Loading...
2018-03-27 Planning Comm MinutesMarch 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 1 of 21 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 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, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Patrick Corbett Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of February 27, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2018, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-09 MICHAEL SWENSON, MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT OF MINNESOTA, LLC 2160 & 2180 HIGHWAY 13 AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to this meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Michael Swenson of Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC has requested an amendment to a final development plan pursuant to Section 12-1K-6.G of the City Code. The Commission was also asked to provide additional comments and recommendations to the City Council regarding the previous City Council resolution of 2018-01 with respect to certain findings regarding the PUD allowing for a PUD of less than 10 acres. The Commission was also asked to reaffirm its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 2 of 21 Background November 2015 - The developer sought to develop the Larson Garden Center site with a 70- unit apartment complex, that application was later withdrawn February 2017 - The developer informed the city he had secured the rights to the Mendota Motel site and shortly afterwards he secured the development rights to the Larson Garden Center site May 11, 2017 - Developer hosted an Open House-Neighborhood Meeting in which notices were mailed to all property owners within one-quarter mile of the site May 23, 2017 - Planning Commission recommended approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment from “B – Business” to “HR-PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development June 6, 2017 - City Council adopted Resolution 2017-43, approving the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan Amendment June 20, 2017 - City Council approves the creation of TIF District No. 2 August 22, 2017 - The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval to rezone the properties from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD – High Density Residential Planned Unit Development; Preliminary Plat of “Mendota Heights Apartments”; Conditional Use Permit; and a Wetlands Permit (vote 6-0) September 5, 2017 - City Council adopted Resolution 2017-69 approving the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Wetlands Permit (vote 3-2) November 2017 - Several city residents initiated a lawsuit against the city relating to the City Council’s approval of the development - Attorneys representing the city recommended the City Council adopt an additional resolution reaffirming its previous approvals and whether the proposed PUD meets the standards for a PUD development of less than 10 acres January 2, 2018 - City Council adopted Resolution 2018-01, which: 1) Reaffirmed and adopted additional findings relating to the approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezoning, CUP, and Preliminary/Final Plat 2) Adopted specific findings setting for the basis for the decision 3) Confirmed that the site no longer needed or required a Wetlands Permit due to the changes made by the developer February 16, 2018 - Both sides appeared before Dakota County District Court Judge Michael Baxter and presented their arguments in the case - Judge Baster asked if the Planning Commission was required to review and comment on the matters addressed in Resolution 2018-01, particularly the “10-acre” findings, before the City Council adopted them – City Staff and City Attorneys do not believe that the Planning Commission consideration of those matters was required. However, because Mr. Swenson is requesting an amendment to the Final PUD Plan, staff asked the Planning Commission to review and comment on the matters addressed by the City Council in Resolution 2018-01. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 3 of 21 The subject parcel is bounded by Highway 13 on the west, Acacia Boulevard to the north, Augusta Shores and Lemay Lake to the east, and Victoria Avenue / Furlong Addition to the south. The combined Larson Greenhouse / Mendota Motel sites are 5.45 acres. The site plan approved in August 2017 included two 70-unit apartment buildings to be built in two phases; 270 parking spaces, both underground and surface; and a single, divided access driveway accessed by a right-hand turn lane from Highway 13 as required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Amended Final Planned Unit Development The previous plan showed the apartment complexes as having a 47-foot distance between the two. At the request of a Councilmember, Mr. Swenson has agreed to increase that separation to 60.7 feet. This resulted in the Phase Two development to be reduced by 14 square feet, or 1,000+ square foot footprint. As part of the request to add more green space or to reduce the impervious surfacing, Mr. Swenson has agreed to take out 13 parking spaces in the Phase One section from the original 270 and put them into a ‘proof of parking’, meaning if there is ever a need for additional parking or the site stops meeting its parking demands, these parking spaces could go back in. They are taking out the closest access point and re-establishing all of the curb-gutter sections around that new parking area. In the Phase Two section, 14 surface parking spaces and 4 underground parking spaces will be removed and they will re-establish the curb-gutter sections. RESULTS: possible loss of two to six units on the north (Phase Two) section; however, the developer is still working on reconfiguring his interior floor plans. He believes he can get up to 6- 8 units even with the reduction. He is accomplishing this by taking some of the larger two-bedroom units and decreasing them to one-bedroom units. The building footprint will remain as is – less the 14 feet. The net result is 239 parking spaces, reducing the ratio to 1.73/unit from the original 1.98/unit ratio. Section 12-1K-2.B Mr. Benetti explained the determining standards that must be met for a PUD under 10 acres but more than 5 acres: • Determined to be an “infill type development” • Will not require any wetlands permit • Will not require any critical area variance • Will not increase traffic or parking estimates above the level reasonably estimated for a permitted use for the project area’s size in the zoning district in which it is situated [B-3 General Business] • Provides a landscaped buffer around the perimeter of the entire project area unless expressly waived by the Council He also noted that Council was required to be ‘conservative in exercising its discretion’ to permit a PUD of less than 10 acres. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 4 of 21 During his explanation of the above referenced standards, Mr. Benetti stated the recommendations of staff in each section: • City staff recommends the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the subject property meets the definition of an “infill-type development” standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends that the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the subject property (PUD Project Area) does not require a Wetlands Permit; and therefore the PUD meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends the Planning Commission also determines and affirms that the subject property (PUD Project Area) does not require any critical area permit or any critical area variance; and therefore the PUD meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends that the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the impacts due to increase traffic or parking estimates for the Project area would be less than those estimated for a typical permitted use under the original B-3 General Business District zoning standards, and therefore the subject property (PUD Project Area) meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends that the Planning Commission also determines and affirms that the proposed and updated landscape and buffer plan for the subject property (PUD Project Area) are hereby acceptable; and therefore the PUD meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends the Commission also determines and affirms that the City Council acted conservatively in exercising its discretion to permit a planned unit development of less than ten (10) acres on the Subject Property; and therefore the PUD meets this criteria as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code Staff also asked that the Planning Commission to: • Reaffirm the August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development Staff Recommendations 1. The Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), whereby the Developer is allowed to provide a 60-foot separation between both apartment buildings; and reduce the surface parking lot by 27 spaces and provide these under a new “proof-of-parking” plan for future use is acceptable and recommended for approval 2. The Planning Commission re-asserts and finds that the proposed planned unit development meets all the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B for a planned unit development on land less than 10 acres in size; and supports and concurs in the findings of fact made by the City Council on January 2, 2018 pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-01 3. The Planning Commission reaffirms its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development, with the original conditions of approval to remain in effect and unchanged March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 5 of 21 Public Hearing Chair Field explained the purpose of the public hearing and the public hearing rules. He then opened the public hearing. Mr. Michael Swenson of Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC, 1650 Four Oaks Road, Eagan, MN stated that he believed Mr. Benetti covered everything and most of that had already been presented numerous times. He listened to the comments made about the distance between the two buildings and made that correction. He reduced the size of the Phase Two building by six apartment units; thereby, helping the density. He addressed the concern about water run-off by having a flat roof with inside drains that would drain all of the rainwater into the holding ponds, which when full, would then go into the sewer system. The other water that would fall within the parking lot or the grass is also pitched and designed to run into the holding ponds and then into the sewer system. In regards to the number of trips coming in and out of the development, a study was done by engineers who found that the amount of trips would be less than other uses that the property could have. The issue of visibility of people turning north or south onto Highway 13 was addressed by the landscape plan; there would be blockage of view on either side. His plans are to create an open market building. He has applications that must be filled out by potential residents to ensure that only good people are accepted. Mr. Robert Diedrich, 2178 Lemay Lake Drive in Augusta Shores, is a member of the homeowners association. He expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to speak. While they agree that these sites are in need of redevelopment, they have significant concerns about the size and scope of what is being planned. When he and his wife moved to Mendota Heights they were attracted to Augusta Shores because of its low density, peaceful surroundings. They never considered the possibility of a high density apartment complex because the property would not support it and it wasn’t zoned for anything like that at the time. His purchase came at a higher cost as a result; the rezoning and expected negative property value impact feels like a ‘bait and switch’; like a broken social contract between the city and the residents of Augusta Shores. This community is unique in character due to its resistance to unchecked growth and high density urban development. Mendota Heights attracts families looking for peaceful attractive neighborhoods with open green space. A number of citizens have written or called to express these concerns, some of which is in the packet of information the Commission received. Many have attended previous meetings – Planning and Council – to voice these concerns and while many have expressed a desire to redevelop the properties, he has yet to hear any citizens’ approval for anything the size and scope of this project. Any new development should seek to harmonize with adjacent properties and neighborhoods and this is codified in the city’s ordinances. Not only does this development not harmonize; it will stick out like a sore thumb in what is currently a low density, low traffic, and single-family owner occupied neighborhood. There is no structure of one story as far as the eye can see and these two hulking three-story rental units will loom large over the neighborhood while providing traffic density that will overwhelm the already limited roadways. Nothing about these proposed buildings is in harmony with the surrounding townhomes, single- family homes, and two cemeteries. There was a lot of police activity at the motel site with 20 units – this new development will have 138 units; seven times the number of units occupied by 30-40 March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 6 of 21 year olds with no ownership interest. When this demographic is stacked on top of each other it creates a recipe for more altercations, domestic disputes, and fire and police services – not less. During a number of occasions since the first introduction of this project, citizens have expressed their concerns regarding the increase in traffic flow on Highway 13 between Highway 55 and Highway 110. At this point, Chair Field reminded Mr. Diedrich of the 3-minute limit. Mr. Diedrich continued by explaining that on two occasions this winter there were snow events and traffic was backed up all of the way from Highway 110 to Acacia Drive – the only ingress and egress to Augusta Shores. On those two occasions if there had been an apartment building next door with over 200 vehicles, traffic between Highway 55 and Highway 110 would have been completely gridlocked. There would have been no way to enter or exit their neighborhood. This situation also makes it difficult for services to get in and out. Most of the residents are elderly and it is difficult for them to navigate the traffic already. The developer has suggested that there would be landscaping to improve the sight lines; however, anyone who has driven that property knows that no landscaping is going to fix this problem. There is a curve to the left exiting Acacia Drive and there is a dip going towards Highway 110. Traffic is already on a driver in seconds; no landscaping on the property behind it is going to impact that. It is a road issue – an infrastructure issue. The road currently does not support this large of a development with the kind of traffic it will generate. Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, has been a resident of Mendota Heights for over 29 years. She wished to share the declining property values that will be cause by this proposed development. She reviewed her credentials that would allow her to discuss this matter: • Senior specialist in the 3M Corporation Real Estate Department for 19 years • Served on the Mendota Heights City Council for 8 years • Currently on the Dakota County Planning Commission • Served on several related committees prior to this • Masters Degree in Business from the University of Wisconsin with a major in Real Estate Appraisal and Urban Land Development • Master of Public Affairs Degree from the University of Minnesota with concentrations in Land Use and Transportation She continued by explaining that Mr. Richard Kelly, a realtor, has provided an affidavit stating, in his professional opinion, that the property values in the surrounding area would be adversely impacted if this development proceeds as proposed. She then started to provide Mr. Kelly’s experience in forming his opinions. At this point, Commissioner Noonan asked if Mr. Kelly was in attendance. Ms. Smith replied that he was not able to attend. Commissioner Noonan then stated that he had a written report from Mr. Kelly and he would rather hear from Mr. Kelly. Ms. Smith stated that she had his affidavit. Commissioner Noonan stated that the affidavit could speak for itself. Ms. Smith then handed out copies of the affidavit to the Commission. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 7 of 21 When Ms. Smith continued in her efforts to share Mr. Kelly’s experience, Commissioner Noonan asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann to weigh in. Ms. Smith argued that it was her prerogative to continue; however Chair Field stated that he sets the rules and since the question was asked, he wanted to hear from Mr. Lehmann. Mr. Lehmann stated that it was his understanding that this affidavit is part of the court records and did not know, other than re-reading it, what purpose it would serve. Ms. Smith stated that she would not re-read it but would like to add her own comments to it. Commissioner Noonan asked if she would be adding to the realtor’s opinion. Ms. Smith replied that she would adding to other comments independent of his opinion. Ms. Smith continued by stating that Mr. Kelly was a licensed realtor, has been with Edina Realty, has participated in hundreds of real estate sales and is familiar with the factors that affect the value of the real estate – including all residential, he is familiar with Mendota Heights, and has visited the site. Mr. Kelly brought forward the following criteria in support of his conclusion: • Traffic – the development would generate over 1,000 estimated vehicles trips per day onto Highway 13 at a point approximately 200 feet from Acacia Drive and the only access point to Augusta Shores. The Furlong neighborhood would experience a similar situation. • Since any services are a distance away from the development and residents would have to drive to any destination and vehicles trips are likely to be higher than those estimated by MnDOT at 1,000 • Traffic Visibility – had already been covered so Ms. Smith did not discuss that • Design Factors – the design, use, and dimension of the large 3-story structure is incompatible with the existing surrounding neighborhood. Augusta Shores, Furlong, and Lemay Shores are all primarily single-family one-story structures. The dimension factor also refers to the intensity of the development over the 5.45 acre site. Multiple variances have been requested to accommodate the size of the development, the underlying zoning is HR-PUD which is R-3; which has been mentioned with the 60-foot separation between buildings. That would allow 46 units rather than the 140 proposed number of units. Ms. Smith commented that from her experience on the City Council and on many other public commissions, boards, and committees she believes that the responsibility of the Planning Commission and the City Council is primarily to the current and future residents over that of the developer. The proposed development does not serve either residential and citizen constituencies. Commissioner Noonan commented that Ms. Smith stated that there were many variances granted for this application; the record will stand that there were not any variances granted. This was done under a PUD and the PUD provided the necessary approvals. The Planning Commission did not grant any variances. Ms. Smith argued that the R-3 district is the standard that the PUD should be judged. Commissioner Noonan replied that was not true. Commissioner Petschel asked for confirmation that the land was zoned as a B-3 General Business before the PUD. Confirmation was given. Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, has been a resident of the community for approximately 60 years. He is a retired lawyer and served 12 years on the Planning Commission. He wished to make March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 8 of 21 it clear that, in his view, this was a public hearing and the Commission has no right to limit his time to 3-minutes or that of anyone else. Those are the rules that apply to public hearings in the State of Minnesota and suggested that the Commission confirm with the City Attorney. Mr. Lehmann stated that it was not uncommon for municipalities to limit public speaking; in fact it is not unlawful to set a time limit for people to present their testimony. In fact, it is common that there is limited time. After the three minutes are up a person certainly can present other information at the end. The Commission allows other people to present their testimony and then a person can return after everyone has been given an opportunity to speak. Mr. Friel expressed his desire to discuss the matters adopted by the City Council in Resolution No. 2018-01 and which the Commission is now being asked to reaffirm. None of those issues had the benefit of a public hearing at any time before. Not in the Commission’s August meeting and not in the Council meeting. He will address those later. Currently, he wished the Commission to know that he is one of the seven plaintiffs in the litigation now pending against the City of Mendota Heights challenging this project and why they are in the litigation. They are not just a bunch of angry NIMBY’s; some are here because they believe the project creates serious dangers from traffic, some because it would affect the value of their homes, and some because it is inconsistent with land uses. Those in the litigation are concerned with all of those things, as well as being appalled by the approval of this project by the Planning Commission. He also noted that out of the seven members in the lawsuit, five of them were former members of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or members of the school board in this community. He most recently watched the video of the 27th meeting [assuming the February 27, 2018 meeting] and noted that one of the Commissioners said that they – referring to the plaintiffs – did not have the common courtesy to come and share their concerns and then they sued the city and that is a bit troublesome. Mr. Friel replied to that comment by explaining that the reason they were not at the Planning Commission meeting in August is because they did not know about it – they do not live close enough to be entitled to a notice. They learned about it by watching the Council meeting on September 5, 2017, about mid-October, after they were advised that they ought to take a look at the meeting. The City Council, at that time, recommended approval pursuant to the Commission’s recommendations of a PUD and granting a Conditional Use Permit. They were all appalled because the ordinance under which they authorized Planned Unit Developments for areas less than 10 acres has got a whole bunch of hoops to go through. One of the hoops is that it would not require a Wetlands Permit. Not only did this one get approved without paying any attention to that provision, the Commission and the Council approved a PUD and at the same time approved a Wetlands Permit; notwithstanding that the ordinance prohibits that. More troubling to them was the fact that your staff told the Council that this violated the ordinance; however, it was a minor matter so they should go ahead anyway. He did not believe that violating any ordinance, any provision of any ordinance, by the governmental body that is responsible to the citizens is a good idea. The language of the ordinance is very clear and unequivocal. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 9 of 21 Two members of the lawsuit went to city staff and were told that this was discretionary with the Council. Later they had a similar conversation with a couple of the Councilmembers and they received the same response. Mr. Friel asked to come back after others had an opportunity to speak to continue with his comments. Ms. Belina Reisman, 2338 Lemay Shores Drive, noticed while sitting here listening to the evaluations that have occurred she has not heard about Lemay Shores development being included, like with the traffic. It is a concern of those that live in the area that they not be impacted in terms of what the development would look like. They like to have all of those natural settings. This is also in the Comprehensive Plan that the city had and she knows that the city is concerned with adding affordable housing and increasing the density; however, she does not believe that growth has to include the size of what is being considered; with the destruction that is there already; and what the residents want to have. A three-story building will be visible across Lemay Lake and Augusta Lake and that will change the environment. They are also concerned, and have heard, that the building and the site development is not in keeping with the existing buildings in the Furlong area. If this is so, they would also be changing the way it looks. She has heard that it would be closer to Highway 13 than it should be. She and her husband walked around there and saw the steep hill going down into the wetlands. She was amazed that anyone would want to put something there, even if they were to move it back. She has not seen a picture of what the building would look like. She would like to have something to see that really shows it to her and not have to go to an architect to interpret. Ms. Reisman also raised concerns about the drainage. She does not know how anyone can take a building on the property for the motel and have it not impact the area that is to the south because there is nothing there. There are no trees. She questioned what the developer was going to put there that is going to make that development fit in with the rest of the community. Ms. Reisman further asked the Commissioners if they have been to the site and walked the paths from Lemay Shores to Augusta Shores and then down Lemay Lake Road and looked at what that community is like so that they are knowledgeable of what is going to affect all of them. Mr. Al Fautsch, 2126 Lake Augusta Drive, has lived in the area for 15 years and was one of the original owners in Augusta Shores. He lived in St. Paul for 36 years and served for a number of years on their Planning Commission and had lots of speakers and they never limited anyone speaking at any of their meetings. He wished to speak as an individual in a community. One of the things they always look at is “what is the feeling of the community around a particular development.” That has a meaning; they are a community. He was not in attendance to support of any particular development; he is part of a community. He then asked for a show of hands of how many people oppose this development. He March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 10 of 21 stated that this large show of hands gives an indication of what the community wants. It is the duty of the Planning Commission to hear all of the testimonies regardless of how long it takes and to make a decision that is beneficial to the community. Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, noted that he is on the faculty of the University of Minnesota. He stated that since Commissioner Noonan rudely interrupted his wife [Ms. Jill Smith who spoke earlier] within her three minutes he wished to repay the favor and make a few blunt remarks. He pointed out that every Planning Commission and every Council in this city, in the past, has supported careful, prudent development of the city. This Planning Commission and three members of the Council have abandoned that record and that tradition. One reason that this city enjoys its special character, of all of the suburbs of the Twin Cities, and is considered an oasis of careful prudent development. This Commission has abandoned that tradition; have abandoned that record and he does not understand why. One could say that they are no longer a Planning Commission but they are a degradation commission. Chair Field stated that he took offense to that statement since he was not present at the previous meeting and there are three new planning commission members since that occurrence. Mr. Smith asked if he could continue. Commissioner Noonan replied that he could as long as he states the facts and not personal opinions. Mr. Smith continued by stating that this is a public hearing and they should be allowed to express their opinion and they have 1st Amendment Rights. Commissioner Noonan agreed as long as slanderous remarks are not made. Addressing Chair Field, Mr. Smith said that Chair Field had a positive reputation in the community; however, he is squandering that now, and the rest of the Planning Commission by supporting this development. Mr. Smith concluded by saying that the original plan was flawed. The remaining two resolutions; one this evening and the one in February; are like putting lipstick on a pig. The pig hasn’t changed – think about it. Commissioner Petschel stated that he is receptive to any comments, especially any emotional comments about this development. No one likes new development near them but the first time that this was before the Commission he did not remember most of the audience being in attendance. He also did not remember many negative comments when this issue was before them previously. (At this point, the Chambers became noisy from audience members speaking out). Commissioner Petschel withdrew his comment and said he was sorry. Chair Field called the meeting back to order. Mr. Smith responded by saying that there has been a consistent lack of transparency on the part of the city regarding consulting the residents of what is going on. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that when he and his family moved here in 1974 he started on the first Park Board and raised $600,000 to have some parks in the city. He then moved March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 11 of 21 onto the City Council for 12 years and was part of the original first personnel team who did the first Comprehensive Plan. He remembers they were sweating bullets because the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) was on them for all kinds of different things that the Council did not want to do. The mayor at the time, Don Huber, said that they were living in the next best development community in the Twin City area; 15 minutes from downtown Minneapolis, 12 minutes to downtown St. Paul, the airport is only 5-6 miles away; we do not have to give anything away. When the developers starting coming in and building he was concerned about adding streets and how they were going to be paid for. Again, Mr. Huber sat him down and stated ‘we do not have to give away anything’. They will come to us because we are the next hot spot. With the drainage center on Eagan, this is another hot spot time and please do not give anything away. He concluded by saying that if the Council and the Commission feels that the high density development is necessary for Mendota Heights, that case should be made to the citizens and presented along with a revised Comprehensive Plan that includes properly designed zoning and ordinances to allow the growth of the community in a fashion that they have decided they want. This Commission is not representing what the people want. The developers will come no matter what happens because of where the city is located. He would like for Mendota Heights to stay ‘spacious and gracious’. Ms. Dawn Caruso, 629 Hampshire Drive, has lived in Mendota Heights for almost 30 years and was one of the original Centex people; if anyone was around at that time this is like déjà vu. They had a density problem and had Centex the developer wanting to put multiple, multiple, multi- family living. The community and the people who moved into the area at that time did not know that was coming; they fought and fought and fought and they were heard. They worked with the Planning Commission and the City Council and eventually they worked with the developer to find a solution, a compromise where density was decreased and everyone was very happy. The people that live in that community now, across from Mendota Heights Road, has a beautiful community with multi-family and single-family that blends in very nicely. They do not have the issues with traffic and the school density and everything they were looking at. She stated that she was appalled at the communication going back and forth between the Planning Commission and the people from this community that have done their homework and the question about when people decided to jump on the bandwagon and get involved in this. That is a moot point; it does not matter when people became aware – it matters as when people are here because this impacting their lives, their families, and the way they live in this community. The Commission needs to be more respectful of that. This does not impact her as much because she does not use Highway 55 as much, she has other routes. However, the people that are living right in that community on Acacia; this is important to them. The developer does not live here; a developer comes in and builds his homes and gets his money and then he leaves. The community is left to deal with this year after year, after year, after year. She begged the Commission to look at this and see if there isn’t a compromise; some way that either density could go down or the side of the building can be maintained so it flows into the community that has already been approved, people have bought into, and are raising their families there. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 12 of 21 Mr. Floyd Knight, 2338 Lemay Shores Drive, commented that he just noticed a new apartment development on Highway 110 and Dodd Road. As he looks at that it looks like a huge development and he just found out in the last couple of weeks that it is going to be approximately 150 units. As he visualizes that building it will probably be comparable to what is planned right now to replace the Larsen Garden Center and the Mendota Motel. If it is anything close to what is being built already, it is going to be an eyesore. It is going to stick out like a sore thumb. It is not going to blend into the neighborhood. He is unaware of what the façade is going to be but he could not imagine that it would be attractive, someplace that people are going to want enjoy, and that the people in the neighborhood are going to feel comfortable. He also noted that the reason he was not in attendance at the beginning was because he just found out about this in the last few months. Ms. Kathy Geier, 1309 Kendon Lane, has lived in the Furlong addition for 62 years. When she was a child there was open fields and woods where she played and ran wild; then her dad decided to build some homes in the neighborhood and he filled up four of the empty lots. That changed the status quo. They went along for a number of decades and then Augusta Shores came in; that upset the status quo and they got riled up, had all of these discussions and meetings – and now that became the new status quo. Then Lemay Lake Shores came in and upset the status quo – they all got riled up again because what they knew was changing; however, it became the new status quo. This is yet another change in the neighborhood and it will become, yet again, the new status quo. Her concern was that with adding that additional housing, the police presence needs to be increased. Currently they do not see very many police cruisers in the Furlong area and they do have issues with cars being broken into, etc. She hopes the police presence will be more noticeable. She also expressed her concern about the traffic and hoped there is a Plan B in the back pocket to address the expansion of the frontage road to accommodate the traffic in the future. Ms. Linnea Hanschen, 2158 Lemay Lake Drive, noted that she had been a previous meeting and brought up the same concern she brings up now, that being the traffic. There is way too much traffic and the density is too large. She is also concerned about the wetlands no matter what kind of holding ponds the developer installs. She lives right across the lake from this development and she sees trees and turkeys in the trees every evening; that is not going to happen now. She is going to lose some of those trees and she is certainly not just going to see turkeys in the remaining trees; she is going to be seeing a building. She would like to see that building cut down to two stories. They are grateful that the motel is gone and Larsen’s is an eyesore. But, cut the development down to two stories; cut it down to 100 units. Ms. Mike Pilney, 2154 Theresa Street, lives in the Curley Addition. He raised his concerns about the unintended consequences of traffic. Coming down Lexington it is very difficult to get in and out of his neighborhood; due to weather or road maintenance, they seem to get unintended traffic. Having additional traffic potentially coming down CenterPoint Drive or Court – due to weather or road conditions or whatever – potentially adds more congestion in that area. He would like to know what traffic would like from a worst case scenario. Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vickie Lane, came forward to talk about Lemay Lake. Fifteen or more years ago Augusta Lake was a fishable lake. Now, the Met Council has given that lake a grade of March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 13 of 21 F; cannot get any worse than that. She has a friend who lives on Lemay Lake and every two weeks she goes out in a canoe and measure the water quality because she is concerned that it is coming to her lake soon. Augusta Lake is a deep lake and Lemay Lake is a shallow lake. She knows that there are plans and buffer zones, etc. Storm sewer could be Lemay Lake. When someone says ‘storm sewer’ it does not go off to be cleaned up. Overflow from a holding pond goes to a lake – either to Augusta Lake or to Lemay Lake. She would really like for this Commission to fully assure this community that Lemay Lake is going to be protected with a the very best of practices. She does not know what happened with Augusta Lake, it is a mystery; however, she knows that public Works Director Ryan Ruzek is trying to figure that out and she is grateful for that. However, they are fearful about Lemay Lake itself with this kind of a development. She also noted that pervious surfaces soon become impervious without maintenance. They become filled with debris and they need to be cleaned up. She again asked for assurances that Lemay Lake will remain the nice lake that it is right now. Mr. Daniel Bogg, 809 Hazel Court, expressed his concerns regarding future development in Mendota Heights in general; Lemay Lake, Highway 110, and now proposed across Dodd Road. All of these high density complexes are a concern to him. If there is any notice by the people and the Commission – he is a member of the younger generation. Everyone he has seen come up to speak has been here 30 years or more. He and his wife were fortunate enough to move into the city in 2011. They felt it was an absolute blessing at the time and they continue to feel that way as this is the place they want to raise their family; not because of what it does not offer but because of what it does for the future. That being that this is an oasis; this is a different development than the first ring suburbs and the rest of the seven county metro. There is a special holding here in the city. They feel that this Commission and this City Council are foregoing the past – the very important past that has been stood on – to maintain and preserve Mendota Heights for what it is for us – not only the current residents but for the future generations. Seeing no one else to come forward, Chair Field allowed Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, tor return. Mr. Friel stated that they probably would not be here tonight but for the fact that the Wetlands Permit and the Planned Unit Development were approved at the same time. When they started looking at the action the Council had taken and the Planning Commission had taken, there were more infirmities from their point of view and he wished to address those. One of the things that disturbs him is that in a normal process, a public hearing happens and it is referred to the Council and the Council makes the decision. In this case, the Council apparently has made the decision and referred their decision back to the Commission for its blessing. That is not the way it is supposed to work. He suggested that the Commission had no recommending authority at this time because the recommendation has already been determined. He was surprised to see in the staff report that there is a plat change before the Commission. He knows that there is no notice required for that but, under the circumstances, it would have been beneficial to learn that was the case in the notice of the hearing. The underlying zoning classification for this piece of property is R-3 and the basic standards of R- 3 is where the Commission starts. Mr. Benetti informed the Commission of that in their August March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 14 of 21 2017 meeting and the Council at their June 2017 meeting. He made it clear to the Commission that for purposes of this site, they could not do more than 46 units, which is the permitted number in an R-3, without a PUD. INFILL – keeping the maximum of 46 units in mind, Mr. Friel spoke about ‘infill’. The ordinances the city contain a definition of infill in the aviation section and it deals with sound. The definition of an infill, whether it is in the sound section or anyplace else, is the same. The Michael property is not infill. It had a development on it when the Commission decided to go forward with this and, in fact, no piece of property that has buildings on it that have to be torn down can ever become infill. Infill by definition is ‘property that is vacant in the city because it has been built around’ and the infill property in this community was all identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the map. By definition infill is filling in – it is not refilling. There is a difference. Redevelopment of infill property is what was done some years ago with the Super Block. There was a property that was largely undeveloped and owned by one or two people. That was infill and was identified as such. He himself has a piece of property identified as infill. It is vacant except for his house on it and it is subdivided. A property that has buildings on it cannot be called infill just because you tear the buildings down. TRAFFIC & PARKING – there is a threshold in the ordinance for traffic and parking. The traffic and parking in the new PUD cannot exceed the reasonable estimates for parking in the permitted use in that district. The permitted use in this district is R-3, not B-3. And the comparison with B- 3 is ridiculous for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is Mr. Benetti compared the size of the density using the R-3 – the 46 units – and its appropriate to use it for the traffic estimates as well. The traffic estimates for this property for the permitted use – 46 units – would be approximately 470 vehicle trips per day using the eight trips per day per unit under the Institute of Traffic Engineers Transportation Manual. The 138 to 136 units will give 1,000 to 1,400 trips per day. MnDOT sent to staff a note that said their view was that they would generate on this site, with this development, over 1,000 trips per day with 140 units. Unfortunately, that information was never disclosed at your public hearing last August, nor did they make the estimates that the Council, because of the lawsuit, saw fit to finally make. He stated that the Council used the wrong basis, they used a comparison with what would be permitted in a B-3. There is another reason why the B-3 is not applicable; go back to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that took care of in June – under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the Commission created a HR-PUD Comprehensive Plan Characteristic for this property. Once the Commission did that, under Minnesota Statues, nothing can be put on that property that isn’t consistent with HR-PUD. B-3 certainly is not consistent with anything that could be put in an R-3 zone. Mr. Friel referenced Minnesota Statute 473.58. The parking estimates cannot exceed those for a permitted use. In this case, for 140 units the parking space required is 2.5 per unit. That has been cut down to 1.7 per unit, a 30% decrease. Staff compared the ordinance provisions with the ordinance provisions of other municipalities and suggested to the Commission that the city was different than the rest of them. He believed that there had been enough testimony to this point about the residents liking to be different from everybody else. If the city wants to change their parking, they would need to change the ordinance – after a hearing and consideration – and not doing it on an ad-hoc basis as was done in this case March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 15 of 21 and sometimes that results in a problem, as the city knows from the results of a different lawsuit that has come down just in the last few weeks involving this community. LANDSCAPE PLAN – He did not have much to say on the landscape plan except to say that staff keeps saying that this is not the sort of plan that would ordinarily be had at this stage of the proceedings and that the Planning Commission never sees it and the Council rarely sees it. This isn’t any other plan, this is an ordinance that has a provision in it that requires the Commission have the plan at the time of making the decision; otherwise they cannot determine that they met the requirements of the ordinance. He has not yet seen a landscape plan that meets those provisions, although he has heard repeatedly that one exists. CONSERVATIVE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – he was interested in the city’s analysis of that. The provision reads ‘the Council shall be conservative in exercising it discretion to permit a Planned Unit Development of less than 10 acres’. The word ‘shall’, under the provisions of this ordinance, is mandatory. It is not a suggestion. It is disingenuous to suggest that tripling the number of units from what was permitted – 46 to 140 or 136 – is conservative. They are also permitting at least 2.5 times what is permitted in parking; although there is a little bait and switch there because he wants to reduce the parking required normally for a 140 units down to 235 spaces. Commissioner Noonan suggested that the variance was the wrong term to use and he was correct. All of those setbacks from what is normally required were provided for under the Conditional Use Permit. They may be there but they do vary significantly from the standards by as much as 17 to 50 feet set back on one side and 25% setback on two other sides, and at least a 25% barrier setback in the parking area from the street. For the record, conservative is not a political term, it is not a noun; it’s an adverb and it modifies exercise – conservative exercise of discretion to create the district. He submitted that what was done was not a conservative exercise of discretion of the city in this case. The planning staff report indicated that the plan is down to 45.5% impervious surface – down from 49.7%. He stated that this is really an inconsequential difference, particularly in view of the fact that the ordinance says ‘furthermore, in order to qualify under this subsection of a residential planned unit development, notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, the ratio of impervious surface to the total project area shall not be more than 25:100 – 2,500 square feet of impervious surface to 10,000 square feet of project area. So this plan is still approximately two times what it should be with impervious surface. When dealing with a lot of Planned Unit Developments it is learned that PUD’s of less than 5 acres get a little bit different treatment. The ordinance provides a lot of hoops and the reason those hoops are required to be jumped through is because it is not a good idea to have high density on small tracts of land; it is not a good idea to have high density on small tract in a critical area; it is not a good idea to have high density on property that is near a wetland, let alone be encroaching on it, because of the problems that high density creates in a small tract. He suggested that the Council has not treated those hoops properly or this matter would not be under discussion. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 16 of 21 He has practiced law for a while, for approximately 60 years. Most of that has been in the municipal area and he stated that to have the proceeding with a case pending, in which all of the decisions being made tonight are already pending before a judge in Dakota County, is, at best, really bizarre. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, returned and noted again that he had been on the City Council for 12 years when Mendota Heights was 4,500 to 5,000 people. He has been through a lot of development and went through some really heated ones. Mr. Don Huber, afterwards, would always say that he did not like what took place at the meeting and he would wait and get this settled. He would put everyone in a room and they would settle it together. That is why everyone is here. He is part of the lawsuit – they are not the party of new – if he wasn’t living next door he would be here begging the Commission to clean that mess up. But let’s do it with the favor of all of the people that can accept it. Chair Field asked the applicant if he would like to comment. In response, Mr. Ben Delwiche, architect with Kaas Wilson Architects came forward. He said that he realizes that he would be unable to change a lot of opinions so he would be as fact-based as possible. It appears that the number one issue is traffic, he could not speak to that as he does not live in the area but he has driven down into the Augusta Shores area and understands the current concerns. There are trees that overhang that parking lot; he assured the residents that if they take a look at the current landscape plan the situation would be greatly improved. Additionally, the traffic report that was listed as part of the lawsuit was impartial reports by a third party and he could not speak to the expertise of that report, but that is the one fact-based object available to look at and judge this plat. In regards to police calls being similar in regards to the motel, while he could not say unequivocally yes or no, in his experience in the last five or six years dealing with multi-family housing that a lot of the product is going to go to empty nesters, people who are 55 to 60 and want to downsize a little bit, do not want to deal with the yard – that is a huge component of who would be renting here. Not to mention the Phase 2 building, although they do not want to classify it just yet based on how it rents out, is potentially going to be a 55+ building. Mr. Swenson rents to a high quality resident, he puts all potential renters through a thorough vetting process and Mr. Delwiche could guarantee that if asked he would come back and say how many police visits he’s had at his buildings. Mr. Delwiche could guarantee that it would not be anywhere near what the motel was rumored to create. In regards to the building, he has heard comments that the building has not been seen or that it does not fit into the context of the existing neighborhood, he did not disagree altogether. He would say that it was looked at from a different angle. He has been in the neighborhood and found it to be completely separate off of Highway 55 and he did not believe any of the residents would identify as living off of Highway 55. The apartment buildings being proposed are designed to be more reflective of what would be on a busy street, such as what is across the street – the restaurant technologies warehouse building. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 17 of 21 Similarly, Mr. Swenson chose a more expensive roof product – a flat roof versus a pitched roof – to deal with some of the height issues. Mr. Delwiche and Mr. Borgan – also from Kaas-Wilson Architects – did a handful of studies that show that during the summer time the 3-story building would not be seen or would not even be close. They have computer generated images that would show how that process was determined. They are trying to be consistent with a bridge from the restaurant technologies flat roof building industrial to a flat roof high-density residential to what is down the hill – a single-family twin- home development. Mr. Delwiche is not an engineer but he knows the requirements they have to meet. Currently this site is not up to current codes for stormwater retention. There are no provisions to keep the water on the site, the rain falls and hits the motel site or green house site and rolls on down the hill. When this building is complete, that site will be brought up to current code; all of the water that is generated or that lands on the site will be handled internally within that site and then drain to the proper stormwater facilities. As part of that, during construction there is a SWPP plan that evaluates erosion control and has procedures in place during construction to ensure that no pollution from that construction will be getting outside of that property boundary. Mr. Delwiche stated that Mr. Swenson is an owner/operator of all of the buildings that he has. It is a family-owned business that he intends to hand down to his sons. This is not a building he plans to build and then uproot and leave – make his money and get out. That is not his philosophy nor is it his or his company’s objective with this property or their general philosophy of dealing with business. In conclusion, Mr. Delwiche said that where the proposed building is, the setbacks that were maintained and designed to were consistent with where the existing building footprints were at that time. When this was started last fall there were a lot more supporters, which is a real shame because they do not have the perspective of what was there to say – look at what we are putting there instead of this motel. All he heard from residents the first time around was generally positive feedback about how they could not wait for the motel and greenhouse to be removed. He wanted to remind everyone what was there, what is being proposed, it is nowhere close – they plan to do a high-class development. Chair Field asked Mr. Swenson if he had anything else to add. Mr. Swenson stated that there were a lot of comments on this building and what it was going to consist of. One gentleman says it is going to be a monster like the one down by Mendakota. That building is six stories, four stories of apartments and two stories of parking. This project would be nowhere near that. This is three stories above grade and one story parking underneath grade. It is not going to be a monster, it is not going to stand out like a sore thumb, and it is very well designed. Kass Wilson has been doing apartment buildings for a long time. He himself has been building for 40 years and has 4,000 units and he receives very few police calls. The crimes that took place at the hotel were not just domestic; there was drug use, attempted murder, and all kinds of felonies. He vets all of the potential renters and makes sure they can pay the rent so he can pay his mortgage. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 18 of 21 They also check to see if they are people of character. They check their background, criminal records, check their credit, and if they do not measure up to what is believed to be fair standards then they do not rent to them. [Note: three emails/letters related to this item were received by the city, requesting consideration by the Planning Commission/City Council. These letters were made part of the March 27th Planning Agenda Packet report - and are appended to these minutes on the bottom.] COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES TO ALLOW THE ROOM TO CLEAR AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) At 8:45 p.m. Chair Field reconvened the Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Magnuson asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann, since the Commission has not been apprised of the lawsuit situation, if the lawsuit was pending and if the issues that are being discussed here this evening a part of what the judge is being asked to consider. Attorney Lehmann replied that the matter was taken under advisement by Judge Baxter (Dakota County District Court). By law he has 90 days in which to issue an opinion. He indicated to the parties in court that he was going on a medical leave and as a result he would probably need the full 90 days in which to issue his decision. The matter of the lawsuit is still before the district court and under advisement and no opinion has been rendered. The Commissions job now is solely limited to what Chair Field read with regards to the proposed amendment regarding the separation of the buildings and then reaffirming the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council and then their decision on January 2, 2018. That is really all the Commission is being asked to do. Commissioner Magnuson asked for confirmation that the Commissions’ role is very limited at this time. Mr. Lehmann confirmed. Addressing Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Commissioner Magnuson stated that she too is concerned about the quality of the lakes in this area. She asked if Mr. Ruzek had determined what that problem might be and if there are some assurances that there would not be any degradation of Lemay Lake as a result of this or any other development in the area. Mr. Ruzek replied that there was actually a pollution control agency study a couple of years ago and they recommended alum treatment to treat the excess phosphorus in the lake. The city, in conjunction with the Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, did an alum treatment to Lake Augusta. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 19 of 21 Unfortunately, they are not seeing high quality results. Last summer, city staff did some additional investigative work and discovered some erosion on the east side of the lake. Now the city and the watershed management organization are working on putting together a plan to take care of the erosion. The brown color is being caused by suspended solids – fine clay takes a while to settle out. Every rainstorm is washing a little bit of additional sediment into the lake. They are going to work on a temporary solution in the early spring and then work on a more permanent solution. The new development is being held to the watershed management organization’s water quality standards. They are the most stringent plan that the city has at this time; which should require a 50% reduction from phosphorus levels from how the city’s current ordinance are established right now. The city is in the process of updating its plan; however, that will not be complete until the end of the year. The systems being installed in this project do have mostly infiltration. The city does require one inch of infiltration over all new impervious surface. He believes the calculations on this site far exceed those requirements. They are infiltrating approximately 14 inches. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she was confused about the underlying zone here – is it B-3 or R-3. Mr. Benetti replied that the old zoning was B-3 General Business. The new zoning is now HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development. It is a new classification and new zoning district that was created by the rezoning, which is consistent or compliant with the land use change of HR-PUD as well. Commissioner Magnuson requested confirmation that the traffic study that the Commission has, which does a traffic study based upon what could have been developed in a B-3 zone, is accurate. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the zoning was never R-3. Mr. Benetti replied that the zoning had never been R-3 on that site. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND FURTHER REAFFIRM THE COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS MADE ON AUGUST 22, 2017 AS THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE SAME APPLICATION, AND REASSERTS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-1K-2.B Commissioner Magnuson, for clarification sake, stated that the scope of what the Commission is being asked to do is consistent with the motion and that does not include any opportunity or ability on the Commission’s part to talk about density or size or structure or design or anything like that. The Commission is simply being asked by the Council to do these three very limited things. Mr. Benetti confirmed. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 20 of 21 Commissioner Toth asked for the items under consideration to be put back up on the screen and that they be read by Mr. Benetti: Staff Recommendations 1. The Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), whereby the Developer is allowed to provide a 60-foot separation between both apartment buildings; and reduce the surface parking lot by 27 spaces and provide these under a new “proof-of-parking” plan for future use is acceptable and recommended for approval. 2. The Planning Commission re-asserts and finds that the proposed planned unit development meets all the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B for a planned unit development on land less than 10 acres in size; and supports and concurs in the findings of fact made by the City Council on January 2, 2018 pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-01. 3. The Planning Commission reaffirms its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development, with the original conditions of approval to remain in effect and unchanged. Commissioner Magnuson noted that page one of the staff report states that the Commission was being asked to provide comment and recommendations to City Council in respect to its findings that this project meets the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B. However, on page 10 of the staff report the Commission is being asked to specifically find that it meets the criteria. She would be more comfortable saying that the Council had the authority and made a decision that was consistent with the ordinance versus the Commission making an independent finding based on what has been presented. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the amendment to the motion made. Commissioner Noonan explained that he was uncomfortable with the amended motion because to simply to say that the Commission was agreeing that the decision was a reasonable decision with respect to the findings to support the PUD. It was said that the Commission did not have enough information to make their own independent and therefore to reassure the decision. He believed that the staff report was very thorough in terms outlining what the criteria is of the ordinance and going through the five elements would allow the Commission to make a determination that, yes the Council made a decision on the PUD and the Commission has the information that they could reassert that it was an appropriate decision. He would stand by the initial motion. He believed the Commission could stand by it fairly strongly to say that the Commission does assert or reassert the provisions of the PUD section, based upon the analysis contained in the staff report and the discussions which took place. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the Commission would be reasserting the decision the Council made or the decision the Commission made. The Commission did not make a decision before. Mr. Benetti replied that the Council had already made that decision by adopting Resolution 2018-01. Commissioner Magnuson continued by stating that maybe that was her problem; she did not like March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - Approved Page 21 of 21 the word reassert because they did not make a decision that needed to be reasserted. The Commissioner was being asked to state that they agree with the Council’s interpretation. Commissioner Noonan agreed with that logic. The motion was changed as follows: COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND FURTHER REAFFIRM THE COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS MADE ON AUGUST 22, 2017 AS THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE SAME APPLICATION, AND AGREES AND FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-1K-2.B AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) This item will be returned to the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, April 3, 2018. Staff and Commission Announcements Mr. Benetti reminded the Commission that a Planning Commission Workshop Meeting would be held on Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. Chair Field did stated for the audience that this was a workshop meeting, not a public hearing. However, the public is more than welcome to attend. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:53 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett)