2018-02-27 Planning Comm MinutesFebruary 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 1 of 19
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 27, 2018
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February
27, 2018 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 John
Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel.
Those absent: None
City staff present were: Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek and Community Development
Director Tim Benetti.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Election of Chair and Vice Chair
COMMISSIONER NOONAN NOMINATED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAZZITELLO, TO APPOINT MR. LITTON FIELD, JR. AS THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR 2018.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO NOMINATED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
NOONAN, TO APPOINT MS. MARY MAGNUSON AS THE VICE-CHAIR OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2018.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Approval of January 23, 2018 Minutes
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAGNUSON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2018 AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 2 of 19
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2018-03
CHRIS ROBICHAUD, 1991 HUNTER LANE
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting,
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was for a Critical Area
Permit to construct a 20’ x 21’ two car garage addition to an existing attached garage structure. As
the property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor, a Critical Area Permit is required.
This item was presented as a public hearing item and notices were mailed to all residents located
within 350 feet of the subject parcel, located at 1991 Hunter Lane. One phone call was received;
however, staff was unable to contact that caller.
Mr. Benetti shared an aerial image of the subject parcel relative to its location to surrounding
street and properties. The property is 0.61 acres in size and currently has a 2,240 square foot single
family dwelling. The residence sits well beyond the setback requirements and the proposed
attached to the garage would not cause the need for a variance from those setback requirements.
The proposed new garage addition would be constructed of very similar brick material as the
existing home and garage but would be recessed slightly behind the existing 2-car attached garage.
The city’s ordinance allows for an attached garage up to 1,200 square feet. The addition of this
new garage space would make their total 969 square feet, well within the ordinance limitations.
Mr. Benetti shared City Code Title 12-3-2, which outlined the purpose and intent of the Critical
Area Overlay District. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition would comply
with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) was notified of this application
request and they had no objections.
Staff recommended approval of this application.
Mr. John “Chris” Robichaud came forward to provide comment and answer questions from the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Noonan commented that he thought it was very helpful to have the proposed
elevation that was provided by the applicant.
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.
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 3 of 19
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-03, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT,
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District.
2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical
Area.
3. The proposed garage addition project is in keeping with the character of the area.
4. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition will comply with all standards
and regulations of the zoning ordinance.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established
and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE #2018-04
SHIRLEY HETHERINGTON, 2144 THERESA STREET
VARIANCE REQUEST
Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting,
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a Variance Request to build
an addition to an existing two car attached garage, which would encroach approximately three feet
into the 10-foot side-yard setback standard.
This item was presented as a public hearing item and notices were mailed to all residents located
within 350 feet of the subject parcel. A mini-petition was also included in the Commission
materials.
Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the subject parcel relative to its location to surrounding streets
and properties. The property consists of 0.24 acres of land with a 2,190 square foot, two-story
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 4 of 19
single family dwelling. The existing two-car garage is approximately 528 square feet with a
concrete driveway apron and the proposed addition would not exceed the square foot maximum
for an attached garage as outlined in the zoning ordinance.
As indicated in the materials, this garage addition would be approximately 18 feet from an existing
three-season porch on the southern neighboring residence, the house to the north is also
approximately 30 feet away from the garage addition – a very good separate from the proposed
garage addition.
Mr. Benetti provided an explanation of the findings or determinations that should be met to allow
a variance and explained how this request met those standards.
Mr. Benetti noted that, as a planner, he really enjoys seeing the full support of a neighborhood like
this. According to the survey provided to the surrounding residents, they all seem to be in favor of
this request and the mini-petition also supported it.
Staff recommended approval of this request.
Commissioner Toth, noting a downspout on the side of the existing garage, asked if there would
be any drainage issues with the new addition. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not believe there
would be because there is currently pretty good drainage between the two properties now and
because of the separation of the two properties he did not believe it would be an issue.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if staff had explored with the applicant any other construction
plans that might reduce the encroachment. Mr. Benetti replied that they looked at doing a tandem
style garage as part of the expanded use; however, more and more people want the three-car garage
for the usability and the availability. He deferred any other comments to the applicant.
Commissioner Noonan asked for an expansion on the analysis with practical difficulties. What the
applicant wants and what is convenient may not meet the test of ‘practical difficulties’. Mr. Benetti
replied that the terminology ‘practical difficulties’ can be very subjective. Looking at this from a
development standpoint, would it be reasonable to put on a 9-foot addition to make the garage
work. They could have just expanded this garage for additional space without being able to pull in
a car. The practical difficulty comes into play when trying to add a third stall, which most people
would love to have and want. Is that really a practical difficulty – no. However, if this is something
that the applicant feels is necessary to get that extra space or make the house a little more
marketable or saleable in the future, adding on that 9-foot space may not meet the practical
difficulties test; however, Mr. Benetti still felt that this is a reasonable case.
Commissioner Toth asked for clarification that an applicant does not have to show hardship. Mr.
Benetti confirmed that this has been changed in the ordinance and an owner no longer has to show
‘hardship’ under the State law to obtain a variance. It is a ‘reasonable’ test instead of a ‘hardship’
case.
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 5 of 19
Chair Field, noting that Mr. Benetti was favorability disposed of the petition with all of the
neighbors supporting it, asked what his opinion would have been if two of the neighbors did not
sign. Mr. Benetti replied that he still would have recommended approval.
Ms. Shirley Hetherington, her son-in-law Dr. Bill Simonet, and her daughter Katie Hetherington
came forward to address the Commission. Dr. Simonet explained that the proposal is to keep the
existing 16-foot garage door, steal two feet from the four foot wide wall on the side of the garage
– keeping the two-foot separation needed for the door to function. The new garage door would be
nine feet wide with a two-foot separation on the end; totaling an 11-foot addition. They looked at
every possible way to not encroach on the setback and found that there was not room to have a
standard 9-foot garage door without encroaching a bit.
Commissioner Noonan asked how they were proposing to use the additional garage bay. Dr.
Simonet replied that it would be used for storage and his mother-in-law wishes to improve her
property value for resale.
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 CORBETT, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING
CASE 2018-04 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Construction of the proposed garage addition onto the existing single-family dwelling is a
reasonable use of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable and practical difficulty for allowing a
reduced setback standard in order to construct a new garage addition, which will be in
compliance with all other applicable codes.
3. The garage addition on the existing single-family dwelling is considered a reasonable
request and use of the property.
4. The addition will tie-in and match the existing dwellings architecture and designs, which
will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
5. Granting of the variance is made in accordance with the standards as indicated under the
City Code.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 3-feet into the
required side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the
application submittal (on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2018-
04).
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 6 of 19
2. The new garage addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and
design of the existing garage and residential dwelling.
3. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
4. 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.
5. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building
permit for construction of the proposed garage addition.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-04 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a ‘practical difficulty’ in proposing a reduced setback
Discussion
Commissioner Toth asked if there was a good definition of ‘practical difficulty’. Intuitively this
does not feel like a practical difficulty; however, he could be wrong. He continued by asking what
would be the purpose of any setback rules if people come in and they are very charming and they
have the support of their neighbors; and they wanted to go up to the property line, would the
Commission just say yes. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative stating that this is not the case.
Variances should always be weighed on what they present and stand on their own individual merits
and tests. In this case, if he felt that a 7-foot setback was going to be detrimental to the
neighborhood he would not have recommended it. He can see where it would probably be
concerning if the property next door had a reduced setback. In retrospect, when looking at the
setback shown on the shared image, the neighbor is approximately 18 feet away on one side and
30 feet away on the other – there really is not an issue for him. He did agree that ‘practical
difficulty’ is a very wishy-washy standard to really apply a variance on. However, this is what the
city uses. Staff defers to the Commission to decide if this was reasonable and were practical
difficulties met in establishing this need for a variance.
Commissioner Noonan commented that in the past, when the Commission has wrestled with
practical difficulties, certain things have jumped out. For instance, an awkwardly aligned lot line,
topography, unusual site conditions, etc. That met the definition fairly easily. In terms of the
exhibit shared, to suggest that the city felt comfortable with that because there is a 30-foot
separation between the proposed building face and the neighbor, or 18-foot – it sort of transfers
the proof onto the adjoining property. There is no guarantee that the 30-foot could not be filled in.
That would change the feel of the situation. Zoning ordinances are established for a certain purpose
and the standards in there are to be followed to the greatest extent possible. To simply say that we
feel comfortable with reducing the 10-foot setback, which is the minimum in the City of Mendota
Heights, to seven feet because of the separation with the neighbors just does not feel right. He
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 7 of 19
believed they were throwing the sanctity of the zoning ordinance out for a matter of convenience
and a want.
Commissioner Noonan continued by saying that the other practical difficulty, and he was not
buying it, is the lot has certain dimensions; and there is so much that can be done on a lot. In many
cases individuals make have a desire to do more; however, a person can only do so much on a lot
in line of the setback requirements. When asked what they wanted to do with the extra space two
answers were given. One was for storage – if storage is truly what is needed then punch it out the
back of the existing garage. For the desire to seek a variance to enhance the property value, he was
not sure that would meet the test.
He felt quite strongly that if the Commission goes down the road of being very liberal with respect
to the definition of ‘practical difficulties’, the slope gets very steep and very slippery very quickly.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he looks at this in a very different way. Having seen many of
these cases in the past, it is sort of the unofficial standard of Mendota Heights for 100-foot lots to
have three-stall garages. It is not codified, but it is sort of the unofficial standard. So they look at
what the practical difficulty may be that is not caused by the property owner. He then asked for a
site plan for the whole site, showing the south end of the house as well. It is not built to the setback
line. If the house had been built further to the south they would not need the variance. Had the
house been shifted three feet to the south when it was constructed, they would not need the variance
for the third stall. Therefore, there is a practical difficulty not caused by the owner in the placement
of the house on the lot.
Commissioner Toth stated, understanding both comments, he has a hard time accepting Mr.
Mazzitello’s explanation on how he came up with the numbers. The City may have that situation
in many, many homes within Mendota Heights and many homes in the same situation that have a
two-car garage, 10-foot right-of-way, and now they want to go bigger. He was afraid, due to the
applicant’s comments on storage and to increase the value of the home, the Commission may be
going down the wrong road with many applicants coming forward and opening up a big can of
worms.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that she agreed with everything that Commissioner Noonan had
said. She liked Commissioner Mazzitello’s argument; however, it just did not do it for her. In her
6.5 years on the Planning Commission they have grappled a lot with these variance and have
actually denied garage variances with far less space involved. At least to date, the Commission has
always defined practical difficulties in the way Commissioner Noonan has defined them – there
has to be something unique about the property that makes it practically difficult to comply with
the code. It has always been topography, a unique lot line, or positioning that has made it difficult
to comply with the code. She does not see that here. She would be open for the applicant to come
back with another application that somehow could meet the standards or some tweaking that would
potentially arrive at where they want to go that meets the practical difficulty standard. However,
the Commission has been pretty consistently hard and fast on what constitutes practical difficulty.
She agreed that if the Commission allowed this to happen they would be opening the floodgates
to anybody coming in a saying ‘I want to have this’ rather than coming in saying ‘we cannot
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 8 of 19
comply with the code because there is something unique about our property that does not allow us
to’.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 1 (Mazzitello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting.
C) PLANNING CASE #2018-05
LANDFORM / MCDONALD’S, 2020 DODD ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT
Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting,
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this application was for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Wetlands Permit to remodel and construct a new small building
addition to the existing McDonald’s restaurant site. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the
existing use and any subsequent improvements in the B-4 Shopping Center business district and
the Wetlands Permit is required for any work conducted within 100 feet of the Ordinary High
Water level of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature.
This item was presented as a public hearing item; a notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer
Press newspaper and notices were mailed to all owners located within 350 feet of the subject
parcel. No objections or comments were received.
This facility is located on a 2.26 acre site adjacent to the Mendota Heights Plaza shopping center;
however, it actually not officially part of the overall Plaza Planned Unit Development and is not
subject to the overall requirements of the MU-PUD zoning of the Plaza. Surrounding businesses
include the BP Gas/Mendota Heights Auto Service station, Walgreen’s/Plaza Center, and the
Reserves Apartments. The main access point to the restaurant is from the Plaza shopping center,
just off of Dodd Road.
The building has a very dated look and the plans basically include the re-skinning the whole
building, taking out the roof structure and replacing it with a flat-style roof; which appears to be
consistent with the other newly remodeled McDonald’s restaurants throughout the metro area. The
general placement of the building is not significantly changing under this updated (new) CUP plan.
They do plan a small addition on east end to install a new cooler and freezer. All parking is
remaining the same except some reconstructed areas along the front edge for handicap parking.
Materials in the packet included an explanation of how the subject property is compliant with the
Comprehensive Plan. The analysis of the Conditional Use Permit included the Building Design
and Construction, Landscaping, Off-street Parking, Lighting, Signage, and Conditional Use Permit
Standards. The Wetlands Permit analysis shared the purpose of the Wetlands Permit and explained
that this proposed work has very little, if any, impacts to the nearby wetland/water feature and
there are no plans showing major disturbances outside the parking lot areas.
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 9 of 19
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) was notified of this application
request and they had no objections.
Staff recommended approval of this application.
Commissioner Noonan, referring to Condition #5 which reads “McDonald’s shall provide
staggered row of new trees and plantings, consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees, along the
easterly edge of the property to provide a suitable screening from the adjacent apartment
development, which planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by city staff”, noted that the
applicant had mentioned the difficulties with a staggered row of new trees and asked if that
condition would be updated to be “. . . shall provide a row of new trees and plantings., , ,”, which
Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then asked if Condition #5 would be necessary
given Condition #6 (A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for
review and approval as part of the new building permit process. City staff shall approve said plan
to ensure compliance with applicable City Code provisions). Mr. Benetti confirmed that they could
remove Condition #5 and simply go with Condition #6.
Commissioner Corbett asked if the noise complaints about the drive-thru order box came from
residents. Mr. Benetti replied that these types of complaints often emanate from these types of
uses, not from this particular site. He has not received any complaints specific to this site.
Commissioner Magnuson shared that the Findings of Fact #2, which reads “additional plantings
will be installed to provide an effective screening measures if necessary” can either be removed,
or at least have the ‘if necessary’ deleted. Mr. Benetti agreed that this could be taken out since
there is the requirement to have an approved landscape plan. After discussion it was agreed to
leave the finding #2 in but remove the “if necessary”.
Commissioner Toth, going back to Condition #5 requiring the staggered row of trees, asked if the
plantings were staggered if they would encroach on city property. Mr. Benetti replied that it could
be possible. If the plantings were staggered, he doubted if the city would allow plantings on their
property due to the question of who would maintain the landscaping.
Commissioner Magnuson, referencing page 4 of the staff report, noted that there was a statement
that read “The Planning Commission should make a recommendation or finding that these new
finishes, including the “corrugated metal panels” are acceptable under this CUP review” and if
this is true, then they should include something in the Findings – at least verbally if not in the
written Findings. Mr. Benetti thanked her for the reminder as he had intended to have that reflective
recommendation and recommended it be added as Finding #6 to read “The proposed exterior
treatment of the building is deemed appropriate and acceptable”.
Commissioner Corbett asked if there was any chance that, if trees are planted on the McDonald’s
property, the City would ever be responsible for upkeep. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative.
Mr. Kevin Shay with Landform Professional Services, representing McDonald’s, explained that
he was the one who was talking this morning with Mr. Benetti on this application and was the one
who explained why the staggered row of trees would not work. They look forward to working with
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 10 of 19
staff on the landscape plan to make something work with the ordinance. He also confirmed that
the only changes to parking would be the adjustments for ADA handicap accessibility.
Commissioner Toth asked, in the event the single row of trees does not work, what would their
Plan B be. Mr. Shay stated that they are open to many types of trees or plantings in that area;
whatever would work. McDonald’s is committed to doing something along that edge to provide
the screen mentioned by Mr. Benetti.
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 TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-04, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Although the Subject Property falls under the general standards and rules of the B-4
Shopping Center District, the City of Mendota Heights recognizes, acknowledges and
accepts the continued use of this fast food restaurant use, and further determined this use
to be an acceptable and allowable use to continue under this remodeling plan, along with
the following statements of support:
a. this project will enhances the overall appearance of the restaurant building and
property;
b. McDonald’s intends to leave intact most of the existing impervious surfaces, which
should help stormwater management and improve drainage in this commercial area;
c. sustains and supports the growth of an existing, historical and successful local
business operating since 1978; and
d. addresses several existing legal non-conformities.
2. Additional plantings will be installed to provide an effective screening measures if
necessary.
3. No part of the existing parking lot is planned for expansion, and no part of the adjacent
wetland feature will be impacted or affected under this project.
4. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit
and wetlands permit, and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
including (but not limited to):
a. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment (ref. – no impact to the
Wetlands);
b. Support industrial and commercial developments in designated areas.
5. The proposed project is designed to minimize or cause no impacts to the adjacent wetland
areas, and is therefore compliant with the standards for a wetlands permit.
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 11 of 19
6. The proposed exterior treatment of the building is deemed appropriate and acceptable.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Building and grading permits shall be issued prior to and construction of the proposed
project.
2. The proposed trash/recycling container enclosure structure shall be repainted to match the
new exterior colors of the restaurant building.
3. [Unless recommended otherwise by the Planning Commission] In order to facilitate a
reduction of impervious surface and assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment;
and to recognize and acknowledge the legal, non-conforming status of this fast-food
restaurant use on this site since 1978, a two foot (2’) reduction in the codified depth
dimension of parking stalls is allowed for stalls that abut 90-degrees to a curb or walkway,
and the subject site is allowed to provide and continue to operate with only 61 parking
spaces.
4. All ground level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall
be completely screened with materials used in the construction of the principal structure,
an approved screening device and/or landscaping material that provides at a minimum of
90% or more opacity.
5. McDonald’s shall provide staggered row of new trees and plantings, consisting of
coniferous and deciduous trees, along the easterly edge of the property to provide a suitable
screening from the adjacent apartment development, which planting plan shall be reviewed
and approved by city staff.
6. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review and
approval as part of the new building permit process. City staff shall approve said plan to
ensure compliance with applicable City Code provisions.
7. A final Sign Package/Plan shall be submitted for review to the city prior to the issuance of
any sign permit or installation of any new signs on the subject site.
8. All new Lighting shall be subject to the standards stated in Section 12-1I-15 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
9. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall 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.
10. The property shall comply with the applicable commercial property maintenance
standards, as required by City Code.
Discussion
Chair Field added that Title 12-1D addresses several legal non-conformities, the Commission has
made a big enough issue and it is glaring enough that part of him wants to state in the Findings of
Fact that this is a parking arrangement as it relates to the ordinance requirement is a legal non-
conformity.
Commissioner Noonan as the maker of the motion, and Commissioner Magnuson as the second,
approved the addition of #7 to the Findings of Fact as follows:
7. The existing parking on site of 61 parking spaces is recognized as a legal non-conformity.
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 12 of 19
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting.
D) PLANNING CASE #2018-06
PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
AND
E) PLANNING CASE #2018-07
PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti asked, since Items D and E were very similar, if
he could present both applications together but have separate motions and decisions. Chair Field
stated that as long as Mr. Benetti was very clear on which was which, he had no problems hearing
both items together.
Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting, Mr.
Tim Benetti explained that these requests were for Critical Area Permits (CAP) by Precision
Homes, LLC for properties located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and 1224 Wachtler Avenue.
These two properties, at one time, were two separate lots conjointly owned by Mr. Hansen, which
Precision Homes has purchased. The single-family dwelling that was located on the site has been
removed and the two lots have separate addresses, 796 Sibley Memorial Highway and 1224
Wachtler Avenue.
796 Sibley Memorial Highway is legally described as Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow and 1224
Wachtler Avenue is legally described at Lot 7, Goodrich Happy Hollow. Lot 6 is 1.08 acres in
size, as is Lot 7.
In the last Critical Area Permit staff identified that the entire area on the west end of the lot is very
level and flat until one were to get to the back end of it, where it starts to slope up against the bluff
line. Most of the activity that has occurred so far and is scheduled to take place are located where
the previous structure used to stand.
Last year, part of the CAP from the resolution approval in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), staff
identified an initial site plan and future home pad layout. Staff also knew that this was not going
to be the final layout because of the need for two CAP’s for two new lots. As part of that resolution
approval, the applicant has already completed some of the initial site grading work and
tree/vegetation removals to clear a site for the new dwelling structure.
Mr. Benetti shared aerial images of the two properties relative their location to surrounding streets
and properties.
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 13 of 19
The new proposed dwelling at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway would irregularly shaped with a
side-loading garage and a single point access, the same one off of Sibley Memorial Highway as
previously. There are no issues with complying with the setback requirements.
The new proposed dwelling at 1224 Wachtler Avenue would be a 4,005 square foot finished area
home (1,797 square feet main floor footprint). They will have access to this property from
Wachtler Avenue and they do have permission from Dakota County since Wachtler Avenue is a
county road. The utilities will also come from Wachtler Avenue. Again, there are no issues with
complying with the setback requirements.
As part of the analyses for these applications, Mr. Benetti explained the standards and provision
for the Critical Area Overlay District, Site Planning Requirements, Development Standards,
Setbacks, Wildlife Protection and Vegetation Management, and Surface Water Runoff
Management.
These items were presented as public hearing items and notices were mailed to all residents located
within 350 feet of the subject parcels. In addition, the public hearing notices and application
materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, City of St. Paul Parks and
Recreation Department, and the City of Lilydale. No additional comments or conditions were
received from any of these agencies.
Staff recommended approval of these applications.
Commissioner Noonan, referencing the property at 1224 Wachtler Avenue, and taking note of
Conditions #3 (The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural
or native stone material) and #5 (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) asked if Condition #5 was a second step to ensure that the
drainage is appropriate and would not cause any impact on the adjacent owner. Mr. Benetti
confirmed.
Commissioner Noonan then noted that a point was made that in the application package staff
looked to the applicant to spell out the architecture and the building materials, yet there is no
recommendation that ties back to the building materials. He then asked if an applicant could come
forward, notwithstanding what was presented, and change the materials and compose something
completely different that the Commission had not seen. Mr. Benetti replied that he would not
recommend a developer, applicant, or builder do that. Commissioner Noonan suggested that a
condition be added that reads as follows: “A building permit application shall be submitted
substantially in accordance with the elevations and the architecture included within the package.”
Mr. Benetti whole heartedly agreed with adding that condition.
Commissioner Magnuson, also referencing the retaining wall, stated that Mr. Benetti said that the
retaining wall should help with the drainage issues and that Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek
has looked at it and confirmed that would be the case. She then noted that the only thing in the
Conditions is that the retaining wall should be made of natural or native stone materials. She then
asked if there was some reason that the Commission may want to put in there “and shall provide
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 14 of 19
satisfactory water control measures as satisfied by the City Engineer”. At this point, the retaining
wall can be anything as long as it is made of natural stone and does not have to serve any purpose,
at least as currently described. Mr. Ruzek replied that there is the condition about meeting the
meeting the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. These documents have been made
public in both this Critical Area Permit plus the original lot split. He would not approve a grading
plan that does not meet the intent of what Engineering is looking for. However, if the Commission
wanted to add a Condition, he would be OK with that. Commissioner Magnuson stated that as long
as it is covered in the grading plan she would be fine with it.
Chair Field suggested that Conditions #3 and #5 be combined for clarity.
At this point (8:10 pm) - Commissioner Mazzitello, having an excused absence, left the meeting.
Mr. Pavel Bodnar, 10937 – 93rd Avenue in Maple Grove and the owner of Precision Homes, stated
that he spoke with both neighbors on both of the sites and asked them what the problems were
before they came in to see how they could make it better. The neighbor on the Wachtler side said
that there was a drainage problem. So their purpose is to level the grade and put up the retaining
wall so their water would not drain into the neighbor’s yard. The neighbor on the Sibley side was
concerned about the height of the new home, but he believes they are good on the height.
Commissioner Toth asked, once the retaining wall is installed, where the water would go. Mr.
Bodnar replied that they would ensure that the water would drain out to the street. They would do
whatever they could to meet the city requirements.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dan Caruso, 1238 Wachtler Avenue, is located just to the south. He noted that their situation
is that several years ago the previous homeowner illegally brought in approximately 50 to 70 dump
trucks of dirt. He elevated his yard from the front through the mid part of his yard and, as a result,
his yard got flooded. He informed city hall several years ago and they said they would remedy the
situation. In the spring and after rainfalls, they typically have a lake in their yard that is
approximately 12 or 18 inches deep and approximately 150 to 200 long and 60 to 80 feet wide.
Chair Field interjected that the Commission cannot and it is not their job this evening to remedy
whatever a previous owner may or may not have done. Mr. Caruso stated that this is not the current
owner is not guilty of this. However, what really is required – if he is installing a retaining wall it
is almost irrelevant because the retaining wall may be 50 to 100 feet long but the water will go
where it will go. He believes that what is required – and what the city said it was going to do back
then – is to have a ditch dug along the property line so that when the water goes in that it drains to
the street. To do that there needs to be a decrease in elevation so that it slopes to the street.
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the city said this would be taken care of;
however, there was never an application submitted by the former owner. Mr. Caruso replied that
the previous owner said he would dig a ditch along the property line, which he dug a ditch and it
did not do anything. Commissioner Noonan stated that it was unfortunate that the former owner
did not do what was necessary. However, Mr. Caruso heard the testimony this evening that 1) the
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 15 of 19
retaining wall would be installed to intercept some flow coming north to south and redirect it and
2) the City Engineer said that there would be a grading plan provided so that there would be
positive drainage on the site so that it would go from front to back to the street. There is in the
package a survey and engineering plan that shows just that. However, there has not been a detailed
grading plan prepared as of yet.
Chair Field noted that the Commission is only setting the standard, the City Engineer would deal
with the details. However, his concerns have been noted and are part of the record.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-06, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling
meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District
and related development standards.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS (added condition as noted):
1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit
review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
3. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
4. 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.
5. A building permit shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and
materials proposed by the applicant and included in the staff report.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)
E) PLANNING CASE #2018-07
PRECISION HOMES, LLC, 1224 WACHTLER AVENUE
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 16 of 19
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-07, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT,
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling
meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District
and related development standards.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS (added condition as noted):
1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit
review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16
trees projected for removal under this development plan.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
3. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native
stone materials.
4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
5. 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.
6. A building permit shall be submitted substantially in accordance with the elevations and
materials proposed by the applicant and included in the staff report.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider both of these applications at its March 6,
2018 meeting.
F) PLANNING CASE #2018-08
PATTERSON DENTAL COMPANY AND ST. THOMAS ACADEMY
1031 AND 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE
Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting,
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this applicant was for a lot line
adjustment and Variance request. They are asking for a simple lot line adjustment between the two
properties – Patterson Dental Company to the west and Saint Thomas Academy to the east.
Patterson Dental would be deeding over a six foot strip of land to Saint Thomas Academy to help
adjust or provide relief on some encroachment issues.
Based upon this six foot relinquishment to resolve the encroachment issues, Patterson Dental
would require a Variance from the minimum parking lot setback standards.
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 17 of 19
Chair Field stated that this sounded like a harmonious clearing up of a long standing case of
adverse possession.
Staff recommended approval of this request.
Ms. Pam Kunkel of St. Thomas Academy came forward but had nothing to add to the staff report.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-08, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND
VARIANCE, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the
City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the shared
property boundary line between two separate property owners.
3. The existing conditions were not created by Patterson Dental Company owners, and this
encroachment issue may create some practical difficulties for the owners in future title
work or sale of properties, and the effective remedy of this requested lot line adjustment
and variance are both appropriate in this case.
4. Other alternatives to attain compliance would require removal or relocation of existing and
long term features (fence, bleachers, concrete pads, etc.), which is not practical or
necessary in this case.
5. Approval of the lot line adjustment and variance will have no visible impact on either
property and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. The appropriate documents are recorded with Dakota County
Commissioner Magnuson stated that, in light of the Commission’s action earlier and the fact that
the Commission is really approving a Variance, she wanted to point out that in this case the
applicant did a very nice job explaining what the practical difficulties were and why this action
would be something that would be appropriate for a Variance. Clearly it would not be practical to
leave bleachers and a variety of other things on Saint Thomas Academy land and she believes that
the fact that the statement from the applicant was included in the packet was very helpful and
provided the Commission with the basis needed to go forward with this as a Variance.
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 18 of 19
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2018 meeting.
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson of Stantec provided the Commission a status update on the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, a copy of one of the chapters that has been formatted more or less in its final
form, as well as a summary of information received from the several community events and the
input received on-line.
There were over 100 comments received online and during community meetings, which were
broken down into the following topic areas:
• Character
• Environment
• Generations
• Location
• Traffic
• Bike/Walk/Bus
• Governance
Key Issues Identified in the Plan:
• Character and Natural Feel
• Commercial/Retail Options
• Development/Redevelopment Sites
• Housing Stock / Need for other kinds of housing
• Vikings Facility
• Airport
• Aging Infrastructure
Discussion occurred and suggestions were made by the Commissioners. No decisions were made
or expected.
Staff Announcements / Update on Developments
• Community Development Director Tim Benetti will have a pre-construction meeting with
the WoodSpring Hotel contractor/developer on Tuesday, March 6
• Construction on The Reserves is wrapping up / still on target to be open sometime in June
or July. Look for open house invitations
• Gemini Medical is wrapping up their building
• Orchard Heights hearing was held in mid-December and staff expects a decision sometime
in the next few weeks. Deadline for the 90-day rule is around March 16, 2018.
February 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – Approved Page 19 of 19
• Hearing was held before Judge Baxter on the Michael Development on the apartments at
the Larson Garden Center and the Mendota Motel site. Mr. Benetti believed it went very
well for the city’s side. As direct result of that hearing, Mr. Michael Swenson will be back
before the Planning Commission in March asking for an amendment to the Final
Development Plan. This would be presented under a public hearing.
• Next Thursday, March 8 in the Council Chambers an Active Master Gardener Group will
be hosting an Invasive Plants seminar to help residents learn how to identify invasive
plants, remove them, and replant them. This is a free workshop from 7:00 – 8:30 p.m. No
registration is required.
Chair Field expressed his appreciation to city staff for the fine plowing they did during the most
recent snow events.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:31 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Mazzitello)