2017-06-27 Planning Comm MinutesJune 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 26
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 27, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 27,
2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Michael
Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent:
None
Approval of Agenda
Chair Field, after consulting with the other Planning Commissioners, changed the order of the
agenda as follows:
B) Planning Case #2017-12
C) Planning Case #2017-13
E) Planning Case #2017-15
A) Planning Case #2017-11
D) Planning Case #2017-14
All of the commissioners agreed to this change in the order of the agenda.
Approval of May 23, 2017 Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2017, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Hearings
B) PLANNING CASE #2017-12
GEMINI MEDICAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MENDOTA
HEIGHTS PLAZA, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 17,000
SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a request for a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) to amend the previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) for
Mendota Heights Plaza. The property is generally located at 796-820 Highway 110. The applicants
are seeking approval to amend the Planned Unit Development in conjunction with a proposed
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 26
17,000 headquarter office building to locate just behind the current Walgreens facility. The City
Code requires the City Council approval for any amendments to an approved PUD.
Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the property under consideration, located immediately behind
the current Walgreens facility, right off of South Plaza and Dodd Road.
Gemini Medical is a partner of Arthrex orthopedic medical devices and feel they would be better
able to serve their clientele of orthopedic surgeons in the metro area with this new facility. This
new facility would serve as their new headquarters/primary offices for business administration and
sales teams, provide area for shipping and receiving necessary supplies and inventory, with 2/3 of
the building area being for client hospitality/education and administration and sales, while the
remaining 1/3 of the building area would be dedicated to inventory shipping and receiving.
The building itself would have some decent architectural features to match the tones and themes
within The Plaza. The Comprehensive Plan says that the intent of the subject area within the
Mendota Plaza development is guided as Mixed-Use PUD; to allow for mixed use developments
that combine residential, retail, and commercial uses into a coordinated, planned development
project.
Mr. Benetti shared the necessary standards that need to be met to amend an existing PUD and
shared how this development would meet those standards.
The site plan shows the building being centrally located on the lot with two access points off of
the access road with parking along the north and the east sides of the building. The backyard area
will not be incorporated parking at this point; however, it is identified as proof of parking. This is
a simple way of saying that if additional parking is needed in the future, this area could be
converted to a parking lot.
Mr. Benetti, along with the site plan, shared the grading plan, utility plan, landscape plan, lighting
plan, and parking plan. All of this information was available in the Planning Commission’s
information packet.
Commissioner Hennes asked if there were any concerns on the city’s part that the proposed project
is a lot smaller than what was envisioned in the original PUD. Mr. Benetti replied that, at this point,
there are no concerns. The City and Paster Properties are happy to see a viable business and activity
coming onto the space. It would also serve an economic need and this project is seen as adequate
and suitable.
Commissioner Hennes also asked if there had been any discussions with city staff about a larger
building, whether it is two or three stories, and leasing out the rest of the space. Mr. Benetti replied
that, to his knowledge, there have been no such discussions.
Councilmember Petschel noted that in the drawings provided the building appears to be two
stories. Mr. Benetti replied that it does appear that way; however, it is only one story. There was a
proposal initially to do a mezzanine level but that was dropped. The warehouse portion of the
building requires a higher roof line and it is easier to build using all one frame.
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 26
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the vehicles would be coming in and out from Dodd Road. Mr.
Benetti replied in the negative, the two access points are on the access road between Subway and
Walgreens.
Mr. Jeff Schuler, 275 Market Street, Minneapolis is the architect of this project; came forward and
stated that Mr. Benetti explained the project very well. He noted that what they are trying to do is
to get a bigger space for Gemini Medical to grow into. They are designing this building and there
have been multiple discussions to ensure that this building will serve their needs for a long time
coming. They have tried to incorporate current colors and building tones of the existing space in
the existing PUD, but have it incorporate a high technical feel.
Commissioner Hennes asked about the timetable. Mr. Schuler replied that they plan to be open in
the spring; hoping to start construction in October 2017.
Commissioner Noonan asked if the rendering that was shown is an accurate representation of the
height, notwithstanding the fact that the mezzanine is not included. Mr. Schuler replied that it is
an accurate representation and that they tried to do that to allow for plenty of height for the shipping
area. They also knew that the original plan was for a three-story building and they tried to respect
the initial planning by making it look taller and have it fit a similar mold.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-12, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLAZA, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 17,000
SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING in accordance with the staff recommendations
on pages 15 and 16, with the conditions as outlined on page 17, and the findings of fact on page
17 of the staff report
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 26
C) PLANNING CASE #2017-13
XCEL ENERGY, 800 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF
GAS LINE PIPES, JOB TRAILER, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
EQUIPMENT AT THE SIBLEY GAS PLANT PROPERTIES
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Mr. Brian
Sullivan on behalf of North States Power/Xcel Energy. They requested an Interim Use Permit, or
short-term use permit, for an outdoor storage area in their gas plant facility located at 800 Sibley
Memorial Highway.
The property is currently zoned B-1A, Business Parking. Commercial businesses do allow for
essential services, such as this gas plant, so this is a permitted use in this area. The proposed
outdoor storage area would be in the excess patch of parking on the front edge of the property, just
off of the entry point.
Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met to allow this temporary use and explained
how this project meets those standards. He also noted that although this site is located within the
Critical Area, no new development, permanent structures, grading work, or removal of vegetation
is taking place; therefore, the City has elected to forgo the need or processing of a separate critical
area permit or review at this time.
It was also explained that there will be no storage of any type of hazardous waste or any chemicals
on the site. Basically all that will be seen are gas pipes. The interim use shall terminate by
December 31, 2017; any continuation of this use would need to return to the Commission and the
City Council for approval.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if they were planning on putting up any kind of a fence. Mr.
Benetti replied that there are no plans to install any type of fencing or landscaping because of the
short-term duration.
Mr. Brian Sullivan of Xcel Energy, 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis came forward to address the
Commission and answer questions. He had nothing to add to the staff report. In regards to any
security concerns, the pipes being stored would be 20 inches in diameter and 20 feet long; it would
take more than a football team to move one.
Mr. Jake Sedlacek of Xcel Energy, 3000 Maxwell Avenue, Newport also came forward and
presented on the project taking place across the street from the proposed storage area. Excel Energy
has two transmission or large natural gas lines, which currently go right down the bluff from the
garden center down to the parking lot of the trail. They have been there since 1948 and serve
approximately 400,000 customers in the metro area. The intent of this project is to do regular
maintenance, replace the pipes, and have it operating seamlessly in a way that no one would really
know that they are there. Because of the challenge of construction in this area, there would have
been impacts upon Highway 13, the senior living facility, the garden center, and the vegetation
area. Their proposal is to take the two gas transmission lines and bring them down around the State
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 26
right-of-way, avoiding the other sanitary facilities in the area, and then stop short of the railroad
trestle, stop short of their own electric transmission work, and then cross under the railroad to
where they can hook up with those lines in Lilydale Park. There really is no other area for them to
store these pipes in a safe and reliable manner.
The plan is start construction in early August with an anticipated completion date in October 2017.
Any restoration they would not be able to get into by winter or when the asphalt plants would close
would be completed in the spring. That would be part of the project – not part of this interim use
so there would be no concerns about having to extend the interim use.
Commissioner Petschel asked if this project was related or unrelated to the work being done at the
propane storage facility nearby. Mr. Sedlacek replied that the propane work has been completed
and was last year’s project. Xcel Energy worked east of that area, at the propane plant, and this is
the final piece to have it all tied up in this area.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-13, INTERIM USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF GAS LINE PIPES, JOB TRAILER, AND
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT AT THE SIBLEY GAS PLANT PROPERTIES
BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH
THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2017.
2. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety (in an amount negotiated between Xcel and
the City Administrator) to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures
upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit
3. Any extension of this interim use permit must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights
at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by the City Council.
4. Upon completion of the gas main replacement project or the expiration of the permit, the
outdoor storage site shall be restored to its original condition.
5. No hazardous, caustic, or explosive materials shall be stored on the outdoor area; with no
dumpsters, refuse, and garbage or scrapped (junk) materials stored or kept on the site. All
gas main pipes and related material shall be stacked or stored neatly, and stored as far away
from the trail system along Sibley Memorial Highway.
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 26
6. The Applicant (Xcel Energy and/or its subsidiaries) will ensure the job trailer is secured
and well maintained; and the storage space area is kept clean of trash and debris, free of
weeds, and well maintained throughout the duration of the permit term.
7. Any existing or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast,
shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from the residential area to the east.
8. Hours of operation for moving equipment in and out of the site shall be limited between
7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday thru Friday, with allowance of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on
Saturday only. Any expanded hours, including Sunday or holiday hours must be approved
by the City Council.
9. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1:
INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed
to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended
accordingly.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
E) PLANNING CASE #2017-15
BOB AND JANE REIDELL, 751 WILLOW LANE
WETLANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW IN-
GROUND SWIMMING POOL, POOL HOUSE; POOL DECK; RETAINING
WALLS AND LANDSCAPING
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this is a wetlands permit applied for by
Mr. Mike Fritz of M & M Homes on behalf of the property owners, Bob and Jane Reidell at 751
Willow Lane. This permit would facilitate the construction of a new in-ground pool, deck, pool
house, and some landscaping. As part of the wetlands permit, whenever any work is done within
100 feet of any wetland or recognized water resource area, a wetlands permit is necessary.
This is being presented under a public hearing and notices had been sent to the owner; no
comments have been received up to this time.
The property was a new lot that was created a couple of years ago under a lot split [April 2015]. It
is over 25,000 square feet, or 0.59 acre parcel. There is an existing brand new single family home
on the site, is currently zoned R-1 Residential, is guided as R-1 or LR, and there are no changes
on that. Marie Creek touches on the back corner of the lot, making this a wetland area.
Mr. Benetti shared images taken of the area in question showing a very well landscaped back yard
and unfinished area, which is the proposed location of the pool, deck, pool house, and landscaping.
He also made sure the commission understood that the proposed items are not located within the
wetland area itself, just within the 100-foot boundary from the wetland. There would be no impact
to Marie Creek. However, staff has recommended that they provide a 25-foot vegetative strip that
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 26
is usually required around any water resource areas to help prevent any type of washout or runoff
and to help hold down any fertilizer runoff from the lawn before it reaches the creek.
Due to an oversight in 2015, staff is demanding that easements be replatted or rededicated on this
site as a part of this process. Before any work can begin, easement dedications will be done, simply
as a carryover from the 2015 approvals.
Mr. Mike Fritz of M & M Home Contractors came forward to address the Commission and to
answer any questions. He had nothing to add to the staff report and the Commissioners had no
questions.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joy Cacicia, 724 Spring Creek Circle, stated that her backyard, all 162 feet of it, looks out on
this piece of property. She came to the meeting two years ago and was told that there would be no
building within 100 feet of the wetland. She was also told that a considerable number of pines
would be saved. As of now, 27 of those pines have been removed along with a lot of other trees.
She understands that the house is built and is not looking to make enemies with the new neighbors
as it is their property to do exactly what they want with it. She asked how high the pool house
would be, would there be a fence installed, and how close to the creek will it be.
Mr. Benetti replied that the edge of the pool would be approximately 40 feet inside the 100-foot
line [approximately 60 feet from the creek] and the pool house itself would basically be an
accessory structure. Therefore, it cannot exceed 15 feet in height per code. The preliminary plans
show that it would be 10 x 14.
Commissioner Petschel asked about the fence. Mr. Benetti replied that it is yet to be determined;
as part of a new pool they are required to have a new fence either around the pool itself or around
the backyard. It must be a five or six foot high fence and is part of the conditions of approval.
The Reidell’s indicated that the fence would be around the backyard.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COSTELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-15, WETLANDS PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL, POOL
HOUSE; POOL DECK; RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 26
1. The proposed construction activities to be allowed under this Wetlands Permit meet the
purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility
easements will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to
the city and property owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if
needed.
3. No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25-foot non-disturb buffer area will
occur as part of the proposed construction projects.
4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction.
5. Vegetation will be replanted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall dedicate a 25-foot non-disturb buffer area from the edge of Marie
Creek; along with a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the front and rear
property line; and 5-foot wide easements along the two side property lines.
2. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with
associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department
as part of any building permit application.
3. No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, shall
occur within 25 feet of the edge of Marie Creek.
4. Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance document.
5. A Landscape Plan is submitted for review by the Planning Department showing vegetation
to be re-planted within the 100-foot wetland/water resource-related area after construction.
6. The new swimming pool must have a fence or approved barrier per Title 9-2-1 of the City
Code. The pool site plan must be revised to show the layout and locations of all fencing.
7. Due to ongoing complaints of recent construction activities in this Willow Lane
neighborhood, the City requests the Owners and its contractor(s) direct its workers to park
personal vehicles and/or equipment in front of the subject property only, or farther down
the road at Valley Curve Road and Willow Lane. Parking in front of neighboring residence
shall be discouraged and avoided.
8. A cash bond, letter of credit or agreed upon surety in the amount of $2,500 shall be
submitted and held by the city for a period of at least one (1) year from completion of all
work, to ensure all new landscaping has survived, the buffer/vegetation strip is well
established, easements dedicated, and necessary restoration work to the site has been
completed in accordance with this permit approvals and City Code standards.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 26
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-11
KEITH OSTROSKY, TALAIA BOWEN, RAY J. MILLER; 1680 LEXINGTON
AVENUE AND 1104 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RE-GUIDE CERTAIN
PROPERTIES FROM “LR-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” TO “MR-MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was an official request from
Mr. Keith Ostrosky, Ms. Talaia Bowen, and Mr. Ray J. Miller to only change the Comprehensive
Plan / Land Use for the community. This was not a rezoning and it is not a new development plan.
This is simply the beginning stages of opening a door for development if they so choose. The land
use is just an underlying land use that has to be consistent with any future zoning or current zoning.
The current land use is LR-Low Density Residential and the request is to change it to MR-Medium
Density Residential.
Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the properties under consideration with Lexington Avenue
and Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway) surround it. The Overlook Condos; Riverpointe; and
Lexington Riverside condos surround the property and a limited number of single family dwellings
are immediately to the west and surrounding area of the Overlook development.
1680 Lexington Avenue is a complete 2.33 acre parcel, has a one-story single-family dwelling that
was originally built in 1952, and the site is heavily wooded and impacted by a bluff line along the
mostly northerly half segment of the lot. The useable area of this lot is approximately 1.0 acre in
size.
The house next door, located at 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway, is located on 0.42 acres of land.
It contains a two-story split-level single-family home originally built in 1977. It too is impacted
by woods and grades along the bluff line.
The vacant lot next door is 0.38 acres, undeveloped and has been on the market for sale. This lot
is mostly wooded, with evidence of some very steep slopes.
Mr. Benetti continued by stating that the ‘buildable’ portions of these lots, based on aerial photos
and GIS contour elevation interpretations, are as follows:
• The Ostrosky parcel – is approximately 0.9 to 1 acre
• The Bowen parcel – is estimated to be 0.3 acres
• The Miller lot is undetermined
In the future, final determinations would have to be made or determined later should these sites
become available or presented for future development.
Mr. Benetti shared the definitions of the current land use category and the requested land use
category:
Low Density Residential (LR), (LR-H)
• Most prevalent land use category in the City
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 26
• Provides for single family development
• Density not to exceed 2.9 units per acre
• Corresponding zoning district classifications are One Family Residential Districts
Medium Density Residential (MR), (MR-PUD)
• Provides for townhome and attached housing development
• Urban densities of up to 4.35 units per acre
• Corresponding zoning district classifications are R-2 (Medium Density Residential
District) and MR-PUD (Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development)
Taking these definitions in consideration and the current lot areas, the current density allowed on
the parcels are:
• Ostrosky parcel – 10 units
• Bowen parcel – 1 unit
• Miller lot – 1 unit
• All three lots combined – 13 units
• Bowen and Miller lots combined – 3 units
Mr. Benetti clarified that these numbers are based only on the parcel acreage; however, the actual
number of units would need to take into consideration the parking, stormwater management, and
setback requirements. If these requirements cannot be met, they may not be able to get 13 units in
there. Mr. Benetti believes (assumptions only) that they may be able to fit only four to six units.
Mr. Benetti then shared the character of the area and how this request in land use would meet those
characteristics. City staff believes the existing multi-family and single-family uses should
experience little, if any impacts due to this proposed land use change and recommended approval
of this comprehensive plan amendment.
Commissioner Hennes asked for a review of the overview map to see how the three properties
related to each other, which Mr. Benetti provided.
Commissioner Petschel asked if this was purely a step to attract a potential developer. Without
speaking on behalf of the owners, Mr. Benetti replied that he believes this is true. Commissioner
Petschel then asked if the Commission could even consider this without Mr. Miller’s signature on
the application. Mr. Benetti replied that Mr. Miller did provide written permission; so yes, this can
be considered.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if there isn’t a plan on the table and this is to have something
available down the road should something occur, why the Commission is being asked to
recommend approval now when the City is in the process of redoing the Comprehensive Plan
anyway. She asked if this shouldn’t be dealt with in the overall contours of the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Benetti replied that he asked Mr. Ostrosky if this could be presented at that time;
however, because the City does not have a moratorium in place to stop these type of land use
applications during the Comprehensive Plan review, Mr. Ostrosky had the ability to apply for the
application and expressed his desire to get it done.
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 26
Commissioner Petschel asked for a primer on what legal rights this would give a combined owner
of these three properties if they were sold together. Mr. Benetti replied that this would be an
outward expression to a potential developer that may be interested but they would have to proceed
at their own risk. This decision would not bind the City in any way.
Commissioner Hennes asked how long this decision would be delayed if the Commission decided
to wait until the Comprehensive Plan was up for review. Mr. Benetti replied that would be
approximately one year from now; the deadline is the end of 2018 but the City is planning on
having it done by June or July 2018. They would then have to layer in the Metropolitan Council’s
approval.
Ms. Talaia Bowen came forward and explained that she and Mr. Ostrosky believe this to be an
opportune time with the housing market and the development market. Hearing that it may look at
a 2020 date to incorporate it into the Comprehensive Plan, it was important to them to come
forward and start this opportunity; knowing that there still some additional steps to be taken.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lucille Collins, 1137 Sibley Memorial Highway, has lived in her home for 50 years. She has
seen Lilydale develop and Mendota Heights does not need it. There are enough problems going on
as all of the land along Lilydale and along Highway 13, and even up into Mendota Heights –
everything is on springs. She is afraid there will be a water problem; more than what they have
currently. They are digging next to her unit to put in water mains because of the problems with the
bluff. Also, the corner there is so bad with traffic – even at night with motorcycles, semi-trucks,
etc. Rush hour is terrible. Chair Field stated that the Commission appreciates her comments and
concerns; however, they are not approving development right now, they are just approving the
land use designation. She continued by stating that it is a bad concept and should not be approved.
Upon request, Ms. Collins showed the location of her townhome in relation to the properties under
consideration.
Commissioner Noonan asked Ms. Collins if she was aware that even if the Council were to deny
this application, redevelopment of the lots could still take place on the three properties. According
to the existing guide plans something in the range of 10 units could be potentially sited on the
Ostrosky property. He also asked if her concerns about single family homes being built there would
be same as what she has expressed about medium-density homes. Ms. Collins replied that her
concerns would remain because of the water problems and the traffic. She would express her
opposition to any additional development occurring on the property, even if it was allowed per
density and zoning codes. Commissioner Noonan continued to press his point that the property
owners have their rights and they could not be denied to exercise those rights.
Ms. Marsha Easton, 1123 Sibley Memorial Highway, expressed the same concerns and objections
as Ms. Collins and also stated that 10 units would be better than 30 units. There are more houses
on the bluff that cannot be sold because they have water issues, mold, and there are springs that
move from day to day. Also, the City would have to provide ponding for all of that water; from
the parking lots, roofs, and other impervious surfaces. Chair Field stated that one of the rules is
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 26
that the testimony provided needs to be relevant to the proposed application. The Commission
does not have any specific application at this time; so it is very hard for them to conceptualize
parking lots, building surfaces, and 30-unit buildings when that is not what is in front of them. He
also explained that the land use guidance is what would be changing, not the actual zoning.
Councilmember Noonan reminded everyone that Mr. Benetti stated that the maximum number of
units that could be put on the combined sites is 13; and then he provided the testimony that in light
of his professional opinion and taking into consideration the steep slopes and the wooded areas, it
would probably be more like 6 units. To suggest 20 or 30 units is misleading.
In response to Ms. Easton’s continued comments about developers cutting down trees and wooded
areas disappearing, Chair Field also explained that these properties are located in the critical area
so the Commission and the Council has more than a few considerations as to respect to protecting
the slopes and the quality of the wooded area and the elevations on these particular lots. This is a
very unique parcel of land and the development potential is exceedingly limited.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification on what exactly the Commission is being asked
to do and what the limitations are; as they are not being asked to approve a development, they are
doing something vastly different. Mr. Benetti replied that what was presented was simply a ‘land
use change’. The land use is simply the beginning process of to rezone a property. If this were
currently guided medium density, the conversation about a rezoning could occur. However, that is
not the case. Under a rezoning package, the City would typically ask a developer why they are
requesting a rezoning; are they proposing new development – the City would want to see that
development plan if they were rezoning. The land use amendment is just to change the underlying
land use; there is no rezoning, there is no proposed development plan. The units per acre is set in
the Comprehensive Plan because that is what is used to guide the land use; how many units does
the City want to see per acre under the single-family, the multi-family, and so forth. In this case,
it is 2.9 units per acre under the single-family (low density) guidance and 4.25 units per acre under
the medium density guidance. That is under a clear case scenario; if this were a beautiful piece of
flat ground with no issues or problems on it. With the impacts of the slope and everything else in
this area, this would include a lot of ‘what if’s’ and ‘hypotheticals’ because there is no plan and
there should not be a plan at this point. This is just the beginning steps of a potential redevelopment
later on down the road – that may never occur. All of the concerns raised would be meted out at
that time; and the critical area is not a fun area to deal with and that is on purpose. The City does
not want people destroying the integrity of the bluff line and the slopes.
Mr. James Lindsey, 1101 Sibley Memorial Highway, noted that many in attendance are from
Lilydale and asked if they have much to say. Chair Field noted that they are an adjoining
community and are welcome to speak. Mr. Benetti replied that the normal standard of operating
procedure for notifications is typically only those residents in the community that are being
affected. Under this process, he selected to choose all of the residents within 350 feet of the three
sites. Dakota County has the ability to pick all of the property owners within a 350 foot radius of
the property. All of the names came up on the list and all were notified. Normally whenever
something is in an adjacent or abutting jurisdiction, typically a notice is only sent to the official in
charge of the community. Those jurisdictions did receive notices, but so did everyone within the
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 26
350 feet, regardless of their municipality. If the Commission decides that he should continue to do
that in this case, he would be more than happy to do so.
Commissioner Noonan noted, as clarification, that if an individual comes to the meeting and they
live outside of the municipality under consideration but within the 350 feet surrounding it, their
testimony would be heard and taken under consideration.
Ms. Susan O’Connell, 1700 Lexington Avenue South, lives directly above Mr. Ostrosky. She,
along with her neighbors, would prefer to see that the land use does not change to medium density.
They are very concerned about additional units being added below them. They have noise levels
that drive them crazy now, not just from the residents already there but from the traffic on Highway
13. Generally, most of the people living in the building would prefer this to not be multi-use;
however, the do understand that the land could be developed by the owner or by another purchaser.
Any landowner wants to be able to put something on it. However, they would prefer to see it not
as a multi-residential use.
Commissioner Noonan asked why not multi-residential use. Ms. O’Connell replied that there are
simply too many units. If someone were to come forward with a plan to put 10 units on the
property, as is their right, the neighbors would return to express their dislike. Commissioner
Noonan reiterated that medium-density can get them a maximum of 13 but the likelihood, because
of all of the reasons mentioned before, is significantly less than that.
Ms. Joelle Rasmussen, 1101 Sibley Memorial Highway, asked how many acres comprise the
subject property. Mr. Benetti replied that all three properties combined is 3.13 acres. She asked for
clarification on Commissioner Hennes’ comment about the number of units per acre.
Commissioner Hennes replied that he said that changing the land use to medium density would
add one unit per acre.
Ms. Rasmussen then asked if this land could possibly be zoned as rental in the future. Chair Field
replied that the only thing under consideration tonight is the use of the land; not the potential
development of the land. But rental is always a possibility.
Ms. Rasmussen stated that she finds it strange that they are asking for this land use change now
when they could ask for that land use change when they present a plan for development.
Another resident (name/address unknown) noted that when he looked at the documentation that
came out there was a land use program dated April 25, 2017 and it was designated as low-density.
He then asked why, after this study came out, there is an interest now in changing it. Chair Field
replied that, at the end of the day, someone asked the Commission to do this and they paid a fee;
so that is what the Commission is dealing with. He also noted that the last land use plan came out
in 2010. The date on the document he may have seen would have referenced what Comprehensive
Plan edition it was issued under.
Mr. Bruce Westland, 1700 Lexington Avenue South, stated that basically everyone speaking this
evening is sharing their human side of the concerns of what the development may be. He agreed
with Commissioner Noonan that everyone has the right to ask and to request development of their
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 26
property and do a change. As a Commission, he believes their responsibility is to understand what
those changes are and how that affects the city and the overall look. He understands that he does
not have a right to own the sunset that a potential building may block, nor the city line that a
potential development may obscure; however, what are the limitations that Mendota Heights has
to that property in a maximum condition for occupancy – in height and elevations. Chair Field and
Commissioner Petschel replied that, because this is in the critical area, the DNR and the City of
Lilydale would have input into any development on the property. Chair Field noted that he
understands that coming into a public hearing such as this can be confusing; however, the
Commission is just trying to make a decision on what is before them now; not what could possibly
come in the future.
Mr. Westland continued by stating that he understands what is before the Commission; however,
everyone knows that once this change is done the potential development will go through. Chair
Field disagreed and stated that the rezoning is a much bigger issue than the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Petschel stated that the Commission has tried to make it clear that this does nothing
in terms of firm plans. Mr. Westland replied that he understands the position of the Commission
this evening; however, this approval opens the gateway for potential development on that ridge or
just below the ridge. No one knows what that is going to be, including the Commission. He then
asked what the maximum condition and restrictions would be that the City would allow. Mr.
Benetti replied that R-2 is the same as a single-family; it is two stories or 25 feet in height
maximum, the setbacks are 30 feet in the front and in the rear and 10 feet on the side. Commissioner
Magnuson stated that it would be fair to add that there are some building restrictions with respect
to bluff lines because it is in the critical area. This in no way should give anyone false indication
that they can develop to the maximum on these properties; there are restrictions – they cannot clear
cut the woods and plot out 13 units. The reality is that there is not a lot that can be done on these
properties and it would be up to the developer – if any – to meet the rezoning requirements and
that would be very hard to do. The critical area has height limitations, it has limitations on the
color so it cannot stand out from river – limitations designed to preserve the quality of the
Mississippi Corridor. It makes building in that area very difficult.
Ms. Talaia Bowen returned and commented that the discourse and the back and forth is important.
Everyone needs to be heard and it is important that, as neighbors, really understand and recognize
what is important to one another. She expressed her appreciation to the Commission for
recognizing that ultimately, land owners have the right to have some type of open opportunity to
consider what they would like to do with their property and how they move forward with it.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIO NER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 26
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-11 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO RE-GUIDE CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM “LR-LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL” TO “MR-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL based on the Findings of Fact
on page 7 of the staff report
Commissioner Noonan comments that when the Commission looks at re-guiding, they look at the
surrounding area and they look at the context. Commissioner Magnuson has said very clearly that
it is not a slam-dunk, it is not an immediate intensive development coming forward; but rather
there are limitations on to what the maximum condition could be. The reality is that it is an
extremely difficult site, it is a site that has unique challenges, and if a matter comes forward a
developer is going to have to find real opportunities here to bring something forward because it is
a considerable cost to bring something forward. It is going to have to come forward with significant
background material to help the Commission address and be satisfied with the myriad of concerns
that have been addressed. That would apply even if the Commission did not re-guide the property
and were to consider a plat under the residential.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that she would vote in favor of this request; however, she wanted
to mention that it is only because the Commission is not looking at anything specific at this point.
It is simply a re-guiding of the land. She knows that if there is a proposal that comes forward, there
would be another public hearing – or more than one public hearing – and Mr. Benetti has indicated
that everyone would be notified as they were this time. She encouraged all of them to come and
provide their input and the Commission would actually have something to look at and would be
able to discuss specifics, issues, problems, or whatever.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
D) PLANNING CASE #2017-14
MARCEL EIBENSTEINER, ROYAL OAKS REALTY,
PRELIMINARY PLAT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A NEW
SUBDIVISION PLAT TO BE TITLED “ORCHARD HEIGHTS” 1136 AND 1140
ORCHARD PLACE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks
Realty, acting on behalf of the property owners Marilyn Olin and David Olin, is seeking to
subdivide an existing single family parcel, located at 1136/1140 Orchard Place, into 19 new lots,
to be titled “Orchard Heights” of Mendota Heights. This also involves a variance and a wetlands
permit.
The site is a 13.45 acre parcel located right off of Orchard Place, is currently guided LR – Low
Density Residential, and is zoned R-1. There is no change in the land use or the zoning under this
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 26
proposal. The main larger site has been used as a local apple orchard for some time and all of the
dwellings on the site would be removed as part of this project.
The single family home on the mid-point or the high-point of the lot is where Ms. Olin currently
lives. There are a couple of outbuildings off to the side, just a couple hundred feet away from the
home and another single family resident on the 1136 parcel, on the corner.
Mr. Benetti shared the standards required in the R-1 district for new lots and explained how this
project meets those standards; all of the 19 proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum standards.
Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 are on the south side of the plat and are very large because of the impact to the
wetlands or ponds on the south.
Most of the adjacent lots on the Sun View Hills Addition, on the other side of Hunter, are 150-foot
wide lots – wider than what is being proposed here. The lots on the other side of Orchard Hill
Roadway, the Swanson 2nd Addition, are also a little bit wider and they also have some wider lots
for those lots coming off of Lexington on the far east side. There are some very, very larger lots
next door to this one.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the proposed plat and explained that basically it is a new roadway,
a cul-de-sac road coming off of Orchard Place. The 19 lots are strategically situated around the
cul-de-sac and meet the minimum width, depth, and size requirements and the larger lots are on
the south side because of this was as far as they could go with the cul-de-sac for the extension. All
of the contours reflected on the image are reflective of the new contours that would be graded into
the site as part of the grading plan.
A neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, July 22, 2017 which was fairly well attended.
Mr. Benetti noted that the plan falls well within the R-1 design standards. The density of the new
plat is 1.41 units/acre, which his much less than the Comprehensive Plan maximum of 2.9
units/acre. When entering the property, a person would go up the hill, hit the top of the hill which
is very flat, and then it drops way down. In order for this development to work and the grades to
work for the new roadway and especially for the lots to lay out, they have to grade all of that stuff
down. There is going to be a lot of dirt moving in this area to make this work. A lot of grading
work needs to be done on the backside as well because they are putting in a retention pond –
capturing pond – on the backside of the property before it enters the other pond on the back. As
part of the stormwater management, they have to preserve and protect as much as possible.
Mr. Benetti then shared the Concept Grading and Drainage Plan, Storm Sewer System, and Utility
Plan for the sanitary sewer and water; all of which had been included in the Commissioner’s
meeting packet.
All easements will be shown as 10-foot along the front and 5-foot along the side, but 25 feet along
the back side to ensure that all of the drainage is taken care of on-site. However, as the report
indicated, it shows that some of the utility service mains will be approximately 20 feet deep, which
is a very deep system. Whenever those systems break down, cities have to go in there and fix them
and going down 20 to 30-plus feet to fix a sanitary, sewer, or water line it is expensive. The deeper
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 26
the system the more expensive it is on the city’s end; and pose some nightmares or concerns to
any city engineer or city official. Staff has expressed concerns with the 20-foot lines; however,
due to the complicated topography of the site the developer is wishing to provide this grading as
much as possible without destroying the whole integrity of the site and is trying to make the grades
work as best as possible with the depths as shown. Therefore, staff is having the City Council
approve the new utility depths. Should the Council disapprove, the developer would have to go
back and re-evaluate and redesign and make it work for them.
For all intents and purposes, would the new system work at the 20-foot depth – yes, it would all
work but they need a confirmation from the City Council.
Mr. Benetti also noted that with this heavy grading there would be a lot of trees lost; expect
possibly some perimeter trees and the backside trees. The grade difference at the entrance to
midpoint of the lot is approximately 52 feet. It is hoped that a lot of the landscaping and trees at
the backside of the property can be saved as the slope begins to gradually slope down towards the
pond and wetlands, from 952 feet to approximately 894 feet.
Mr. Benetti then shared the reason for the street design and variances as being very simple. The
new subdivision will be served by a single access, two-way traffic cul-de-sac roadway. The
developer intends to dedicate the road back to the public and would meet the minimum 60-foot
width but is short by three feet in the curb-to-curb width, 30 feet to the required 33 feet. Also, City
Code Title 11-3-3 says that streets may not exceed 6% in grade, unless the city engineer
recommends or allows excess street grades. Currently, the streets would range from 1% to 8%;
therefore engineering was queried and the City Engineer is allowing the plat to exceed the 6%
street grades in certain (limited) areas and accepts the 3-foot difference (down to 30-feet) in street
width.
The planned cul-de-sac measures well over 950 feet from the beginning point off Orchard Place
to the center-point of the end circle. City Code states that cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer
than 500 feet. Staff encouraged the developer to meet the standard as the fire department does not
like to see anything longer because of hose lengths to fight fires. Mr. Benetti noted that there is a
segment of right-of-way that splits between properties; an undeveloped segment of right-of-way
referred to as ‘a segment of Mallard Road.’ Basically it looks like a yard space between the two
properties. Veronica Lane is a paved surface that connects and provides access for homes and
dead-ends right at this property line. So they could have pursued an access point here; however,
when on the south end of the lot it would be tricky. To meet those grades and try to make a road
connection on the south side would involve a lot more grading and would have impacted the
wetland area and the pond areas. Staff felt that this was not a very good idea and would not support
it. There are no available connection points on the east side. Because of these points and there
being no real viable alternatives in providing a secondary access, staff allowed the developer to
present a request for the single access and longer cul-de-sac roadway.
Based on this determination, the developer returned to the fire department and asked what
alternatives he had to get their approval. Their reply was that if he fire-sprinkled all of the homes
they would acquiesce on the length. The developer agreed and so all of the new homes will be fire-
sprinkled as a part of the conditions for approval.
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 26
Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met to grant a variance and explained how this
project meets those standards.
The wetland impacts report was received just today and is being reviewed by the city
engineer/public works director for accuracy and will be reviewing/analyzing that later on. Staff
will make sure that all impacts to the wetland are minimal or zero and will also provide for
buffering and protection throughout the duration of the project; before, during, and after the
project.
Mr. Benetti pointed out a letter given to the Planning Commission from an adjacent resident who
was concerned about traffic coming in and out of the development. He stated that he believes the
developer did a great job in indicating that the level of service or level of traffic coming in and out
of the development would be approximately 100 – 150 vehicle trips per day (based on the typical
family home generating approximately six to eight trips per day).
Commissioner Hennes asked if there were a lot of cul-de-sacs longer than 500 feet now in the City.
Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and stated that there are a number of them. Commissioner
Hennes then asked if any approached the 900 foot length. Mr. Benetti replied that there are some
approaching almost a quarter mile.
Commissioner Hennes, referencing the possible access points off of Veronica or Mallard, stated
that the Veronica one seems like it would be totally unreasonable due to the wetland and ponds.
The Mallard one is actually fairly close to the cul-de-sac and asked if there would be a way to build
a reasonable access point in there to have a shorter cul-de-sac. Mr. Benetti deferred to the Public
Works Engineer. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that City staff did draw out what that
would like. He noted that anything is possible, it is just a matter of who much work, money, and
effort will it take to accomplish that. If that connection was made shallower utilities could also be
provided. Staff did drop an option and that has not been shared with the developer. However, they
would gladly share that with the Commission and the public.
Commissioner Noonan stated that there is a preliminary plat in front of the Commission and asked,
if the preliminary plat were to advance, if the final plat would be coming back to the Commission
for approval. Mr. Benetti replied that the final plat only goes back to the City Council.
Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that, in any event, the final plat gets reviewed by
some recommending or decision-making body. Mr. Benetti confirm that typically when a final plat
is submitted, city staff reviews it for compliance with the approved preliminary plat and then it
goes to the City Council for final recommendation or final approvals.
Commissioner Noonan then asked, in order to deny the preliminary plat, what findings the
Commission would have to make. Mr. Benetti replied that they can make a number of them;
however, they would have to find technical basis – the grading does not work, the sewer does not
work; or the access does not work. Commissioner Noonan clarified that staff has not identified
any technical reasons; which Mr. Benetti confirmed. However, for all intents and purposes, if there
is something that the Commission feels warrants or merits a denial, staff would have to have some
very strong technical or reasonable findings for denial.
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 26
Commissioner Noonan noted that the suggestion was that 60-foot is the standard city right-of-way;
Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan continued by indicating that they are only putting
in 30 feet, even though a 33-foot cross section could fit in there. He asked why the City was moving
away from the standard to 30 feet. Mr. Benetti replied that it was a preference made by the
applicant to narrow the roadway by three feet. Commissioner Noonan reminded the Commission
on the long and exhaustive discussion they had when Mr. Mazzitello was here with respect to
going from 30 to 33.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he did not understand why sprinklers are being requested. Mr.
Benetti replied that the new fire chief and the fire marshal felt that if the houses were sprinkled, it
would give them [the fire department] added extra time to respond to emergency if there was a
fire. Basically, they said that if the developer were to fire-sprinkler their buildings the fire
department would drop their objections. Mr. Benetti also noted that the State Legislature has been
talking about making all new homes auto fire-sprinkled as part of any new home improvement.
However, there is a lot of push back from builders and other organizations.
Commissioner Petschel asked about the owner situation on the back eighth of this property; where
the ring water pond is and the adjacent areas. Mr. Benetti replied that the three lots on the back
side; their lot lines would go almost all of the way back to the south perimeter. Commissioner
Petschel then asked if they could conceivably be further subdivided. Mr. Benetti replied in the
negative because it is all wetland and would be encumbered under the drainage and utility
easement. All that area back there will, more than likely, be unbuildable.
Mr. Ruzek also noted that the long-term maintenance of the pond would be maintained by the City;
however, there would not be any weekly mowing or maintenance as it is not park land. Also, under
the drainage and utility easement, it would be the responsibility of the land owner to maintain the
trees and maintenance of that area.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if there was an access granted off of Hunter Lane [the Mallard
portion], what that would do to the holding pond and all of those drainage easements. Mr. Ruzek
replied that staff has not redesigned any ponds or shown any grades. Things could be moved, they
may lose a lot, and they may be able to add a lot, it is hard to say without their engineers having
fully looked at the plan.
Chair Field asked if it would be fair to say that it could be done, in theory and based on the work
that has been done to date. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative and noted that there would be the
added step of wetland impacts so they would have to go through a wetland conservation act
process. That process would also include the DNR, the State Board of Water and Soil Resources,
Dakota County Soil and Water; a number of agencies would comment on any wetland impacts.
Chair Field stated that it would be unfair, since the applicant has not even seen it, for the
Commission to review Mr. Ruzek’s handiwork; although he finds it extremely appealing as an
alternative.
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 26
Commissioner Magnuson asked for an explanation of why there is no opportunity to provide
access off of Lexington. Mr. Benetti replied that the area in question is a long private driveway.
He also noted that the original intent was to have an access point road coming off of Orchard,
extending west over to approximately mid-point of the Olin property. In any event, that extension
never got created or approved. Therefore, they basically land locked this parcel and the developer
indicated that it would not work from a design standpoint.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the City Engineer agreed that it would not work. Mr. Ruzek
replied that Veronica would be prohibitive; however, Mallard Way could have potential. The
impacts to the wetlands from Veronica would be too major.
Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty came forward to address the Commission and to
answer any questions. He stated that Mr. Benetti did a good job as far as explaining the complete
project. He also noted that he understands that certain things need to be tweaked as the project
goes along. Some of the main issues are, as far as he is concerned, is that people are interested in
saving trees. However, they have a lot of grading going throughout the whole project and they
have some catch basins in the back yards. They will save as many trees as they can but a lot of
them will be removed. Most of them are not of very good quality.
As far as grading is concerned, they have to maintain erosion control during the project so that rain
does not drain onto the neighbors lots. They will do everything possible to maintain the erosion on
their own property. If something does happen they will reimburse.
Commissioner Noonan, noting that there was some discussion with respect to the pursuing of a
secondary access point, asked if the development team looked at that in any detail, specifically the
Mallard or potentially just exploring an extension of Veronica Lane. Mr. Eibensteiner replied that
they were told that it would take approximately 17 feet of fill to build Mallard open to their
property, plus there are tremendous wetlands across, and city staff advised them that it would
practically be impossible. The same thing for Veronica Lane.
Commissioner Noonan stated that there has been some sketching done for extending Mallard;
however, that has not been shared with Mr. Eibensteiner; who confirmed. Commissioner Noonan
also noted that Mr. Eibensteiner said they would need 17 feet of fill for the Mallard option;
however, a portion of this site is going to have to be cut to the tune of 10 – 12 feet; sounds like the
developer is going to be a little long on dirt in any event. Mr. Eibensteiner disagreed and stated
that he still might be short.
Chair Field asked for confirmation that Mr. Eibensteiner has not seen the drawings by staff on the
Mallard easement. Mr. Eibensteiner confirmed that this is so.
Commissioner Magnuson, to ensure she was operating with full disclosure, noted that she is a
neighbor of this property and so would have some interest on a personal level. One of her major
concerns is, when looking at the character of the neighborhood, this proposal of 19 additional
houses basically doubles the size of the neighborhood in one little development. She wondered,
with 19 houses on one cul-de-sac with one only opportunity to in and out onto Orchard Place, if
that was extraordinarily dense for that neighborhood and creating a lot of traffic issues and not
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 26
fitting with what is already there. She asked if he had considered increasing the lot sizes and
reducing the number of homes being put into this development. Mr. Eibensteiner replied that the
current minimum lot size is 106 feet by 141 feet; however, as they go along and they have a project
approved by September 1 or October 1, then he would talk to his clients and some lots would be
larger, and some would be a lot and half or so, before they record the plat. The total number of lots
may be reduced down to 12 lots. As a developer, they start out with 19 lots – the maximum that
can be approved – and adjustments can be made to make the lots larger but not to make them
smaller – before the final plat is recorded.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Stephen Rolf, 1861 S. Lexington Avenue, who owns the property on the east side of the
development and also adjacent to Orchard Hills Road, stated that he had a few concerns that have
already been dealt with, including the number of lots brought up by Commissioner Magnuson. He
then shared an image of his solution and noted that Mr. Eibensteiner spoke of being willing to
reduce the number of lots as low as 12. The solution he shared was for 11 lots with the road being
on the edge of the property so that the large lots – expensive lots – would be able to have deep lots.
The original plan, with the road going up the middle would still reduce the depth of the lots, even
if more than one were combined. The lots would still be short with the homes being close to the
road. His option gives the opportunity for houses to be further from the road and gives home buyers
more flexibility with what to do with the placement of their houses and their yards.
Chair Field noted that he has given Mr. Rolf some flexibility; however, this is not the plan that is
before the Commission to consider. It is an illustrative example of what could be done. However,
the Commission cannot dwell on it unless the applicant is applying for it. Since Mr. Rolf does not
own the land, there is very little that the Commission or the Council can take into consideration. It
is Mr. Eibensteiner’s application.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that the Planning Commission only makes recommendation to
the City Council. When this comes to the Council for consideration, then Mr. Rolf can provide
input. She stated that she likes his plan a lot better, it is very creative; however, as the chair stated
that is not what is before the Commission currently.
Commissioner Noonan also explained that the property is zoned a particular way and what is being
presented is clearly in compliance with the zoning.
Mr. Rolf explained that he came up with this scenario because, as mentioned by Commissioner
Magnuson, many of the surrounding residents do not feel that the small lot sizes are not in keeping
with the character of the neighborhood. He also noted that one of the neighbors at the meeting
talked about vision; what is the vision of this development and what is the vision of the City. It
occurred to him, and he just recently learned about this, that the proclamation that Mayor
Krebsbach made declaring Mendota Heights a pollinator-friendly community – he has created a
horticultural experiment on his property that has been pretty successful. Because the City
encourages pollinator-friendly lots, have larger lots would provide a vision, would be in accord
with the City’s own proclamation, and would enhance the rural feel and the character of the
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 26
neighborhood. He would like to see the residents of the development take up this cause and make
it an emblem for their community.
Mr. Joe Capecchi, 1162 Veronica Lane, raised his concern about the water table. Currently, there
is a very large wetland area; at least two-thirds the length of the property. With pushing the hill
down into the southern part of the property; despite the fact that there would be holding basins, his
concern is fluctuation of the water table. Three years ago they had flooded basements and he
wished to go on record as to his concern about the water level. Chair Field replied that it was
commented by Mr. Benetti that the City Engineer would be completely evaluating the water plan
as part of any final condition. However, his comments would definitely be on record.
Ms. Peggy Reagan, 1853 Orchard Hill, was a part of the 1996 ‘no access’ because it would have
come directly across her backyard. She is on a one acre lot and most the lots in her neighborhood
are large. The discussion at the meeting was that the homes would be worth approximately $1M
to $3.5M and she questioned how that could be on 0.3 acres of land. She does not understand why
the land is being plotted for 19 homes just because it is allowed; being allowable does not make it
the best value. She was also unsure if the lots are larger if they would sell for more rather than the
smaller pieces of property. She expressed her desire to preserve the neighborhood and it would be
nice to see fewer homes.
Mr. Keith Kelley, 1905 Lexington Avenue, has a lengthy piece of property. The hill on the subject
property slopes west toward his property so he is quite concerned about the 25 foot easement
because now there is going to be hard surfaces with water runoff; running right back down onto
his property. He is also very concerned about the pond. The three property owners along the north
side of the pond do not use chemicals on their yards because they do not want anything in the pond
that does not have to be. They are very protective. The catch basins that have been mentioned will
actually need catch everything from the top of the hill flowing south and he wanted to ensure that
they would be large enough to catch all of that. The new property owners will probably have a
very nice lawn and probably lawn care – with chemicals. More than likely these would runoff into
the pond and he asked that everyone be very careful to keep that in mind.
Upon being asked, Mr. Ruzek noted that the catch basins would not run directly into the pond but
would run into some pretreatment basins and/or infiltration basins. There would still be further
review of the stormwater needs that occur.
Mr. Robert Fogt, 1145 Orchard Place, noted that his driveway is directly across Orchard Place
from the intended new street. His living room and bedroom windows face the front of the house
and this is going to have a big presence for them. He asked to be put on record as saying that they
would love nothing more than a second point of access to share the traffic load going in and out.
Mr. Jay Phillips, 1127 Orchard Place, expressed his agreement with Commissioner Magnuson on
the character of the neighborhood; it is a huge factor in regards to his personal well-being in the
neighborhood. He bought his property because of the open lots and is really concerned about
adding 19 properties. It seems like an excessive number of homes. Going by the estimated number
of trips per home of six, times 19 homes, which is 114 trips up and down and is currently dumping
on his route. He would prefer a second access point. Even if they reduced the number down to 13,
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 26
that would still be 78 additional trips a day coming down his street. Speeds on the road have
increased since the rehabilitation of it and adding more cars will not change that.
In regards to the size of the road, he would prefer the 30-foot road to the 33-foot. When they were
doing Orchard Place and Hunter Lane there was much discussion about that and they specifically
requested something narrower because they did not want it to look like a runway. After some
negotiations they settled on 29 feet. He would also prefer a second access point.
He noted that they have some very good neighbors in the Olin’s and the property is an absolute
gem and he is probably in the early stages of grief to see that going.
Mr. Paul Dorn, 1129 Orchard Circle, is a neighbor and a real estate broker and he represents the
Olin’s in this transaction. He also knows most of the people that have provided testimony this
evening. He understands everything they are saying and thinks he will probably be involved in the
sale of these lots. He can tell from the initial request he received for information and the type of
homes that would be going in here, most of the buyers probably would not buy a lot unless they
were larger than this what is planned. He understands that the Commission has to consider the
application before them as it is written; however, he highly doubts that the lot sizes will remain as
small as planned – not to say that could not happen because it could – but it is highly unlikely.
Ms. Dawn Loving, 1851 Orchard Hill, lives next to the apple orchard and is really going to miss
the purchasing the apples and the honey. She wished to reiterate what everyone else has said; they
have concerns about 19 lots, concerns with things like noise and traffic, and they would be an
advocate of smaller number of homes on larger lots.
Chair Field asked Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty if he would like to respond to
any of the comments and concerns raised by the neighbors. Mr. Eibensteiner stated that he would
take everyone’s comments into consideration; however, they still have a long way to go and will
be doing a lot of tweaking. He agreed with Mr. Dorn that there will most likely be less than 19
lots; he gut feeling is that they will end up with approximately 12 lots. However, he is not
promising anything – the market could change and they would be back to building houses on 106
foot lots.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
TABLE THIS APPLICATION; SPECIFICALLY TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER
ADDITIONAL ROAD CONNECTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION, THE PLATTING AND LOT
SIZE OF THE SUBDIVISION; THE FINDINGS OF THE WETLAND DELINEATION
PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR UNDERSTANDING; A
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 26
BETTER DESCRIPTION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO ADDRESS SOME
OF THE CONCERNS RAISED, INCLUDING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE POND HIGH-
WATER AND THE BALANCE OF THE POND; AND A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND
JUSTIFICATION FOR SPRINKLERS TO BE IMPOSED OR INCLUDED IN THE NEW
HOMES.
Commissioner Noonan explained that the reason he is suggesting to table is that there a number of
the concerns really are quite concerning and does not believe that the Commission has enough
information. The applicant did say that he would take the comments into consideration but the
Commission is being asked to make a final decision and they should have the benefit of hearing
the consideration and making a determination based upon that consideration. He also heard the
comment that there is a lot of tweaking that needs to be done. Whenever he hears that there is a lot
of tweaking that needs to be done leads him to believe that the application is not necessarily ready
for prime time and there is additional work that needs to be brought before the Commission.
Commissioner Hennes expressed his agreement to Commissioner Noonan as there is too much
fuzziness and the Commission needs more definition to they have a more complete proposal and
a better sense of where this is going and able to make a better decision.
Commissioner Petschel asked for clarification that the Commission really as no control over the
lot size other than to beg for consideration, as long as they are conforming lots. That was
confirmed.
Chair Field asked Mr. Benetti about the 60 day rule. Mr. Benetti replied that the City is still well
within the 60 day rule on this application and it could also be extended. The 60 days would be
August 1 so the Commission would have the July 25, 2017 meeting to consider the application.
Commissioner Noonan suggested staff exercise the 60-day extension. Mr. Benetti asked the
applicant if he would be open to that extension. After research, Mr. Benetti replied that the City
has time on the plat decision (120 days) but not on the variance (60 days); however, the
Commission can exercise one extension.
Chair Field noted that the 60 day extension for the variance would need to be added to the motion.
Upon the request of the applicant, the Commission took a five minute recess to allow him to confer
with his client.
Upon return of the Commission, Mr. Eibensteiner stated that he and his client would accept the
decision to table the application tonight but asked that if the decision at the July 25th meeting is
again to table, could he request a denial judgment and have it move on to the City Council.
Chair Field informed Mr. Eibensteiner that the action tonight would essentially grant a 60 day
extension on the variance request because of the timing of the next City Council meeting.
However, he could return to staff and request an up or down decision and staff could present that
to the Commission at the July 25th meeting. However, the Commission is hoping that he would do
some wonderful things between now and the 25th of July.
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 26
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MODIFIED HIS MOTION BY EXERCISING THE
COMMISSIONS 60-DAY RIGHT TO EXTEND THE VARIANCE APPLICATION AND THE
WETLANDS PERMIT. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON SECONDED THE MODIFICATION.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field noted that the public hearing was officially closed; however, it can be reopened at the
next Planning Commission meeting.
As requested by Mr. Benetti. Chair Field stated that anything the Commission saw at their desk
this evening would be part of the public record.
Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the Commission, at their last meeting,
recommended denial of the code amendment for the auto sales for service stations. The City
Council tabled the application because they wanted the City Attorney and staff to work with the
applicant to see if they could explore some alternatives or other options. Staff met with the
applicant; however, the City Attorney is still exploring those options.
The Dodge Nature Center lot split, the Jacobs variance request for a garage, the Christopherson
variance request for an encroachment, and the sign ordinance were approved.
The Swenson land use change for the Mendota Motel and the Larson Garden Center was approved
and is now in the review stages at the Metropolitan Council (Met Council). Also, the TIF #2 was
approved at the last Council meeting. Staff will be finalizing that agreement under a future
development agreement before the Council.
There is one application in for next month’s meeting and that would be for a critical area permit
for a two lot subdivision that is two lots with one house. They would be removing the house and
building on the individual lots. They need a critical area permit for the demolition and future work
on that site.
Also, the tabled preliminary plat would return for consideration.
Staff and Commission Announcements
Chair Field stated that the City Council is in the throes of evaluating the open Planning
Commission position. The interviews have been set with the Councilmembers.
The July 4th festivities will be occurring next week with fireworks at Mendakota.
Highway 110 is still closed but should be open by September 1; however, they will still be working
on the project until November.
June 27, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 26
The Mendota Heights Road project will be starting, possibly as early as July 5, 2017. This would
be between 35-E and Dodd Road.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:11 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0