2018-07-24 Planning Comm Minutes
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 15
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 24, 2018
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 24,
2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 PM.
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
Moment of Silence
Chair Field called for a moment of silence in remembrance of Commissioner Doug Hennes, who
served on the Planning Commission through December 2017 and passed away earlier this week.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of June 26, 2018 Minutes
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2018, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2018-18
ROBBIE AND COURTNEY BLUHM, 1629 DODD ROAD / 694 WENTWORTH AVE.
LOT SPLIT (LOT COMBINATION)
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Robbie and Courtney Bluhm requested approval
to subdivide their single-family residential property into two separate parcels. This item requires
City Council approval and was being heard under a public hearing at the Planning Commission
meeting. A notice of the public hearing was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and notice
letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. No comments or
objections were received as of the date of this meeting.
The main parcel, 1629 Dodd Road, is a flag-shaped lot consisting of 1.26 acres. It is approximately
350 feet in depth with 101.27 feet in width along Dodd Road; it then expands to approximately
188 feet of width in the back lot area. The property contains a 1,453 square foot one-story
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 15
residential home with an attached tuck-under 3-car garage. Abutting this main parcel, in the rear,
is the 0.42 acre (18,150 square feet) lot located at 694 Wentworth Avenue, which Mr. and Mrs.
Bluhm also own. There is an existing shed on the Dodd Road parcel. If this lot split/combination
were approved, that shed would be located on the newly created Wentworth parcel, which is not
permitted by city code. Therefore, a condition should be added that this stand-alone shed must be
removed within one year of this approval; or a building permit mus t be applied for on the new
created lot to maintain that shed’s existence.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject parcels in relation to their location near surrounding
homes and streets, pointing out the area of the Dodd Road parcel they would like to split off and
combine with the Wentworth parcel.
The easterly parcel would retain the existing residential home and address off of Dodd Road. The
remaining would be joined or legally combined with the Wentworth parcel, thus creating a new
56,191 square foot or 1.29 acre parcel. Until the legal combination occurs, the parcel being split
from the main lot would be considered a non-conforming parcel due to its lack of frontage on a
city approved street. The property owners know and understand that no new building rights will
be granted unless the parcel has some form of legal street frontage for access. Therefore, a
condition and requirement of approval is that the new parcel created by this subdivision action is
immediately combined with the other adjoining property along Wentworth Avenue.
Once the split is approved, the easterly lot (along Dodd Road) would not meet the city’s rear yard
setback requirements nor would the existing driveway; however, since these encroachments are
pre- existing, the dwelling will remain as a legal, nonconforming use in the R-1 zone.
The applicants have agreed to provide the city with the necessary drainage and utility easements
along the front and rear yard area of both parcels; plus easements along the interior/side parcel
boundaries. The only exception would be an easement along the north line of the easterly parcel.
The city has also requested a 20-foot wide trail easement along the front edge of the Dodd Road
parcel. The Public Works Director has found the easement dedications to be acceptable.
Mr. Benetti also noted that since this application is entirely initiated by the applicants and due to
their own action and preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any
way provide a future hardship or automatic allowance to the applicant, or any future owners of the
1.29 acre parcel, to allow this area to be subdivided in the future with a reduced roadway design
or any other variations to city code standards.
Mr. Robbie Bluhm, 647 Manomin Avenue in St. Paul, came forward to answer questions from the
Commission. Mr. Bluhm had nothing new to add to the staff report.
Commissioner Corbett asked how Mr. Bluhm came up with the sizes for the two lots, the boundary
locations. Mr. Bluhm replied that the newly created lot is the one where he and his wife intend to
build a home on and the ratio of the division allows him more land for his own use.
Chair Field asked, since it was not in the initial staff report, if Mr. Bluhm had any questions or
concerns on the added condition #5. Mr. Bluhm asked if there would be a chance that the keeping
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 15
of the shed could be extended to a longer amount of time. Commissioner Noonan stated that he
believed that if Mr. Bluhm made a bona fide effort to obtain a building permit and an issue came
up where it would not be made available within one year, that he could work with staff to obtain
an extension. Mr. Benetti replied that this is something that could be handled administratively if
the extension was for a short amount of time.
Commissioner Magnuson, noting that the address provided was different than the Dodd Road
address, asked if anyone was living in the existing house right now. Mr. Bluhm replied that at this
time no one was living in the house as the tenants moved out at the end of May. It is now on the
market for sale. When questioned he noted that he has a few items in the shed.
Commissioner Toth asked for the current condition of the shed. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not
walk back to the shed; however, the applicant could answer. Mr. Bluhm replied that it was in a
stable condition and that he sees no reason why anyone would consider it an eyesore or in need of
being razed. It has been well maintained.
Commissioner Corbett asked how the current home is being marketed in respect to this application.
Mr. Bluhm replied that the survey provided to the Commission is being made available to any
potential buyers so they are aware of the subdivision of the property.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Matt Ziemer, who lives next to the lot, expressed his concern and asked for confirmation that
on the newly created lot only one residence could be built and that it could not be subdivided in
the future – or would that have to come back to the commission. Chair Field replied that any further
splitting of the lot would have to come back to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Commissioner Magnuson asked, since the newly created lot only has 121 feet of frontage – and
the minimum allowable is 100 feet of frontage – is it necessary to have condition #3 since the only
thing that could be built on the lot is a single family residential home. Mr. Benetti replied that this
case is almost identical, although smaller, than the Mike Bader request heard last month. There is
the possibility that someone could put in a cul-de-sac on the 121 x 464 foot lot. The intent of the
split today is to combine it and if there were any other subsequent action, it all has to come back
through another entitlement process on its own merits and also meet all of the requirements of the
code. So condition #3 was put in there as more of a belt and suspender condition because the
zoning ordinance is the overriding factor for doing anything in future years.
Commissioner Toth, referencing past lot splits where the split was right down an existing building,
asked if the city requires the destruction of the building prior to granting the lot split or is that dealt
with at the time of sale of that lot. Staff confirmed that the shed is not bordering or lying on the lot
line once this split occurs. The reason for discussion of the shed being removed is because the city
code does not allow the existence of a secondary structure on a lot without a primary structure.
Commissioner Toth asked for clarification on whether or not the city requires the bringing of a
property into compliance every time the city grants a lot split. Mr. Benetti provided an example of
a lot split where the current home would have been straddling the lot line and there was a condition
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 15
that this home be removed. Also, the intent of that lot split was to allow for the construction of two
new homes.
Ms. Dianne Berfelz, 688 W. Wentworth, shared an image of the lots that she received from the
county a number of years ago. She pointed out her property and the surrounding properties and
asked how much will the city allow Mr. Bluhm to fill up the new lot, how far back can he set his
new home, and could he potentially build another house towards the back of the lot without an
access point. Chair Field replied, that based on the current proposal, there could be one house
placed on that entire property. How large of a home depends upon how big of a house he submits
for a building permit. Flag shaped lots are not permitted in Mendota Heights and if a case came in
requesting a flag lot, it would have a long shot of being approved.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-18, LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION
(LOT COMBINATION) BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City Code under
Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the
surrounding uses or neighborhood.
3. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels eliminates any
nonconforming issue or status of the westerly parcel created by the original split.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The westerly parcel to be created by the split of the 1629 Dodd Road parcel ((PID No. 27-
03800-37-113) shall be combined with the existing 694 Wentworth Avenue Parcel (PID
No. 27-03800-37-020.
2. The applicant shall dedicate all new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the
certificate of survey prepared by Bohlen Surveying & Associates, dated March 11, 2018
or a recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County.
3. The new 1.29 acre parcel to be created after the lot split and lot combination process can
only be used for one (1) single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner
receives full consideration and approval by the city of a new subdivision under separate
application(s), per City Code Title 11 – Subdivision Regulations.
4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and made by their own action
and preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any way
provide a future hardship or allowances for reduced standards related to platting,
street/right-of-way designs, or any other subdivision or zoning standards adopted at that
time, should the owners elect to further subdivide this parcel in the future.
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 15
5. The existing shed on the newly created westerly parcel must be removed within one year
of this approval date, or a building permit must be applied for on the new created lot to
maintain that shed’s existence
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if Condition #3 be edited to read “The new 1.29 acre parcel to be
created after the lot split and lot combination process can only be used for one (1) single-family
residential dwelling development per City Zoning Code; . . .” Both commissioners of the motion
agreed to this amendment.
Commissioner Mazzitello also asked if language could be inserted about development taking place
on the new westerly lot after the split, where it is stated that ‘no development can take place on the
westerly lot until after the two lots are jointed’. Both commissioners of the original motion agreed
to this amendment and it was agreed that this language would be added to the end of Condition #3.
Commissioner Mazzitello then proposed adding Condition #6 that the combined joined lot be one
continuous lot with no gaps; there being a gap identified on the survey; to clean up the survey.
Again both commissioners of the original motion agreed to this additional condition.
Chair Field noted for the record that his mother lives just across Wentworth Avenue so he received
a notice letter regarding this application; however, he perceives no conflict of interest.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 7, 2018 meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE #2018-19
GERALD ZIEBOL, 650 BROOKSIDE LANE
VARIANCE
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Gerald Ziebol was seeking variances from the
front-yard (corner side-yard) setback and an allowance to keep or retain an existing detached
garage subject to the approval of the variance.
A notice of the public hearing was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the site. No comments or objections were
received as of the date of this meeting.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the subject property in relation to surrounding properties and city
streets. It is generally located at the southeast corner of Brookside Lane and Laura Street. The lot
measures 125 feet by 120 feet or 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres) in area. The property does contain
a 706 square foot (foundation) dwelling with 994 square feet of finished floor area. The site also
contains an existing two-car detached garage with access off Laura Street.
The current home does not meet the 30-foot required setback from Laura Street nor from Brookside
Lane. The garage is also set very closely to the right-of-way line. For all intent and purposes both
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 15
structures are considered legal non-conforming. Mr. Benetti shared photographs of the subject
property.
The applicant wishes to construct a 1,008 square foot addition to the living space to the east side
of the building, along with a full-extension deck, plus a new two car attached garage addition. The
setback from Laura Street would decrease from approximately 23 feet down to 10 feet.
Mr. Benetti shared the three test qualifiers (standards) that must be met or warranted when
considering a variance request and noted that none of these determinants were findings to approve
a variance in this case.
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification on what was being asked for with respect to the
existing garage. Mr. Benetti replied that the request is to retain the current detached garage. He
then asked if there wasn’t a provision in the code that limits the amount of garage space that a
single family home could have. Mr. Benetti replied that the maximum allowable size of an attached
garage is 1,200 square feet without a Conditional Use Permit. The maximum allowable size for a
detached garage is 750 square feet without a Conditional Use Permit. To have both a detached and
an attached garage the lot size must be at least 3/4 of an acre. Due to the size limitation on this lot,
they could have only one garage – either attached or detached – but not both. If the Commission
were to grant the allowance of the attached garage, either the detached garage has to go or the
Commission would have to grant the variance to keep it.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for confirmation that if, in the future, they wanted to add onto the
detached garage, they would require a variance request due to the non-conformity of the setback
requirements.
Commissioner Corbett asked if staff had discussed an alternate layout or plan with the applicant.
Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Toth asked what would be characterized as a practical difficulty associated with
either matching the face of a house or even having the second garage at all. Mr. Benetti replied
that the practical difficulty test lies with the Commission.
Mr. Gerald Ziebol, 650 Brookside Lane, came forward to address questions from the Commission
and provide comments. Mr. Ziebol shared examples of properties near his home that have an
attached garage and a detached garage and the lot size is smaller than 3/4 of an acre. Commissioner
Noonan asked if the examples were older structures or newer. Mr. Ziebol replied that they were
older and are now non-conforming. Commissioner Noonan noted that they were a different
situation than Mr. Ziebol’s as he is looking to build.
Mr. Ziebol shared his rationale for presenting the plans the way he did. After exploring multiple
options with the architect they decided that their request would be the best spot due to the fact that
they do not have much of a view because of the large expanse of trees towards Laura Street.
Additionally, building the attached structure back further would hinder the sight lines. They would
like to maintain the look and the space that they currently have for chi ldren to play in the back
yard.
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 15
Commissioner Magnuson noted that having an attached garage is a nice amenity and then asked if
they had thought about eliminating the garage from the plans; it would solve the problem of the
sight lines and solves the problem of the back yard. Mr. Ziebol replied that they had considered it;
however, they would like to retire here and the distance of the existing garage to the house is
approximately 50 feet. It would be really nice to be able to pull into an attached garage for bringing
in groceries directly into the house. He also believes it would match the existing properties in the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if they would be willing to make the attached garage a single car
garage. Mr. Ziebol replied that he believes that a single car garage would detract from the value of
the home and he would prefer to have a two-car garage. He would use the current detached garage
for woodworking, etc.
Commissioner Noonan noted that one of the conditions of approval – if approved – is that the
applicant shall remove the detached garage once the new attached garage structure and addition is
complete. Therefore, Mr. Ziebol’s desire to use the detached garage for woodworking, etc. is
inconsistent with the recommendation. Mr. Ziebol replied that he did the math and the cost of
removing the detached garage would be approximately $40,000 – just to get rid of the existing
structure and adding in all of the money he put into it. His request includes the keeping of the
detached garage and build an attached garage.
Commissioner Corbett asked if some of the existing trees would be removed since they would be
up against the new attached garage structure. Mr. Ziebol replied that the trees would be removed
but would be replaced with pine trees and use any existing rocks removed to clean up the front of
the home. Therefore, the screening would be year-round rather than seasonal, as it is now.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Rachel Lind, 647 2nd Avenue, explained that she would be in support of this request. When
someone chooses to improve their home and stay in the neighborhood, it affirms the neighborhood.
She would rather have them stay there than move away to some other place.
Chair Field asked for discussion from the Commission before closing the public hearing.
Commissioner Corbett noted that he did not wish to limit something to be done; however, he asked
that the new setback lines be penciled in or shown on the survey. Mr. Benetti complied. Additional
discussion occurred regarding the backyard view and how the desire to keep that view is not a
‘practical difficulty’.
Chair Field asked if it were correct that if the Commission were to deny this request at this point
that it could not come back before the Commission for some period of time. Mr. Benetti confirmed
and noted that this time period would be for one year. Chair Field noted that this was why he left
the public hearing open as it would be nice to find a happy compromise and/or even take another
month, if the applicant was willing, to try and sort out and find a better footprint that more closely
mirrors the existing zoning code.
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 15
Commissioner Petschel agreed with Chair Field and suggested they be provided some guidance
with respect to the individual points. Chair Field stated that it is not the responsibility of the
Commission to tell them where to put things, the applicant has suggested where they would like
to put things. However, it is his sense that if the Commission proceeds dow n this path they could
deny their application. A month to review and possibly come up with alternatives is better than
one year.
Commissioner Noonan shared his views on ‘practical difficulty’ and that the desires and wishes
of an applicant do not meet the criteria of a practical difficulty. It is the Commissions responsibility
to maintain the sanctity of the zoning to the extent that they can; providing the individuals the
ability to apply for variances provided they meet the statutory tests that have been prescribed by
the courts. He would strongly support Chair Fields’ recommendation that the matter not be decided
at this time, but to be held for a period of time to allow the applicant and staff to see if there are
alternatives that could be worked out.
Chair Field asked the applicants to return and asked them if they were willing to work with staff
and come up with possible alternatives and come back in a month, or if they wanted to move
forward and risk their request being denied and then having to wait one year before being able to
apply again.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 2018-19, VARIANCE AND TO EXTEND THE REVIEW
PERIOD AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS IN COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESOTA STATE
STATUTE, WITH THE DISCRETION THAT THE REQUEST COULD BE BROUGHT BACK
IN LESS THAN 60 DAYS.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
C) PLANNING CASE #2018-13
KRISTIN ELMQUIST (OWNER – FOR THE LOVE OF DOGS)
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – DOG TRAINING IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL ZONE
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Kristin Elmquist was returning to ask that
the city consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would allow “dog training
facility” uses as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district.
This item was originally presented at the Commission’s regular meeting on June 26, 2018 where
the public hearing was held over and the motion was made to make suggestions for City Council
consideration. At the July 2, 2018 City Council meeting, discussions were had that revolved around
the specific dog-training use; and the possible expansion or additional allowances under this or
similar animal related uses. After continued discussion the Council determined to focus only on
the needs of Ms. Elmquist for the dog training facility as a Conditional Use Permit in the Industrial
Zone. If any other businesses or interested parties wanted to allow other animal related activities,
the city would consider them under a separate application review process.
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 15
Mr. Benetti presented proposed Ordinance No. 529 and noted that the language provided was just
the language that centered on Dog Training Facility; which were very consistent with what was
discussed at the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and also consistent with the West
St. Paul ordinances that staff felt was a very ideal ordinance to utilize as a guide.
Staff recommended approval of this draft ordinance.
Commissioner Noonan, understanding the directions from the City Council, asked for
confirmation that a kennel is only permitted in the Business District as opposed to the Industrial
District. Mr. Benetti replied that no kennels are allowed in the city currently. There is a definition
of a kennel in the zoning code; however, there are no permitted uses identified in any of the city’s
zoning districts. The only similar use is an animal hospital; and that is only in the Business District.
Commissioner Noonan also noted that the proposed ordinance has Dog Training Facility; however,
there is no definition provided. He suggested that this be fleshed out.
Commissioner Magnuson echoed the same concern as Commissioner Noonan. She also noted that
there is nothing in the ordinance that expressly forbids dogs from staying overnight.
Chair Field agreed that without a definition, all kinds of unintended consequences could occur.
Mr. Benetti pointed out the definition of a Dog Training Facility that was included in the original
request presented at the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and asked if that would be
an acceptable definition. After discussion, it was agreed that the definition was acceptable;
however, provisions for accessory services need to be spelled out (i.e. dog massage, dog grooming,
not including boarding, etc.).
Commissioner Noonan asked if Condition H was really necessary (Parking. Adequate off-street
parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator) since there are parking
standards within the Industrial zone. Mr. Benetti replied that, knowing the extent of Ms. Elmquist’s
proposed activities, he wanted the ability to limit the amount of parking to what would be available
on the site. Upon being asked, Commissioner Mazzitello opinioned that typically in the zoning
code, the parking determination is done by facility usage. He did not believe there was anything
in the code that talks about parking requirements for a dog training facility. If they are in a
traditional industrial building, they are going to have part of their facility be an office. Square
footage would be used to determine parking based on the office area; the indoor training area could
be considered as industrial or warehouse space and a parking calculation based on that square
footage could be added, and see if that fits what the tenant of the building needs to have parking
for their business. If it is not adequate, then that would be the reason for Condition H to be listed;
the zoning administrator would have discretion to differentiate from those calculations in code to
allow for a parking ratio that works for the user that is still reasonably close to what is codified.
Ms. Kristin Elmquist came forward to answer any questions the Commission would have and to
add comment to the staff report.
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 15
Chair Field asked what services she would be offering that would be consistent with a ‘day training
facility’. Ms. Elmquist replied that her facility caters to not only family pets but to performance
dogs and; therefore, she provides massages or chiropractic services that are performed by trained
staff. Something like day care really has nothing to do with the training classes and the services
provided so it is not something she is interested in. She may occasionally have ancillary things like
photographers that show up at events, but that is not a regularly occurring thing. Grooming is not
something she is looking at. Although performance dogs need grooming, that is not her primary
focus. Chair Field asked if she could theoretically groom a dog before a competition. Ms. Elmquist
replied that if it were confirmation, then yes that would be correct. However, she is not training
for confirmation and she does not hold confirmation shows.
Commissioner Noonan asked if she were to reconsider, for the organized training of domestic
animals, is that broad enough to cover the athletic training of the dogs she spoke about in terms of
the training, nutritional guidance, chiropractic, and massage therapy – is ‘training’ broad enough
to cover all that she would think of doing. Chair Field suggested ‘training and care of’.
Commissioner Magnuson, indicating that they are dealing with performance animals, noted that
these animals require a different level of care or training. If the city had something that said that
an indoor or outdoor facility used exclusive for the organized training of domestic and performance
dogs. Part of the performance dog notion may be that performance dogs do have some additional
requirements, much like elite athletes. Then the city would not need to deal with ‘ancillary
services’.
Commissioner Petschel asked if there was an advantage to defining it extremely narrowly versus
it being slightly broad and avoiding services like kennels and boarding and basically allowing any
dog service. Commissioner Magnuson replied that the City Council said they wanted to limit it to
training facilities.
Commissioner Noonan noted that this is why he liked the suggestion ‘and care of’, knowing full
well that they are not looking to kennel.
Commissioner Mazzitello, referring to Condition F, noted that the suggestion from the City
Council that outdoor areas ‘be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four feet in height’.
He then asked how that would affect training in an outdoor area if they were let off of their leash
in a fenced area. Ms. Elmquist replied that this was one of the things that she would like to have
removed. In her opinion, when a fence is set up it encourages owners to unsnap that leash. She
does not want any dog loose and that is not the intent of the potty area; she wants dogs to go out,
do their business, and come back in. Having a fenced in area, even with signs saying no dogs
allowed off their leash, it happens. Then there is the issue of people opening gates and dogs get
loose, and all of those things that come with an area like that. This is not a play area, it is not an
exercise area, and it is just for going potty. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for confirmation that
she requires dogs to be leashed at all times. Ms. Elmquist confirmed; except when they are
competing inside the building.
Commissioner Mazzitello suggested that Condition F be modified by adding that the fence could
be exempted if the operator requires animals to be on a leash at all times in outdoor areas.
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 15
Commissioner Toth asked if the owner of the dog must be present at all times or could they drop
the dog off and have it be trained without them. Ms. Elmquist replied that at this facility the owner,
or responsible party, must be present with the dog at all times and take the dog with them when
they leave. No dog is allowed to stay overnight. An owner / responsible party can have multiple
dogs on site.
Commissioner Noonan asked what the capacity was on the proposed facility. Ms. Elmquist replied
that would depend on the type of class being held. Obedience classes are typically limited to six
or eight puppies; nose-work classes are typically four to six; dog diving classes are typically four
to six; all are relatively small class sizes. Some classes are run concurrently.
Commissioner Noonan asked how many parking spaces are available on the site. Ms. Elmquist
replied that there are approximately 13 spaces in front of the building and approximately 20 spaces
up on top. She believes that would be sufficient for her needs.
Commissioner Toth asked about waste removal and the practice for that. Ms. Elmquist replied that
in the outdoor relief area they plan to have a waste container with bag dispenser, similar to what
is available in the parks. That waste container would be emptied every night, into the garbage
dumpster.
Commissioner Toth asked about ventilation and sanitary measures as there may be times when a
dog relieves themselves inside the building. Ms. Elmquist replied that since this is not a boarding
facility, she does not anticipate that dogs would regularly be relieving themselves inside. As
accidents do happen, a clean-up station will be provided inside as well. A kennel disinfectant is
used in the water for those accidents that happen.
Chair Field reminded the Commission that the item before them is an ordinance to allow a dog
training facility as a conditional use in the industrial zone. The specific questions that have been
brought up should be during the conditional use permit application, which follows.
Commissioner Magnuson asked, if they were to define a dog training facility the way they have
been discussing, would that be satisfactory to Ms. Elmquist. She indicated that she would be
satisfied with that definition.
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 MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 15
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-13, ORDINANCE NO. 529 AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
TO ALLOW DOG TRAINING FACILITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
1. The zoning ordinance include in the Definition Section the definition of Dog Training
Facility as “An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training and care of
dogs”
2. In the body of the provision, include Provision F a clause that says “. . . shall be completely
enclosed with a fence . . . or require that all dogs utilizing the outdoor facility be leashed
at all times”
3. Add Provision I that reads “The overnight boarding of dogs shall not be permitted”
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 7, 2018 meeting.
D) PLANNING CASE #2018-20
KRISTIN ELMQUIST, 1415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – DOG TRAINING FACILITY
Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Kristin Elmquist has applied for a
Conditional Use Permit to provide a new “dog training facility” use in a vacant space within an
existing multi-tenant building located in the I-Industrial district.
A notice of the public hearing was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and notice letters
were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the site. No comments or objections were
received as of the date of this meeting.
The subject property, located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road, is approximately 5.85 acres in size
and the building itself is just over 66,000 square feet. The dog training facility would occupy the
far-east end of the building, consisting of 10,706 square feet of floor space.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the building, highlighting the area to be occupied by the dog
training facility.
Activities and services to be provided include training / discipline classes, pool, competitions, and
workshops. The pool would be used for dock diving training and competitions. The hours of
operation would be 8:00 a.m. – 9:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. on
weekends or during special events.
Now that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of draft Ordinance 529, they can
proceed with this Conditional Use Permit application. Mr. Benetti shared the standards to be met
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 15
when considering a Conditional Use Permit and explained how this application meets those
standards.
Staff recommended approval of this application.
Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing Condition #7, asked if on-street parking was permitted for
the public on Pilot Knob Road or on Mendota Heights Road at this time. Public Works Director
Ryan Ruzek replied that he did not believe that on-street parking was permitted in the immediate
vicinity of this area. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that if it is prohibited by ordinance, then there
is no need to say it in the condition. Mr. Benetti replied that he wanted it as part of the condition
to ensure that the applicant is clear that, if an event is being held that they need to self-manage the
parking themselves instead of the police being called.
Commissioner Corbett, in reference to the loading areas, asked if any discussions had taken place
with the building owner. Mr. Benetti replied that the owner was asked if the adjacent tenant would
be able to have continuous loading and unloading to their facility. The owner indicated that he
believed they could with this use being in the building.
Ms. Kristin Elmquist returned to answer questions or provide comment. In reference to the
question about the loading dock, she indicated that one of those would be hers. She also indicated
that the entrance and exit to the potty area is on the potty area side, away from the loading dock.
The loading dock is really just an elevated garage door with no stairs or any way for dogs or people
to come out that side of the building.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if she would see any need to utilize on-street parking at any time.
Ms. Elmquist replied in the negative and noted that the site has the ability to hold a lot of cars if
really needed to.
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 MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF P LANNING CASE 2018-20, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT – DOG TRAINING FACILITY BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE
PROPOSED USE WILL BE COMPLIANT WITH THE PROPOSED CITY ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 529;
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. All standards and regulations adopted or amended under proposed Ordinance No. 529 shall
be complied with during the operations of this dog training facility on the subject property.
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 15
2. All training activities and events shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed building.
3. Outdoor storage and display of materials is prohibited.
4. A sign permit shall be required prior to installation of any additional tenant signage on the
subject parcel/building. No banner or temporary signs will be allowed.
5. A building permit shall be required prior to any applicable demolition or tenant space
improvements.
6. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 am to 9:30 pm Monday through Friday; and 7:00 am
to 10 pm weekends or special events.
7. The Owner of the training facility shall notify all other building space tenants at least 14-
days in advance of any planned weekend events; and must ensure that all parking for clients
and guests for said events are accommodated on the subject site. No on-street parking or
blocking of loading areas is allowed.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if they needed to include a condition that the Conditional Use
Permit is subject to the Adoption of Ordinance 529 by the City Council. The reply was that if the
City Council were to deny the adoption of the ordinance, then this request would not be a permitted
use.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 7, 2018 meeting.
Staff Announcements / Update of Developments
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided the following verbal updates:
Planning Case 2018-12, Conditional Use Permit for Erick Schmidt to install an oversize
garage at 1133 Delaware Avenue was approved by the City Council
Planning Case 2018-15, Critical Area Permit for Jackie and Mike Chase to install a new
swimming pool and patio/deck at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road was approved by the City
Council
Planning Case 2018-14, Lot Split Subdivision (Lot Combination) for Mike and Michelle
Bader at 1673 Delaware Avenue was approved by the City Council with an added provision
that he had to enter into a Developers Agreement that reinforced that he could only do one
single-family lot on the 8.5 acre lot that was created and any other entitlements would have
to go through the review process
Planning Case 2018-16, Lot Line Adjustment, Lot Split/Combination, and Variances for
Sarah & Jason Barrett / John & Deanne Bennett, 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive – lot
line adjustment was approved; however, the sale of the parkland parcel was tabled. Staff
was instructed to work out some type of alternative. Currently, they are looking at some
type of agreement (easement or licensing) that would permit the encroachments to possibly
stay with the understanding that the city kept the ownership of the land.
Mr. Benetti also shared that he and Consulting Planner Phil Carlson (Stantec) have been speaking
and they have nailed down a few dates for a possible Comprehensive Plan workshop meeting;
Wednesday, August 22 or Thursday, August 23. After discussion, the Commission agreed to meet
July 24, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 15
on Wednesday, August 22 at 3:30 p.m. Additional discussion occurred about obtaining written
feedback, suggestions, and comments from the public.
Night to Unite will occur on Tuesday, August 7, 2018. Additional information is available on the
city’s website. The City Council meeting will start at 8:00 p.m. that same evening.
In response to a question regarding the status of the Michael Development, Mr. Benetti replied
that building will start on Monday, July 30, 2018.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:57 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0