items for this section:
Page 7-7, the paragraph that begins with “Protect, Connect, and Purpose . . .” and the second
paragraph that begins with “Purpose . . .” would make more send if they were right before t he list
of goals
Page 7-16, the last sentence says “below is a list and brief summary of the major water resources
in the City”, but then it is a blank space and then goes onto vegetation next. It appeared to her that
pages 7-10 through 7-15 should go after page 7-16
Page 7-21, Urban Wildlife paragraph quotes “to see the pollinator-friendly resolution in the
Appendix” but it was not in appendix A or B.
Chapter 9, recalled Ms. Pilgrim making a comment and handing materials to Mr. Benetti about the
picnic island view shed.
page 40
February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 23 of 23
Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, whatever the Commission and the residents can come up with that
everyone can support and continue to say that the Mendota Heights is nice, spacious, and gracious. This
needs to be a rock solid document. (Note: Mr. Losleben’s written comments are appended to these minutes
– per the request of the commission).
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO HOLD
THIS PUBLIC HEARING AS OPEN
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Petschel noted that Mr. Lazarus is correct in that the Commission is piling through on this
language and taking a second bite at the apple. And he agreed with what is in the Comprehensive Plan. He
remembered the public hearings vividly and there were no Mendota Heights residents, besides from the
applicant, there. It matches all of the surrounding territory and is enveloped by Lilydale. It is a map making
error more than anything else. However, he did not believe they should create a second fight in the
Comprehensive Plan. He suggested this be removed.
Commissioner Mazzitello suggested keeping the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on
March 26, 2019 and schedule the workshop meeting next week, if possible, on March 6 th or 7th. Whatever
comes out of the workshop meeting should be posted on the website as the DRAFT – FINAL.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:22 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
page 41
Submitted by Robert Bonine 02/26/2019page 42
page 43
page 44
page 45
page 46
page 47
Jill Smith – comments for 2/26/19 Planning Commission meeting
I attended the January 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting and addressed issues regarding
the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan. At that meeting, I discussed proposed
changes to several land use changes that would be facilitated through the Comprehensive Plan
process and objected to this method of blanket changes that would not receive individual
review and input. I was asked if there were any changes that would be acceptable without a
full review, and I confirmed that I would send a response to the Planning Commission on this
topic.
In considering this question, I return to my previous premise that ANY land use changes should
receive the opportunity for full City and community input and justification before being
enacted. Certainly, there are some proposed changes that could more easily be made to
conform to existing use and development, however, we should have a broader perspective
prior to enacting those changes. Other proposals change the existing use to typically a higher
use without consideration of the potential results and input from those in the area and
community that could be affected or have insight into the impacts of the change. This method
creates additional potential value for these parcels without City knowledge or oversight of any
proposed developments. For these and other reasons, I suggest that any changes in land use
not be made through the Comprehensive Plan process but acted upon individually within the
review process.
To summarize other points for this position, please consider the following:
No changes in land use should be made through the Comprehensive Plan, either in language or
on maps, until such future time as an acceptable development proposal is made that warrants
such a change. Another strong reason is that this method of individual land use and zoning
changes allows for providing full information to the City and community regarding how this
conforms to community goals.
A difficulty in reviewing the proposed Comp Plan is that what is being proposed is a draft
proposal that is very difficult to track changes from the 2030 plan and further changes between
each draft. Please ensure that each draft is dated and redlined to show current changes so that
the reviewer understands what changes are being proposed. Also, I identified numerous errors
and inconsistencies in previous drafts; it is important to have the final version of this document
be as accurate as possible so there is no misunderstanding regarding the facts or meanings.
page 48
Submitted to Planning Commission 02/26/2019page 49
page 50
page 51
page 52
page 53
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
January 16, 2019
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, January 16, 2019, at Mendota Heights City Hall.
1. Call to Order
Chair Sloan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
2. Roll Call
The following commissioners were present: David Sloan, Gina Norling, William Dunn, Sally
Lorberbaum, and Kevin Byrnes. Absent: Jim Neuharth, Arvind Sharma
Also present: Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator Mark McNeill
3. Approval of Minutes
Motion by Lorberbaum/Second by Dunn to approve the minutes of the November 14, 2018 ARC
meeting. Motion carried 4-0; Norling abstained.
4. Unfinished and New Business
a. Work Plan for 2019—Those present reviewed the 2017 ARC Work Plan, and
discussed updates for 2019. Chair Sloan said that an annual update to the City
Council is overdue. Mr. McNeill spoke about the number of concerns expressed to
Mendota Heights elected officials by Mendota Heights residents about airport noise.
He felt that the ARC needed to do a better job of reaching out to the community,
and engaging residents.
Better use of social media as one of a combination of communications tools was
discussed. Also discussed was an April 24th joint listening session with the City of
Sunfish Lake; televising ARC meetings, and putting more information in the other
City media such as the Heights Highlights and Friday News.
Recommended Changes to the 2017 Work Plan:
Cover Page—Update to 2019
Page 3—Issue #2—Add “turboprop” under the first bullet point.
Page 4—Add more space after the word “Issue” in the headings; Delete Issue #4,
and combine remnants of that into Issue #6. Issue #5—Change title from “Provide
Review of…” to “Implement the…(City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan)”. Eliminate the
first bullet point. Move the third bullet point (“Support expanded use of reliever
airports”) to Issue #3, and change the “Ongoing” to “As Needed”.
page 54
Page 5—Change Issue “6” to “5”. Split the Heading into two—“Provide
communications to the City Council, NOC Representative, and other
Intergovernmental agencies regarding airport issues”. Under that, include:
• Communicate any concerns to the City’s NOC Representatives
• Maintain list of Meetings pertaining to the Airport
• Provide Annual Report to City Council
Issue #6 “Inform and Engage Mendota Heights Residents regarding Issues Relating
to the Airport.”
• Provide Annual Report in Heights Highlights
• Provide for timely community meetings with residents. (Correct the typo on
“AS”)
• Provide for more direct feedback with residents
• Post link to MAC Noise and NOC website with our agenda/minutes
• Televise ARC Meetings as agenda content dictates
• Heighten awareness and communications of Mendota Heights’ noise and
operational concerns via social media, city’s website, and other
communications tools
b. Review of Airport Operational Statistics and Statistical Links
Complaints--Assistant City Administrator Jacobson noted that there was an
overall reduction of 6% in 2018.
Total Operations—were down
Turboprop Operations—Mr. Byrnes noted that there were no apparent seasonal
patterns—the numbers varied greatly. Ms. Jacobson stated that Atlas Air was now
delivering for Amazon, which might explain the increased number of night flights.
The ARC asked that Brad Juffer at MAC be contacted to explain why June, 2018
turboprop flights were so numerous.
Noise Monitor Charts—Ms. Norling stated that it was a relatively quiet
November. Mr. Dunn felt that C-130 aircraft were responsible for many of the noise
complaints.
5. Other Business
a. January 16 NOC Meeting—Chair Sloan reported that the NOC meeting held earlier
that day was relatively routine. They announced the April 24 Listening Session in
Mendota Heights, and that Eagan was going to use two temporary noise monitoring
stations at two of their parks. MAC discussed plans for the 2019 NCAA Final Four
Basketball Tournament.
b. MAC Board Meeting—In the absence of Commissioner Sharma, the minutes of the
most recent MAC Board meeting were reviewed from the MAC website.
c. NOC Website Dashboard—Ms. Jacobson showed screen shots of the tool that NOC
has created which notifies air traffic controllers in real time when planes stray out of
the corridor. She said that the notifications are not made public, so this may not fix
Mendota Heights’ issues.
d. New Eagan Sensors—It was noted that Eagan had received new sensors, and that
theirs monitors arrivals; Mendota Heights’ monitors arrivals.
e. 2019 Meeting Dates—Commissioner Norling said that the late change of meeting
dates had caused her to miss three meetings in 2018. Ms. Jacobson said that the
page 55
May meeting will be May 14th, and that the October 16th meeting will need to be
moved, as it now conflicts with the City Council meeting that evening. The April
meeting was changed to April 24th, to correspond to the Listening Session.
f. Meeting Start Times—Chair Sloan asked if it would be acceptable to change the start
times of the meetings to 6:00 PM? Those present were supportive, but it was
decided to wait until the next meeting on February 20th to discuss it, so that
Commissioners Sharma and Neuharth could comment.
6. Public Comments
No public comments were received.
7. Commissioner Comments
None.
8. Adjourn
Motion Byrnes/Second Norling to adjourn at 8:16 PM
Minutes Taken By:
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 56
DATE: April 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy COMMENT: INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for St. Thomas
Academy, for a fundraiser to be held April 27-29.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to State Statutes and Mendota Heights City Code, no person shall sell or give away
liquor without first having received a license. Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses shall be
granted only to clubs and charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations for the sale of
intoxicating liquor. The licenses are subject to final approval by the Director of Alcohol and
Gambling Enforcement.
St. Thomas Academy, located at 949 Mendota Heights Road, is planning to hold their annual
Family Fun Night on Friday, April 26 and the Gala on April 27, 2019. They have requested a
Temporary On-Sale Liquor License to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages on those two
nights. St. Thomas Academy has submitted a complete application and a certificate of insurance
for showing liquor liability for the events. They will have security on duty while liquor is being
served.
It should be noted that Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses have been issued in the past to St.
Thomas Academy and other charitable, nonprofit and religious organizations within the city with
no incidents or negative reports.
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends the City Council approve a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St.
Thomas Academy for April 26 - 27, 2019 subject to approval of the Director of Alcohol and
Gambling Enforcement.
page 57
Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: April 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License-Beth Jacob Congregation
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for Beth Jacob Congregation.
Background
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes and our City Code, no person shall sell or give away liquor
without first having received a license. Temporary on-sale liquor licenses shall be granted only to
clubs and charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The
licenses are subject to final approval by the Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement.
Beth Jacob Congregation, located at 1179 Victoria Curve, is planning to hold a fund-raising event on
their property on Sunday, May 5, 2019, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. They have submitted an application for
a temporary on-sale liquor license to allow for the sale of alcohol at this event. Security will be present
and liability insurance has been obtained.
It should be noted that temporary on-sale liquor licenses have been issued in the past to charitable,
nonprofit and religious organizations within the city with no incidents or negative reports.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for Beth Jacob
Congregation for May 5, 2019.
page 58
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Terry Blum, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Approval to Purchase and Install New Check Valves at the Main Lift Station
DATE: April 2, 2019
COMMENT:
Introduction
Council is asked to approve the purchase and installation of new check valves for the main lift
station on Mendota Heights Road.
Background
The existing valves are old and leaking and should be replaced with new check valves.
Staff received two quotes for the replacement of the check valves. They were:
WW Goetsch Associates, Inc. $ 6,762.00
Minnesota Pump Works $11,584.55
Budget Impact
There are sufficient funds in the utility fund to cover this expenditure.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the purchase and installation of new check
valves at the main lift station for the price quoted from WW Goetsch Associates, Inc. in the amount
of $6,762.00.
Action Required
If the City Council concurs, it should, should pass a motion authorizing the purchase and
installation of new check valves at the main lift station for the price quoted from WW Goetsch
Associates, Inc. in the amount of $6,762.00. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 59
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: April 2, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance 539 Updating the Tobacco-Free Policy in City Parks
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Ordinance 539 amending City Code; Title 8, Chapter 4, which
updates the tobacco-free policy in city parks.
BACKGROUND
The City of Mendota Heights adopted a tobacco-free policy in 2006, which precludes smoking
on park property. At the time, the city received 50 tobacco-free signs to post in the parks.
Mendota Heights has recently revised its City Code to restrict sales of flavored tobacco and
increase the required age to purchase tobacco.
DISCUSSION
The city has been approached by the Tobacco-Free Alliance, a nonprofit organization, in regards
to strengthening its park policy relating to smoking. The new policy restricts all forms of
tobacco use in the parks in addition to smoking, while also defining and restriction the use of
E-cigarettes and chewing tobacco.
The city will receive new signs to be posted in the parks.
BUDGET IMPACT
Public Works staff will install the new signs, which is not anticipated to have an impact on the
parks budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council adopt Ordinance 539, updating the Tobacco-Free Policy in
City Parks.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Ordinance 539, “AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY CODE UPDATING
THE TOBACCO-FREE POLICY IN CITY PARKS”. This action requires a simple majority
vote.
page 60
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 539
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 4, OF THE CITY CODE OF THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, UPDATING THE
TOBACCO-FREE POLICY IN CITY PARKS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Title 8-4 is hereby amended as follows:
8-4-1: DEFINITION
“All times” means 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
“Electronic delivery device” means any product containing or delivering nicotine, lobelia, or any
other substance intended for human consumption that can be used by a person to simulate
smoking in the delivery of nicotine or any other substance through inhalation of aerosol or vapor
from the product. The term includes, but is not limited to, devices manufactured, distributed,
marketed or sold as e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, vape pens, or e-hookah.
"Public park or parks" is any land owned or leased by the city for the use of the public for any
one or a combination of the following uses: recreation, relaxation, amusement, playgrounds and
fields, swimming, beaches, trails and trailways. (1981 Code 913 § 1).
“Recreational Areas” means all facilities, parks, trails, open space, and other property owned,
leased, rented, contracted, used, or controlled by the City of Mendota Heights for parks and
recreational purposes. The term includes, but is not limited to, restrooms, spectator and concession areas,
playgrounds, and athletic fields.
“Smoke or smoking” means inhaling or exhaling smoke from any lighted or heated cigar,
cigarette, pipe, or any other tobacco or plant product, or inhaling or exhaling aerosol or vapor
from any electronic delivery device. Smoking includes being in possession of a lighted or heated
cigar cigarette, pipe, or any other tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, or an
electronic delivery device that is turned on or otherwise activated.
“Tobacco or tobacco product” means any product containing, made, or derived from tobacco that
is intended for human consumption, whether chewed, smoked, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled,
snorted, sniffed, or ingested by any other means, or any component, part, or accessory of a
tobacco product including but not limited to cigarettes; cigars and other smoking tobacco; snuff
and other chewing tobacco; electronic delivery devices; and any other kinds and forms of
tobacco. The term excludes any product that has been approved by the United States Food and
Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product, as a tobacco dependence product, or
for other medical purposes, and is being marketed and sold solely for such an approved purpose.
page 61
Ord. 520 Page 2 of 2
“Tobacco Use” means the act of smoking, the use of smokeless tobacco, or the use of any other
tobacco product in any form.
8-4-3: PROHIBITED ACTS AND CONDITIONS
E. Tobacco use is prohibited at all times in or on all recreational areas. It is not a violation of
this policy to use tobacco in or on recreational areas as part of a Native American spiritual or
cultural ceremony. Approval from the City of Mendota Heights City Administrator or his/her
designee must be received prior to the ceremony.
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this second day of April, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 62
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: April 2, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance 540 Updating the Stormwater and Erosion Control Ordinance
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Ordinance 540 amending City Code; Title 14, Chapter 1,
Section 6 updating the Stormwater and erosion control ordinance.
BACKGROUND
The City of Mendota Heights adopted Ordinance 421 in 2009 and Ordinance 490 in 2016
establishing the current construction site Stormwater runoff and erosion control ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Exemptions to the current city code are allowed for emergency activities and certain residential
construction activities, including additions to the existing homes, landscaping, or garages.
As staff established a new escrow permit for compliance with the city code, it was discovered
that accessory structures were not identified by this code. Staff is proposing that City Code 14-
1-6.3d(3) be revised to define a garage as detached and include accessory structure as a
categorical exemption.
BUDGET IMPACT
The proposed changes will not affect any budget activities.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council adopt Ordinance 540, updating the Stormwater and erosion
control ordinance.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Ordinance 540, “AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 6 OF THE CITY CODE
UPDATING THE STORMWATER AND EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE”. This
action requires a simple majority vote.
page 63
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 540
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 6 OF THE CITY
CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY
UPDATING THE STORMWATER EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE
14-1-6 SUBDIVISION C, PARAGRAPH 3: CONSTRUCTION SITE STORM WATER
RUNOFF AND EROSION CONTROL:
3. Categorical Exemptions: Notwithstanding the requirements of this code, the following
activities are exempt from the permit requirements:
a. Emergency activities necessary to prevent or alleviate immediate dangers to life or property.
b. Activities that are under the regulatory jurisdiction of an authorized state or federal agency.
c. General farming, gardening and nursery activities.
d. Residential construction activity limited to:
(1) Additions to the existing structure,
(2) Landscaping and landscaping structures, and
(3) Construction of a detached garage or accessory structure. (Ord. 421, 2-3-2009; and.
Ord. 490, 2-16-2016)
This Ordinance shall become effective upon the date of its publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this second day of April, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 64
DATE: April 2, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Retirement of Terry Blum and Recruitment to Fill Public Works Superintendent
Position
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to accept the retirement notice of Terry Blum, Public Works Superintendent
and authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to fill the position.
BACKGROUND
Terry Blum, Public Works Superintendent has provided notice of his intent to retire after 43 years of
service. Terry’s last day with the City will be June 28, 2019.
Terry started his full-time career with the City in June of 1976, working primarily in the Parks
division. He was promoted to Parks Lead in June of 1983 and then Public Works Superintendent in
June of 2014. Terry has been instrumental in establishing and providing high quality service to the
residents of Mendota Heights. Terry’s knowledge is great and his talents are many and he will be
greatly missed.
With Terry’s retirement, the position of Public Works Superintendent will need to be filled. The Public
Works Superintendent position is responsible for directing and supervising the activities of the City’s
Public Works operations including streets, public utilities, parks maintenance and fleet maintenance.
The Superintendent position is a non-union position.
BUDGET IMPACT
The Public Works Superintendent position is a budgeted position. The position is an exempt position
and is at pay grade level 14 on the City’s Compensation Plan, which has a salary range of $81,242 to
$99,867 annually for 2019. For hiring purposes, the position will be posted with a hiring salary of
$81,242 (step one) to $90,074 (step four, range midpoint).
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends that City Council accept the retirement notice of Terry Blum, Public Works
Superintendent and authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to fill the Public Works
Superintendent position.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council concurs, it should by motion, accept the retirement notice of Terry Blum and authorize
staff to begin the recruitment process to fill the Public Works Superintendent position.
page 65
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: April 2, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-25 Community Roadside Landscape Partnership Application for
Mendota Road Landscaping Improvements
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve resolution 2019-25 authorizing the City’s Natural Resources Technician
to apply for a Community Roadside Landscape Partnership for Mendota Road Landscaping
Improvements.
BACKGROUND
The Mendota Heights Traffic Safety Committee has reviewed concerns of traffic speed on Mendota Road
between Oak Street and Delaware Avenue. A stop sign was installed at South Lane in 2018 which greatly
reduced the speeds of the eastbound traffic. Westbound traffic continues to show speeds that are
excessive.
DISCUSSION
A recommendation from the Traffic Safety Committee included installing a visual barrier between
Mendota Road and the Highway 62 westbound traffic lanes. Staff consulted with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and it was determined that landscaping between the two
roadways is feasible and MnDOT suggested utilizing the Landscape Partnership Program for this project.
At this time, the project extent, cost estimate, and desired plantings have not been determined. This
request is to apply for partnership agreement. If selected, MnDOT would assist the city in developing a
plan and reimburse the city on the costs of the materials, the city will be responsible for planting and
maintenance.
BUDGET IMPACT
The city portion of this work is yet to be determined. Once plans are developed, the city will seek bids and
identify the proposed funding source.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached resolution.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting Resolution 2019-
25 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION AND PRIMARY CONTACT FOR MNDOT
COMMUNITY ROADSIDE LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR MENDOTA
ROAD. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 66
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-25
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION AND PRIMARY CONTACT FOR
MNDOT COMMUNITY ROADSIDE LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR
MENDOTA ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights will act as the sponsoring unit for the project
identified as Mendota Road Landscaping Improvements on State Trunk Highway 62 to be
conducted during the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights City Council hereby authorizes Krista Spreiter,
Natural Resources Technician, to apply to the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) for funding of this project on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights authorizes application to MnDOT Community Roadside Landscape
Partnership for the Mendota Road Landscaping Improvements.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this second day of April, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
___________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST
________________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 67
DATE: April 2, 2019
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Natural Resources/GIS Intern
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to approve the job description for and authorize staff to begin the
recruitment process for hiring a Natural Resources/GIS Intern.
BACKGROUND
From time-to-time an Intern has been hired to assist the Engineering Department with various
projects. The department last had an intern in 2016. Anticipating a busy summer, especially in
natural resources, the department included funding in the 2019 budget for an intern.
The Natural Resources/GIS Intern will assist the Natural Resources Technician and Engineering
Department staff with planning, administration, and implementation of programs relating to
natural resources including water resources, upland habitat management, and forestry. The
position will also assist with general engineering projects and GIS work.
This position is intended for a current college student majoring in Biology, Natural Resources,
Geography or an Engineering related field with a minimum of one year of course work
completed. The pay range for the internship is $12.00 and $15.00 per hour. Staff anticipates that
the internship will last 13-15 weeks depending on the student’s school schedule and can offer up
to 40 hours per week.
BUDGET IMPACT
Included in the 2019 Engineering Department budget is $10,000 to cover the costs of the Natural
Resources/GIS Intern position.
ACTION RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached job description and authorize staff to begin
the recruitment process for a Natural Resources/GIS Intern.
ACTION REQUIRED
If City Council concurs, it should by motion, approve the Natural Resources/GIS Intern job
description and authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to fill the position.
page 68
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: April 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: Fire Synopsis February 2019 COMMENT:
Fire Calls:
The month of February ended with a total of 29 calls. Of those 29 calls, 23 originated in Mendota Heights, two in
Lilydale and four in other areas. The four calls that were listed as being in other areas were mutual aid requests by
neighboring communities for coverage due to structure fires. Two were located in West Saint Paul (South Metro Fire
Department) and two were located in Inver Grove Heights.
Our crews did respond to a vehicle fire on Northland Drive which was, at one point, was thought to have extended into
the adjoining commercial business in the 2nd and 3rd floors (it ended up being a reflection from the glass and there was
no building extension). A mutual aid request was put out to Eagan Fire Department which Eagan sent Rescue 2 and
Mendota Heights Engine 11 (Mendota Heights was providing coverage with Apple Valley to Eagan for a firefighter event
that evening). This may have been the first time that we have requested mutual aid from ourselves.
One call was due to a pull station activation. Three of the calls were medical in nature and four calls were dispatched
and cancelled before our arrival. February had a higher than normal amount of gas leaks including: a broken natural gas
line feeding a dryer in a home, a smell of gas in a home where a gas burner had been left turned on without a flame, a
leaking gas line outside of a home in the backyard under the deck where construction was occurring, and a home that
had a plugged fresh air intake and a partially blocked exhaust to a natural gas boiler in a home which caused high
carbon monoxide levels to occur. And, as in seemingly all months, we had twelve calls that were false alarms: five due
to malfunction, six were unintentional trips, and one was a malfunctioning CO alarm.
Training Opportunities:
Blood Bourne Pathogens/Right-to-Know - This training is an OSHA required mandatory training to go over our
department and City policies in regards to both blood bourne pathogens (and how the department offers means to
protect the firefighters) as well as right-to-know in terms of potentially hazardous products that firefighters may be
exposed to and what to do about it. This training also covers lock-out/tag-out procedures, again for the protection of
firefighters and others.
Report Writing - This training was to go over proper report writing when documenting fire calls. These reports end up
going to the State and making certain that all areas are filled in properly with the correct coding is imperative. In
addition, the program that the Fire Department uses (ImageTrend) was replaced with their newest version and it is
significantly different than our previous version. (This change affected all users of ImageTrend software).
Hose Management (In the door) - This drill began with a classroom explanation followed with hands on practice of
methods and strategies for fast, safe and efficient moving of fire hoses in a theoretically hazardous environment. The
drill had numerous stations allowing multiple firefighters (or pairs of firefighters) to practice the skills taught
simultaneously.
page 69
Number of Calls 29 Total Calls for Year 56
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $200
Structure - MH Residential $1,000
Structure - Contract Areas $0
Cooking Fire - confined $0
Vehicle - MH 1 $500 $5,000 $5,500
Vehicle - Contract Areas $0
Grass/Brush/No Value MH
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
Other Fire
OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $500 $5,000
Excessive heat, scorch burns 1
MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 3
Vehicle accident w/injuries
Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$5,500
Medical, other
HAZARDOUS SITUATION MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $0
Spills/Leaks 2
Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $5,500
Power line down
Arcing, shorting MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $6,700
Hazardous, Other 1
SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal CONTRACT AREAS LOSS TO DATE $0
Assist Police or other agency
Service Call, other
GOOD INTENT
Good Intent
Dispatched & Cancelled 4 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 23 44 26
HazMat release investigation 2 7 1
Good Intent, Other 0 0 1
FALSE ALARMS 0 0 3
False Alarm 4 5 3
Malfunction 5 Total:29 56 34
Unintentional 6
False Alarm, other 1 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
MUTUAL AID 4 INSPECTIONS 31.5
Total Calls 29 INVESTIGATIONS
RE-INSPECTION
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
MEETINGS 1
FIRE CALLS 485.5 943.5 515
MEETINGS 30.5 147.5 143.75 ADMINISTRATION 11
TRAINING 274.5 594 544.5
SPECIAL ACTIVITY 42 56.5 7 PLAN REVIEW/TRAINING 5
FIRE MARSHAL 48.5 48.5 49.5
TOTAL:48.5
TOTALS 881 1790 1259.75 REMARKS:SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS
Lilydale
Mendota
Sunfish Lake
Other
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
FEBRUARY 2019 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE LOSS TOTALS
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS
Mendota Heights
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
page 75
page 76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Fire Station Construction Testing Contract
Date: April 2, 2019
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to approve a contract for construction testing and inspection with Professional
Services Industries, Inc. (PSI) for construction materials testing and observation services during the fire
station construction project.
Background:
The City’s construction management company (CPMI) solicited quotes for testing services related to the
construction of the Fire Station project. This would be for such things as soils compaction, reinforced
concrete and bolts in concrete, structural welding and masonry, asphalt testing, and other quality
assurance testing. These inspections are necessary to make certain that the materials and construction
methods are performed to industry standards.
CPMI solicited proposals from five firms which are known to perform such services. Quotes were
received from three of those. The results were:
PSI $17,580
CVT $18,940
WSB $29,930
Budget Impact:
Funding for this service was included in the project budget.
Recommendation:
Based on the quotes received, CPMI recommends that the City accept the proposal of PSI.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize entering into a contract for Construction Materials
Testing Services with Professional Services Industries, Inc., for the amount of $17,580.
Dave Dreelan Mark McNeill
Fire Chief City Administrator
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page 92
page 93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page 98
page 99
page 100
page 101
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Subject: Fire Station Fire Suppression Contract
Date: April 2, 2019
Comment:
Introduction:
The City Council is asked to approve a contract with General Sprinkler Corporation, for providing a fire
sprinkler system in the fire station construction project.
Background:
When bids were opened for the Fire Station construction project on February 21st, only one bid was
received for the building’s fire suppression system. That was for $131,900, and was a price which was
nearly double the estimated cost.
The City’s construction management company (CPMI) contacted the lone bidder to determine why the
bid was so much higher than anticipated. After receiving the answer, the Fire Station Building
Committee then looked at what had been specified, and subsequently made several changes.
CPMI then solicited quotes from companies who install fire sprinkler systems for the revised system.
Two quotes were received:
General Sprinkler Corp. $60,970
Summit Companies $94,900
The two written quotes (along with the previous attempt to bid) meet the City’s Purchasing Policy for
expenditures of this amount.
Budget Impact:
Funding for this service was included in the project budget.
Recommendation:
Based on the quotes received, CPMI recommends that the City accept the proposal of General Sprinkler.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize entering into a contract for a wet pipe fire sprinkler
system for the Mendota Heights Fire Station construction project, for the amount of $60,970.
Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief Mark McNeill, City Administrator
page 102
CONTRACTORS FOR ALL TYPES OF FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS
Main Office:
1863 Buerkle Road
White Bear Lake, MN
55110
(651) 484-5903
(800) 878-6777
(651) 484-9514 (Fax)
Wisc. Office:
494 184th Street
Osceola, WI 54020
(715) 294-4387
(800) 878-6777
MN Lic. # C002
WI Lic. # 1261575
IA Lic # FP-180
ND Lic # 46393
March 25, 2019
Mendota Heights Fire Station
Mendota Heights, MN
Attn: Paul Oberhaus
DL: 612-963-1270
E-mail: POberhaus@cpmi.com
Project: Mendota Heights Fire Station
We propose to furnish the necessary material, labor, tools & equipment for a complete
installation of one (1) wet pipe sprinkler systems throughout building.
Our proposal is based on plans designed by CNH Architects.
Scope of Work:
• Provide valve assembly in area indicated on the plans with backflow preventer required
by City of Mendota, MN & the State of Minnesota.
• Provide a wet pipe sprinkler system (total of 1) for entire building.
• Provide a standard rough brass fire department connection to be located on the building
at the valve assembly.
• Provide brass upright sprinklers in all exposed areas.
• Provide Chrome or White semi-recess sprinklers throughout in sheet rock and lay-in
ceilings.
• Schedule 10 black steel pipe to be provided for the mains and branch lines for all areas.
• Provide 120 volt horn strobe for each building to be installed & wired by onsite
electrician.
• Design of sprinkler systems and submittals to the City of Mendota Heights.
• Sales tax on material & equipment only.
page 103
Page 2 of 2
Our quotation based on the above outlined scope of work is:
Sixty- Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Dollars ……….…………………..………………. $60,970.00
Exclusions:
• Electrical wire and/or wiring.
• Forward flow for Backflow.
• Fire alarm system and/or central monitoring station.
• Paint and/or painting of any kind.
• Underground fire line into the building, flushing of fire line and/or testing of fire line.
• Fire extinguishers and/or fire extinguisher cabinets.
• Fire Pump, jockey pump, controllers, concrete housekeeping pads and accessories.
• Domestic water shut-off solenoid valve.
• Payment & performance bid.
• 3D modeling and/or clash detections via BIM or RIVET type systems.
Thank you for the opportunity of quoting and hope we can be of assistance to you in very near future.
Sincerely,
Steve Williamson
Sales
Office: 651-484-5903
Mobile: 651-724-1171
E-mail: swilliamson@generalsprinkler.com
Proposal Accepted By: ______________________________________ Date: _____________________
Title: ____________________________________________________
page 104
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: April 2, 2019
TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Critical Area Permit and Variance for John and Theresa
Cosgriff – located at 1875 Hunter Lane (Planning Case No. 2019-06)
Introduction
The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Critical Area Permit
and Variance, which would approve the removal of an existing residential dwelling, to be replaced with a
new single-family dwelling on the site. The property is located at 1875 Hunter Lane.
Background
Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring a
building permit or special zoning approvals.
The Cosgriff’s are seeking permission to remove an older single-family home on the property, and construct
a new 6,500 sf. single family dwelling in its place. Most of the major development impacts will take place
in and around the location of the old dwelling site. The variance allows for the new home to encroach
slightly into the average setback line as determined from the rear edges of the dwellings on each side of the
subject property.
At the March 26, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, a planning staff report was presented on this item;
and a public hearing was conducted. Written and verbal comments were received (including letters of
support from adjacent neighbors), and are made part of the meeting minutes. A copy of the 03/26/2019
Planning Staff Report with new site layout and plans, along with the Planning Commission meeting excerpt
minutes, are appended to this memo report.
Discussion
The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning
decisions, such as this critical area permit and variance, and has broad discretion. A determination
regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0) of the Critical Area Permit and
Variance, with specific findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm this
recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-24 APPROVING THE CRITICAL
AREA PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1875 HUNTER LANE.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 105
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-24
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT WITH VARIANCE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1875 HUNTER LANE
(PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-06)
WHEREAS, Charlie & Co. Design (as the “Applicant”) and acting on behalf of John and
Theresa Cosgriff (as “Owners”), have applied for a Critical Area Permit with a Variance, as
proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-06 for the two parcels located at 1840 Hunter Lane (the
“Subject Properties”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and
WHEREAS, Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District) requires a
critical area permit for all development activities necessitating a building permit or special zoning
approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct a new 6,500 sf. single-family
dwelling with swimming pool and other accessory uses, subject to the requirements of the
applicable zoning district and related Critical Area Overlay District standards; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 12-3-8 B.3.f. provides for exceptions to structure setback
provisions, noted as follows: “Construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot approved by the
city and recorded in the office of the county register of deeds prior to June 1, 2003, and where the
abutting lots have been developed prior to the establishment of these regulations. In no case shall
a dwelling be placed closer to the bluff line or normal high water mark than the average setback
of the structures on the immediately adjacent lots.
WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant
variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code,
and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item
with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to
approve the Critical Area Permit and Variance requests for 1875 Hunter Lane, with certain findings
of fact to support such recommendation.
page 106
Res 2019-24 page 2
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Critical Area Permit and Variance requests for 1875 Hunter Lane as proposed under Planning Case
No. 2019-06 are both hereby approved, with the following findings of fact:
A.Under Title 12-3-5 of the City Code, the City may only grant approval of a critical area
permit for certain property, provided a site plan has been prepared and approved in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
B.Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in
carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists
of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do
not constitute “practical difficulties.”
C.The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in
order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by:
i.) the proposed new single-family home is a reasonable use of the property;
ii.) the subject property was pre-developed with an existing home closer to the bluff line
than what the neighboring (adjacent) properties have today; and the Applicants are
matching closely the location of the new home with the old home.
iii.) approving this Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood,
as this residential area and bluff lines will not be affected by the approval of the
Variance; and
iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable new home
on the subject property and well beyond the required minimum setbacks established
in the Critical Area Overlay District standards, and as such, keeps the rear yard space
open and intact a it was prior to e new development. The variance is also determined
to not be solely based on economic considerations.
D.The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code,
including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare
of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on
the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the
surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will
not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in
general.
E.Approval of the Variance is for 1875 Hunter Lane only, and does not apply or give
precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants
must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance
requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the
requirements of the City Code.
page 107
Res 2019-24 page 3
F.The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No.
2019-06, dated and presented March 26, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota
Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution.
G.The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his
Critical Area Permit and Variance requests. Conditions must be directly related to and
roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this
transaction are as follows:
i.) Building and grading permits shall be approved by city staff prior to any demolition
or removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of the new
dwelling.
ii.) The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed new
dwelling within one (1) year form date of city council approval. .
iii.) 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.
iv.) All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by the
Public Works Director.
v.) Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable
vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm.
vi.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during
grading and construction work activities.
vii.) All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
Weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Critical
Area Permit with Variance for the property located at 1875 Hunter Lane, and as proposed under
Planning Case No. 2019-06, are hereby approved.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of April, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 108
EXHIBIT A
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
PID No. 27-18200-00-050
page 109
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-06
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT & VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Charlie and Co. Design (on behalf of John & Theresa Cosgriff)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1875 Hunter Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: April 25, 2019
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Applicants are seeking a Critical Area Permit, which would allow the removal of an existing single
family dwelling, to be replaced with a new single family dwelling. The subject property is located at 1875
Hunter Lane, which is located in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and requires this permit
approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The request also includes a Variance to the average bluff
line setbacks as required under the critical area ordinance.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed
to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city received two letters of support
from the immediately adjacent neighbors. These letters are appended to this report.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE
The subject property consists of 1.48 acres, and has a 4,322 sf., two-story single family residence originally
built in 1948 (see aerial images below).
page 110
Planning Report-Case #2019-06 Page 2
FRONT of EXISTING HOME (Looking Westerly) SIDE of EXISTING HOME (Looking Northerly)
The existing home is a U-shaped home, walk out rambler, with a fenced in garden space and swimming
pool in the rear yard. This home and all improvements will be removed by the Cosgriff family, and replaced
with a new single family dwelling.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Charlie Co. Design is preparing the final architectural designs on this new home. The new home will be a
6,500 sq. ft., 4-bed, 6-bath home, and will be a similar walk out as the existing home. The site plan
submitted and prepared by Charlie Co. in this report illustrates the location of the new home only, in
comparison to the existing dwelling.
(RED image = Existing Home vs. GRAY image = New Home)
page 111
Planning Report-Case #2019-06 Page 3
Approval of this critical area permit would allow the developer to remove the older dwelling, commence
grading and vegetation removal work; and allow the construction of the new home on the lot. Since the
new home is essentially going in where the existing/old home is located, there are no areas in and around
the new house pad sites that contain slopes greater than 18%, which would require a conditional use permit
to work in steep sloped areas.
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Under the
2030 Plan’s Future Land Use section, there is a sub-section dedicated to “Infill Sites” – which although this
property is not an infill site per se’, there are a number of objectives and policies for consideration of
development in identifiable sensitive areas, noted as follows:
• Require that any new development or redevelopment meets all zoning and subdivision
regulations.
• Avoid access and traffic which unduly burdens just a few properties.
• Ensure that development of infill sites will not result in any negative impact on existing
environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors.
• Require that all development of infill sites provide access to a public street, new or existing.
• Ensure that land uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not reflect
a “spot-zoning” pattern.
It is Staff’s belief the Applicant’s request to construct a new single family dwelling is consistent with the
2030 Comp Plan and the related future land use plan for this area.
Critical Area Permit
The following standards are noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District:
Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to:
Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource
Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas;
and
Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential
element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems
Title 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements:
No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for
any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared
and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
Title 12-3-8: Development Standards:
The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment
of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance
the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to
prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground
water.
Structure Setbacks
No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet landward from the bluff line of the river.
The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built too close to the bluff, for erosion
protection and aesthetic reasons. The home itself is well over 1,275 (measured on a straight line)
page 112
Planning Report-Case #2019-06 Page 4
from the Minnesota River. The survey and site plans appear to show the bluff line at or near the rear
(westerly) lot line. The new home will be setback approx. 130-ft. from the west line.
The home will have an approximate 25-ft. setback from the south line; 12-13-ft. setback from the north
line; and over 223-feet from the front line along Hunter Lane.
City Code Section 12-3-8 B.3.f. provides for exceptions to structure setback provisions, noted as
follows: “Construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot approved by the city and recorded in the
office of the county register of deeds prior to June 1, 2003, and where the abutting lots have been
developed prior to the establishment of these regulations. In no case shall a dwelling be placed closer
to the bluff line or normal high water mark than the average setback of the structures on the
immediately adjacent lots. The afore-underlined text is where the Variance comes into play under this
land use application request, which will be analyzed later in this report.
Height limits
o R-1 District: 12-1-E.D (3): Structure Height: No structure or building shall exceed two (2)
stories or twenty five feet (25') in height, whichever is the lesser in height….”
o Critical Area Overly: 12-3-8.C: “All new structures shall be limited to thirty five feet…”
The Owner/Applicants have not provided any detailed architectural plans of the new home; however,
part of any conditions of approval will ensure the new home meets the R-1 Zone standard of all dwelling
structures cannot exceed a height of 25-feet.
Retaining Walls
As evident on the property survey and aerial mapping, the existing property appears to have three, low
level, tiered and curved shaped boulder retaining walls in and around the garden and pool area of the
back yard. These walls are slated for removal with the old home demolition, except for the existing
retaining wall near the back southwest corner.
Title 12-3-9.2.d requires retaining walls in the Critical Area to be constructed of native stone or wood
and not exceed 5 feet in height. The new landscape plan for the site indicates a new stone retaining
wall along the back northerly lot line; along with 3 stone retaining “wing-walls” along the south side
of the pool deck and dwelling (see images – below). The plans do not include any details on the height
proposed for these walls; but a condition may be placed that states no walls shall exceed the 5-foot
height limitations. For the record, any new wall over 4-feet in height requires separate structural
engineering design and sign-off prior to any permit approvals.
page 113
Planning Report-Case #2019-06 Page 5
Title 12-3-9-E: Standards for Grading/Filling:
The standards for grading, filling, and excavating or otherwise changing the topography landward of the
ordinary high water mark shall not be conducted without a permit. A permit may be issued only if:
1. Earth moving, erosion, vegetative cutting and the destruction of natural amenities is minimized;
2. The smallest amount of ground is exposed for as short a time as feasible;
3. Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is
planted;
4. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment are employed; and
5. Fill is established to acceptable engineering standards.
The grading plans under the landscape plans call for some considerable amount of grading for the new
raingarden swale on the back edge of the property. This raingarden (along with the rock garden gallery
feature- also noted on the Landscape Plan) should provide excellent pre-treatment of stormwater discharge
and drainage as it leaves this site. Erosion protection and restoration of these area will be paramount in the
review, approval and monitoring of these features by city staff, both during and after the project.
Title 12-3-9-E: Standards for Vegetation Management:
The Applicant’s narrative stated no existing trees will be taken down, and are planned to be protected during
the removal and reconstruction of this site. The plans call for the placement of 50 new trees, along with
some shrubs around the perimeter of the new home and swimming pool. The attached Landscape Plan
provides the locations of the existing trees and trees and plantings for the new home site. All disturbed
areas will be re-sodded.
Title 12-3-9-G: Surface Water Runoff Management:
The landscape plan provides an illustration of a new sub-surface rock gallery feature in the back yard. This
rock garden feature appears to be a sort of a super “French drain” stormwater drainage system, which will
capture the rain water runoff for the home and pool deck areas. The plan also calls for a drain pipe leading
from this rock gallery out towards the rear/back lot line area, where it will daylight into a proposed open
rain-garden feature along the back edge of the property. This rain-garden runs north/south and extends
from the north line down to the south lot lines of the property. It does not appear this rain garden feature
will be inside the bluff line. All areas disturbed to completing these storm water features will be restored
and protected at all times during and after construction. All other drainage ways appear to be nominal or
should pose no impacts to the adjacent properties.
page 114
Planning Report-Case #2019-06 Page 6
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
As was noted previously, City Code Section 12-3-8 B.3.f. provides for exceptions to structure setbacks, but
concludes that any new dwelling shall not be placed closer to the bluff line or normal high water mark than
the average setback of the structures on the immediately adjacent lots. This is sometimes referred to as the
“string-line” rule of averaging the setbacks for a new home development when situated between two
existing and developed lots on each side (see image below- string line highlighted in green).
As evident by the existing layouts of these three homes, the subject property home does not meet this string-
line rule by today’s standards; however, once the home is removed, the new development or home must
meet this new rule established under City Code.
The existing home is situated approximately 147 from the rear line, and the pool approximately 96 feet
from this line. The new home will be slightly closer to the back line at 130.5 feet, which is about 17 feet
closer than the current home. The new pool however, will be setback farther from the bluff line than what
exists today. Since the Applicants wish to remove this home and place the new home near the old home
location, this requires a variance to this rule.
page 115
Planning Report-Case #2019-06 Page 7
City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The Planning Commission must consider a number
of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i)
practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community.
The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in
a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner
is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance will
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute
practical difficulties.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further references other variables the City can consider when granting or denying a
variance, noted as follows:
Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical
difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have
been met in granting a variance, either partially or whole, and provide findings of facts to support such a
recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to
meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then
findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined.
As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and
findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text). Staff responses are noted thereafter:
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the zoning ordinance.
Applicant’s Response: Yes; The existing home in its current location would not be compliant with Title
12‐3‐8 (B)(3)(f). We are only asking to build the new home in the current position based on proximity
to the bluff. We are not asking to change the position or relationship of the home, only to maintain its
current position on the site.
Staff’s Response:
One question that must be considered in this case is whether or not the proposed use of the property, as
altered by the variance, is reasonable. With the development of a new home on virtually the same
location as the existing home, appears to be a reasonable request. The overall use of the property with
a new single-family home does not change. The Applicant’s desire to construct their own home at or
near the old location of the existing home can be considered a reasonable request and use of the
property.
The city must also consider whether or not the variance will be in harmony with the general purposes
of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. The Critical Area Overlay District was created to
preserve and protect the river corridor and bluff areas throughout the city; and reduce or eliminate any
negative impacts upon the natural environment located in this overlay district. The ordinance requires
structures to maintain at least a 40-foot setback from these bluff lines; and the applicants have proven
they exceed this setback by almost 3 times that distance.
Another purpose of setbacks is to maintain a safe, fire-resistant separation between structures, and
maintain suitable open space (air space) between properties. In this case, the applicants have
demonstrated they are mainlining adequate setback for the neighbors and allowing for continued open
page 116
Planning Report-Case #2019-06 Page 8
space in the rear yard towards the bluff line. Staff feels the applicants have demonstrated a reasonable
request under this application.
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: The existing home would currently be out of compliance given its current
position on the site. In order to make a home compliant with Title 12‐3‐8 (B)(3)(f), a house would need
to move back 46.5 feet. At that point, it would be virtually impossible to utilize a walk‐out design (the
existing home is a walk‐out) because Title 12‐1E‐1 (A)(5)(c) does not allow for the house to be raised
more than 12” from the existing first floor elevation and require significant excavation and retaining
walls.
Staff’s Response:
The Applicant’s plight may have been established by the placement of the old home by previous
owners, which makes their case for placing their own (new) home at or near this same location unique
in some regards. Staff feels the Applicants have demonstrated there are circumstances unique to this
property that leads to supporting this variance to encroach slightly into the average setback rules created
under this ordinance.
3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Applicant’s Response: No; we are looking to maintain a similar position to the existing home relative
to the bluff and street.
Staff’s Response:
The entire neighborhood is residential in character. The new home represents a considerable
investment by the Applicant to this area, and although the new home will be slightly larger than what
exists today, the new home will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Staff believes the Applicants
have demonstrated there should be little, if any impact to the essential character of the neighborhood,
even with this minimal variance request to setbacks.
When weighing the economic factor of a variance application, taking economic considerations alone
into account cannot be the only reason to approve a variance. In this case, the Applicants seek to build
their dream home on what they have found to be the most ideal setting and property for their family. It
is not clear how economic considerations may affect the outcome of a variance request; as they certainly
do not appear to be the sole reason for this particular variance application.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject property, public hearing
notices and application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for review
and comment. MnDNR staff acknowledged receipt of the application, and provided no follow-up
comments or objections to the Critical Area Permit and Variance applications.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the critical area permit and variance requests, based on the following
findings of fact that support the granting of the critical area permit and variance requested
herein, noted as follows:
page 117
Planning Report-Case #2019-06 Page 9
A. Under Title 12-3-5 of the City Code, the City may only grant approval of a critical area permit for
certain property, provided a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter.
B. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
C. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to
justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by:
i.) the proposed new single-family home is a reasonable use of the property;
ii.) the subject property was pre-developed with an existing home closer to the bluff line than
what the neighboring (adjacent) properties have today; and the Applicants are matching
closely the location of the new home with the old home.
iii.) approving this Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this
residential area and bluff lines will not be affected by the approval of the Variance; and
iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable new home on the
subject property and well beyond the required minimum setbacks established in the Critical
Area Overlay District standards, and as such, keeps the rear yard space open and intact a it
was prior to e new development. The variance is also determined to not be solely based on
economic considerations.
D. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but
not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the
risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the
Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts
upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
E. Approval of the Variance is for 1875 Hunter Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential
value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and
provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed
independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code.
F. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-
06, dated and presented March 26, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby
fully incorporated into this Resolution.
G. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance
request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by
the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows:
i.) Building and grading permits shall be approved by city staff prior to any demolition or
removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of the new dwelling.
ii.) The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed new dwelling
within one (1) year form date of city council approval. .
page 118
Planning Report-Case #2019-06 Page 10
iii.) 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.
iv.) All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by the Public
Works Director.
v.) Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must
be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm.
vi.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
vii.) All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
Weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends.
2. Recommend denial of the critical area permit and variance requests, based on the findings of fact
that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the
variance requested herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order
to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed home and closer location
to the bluff line poses as an increased threat and negative impact to the adjacent critical area bluff
line, and the fact the new home requires a variance to required setback standards, is hereby deemed
not a reasonable use or request on this property, especially if the owner were to relocate the home
closer to Hunter Lane, thereby eliminating the need for a variance.
C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is
not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique
circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood).
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days,
in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of
the Critical Area Permit and related Variance for setback standards, with the findings of facts to support the
granting of said CAP and Variance, with the conditions noted therein.
Attachments
1. Site Pictures
2. Aerial/Site Location Map
3. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative)
4. Survey/Site Plan/Landscape Plans for 1875 Hunter Lane
5. Letters of Support
page 119
Planning Report-Case #2019-06 Page 11
Dwelling -Front
Front Yard – Looking towards Hunter Lane
Rear Garden/Pool Area
Side Yard – Looking Westerly Towards Bluff-Line
Rear Yard - Looking Southwesterly towards bluff
Rear Yard – Looking westerly towards bluff line
page 120
66666666³
³
³³"
""666666666FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FMFMFMFMFMFM FMFMFMFMFMFM!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
1885
1875
1845
1855
1867
1889
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1902 1903
1835
1905 190719081901 HUNTER LNHUNTER CT 0'354'269'375'187'
Dakota County GIS
City of
Mendota
Heights0120
SCALE IN FEETDate: 3/21/2019
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
1875 HUNTER LANE(Cosgriff Residence)
page 121
1875 Hunter Lane
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Letter of Intent
John & Theresa Cosgriff Residence at 1875 Hunter Lane
New Home Description
1. The new home project for John and Theresa Cosgriff is being designed by the award‐winning
architecture firm Charlie & Co. (www.charlieandcodesign.com), and will be built by the award‐
winning builder Detail Homes (www.detailhomes.com).
2. Landscape design and installation is through Scott Ritter of Mendota Heights and his firm Topo
(www.topollc.com).
3. The home will have 4 bedrooms and 6 bathrooms, encompassing approximately 6,500 square
feet.
4. Exterior materials to be natural, including wood cladding and stone veneer.
5. Original intent of purchase was an extensive remodel project but due to the old 1948
foundation, 7‐foot ceilings in the walk‐out lower level and other structural considerations, the
clients are now pursuing a new home build.
6. The new, proposed home will be in a similar location and angle to the existing house, with the
new home, new pool and patio moving back slightly from the bluff.
Variance Request
1. A variance is requested for Mendota Heights City Code Title 12‐3‐8 (B)(3)(f) to build the new
home in a similar location to the existing home. The variance is needed because Title 12‐3‐8
(B)(3)(f), the “string line” rule, would require the home owners to undertake significant and
expensive excavation of the lot, resulting in a 12+ foot high retaining wall on both sides of the
property, which would not be in compliance with Title 12‐3‐9 (A)(2)(d)(1), which limits retaining
walls to heights of no more than 5 feet.
2. Additionally, without the variance the home owners would also not be able to raise the home if
it was required to move up the slope due to Title 12‐1E‐1 (A)(5)(c), the allowance to increase by
one foot (1') the height of the home from the existing condition. This would effectively eliminate
the ability to be a walk‐out condition as currently laid out on the existing home.
New and Existing Trees
1. Over 50 new trees will be added to the property and no existing trees will be taken down.
Underground Drainage System for Erosion and Sedimentation Control
1. An underground drainage system will be added to collect runoff and prevent erosion. This is in
addition to rain gardens, silt fences and erosion controls mats to ensure drainage is well
contained and controlled across the property.
page 122
1875 Hunter Lane
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Please complete the attached questions regarding your request.
Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council.
__________________________________________________________________
Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request.
1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note:
“practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code.
Economic considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty).
a. Yes; The existing home in its current location would not be compliant with Title 12‐3‐8
(B)(3)(f). We are only asking to build the new home in the current position based on
proximity to the bluff. We are not asking to change the position or relationship of the
home, only to maintain its current position on the site.
2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the
granting of this variance?
a. Yes; the existing home would currently be out of compliance given its current position on
the site. In order to make a home compliant with Title 12‐3‐8 (B)(3)(f), a house would
need to move back 46.5 feet. At that point, it would be virtually impossible to utilize a
walk‐out design (the existing home is a walk‐out) because Title 12‐1E‐1 (A)(5)(c) does not
allow for the house to be raised more than 12” from the existing first floor elevation and
require significant excavation and retaining walls.
3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
a. No; we are looking to maintain a similar position to the existing home relative to the
bluff and street.
page 123
page 124
page 125
page 126
94494
2
94
0
938 9369349
3
2944942940
938936934
9329309289269249229209189169149129109089329309
2
8 934936938940942944946948
950946944 942 940938936
9
2
6
9
2
4
9
2
2
9
2
0
9
1
8
9
1
6
9
1
4
9
1
2
9
1
0 948
950942934
946 HUNTER LANES0°12'40"E 127.60N89°38'04"E 316.00
N81°10
'56"W
166
.36
S0°12'40"E 152.86N89°47'20"E 480.30
EXHIBIT 1 - 1875 HUNTER LANE - EXISTING SITE PLAN
10' SIDE SETBACK
10' SIDE SETBACK 30' FRO NT SETBACK96' SETBACK (20% OF LOT DEPTH)15' SIDE SETBACK
15' SIDE SETBACK
HOME
EXISTING
GARAGE
PORCH
COVEREDDECK
ELEVATED
GATE
GATE
POOL
EXISTING
PORCH
COVERED
HOME
EXISTING
HOME
EXISTING
PORCH
COVERED
PATIO
EXISTING
PATIO
EXISTING
{Scale in Feet}
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 16 32
8 24
64 96
E
N
W
S
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
TO BE REMOVED
RETAINING WALL
EXISTING EXISTIN G BLDG LINETO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
TO BE REMOVED
RETAINING WALL
EXISTING
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING POOL
REMOVED
EXISTING HOME TO BE
EXISTING VIEW LINE
E
XISTIN
G VIE
W LIN
E
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING DECK
TO BE REMOVED
RETAINING WALLS
EXISTING
FFE
EXISTING
946.93
PATIO
EXISTING
938.7
page 127
94
2
94
0
938 9369349
3
2942940
938936934932930928926924922920918916914912910908
9329309
2
8 934936938940942944946948
950946944 942 940938936
9
2
6
9
2
4
9
2
2
9
2
0
9
1
8
9
1
6
9
1
4
9
1
2
9
1
0 948
950942934
94692092292492692893093293693
4
938 940
9
4
2
944946
936938940942944946944
946
%Slope
%
Slope
%
Slope %
Slope %S lo p e
%Slope
%Slope
%Slope %S lo p e %S lope
934
936
938
940942944 946 946947
2'-6"
5'HUNTER LANE943.2
DL
4" DT
4" DT
4" DT
4" DT
4" DT
947'-6"
947'-11"
946'-6"TOW942'-6"
TOW
938'-6"TOW
936'-6"
21R
DN
936'-6"
4" DT4" DT
4" DT
933'-0"
7R
DN
933'-0"
7R
DN
DL
S0°12'40"E 127.60N89°38'04"E 316.00
N81°10
'56"W
166
.36
S0°12'40"E 152.86N89°47'20"E 480.30
EXHIBIT 2 - 1875 HUNTER LANE - PROPOSED/EXISTING COMBO SITE PLAN
10' SIDE SETBACK
10' SIDE SETBACK 30' FRO NT SETBACK96' SETBACK (20% OF LOT DEPTH)15' SIDE SETBACK
15' SIDE SETBACK
HOME
EXISTING
PATIO
EXISTING
HOME
EXISTING
PORCH
COVERED
PATIO
EXISTING
HOME - GRAY
PROPOSED
POOL
PROPOSED
DECK
PROPOSED
{Scale in Feet}
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 16 32
8 24
64 96
E
N
W
S
6'-0"2'-0"
GRASS
GRASSWEST BUILDING LINEEXISTING VIEW LINE
E
XISTIN
G VIE
W LIN
E
EXISTING
POOL
EXISTING
RETAINING WALL
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING POOL
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TERRACE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING
RETAINING WALL
TO BE REMOVED
FFE
PROPOSED
947.93
page 128
94
2
94
0
938 9369349
3
2942940
938936934932930928926924922920918916914912910908
9329309
2
8 934936938940942944946948
950946944 942 940938936
9
2
6
9
2
4
9
2
2
9
2
0
9
1
8
9
1
6
9
1
4
9
1
2
9
1
0 948
950942934
94692092292492692893093293693
4
938 940
9
4
2
944946
936938940942944946944
946
%Slope
%
Slope
%
Slope %
Slope %S lo p e
%Slope
%Slope
%Slope %S lo p e %S lope
934
936
938
940942944 946 946947
2'-6"
5'HUNTER LANE943.2
DL
4" DT
4" DT
4" DT
4" DT
4" DT
947'-6"
947'-11"
946'-6"TOW942'-6"
TOW
938'-6"TOW
936'-6"
21R
DN
936'-6"
4" DT4" DT
4" DT
933'-0"
7R
DN
933'-0"
7R
DN
DL
S0°12'40"E 127.60N89°38'04"E 316.00
N81°10
'56"W
166
.36
S0°12'40"E 152.86N89°47'20"E 480.30
EXHIBIT 3 - 1875 HUNTER LANE - PROPOSED SITE PLAN
10' SIDE SETBACK
10' SIDE SETBACK 30' FRO NT SETBACK96' SETBACK (20% OF LOT DEPTH)15' SIDE SETBACK
15' SIDE SETBACK
HOME
EXISTING
PATIO
EXISTING
HOME
EXISTING
PORCH
COVERED
PATIO
EXISTING
HOME - GRAY
PROPOSED
POOL
PROPOSED
DECK
PROPOSED
{Scale in Feet}
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 16 32
8 24
64 96
E
N
W
S
6'-0"2'-0"
GRASS
GRASSWEST BUILDING LINEEXISTING VIEW LINE
E
XISTIN
G VIE
W LIN
E
FFE
PROPOSED
947.93
page 129
HUNTER LANE EXISTINGDWELLING15' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK15' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK30' FRONT SETBACK
96' SETBACK (20% OF LOT DEPTH)EXISTING BLDG LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE 92092292492692893093293693493894094294
4
9
4
6
936
938
940
94
2
94
4
946
944946DLSlope%Slope%Slope%Slope%Sl
o
p
e
%
S
l
o
p
e%Slope%Slope%Sl
o
p
e
%4" DT4" DT4" DT4" DT4
"
D
T
Sl
o
p
e
%
934936938940942944
9
4
6
946947'-6"947'-11"946'-6"TOW947938'-6"TOW936'-6"21RDN936'-6"4" DT4" DT4" DT933'-0"7RDN933'-0"7RDNDL920918918917SUB SURFACEROCK GALLERYsee 1/L100Slope%SUB SURFACEROCK GALLERYsee 1/L100Slope%Slope%Slope%Slope%Slope%Slope%Slope%Slope%PROPOSED 6' HIGH FENCE AND GATE 6' HIGH IRON FENCE AND GATEPROPOSED 6' IRON FENCEINSTALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKETON ALL EXPOSED SLOPE. SEE 3. L100TREE PROTECTIONSEE 3/L100TREE PROTECTIONSEE 3/L100PROPOSED RAIN GARDENTREE PROTECTIONSEE 3/L100SILT FENCESILT FENCEREMOVE EXISTING RETAINING WALL6 FT HIGH IRON FENCESILT FENCE6 FT HIGH IRON FENCESILT FENCESlope%Slope%Slope%Slope%PROPOSED STONE RETAINING WALLHT VARIES. TOWPROPOSED STONE RETAINING WALLNEW ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER BY XCEL. aprox locationREMOVE OLD SHRUBERY UNDEREXISTING TREES. SOD WHERE SHRUBSREMOVEDPROPOSED EXTENT OF RAIN GARDENSlope%Slope%Slope%Slope%942'-6"TOWPOOL L A W N / S O DAUTO COURTPATIORESIDENCEGARAGEDRIVEWAYPATIO L A W N / S O D L A W N / S O D L A W N / S O D L A W N / S O D L A W N / S O DTREE PROTECTON NOTES:1.Trees not noted to be removed shall be protected throughout the duration of the contract.Protection fences will be installed at trees to remain. The protection fence will be maintainedand communications to all construction trades as a no disturbance area throughout theduration of the construction.2.Tree protection areas are a continuing process or method to not disturb the health or qualityof the existing tree. This process may include, but not be limited to, minimizing compaction tosoils, addition or reduction in soil elevations within the drip line, or storage of equipment orvehicles within protected fence areas.4' ht. orange safety fence with posts spaced 6' o.c.max at drip line of outer most branches, refer toplan for locations.4'" Shredded Hardwood Mulch. Remove existingvegetation or suckering before Installing mulch.10001000EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONDIRECTION OF SLOPE100'-0"GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN KEY:SILT FENCEBIO LOGNDS BOX FOR ROOF DRAINSPVC DRAIN PIPE, SIZE AND DIRECTIONOF FLOW AS NOTED ON SITE PLAN1000GRADING/DRAINAGE NOTES:1. Provide and maintain positive drainage away from all structures at all times.2. All design contours and proposed elevations indicated are to finish grade unless otherwise noted.3. The contractor shall account for all imported surface and planting materials in determining earthwork requirements.4. Grading operations must minimize the potential for erosion.5. Prior to rough grading the site, the contractor must remove all topsoil in areas to be disturbed and stockpile on site for future use. Excess topsoil must be removed fromthe site after finish grading at the contractor's expense.6. If the earthwork for the site is anticipated to produce an excess of material. The contractor must remove all excess material from the site and dispose of it at thecontractor's expense.7. No topsoil shall be removed from restoration areas without approval from the landscape architect.8. Topsoil compacted by construction traffic in restoration areas shall be loosened under the direction of the landscape architect.9. Locations and elevations of existing topography and utilities as shown on this plan are approximate. Contractor shall field verify site conditions and utility locations priorto excavation/construction. The Owner's representative shall be notified immediately if any discrepancies are found.10. All excavation shall be in accordance with the current edition of "Standard specifications for trench excavation and backfill/surface restoration" as prepared by the cityof engineers association of Minnesota.11. Adjacent streets, alleys and properties must be swept to keep them free of sediment and materials tracked, blown or washed from the site. Contractor must monitorconditions and sweep as needed for within 24 hours notice by the Owner's representative. Sweeping is incidental to the project.12. Contractor must maintain dust control for the site at all times and provide watering trucks as needed, or within 24 hours notice by the landscape architect. Dust controlis incidental to the project.GRADING /DRAINAGE KEY NOTES:1. No grading, stockpiling of materials, or staging is permitted outside of the limits of work.2. All areas indicated for turf are to receive 8" of topsoil.3. Contractor is to subcut driveway to 16" from finish grade, and then base driveway with 5" of base..4. Contractor is to excavate and shape pond to grades shown. Specificaiotns....5. Stormwater Management System to be installed per plan and specifications.EROSION CONTROL NOTES:1. The contractor is responsible for reviewing the erosion control requirements of the site, and for installing and maintaining erosion controlmeasures where needed. Even if they are not indicated on the drawings.2. Where disturbed soil will be exposed for more then 21 days, the contractor must seed with a temporary cover crop to prevent erosion or coverwith temporary erosion blanket until. Temporary seed mix must be approved by Owner's representative prior to installation. Temporary seedseeding or erosions blankets is incidental to the project.EROSION CONTROL KEY NOTES:1. All temporary erosion control measures must be in place prior to any removal work and must be maintained until permanent erosion controlmeasures have been completely implemented and established.2. Install silt fencing around the perimeter of the limits of work and maintain until permanent erosion control is established . All silt fence must beorange geotextile fabric with steel posts. Machine slicing of silt fencing around or under trees will not be permitted. Silt fence around or undertrees must be hand placed and fastened to the ground with staples.3. Inlet protection (silt fence barricades, silt stacks, riser pipes or filter fabric and gravel) must be installed in all existing affected catch basinsprior to any removal work, and in all new catch basins immediately after catch basin installation.DEMOLITION KEY NOTES:1. The contractor must protect all existing roads, curbs, structures, trees and site elements not designated for removal. Any damage shall be repaired or replaced atcontractors expense to the satisfaction of the Owner's representative.2. Protect all trees designated to be saved with a barrier fence consisting of safety-capped rebar posts placed no more then 8 feet on center with 4 foot high orange squaremesh barrier fencing. Resinet SLM40, or equal, attached to posts. Barrier fence must be installed at the limits of the drip line prior to construction, and must not beremoved until final landscaping is to be completed. Reference detail X/X.X3. Prior to construction, contact the Owner's representative to visit site and verify trees to be saved. Contractor must review the drawings, and daily work schedule, so thatshould proposed grades pose a hazard to a 'tree to be saved' the contractor's work is not impeded and there will be time to study the issue. If roots of the treesdesignated to be saved are cut, broken or disturbed by construction operations, they must be immediately and cleanly root pruned with a sharp axe or pruner.EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION100'-0"FLOOD PLAIN IMPACT:CUT = 0FILL = 0AREA OF DISTURBANCE:XXX SQUARE FEET / XX ACRESarea of disturbance keyEXISTING DECIDUOUSEXISTING CONIFEROUSEXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVEDIN MITIGATION AREAPROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREEPROPOSED EVERGREEN TREEPROPOSED UPRIGHT EVERGREENEXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVEDIN NON-MITIGATION AREAPROPOSED SHRUBTOP SOILREPLACED EXCAVATED MATERIAL6" PERFORATED DRAINTILEASTM NO. 2 STONE 40% VOIDSGEOTEXTILE LINEAR TYP. ALLSIDES OF ROCK GALLERYNATIVE MATERIALNOTE: LENGTH AND WIDTH OF ROCK GALLERY VARIES. SEE PLANS FOR GALLERY DIMENSIONS.PAVINGPOOLMN-DOT 260 SEED MIXRAIN GARDEN. MN-DOT 260 SEED MIX920'-0"919'-0"918'-0"917'-0"930'-0"IMPORTED FILL: 30% ORGANICLEAF COMPOST/70% WASHEDSAND (DO NOT COMPACT)PLANT TYPICAL RAIN GARDENSHRUBS AND PLANTSEXISTING SOILEXISTING SOILPER GRADING PLANI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORTWAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPEARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.DESIGNED BY:DRAFTED BY:REVISION DATE:DRAWING SCALE:REVISIONS:L100COSGRIFF1875 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights, MN 55118530 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 401MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401612.929.2049www.topollc.comDATEREV # / DESCRIPTIONORIGINAL ISSUE DATE:SITE PLANSEE DETAIL SCALESRTOPO2.21.20192.21.2019SITE PLANSCALE: 1/16" = 1' - 0"3.TREE PROTECTION TYP.1. ROCK GALLERY TYPICAL SECTIONGRADING GENERAL NOTESTREE SYMBOL KEY SYMBOL KEYOPTIONAL TRENCH -TRENCHING REQUIREDIF RECOMMENDEDMINIMUM DISTANCE OVERTOP OF SLOPE IS NOTAVAILABLE OR IFOVERLAND FLOW ISANTICIPATEDEND ROLL OVERLAP.SEE DETAILS 1 AND 3SIDE SEAM OVERLAP.SEE DETAILS 2 AND 4EXTEND BLANKET A MINIMUM OF 'OVER TOP OF SLOPE.2. EROSION CONTROL MAT INSTALLATION TYP.6"4"2' MINIMUM2' MINIMUMSILT FENCE TYP.RAIN GARDEN SECTION TYP.page 130
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
B) PLANNING CASE #2019-06
CHARLIE CO. DESIGN (JOHN & THERESA COSGRIFF)
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND VARIANCE - 1875 HUNTER LANE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Charlie and Co. Design, on behalf
of John and Theresa Cosgriff, were requesting a Critical Area Permit to remove an existing
dwelling and rebuild on the site. The property is located at 1875 Hunter Lane, just within the
Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area. For any new improvements, demolition, or heavy
removals or grading projects a Critical Area Permit is required. The request also includes a
Variance to the average bluff line setbacks as required under the critical area ordinance.
Notices were published in the local newspaper and notices were mailed out. The Cosgriff’s have
received a number of letters expressing support of this project. Notices and application materials
were also sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR), who acknowledged
receipt of the materials. They provided no follow-up comments or objections to the Critical Area
permit and Variance applications.
The subject property is located in the mid-block of Hunter lane, is approximately 1.5 acres in size,
and there is currently a 4,322 square foot home on the lot with a backyard swimming pool and
garden area. The home was originally built in 1948.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property with the current footprint of the dwelling, and a
highlighted overlay of the proposed new structure. Essentially, the footprint would remain the
same except for the addition of a three-car garage on the north side of the home. This new home
would be an approximately 6,500 square foot, four bedroom, six bath home. The pool, instead of
being at an angle, would be parallel to the back of the house.
Critical Area Permit
The purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to:
Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national
resource
Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and
public areas;
Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an
essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems
The standards to be met for a Critical Area Permit, as described by Mr. Benetti and noted under
Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District, are:
Site Planning Requirements
Development Standards
Structure Setbacks (the Variance request relates to this standard)
Height Limits
Retaining Walls
Standards for Grading/Filling
Standards for Vegetation Management
page 131
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
Surface Water Runoff Management
Variance Request
Mr. Benetti explained that whenever someone is building in a new lot or tear down between two
other houses, the setback is averaged for the new home equal to their neighbors. For a Critical
Area Property, this string-line rule comes into play on the backside with the bluff line. Mr. Benetti
shared an image of the property that included a line of the where the average setback would be
between the houses to the north and the house to the south. If this setback were adhered to, the
new home would be located behind the line and closer to the bluff line.
Mr. Benetti continued by explaining the test questions that must be answered to provide
justification for any variance request:
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise
permitted by the zoning ordinance
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created
by the property owner
3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties
He then provided the answers to those questions from the applicants and from staff.
Other variables the city could consider when grant or denying a variance are as follows:
Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community
Existing and anticipated traffic conditions
Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety
Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan
Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a
practical difficulty
Commissioner Petschel asked if the ordinance, in respect to the string rule, only consider the
adjoining two houses. Mr. Benetti replied that the ordinance states ‘the immediately adjacent
properties’. He then asked if that couldn’t include the next houses over, and the reason for his
question is he was looking at the aerial photo of the three properties adjacent – and it’s a mess.
They homes are all over the place. If the rule were applied, the house next to the adjacent property
would not be conforming either. Mr. Benetti agreed; however, the rule applies when building a
new house and then only to the adjacent properties.
Commissioner Petschel noted that the ordinance does not say anything about the curvature or land
features. He then provided a hypothetical example of his concern – let’s say there is a cul-de-sac
and someone had the deepest lot in the cul-de-sac, clearly the string rule is not going to work
because the house at the top is going to have a further setback than the two adjoining lots.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if these should be heard as two separate motions or could they be
motioned together. Mr. Benetti suggested they be motioned together as they are integral to each
other.
page 132
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
Mr. Colby Mattson, Principal/Designer with Charlie & Co. made a few additional points:
They had the neighbors over from the surrounding community to present the project and
to make sure they were clear on what the clients were intending to do. They had very good
support and letters were provided in the packet.
The Cosgriff’s purchased this lot and property with the idea of potentially remodeling it.
The lower level has 7-foot ceilings. After working with a contractor it was determined that
the best course of action to get the home they were looking for ways to go to the new home
concept.
If they were to abide by the string rule, it would push the new home location back
approximately 47.5 feet. With that, significant excavation and retaining walls would be
necessary. They plan was to minimize the impact to the lot and change no conditions for
the neighbors (site lines and proximity).
Commissioner Petschel asked if it would be physically possible to build a house that would
conform to the rear string rule and also conform to the adjoining property’s front yard setbacks.
Mr. Mattson replied that it would be a very small home. He and Mr. Benetti looked at that early
on. Looking at the bluff line and looking at the era in which a lot of the homes were built, some of
them are very close to the bluff line and do not necessarily abide by the rule. When looking at the
feasibility of the properties, if they were to pull the home back behind the string rule line, the house
to the north – based on the location of the house to their north – would have to move back
approximately 20 feet, creating a trickle down affect.
Chair Magnuson asked how far forward towards the road the home would have to come in order
to abide by the string rule. Mr. Mattson replied that it would have to come back approximately 20
feet. The house two properties north is even further back due to the curvature of the bluff line. That
house would end up having to be pulled back if it was every rebuilt as well.
Mr. Mattson continued by explaining that the idea the clients were asking for – they did not want
to ask for more than what is currently there. They are trying to improve upon every aspect based
on the site conditions.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that this was not built has a walk-out in 1948, it was actually
created to be a walk-out approximately 20 years ago by two previous owners. She asked, given
what has been done in the past with the excavation, if they were forced to move this house up to
47 feet and do further excavation, what kind of issue would that create in terms of dealing with
what was previously excavated and try to conform that in and would that be possible to do without
creating some adverse effects close to the bluff line. Mr. Mattson replied that part of it would that,
as they move further away from the bluff line, the house would presumably want to be climbing
up the hill that is there. Based on one of the ordinances saying that they cannot take the first floor
any higher than 12 inches above the existing first floor, would put a lot of pressure on to the lower
level. In their opinion it would not be possible to be a walk-out based on the grading; or having to
use significantly tall retaining walls, which are also not allowed.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if they were planning on using the current foundation or hole of
the existing house. Mr. Mattson replied that the idea was that when the house was demolished
page 133
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
there would be a little disturbance to the surrounding area as possible. They were not planning on
using the existing foundation itself. It is not in great shape. The idea was to use the west face of
the property as a benchmark. Generally speaking there would be a small amount of excavation just
to get the proper soils for footings and everything else. The majority of the existing basement hold
would be used.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, made a general comment about the critical area by pointing
out that some native species are not beloved – cottonwood, box elder, sumac – but they are native
and belong in the critical area. When the Commission is considering these generic comments –
removal of invasive species – they should be more specific about what is meant by invasive
species.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked Ms. Pilgrim if they were to reword that condition, what verbiage
would she recommend. She replied that the MnDNR would have the official list of what is
considered invasive. She would say that anything that is native is not by definition invasive.
Commissioner Katz noted that the staff report and the narrative from the applicants says that they
are not planning on removing any of trees and would be protective of the existing trees. They are
planning on planting at least 50 new trees and some shrubs on the site. They also have a very good
runoff management plan, including a rain garden right near the critical bluff line.
John and Theresa Cosgriff, 1837 Summit Lane, reinforced that they have been very mindful of the
critical area rules in designing both the house and the landscaping; the runoff controls that they
have been very mindful of the intent of that rule. They hoped that what they were trying to do
would be an improvement to the neighborhood.
Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-06 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
AND RELATED VARIANCE FOR SETBACK STANDARDS REQUEST, BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in
carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists
of a three –part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will
page 134
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do
not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in
order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by:
i. the proposed new single-family home is a reasonable use of the property;
ii. the subject property was pre-developed with an existing home closer to the bluff
line than what the neighboring (adjacent) properties have today; and the Applicants
are matching closely the location of the new home with the old home.
iii. approving this Variance does not change the essential character of the
neighborhood, as this residential area and bluff lines will not be affected by th e
approval of the Variance; and
iv. the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable new home
on the subject property and well beyond the required minimum setbacks established
in the Critical Area Overlay District standards, and as such, keeps the rear yard
space open and intact a it was prior to e new development. The variance is also
determined to not be solely based on economic considerations.
C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code,
including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare
of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on
the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the
surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will
not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in
general.
D. Approval of the Variance is for 1875 Hunter Lane only, and does not apply or give
precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants
must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance
requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the
requirements of the City Code.
E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No.
2019-06, dated and presented March 26, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota
Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution.
F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his
Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the
impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows:
i. Building and grading permits shall be approved by city staff prior to any demolition
or removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of the new
dwelling.
ii. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed new
dwelling within one (1) year form date of city council approval.
iii. 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.
iv. All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by
the Public Works Director.
v. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable
vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm.
page 135
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT
vi. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during
grading and construction work activities
vii. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
Weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends.
G. The effort made by the applicant to respect the Critical Area and to implement
enhancements to the Critical Area
Commissioner Petschel asked if they would have a front yard string rule evaluation as well. Mr.
Benetti replied that he only looked at the back line. Commissioner Petschel asked, in general if
someone came to do new construction on a lot, they would have a front yard string rule evaluation.
Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Petschel then asked if there weren’t
competing rules in this case. Mr. Benetti again replied in the affirmative because in the critical
area, this rule is applicable to the bluff.
Commissioner Petschel commented that to further the discussion of uniqueness that seems to be
plaguing the Commission, the nature of the setback of the surrounding properties is erratic and
creates a fairly clear burden on the property owner.
Commissioner Noonan commented that he was coming to the same thing; the practical difficulties
are the competing setbacks, string rules, and where the property is located. If they layered the rear
string rule and the front string rule, they would be creating a non-developable lot. Even a
manufactured house would not fit.
Also, the applicant is not really changing the nature of the home; the footprint, as was pursued by
Commissioner Magnuson’s question, was the same except for the garage addition. They are
improving the situation, enhancing, and respecting the bluff areas. This is a testament to the
applicant and to their professionals.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 2, 2019
meeting.
page 136
DATE: April 2, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Parks, Recreation and Par 3 Annual Report
INTRODUCTION
At its regular meeting on April 2nd, the Council will hear a presentation on the 2018
accomplishments in park improvements, recreation programs and the Par 3 golf course.
ACTION REQUESTED
This presentation is for informational purposes only. However, the council is welcome to provide
feedback and ideas for the 2019 year to staff.
page 137
page 138
Parks & Recreation
Year in Review2018
City of Mendota Heights
Overview
•Parks & Recreation
•Commission update
•Facility/parks improvements
•Recreational program review
•2019 plans
•Par 3
•Usage review
•Financial review
•Equipment & approvals
•Recreational program review
•Special events
•Footgolf
•Facility Improvements
•2019 plans
•Q&A
Year in Review
2018
Parks & Recreation
Commission Update
Year in Review
2018
•Welcome new commissioners Daniel Sherer & Stephanie Meyer
•New chair and vice-chair
•May 2018 Park Priorities
Parks & Recreation
Facility & Parks Improvements
•New park signs @
Valley, Mendakota, &
Friendly Hills
•Converted full-sized basketball court @ Marie Park
•8 new pickle ball nets
•Tennis court resurfaced @ Marie Park
•Refreshed all
playground surfacing
material
•Bike rack pads added •Skateboard
improvements @
Roger’s Lake
•Fishing culvert fence
@ Roger’s Lake
•Tables added @
Market Square Park
•New shaded table @
Dog Park
Parks & Recreation
Facility & Parks Improvements
•Buckthorn removal @ Rogers
Lake, Valley Park, & Pilot Knob
•Pond work @ Ivy Hills Park
Parks & Recreation
Facility & Parks Improvements
•New lights installed at
Wentworth hockey rink
•Light timers at all ice rinks
696
Parks & Recreation
Recreational Program Review
participants
141 Playground
Program
49 Gymnastics
Program
82Field Trips
44Safety Camp
26Skateboard
Camp
40Royal Ball
35Fishing Derby14Superhero
Masquerade37SportsCamps
Par 3 Golf Programs not included
Tennis Camp203
25 Ice Skating
Program
Parks & Recreation
Recreational Program Review
•Wentworth: 953
•Friendly Hills: 1,024
•Marie: 1,281
360
Softball
participants
•“D” level softball league
(men’s and women’s)
•18 softball teams total
100+
Family Kickball
participants
Outdoor Rink
usage
3,258
Parks & Recreation
2018 Recreational Program Review
Puppet Wagon
•Market Square Park on Mondays in Summer
•Each week featured a new theme, puppet mail and dancing
Summer Playhouse
•Mendakota Park on Tuesdays in Summer
•Theme was “Where in the World”
Movie in the Park
•Saturday, September 22 (Moana)
Modified Summer Concert Series
•The Patience Band, Percolators, Kids Dance
Park Celebration
•Event and Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5K
Year in Review
2018
FREE Community
Programs
Parks & Recreation
2019 Plans
•Tour De Rec Program
•Additional movie night, revival of summer
concert series
•Glow Run
•Superhero Masquerade
•Events in partnership with Natural Resource Coordinator
•Offering youth art classes, working on theater
•Workouts in the Park
•Promotion of Recreation Fee Assistance Program
Image source:
Town Square TV Superhero
Masquerade Video
Par 3City of Mendota Heights
Year in Review
2018
1710 1674 1744 1681
860
246
20
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
May June July August September October November
2018 -Rounds Sold by Month
Par 3
Usage Review
20182017802
pull carts rented
Total Rentals
7,935
total rounds
6,000
total rounds 935
gas carts rented
Year in Review
2018
Par 3
Financial Review (Note: unofficial until audit)
Year 2018
Revenue $132,519
Expenditures $142,608
Loss (10,089)
Par 3
Equipment Purchases/Approvals
Rough Mower
Toro Grounds Master 4000-D
$65,990
Fairway Mower
Toro Reelmaster 3100D$32,476
Par 3
Equipment Purchases/Approvals
Utility Cart
Toro GTX Workman EFI Bench$8,850
Debris Blower
Toro Pro Force Debris Blower
$7,988
Par 3
Recreational Program Review
187
participants
Friday Youth League57
GOLF LEAGUES
Wednesday Youth League28
Wednesday Night Women’s League97
140
participants
GOLF CAMPS
Tuesday Morning Senior’s League5
Tiger Tots31
Junior Golf Program109
Par 3
Special Events
Year in Review
2018
PGA Minnesota
Junior Golf ‘Sota Series Minny Tour
•Took place on August 2, 2018
•55 youth participants (7-12 years old)
•Designed for youth with little or no
experience in competitive golf
Par 3
Special Events
Year in Review
2018
Local School Partnerships
•Students practiced & played matches
•Increased course use during typically
slower times of the week
•Students returned with family/friends
to play recreationally throughout the
season
Par 3
Footgolf
Year in Review
2018
•9-hole course offered at the Par 3
•Sport combining golf and soccer
•Sport has become popular
throughout the U.S.
•Staff is working to optimize use of
the course by promoting this
feature
•Looking at hosting a footgolf
tournament in summer of 2019 to
drive awareness/interest
Par 3
Facility Improvements
•Planting/Gardening Day took place on
June 26, 2018
•Volunteers planted a pollinator-friendly
rain garden and landscaping around the
clubhouse, leaving it looking beautiful &
vibrant
Par 3
2019 Plans
Year in Review
2018
•Increase Marketing through Facebook promotions, more coupons, & partnership
with Groupon
•Increase Partnerships by expanding high school teams use; another JPGA tournament is
scheduled for July 1
•Increase Play by adding new leagues
•Speed Up/Maximize Play with additional Golf Carts; these are contracted and not city-owned;
staff is working to rent 1 additional cart (5 total) to speed up rounds and maximize course play
•Increase Productivity with new equipment allowing staff to be more productive with their time
•Continue Cost-Reduction using the same turf consultant as 2018 when chemical applications
were taken in-house to reduce costs.
Parks & Recreation
Year in Review2018
City of Mendota Heights