2018-10-04 Planning Comm Minutes
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 36
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 4, 2018
A special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Thursday, October
4, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John
Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel.
Those absent: None
Approval of Agenda
Chair Field suggested that the order of the agenda be reversed given the tremendous outpouring of
people with an interest in case #2018-23. The agenda approved with the recommended reverse in
order.
Hearings
B) PLANNING CASE #2018-24
PER & SANDRA MOBERG, 1678 LILAC LANE
VARIANCE TO SIDE-YARD SETBACK STANDARD FOR NEW DRIVEWAY
AND PARKING PAD EXPANSION
Community Development Director explained that Per and Sandra Moberg requested an
encroachment into the side yard setback for a new parking pad and driveway at their property
located at 1678 Lilac Lane. This item was presented as a public hearing with notices being mailed
to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel. No comments or objections were
received.
The property measures 90 feet in width and 165 feet in depth equaling approximately 15,503
square feet of land. There is also an existing 2,634 square foot, single story, rambler style,
residential dwelling with a 400 square foot two-car attached garage. The requested parking pad
and driveway would add an additional hard surface area of 400 square feet and the proposed
driveway would be approximately one foot from the property line; whereas, city code requires a
5-foot setback. The neighbor to the east of the Moberg property has expressed support of this
variance request.
Mr. Benetti shared a photograph image of the subject property with a view from Lilac Lane and
an overhead view showing its location relative to neighboring properties and roadways.
Mr. Benetti explained the three tests to be taken into consideration when considering a variance
request.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 36
Commissioner Corbett asked if the driveway would consist of asphalt surfacing. Mr. Benetti
confirmed that this was the plan.
Commissioner Toth asked if the easement and swell for water drainage would be impacted by this
construction on the neighbor next door. Also, if there were to be heavy rains what would be the
layout of the rear yard on both properties to prevent potential flooding. Chair Field noted that these
questions would be addressed by staff during the design phase of this project, which Mr. Benetti
confirmed. Since there is a driveway permit process, the engineers and planning would look at
this.
Ms. Sandra Moberg expressed her appreciation to the commission for considering this request.
She then explained that Lilac Lane is a little unique in that the street had a grassy median that
divides the lanes going north and south; the median divides into a large grassy hill directly in front
of her home; the road is very narrow causing difficulties for passing cars parked on the street;
adding this parking pad to her home would eliminate the need for a family member to park on the
street because of the current situation with their driveway; on-street parking is not permitted in the
winter and their garage is not large enough for a second vehicle; also the driveway is very narrow
making passing a parked car in the driveway very difficult. They are asking to widen the driveway
and add a parking pad expansion alongside of the garage.
In keeping with the characteristic of the neighborhood, they are only asking for a variance of 40 -
feet long with a taper into the existing driveway footprint; rather than requesting for the parking
pad to go all of the way to the street. It is their belief that a new driveway pad would look better to
the neighbors than the damage their truck does to the lawn in the spring and the grass/weeds that
grow up under the vehicles.
Commissioner Noonan, referencing the size of the existing garage, asked why they could only
park one vehicle inside. Ms. Moberg replied that it is a two-car garage; however, the truck they
have is too long to fit into the garage. That is why he parks on the street.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if they could live with an 8-foot wide parking pad rather than a 9-
foot wide parking pad; making the setback two feet rather than the proposed one foot. Ms. Moberg
shared an image of the boat parked next to the garage and explained that wher e the wheels are
right now is right at 8 feet; therefore, their request was for a 9 foot pad so when they stepped out
of the vehicle they would be stepping on the pavement.
Commissioner Noonan noted that one of the tests that the commission has to consider is ‘practical
difficulty’. In this case the practical difficulty in terms of accommodating this request is largely
driven by the size of the lot; it is a small lot and the house occupies a lot of the frontage of the lot
and there is limited space. He ask ed if there were any other practical difficulties the commission
should consider. Ms. Moberg had no other practical difficulties to add.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 36
Ms. Joanne Mansur, 1700 Lilac Lane, noted that the issue with their street is that it does have a
median in the middle. So when she turns right out of her house and passes the Moberg home, if
there is a car parked on the street it is actually very difficult to get past.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Noonan explained that he was going to move for denial of this variance request to
be consistent with past decisions by the commission. In the past the commission has denied two
or three other variances with similar circumstances where there was no practical difficulty, but was
strictly a matter of convenience and desire on the part of the owner. The desire on the part of the
owner is not a justification for a variance. One has to recognize the limitations of a property; just
because one has a narrow and they cannot do everything on that lot they want does not mean the
commission should grant a variance and wipe out side yards and all that side yards are intended to
do.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE
2018-24
This motion died for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-24 BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The request for the variances to encroach into the required side-yard setback is relatively
minor in its overall scope and impacts, and can be considered in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the ordinances; as the Applicant proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner.
2. The existing conditions of the property and placement of the home, both of which were not
created by the current homeowner, present a case of a practical difficulties for t he
homeowner to provide a wider and more useable driveway and parking area for the
residential property; and said improvement will be more convenient to the homeowner and
future owners of the property.
3. The requested variances are considered a reasonable request and the impacts caused by the
increased encroachment may not negatively affect the adjacent or neighboring properties.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A driveway permit shall be obtained prior to any installation or construction of the new
driveway or parking pad area.
2. The proposed encroachment for the driveway shall not extend closer than 1-foot from the
side interior lot line.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 36
3. Any new grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal,
state, and local regulations; as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that normally she would agree with everything Commissioner
Noonan said; however, in this case the thing that put her to the other side was the constr uction of
the roadway and the fact that it is so narrow that it limits their ability to use the street for kind of
parking purposes. To her, since they did not create the road it creates a practical difficulty.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 2 (NOONAN, TOTH)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 16, 2018
meeting.
A) PLANNING CASE #2018-23
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 197, HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL
- 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE
VARIANCES TO CITY CODE SECTION 12-1D-E FOR NEW ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH A NEW MULTI-PURPOSE ATHLETIC
FIELD PROJECT, ALONG WITH A POSSIBLE VARIANCE TO CITY CODE
SECTION 12-1D-16F FOR REDUCED ON-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
NEEDED FOR AN ATHLETIC FIELD
Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting, and available
on the city’s website, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Independent
School District #197 (ISD #197), on behalf of Henry Sibley HS, had requested a number of
variances for accessory structures because the school is located in a single-family residential zone.
This item was presented as a public hearing with notices being published and sent to all residents
located within a quarter mile of the property, including residents located in West St. Paul and
Sunfish Lake.
Henry Sibley HS is located in two zoning districts; R-1 and R-1A, both which are single family
districts. The property is guided as S-School under the General Institutional land category of the
current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The city is currently in the process of updating the
Comprehensive Plan; however, there are no plans to change the institutional use for the school at
this point. Public and parochial schools are considered a permitted use under these zoning
categories.
Henry Sibley is currently using the football/athletic facility at Charles Matson Field, located next
to Heritage/E-STEM Middle School in West St. Paul. In May 2018, the voters approved a $117
million bond to help with some district improvements, including new athletic field improvements
to the high school. They plan to have the new athletic field improvements for the school completed
by fall of 2019.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 36
The reason for this hearing is for the accessory structures to the proposed athletic field
improvements. Under the city’s Zoning Code Section 12-1D-3C, accessory structures are allowed
as permitted accessory uses. Because the school is under the R-1 / R-1A category and are single
family zoned, they are treated the same as residential properties for the zoning standards that
address accessory structures; however, they must meet the general zoning standards established
for the size, number, and heights for allowed accessory structures, and require variances from the
height, number, area, and size requirements for such a structure in a residential zoning district.
Mr. Benetti provided the description of the request:
Update and improve the existing outdoor track and field area
A new full-sized football/soccer/lacrosse combination field with synthetic turf
A new 9-lane all-weather running track
Newly designed and located field event areas, including shot-put, long/triple jump pits,
high jump area, and pole-vault
* Addition of 1,500 “home” bleachers and 500 “visitor” bleachers, - down from the original
2,760 seats as shown in the plan provided to the Commission. All bleacher areas would be
ADA/handicap accessible
A new 420 square foot press box (with a crow’s nest feature)
A plaza/gathering area with a new 1,550 square foot Concessions/Restroom/Storage
building
A new Team Room/Storage building of 1,500 square feet
A new 160 square foot ticket/entry booth
Two separate “port-a-potty” enclosures
Four 80 foot tall light poles
A new scoreboard (facing southward, away from the residential neighborhoods)
* According to the code, a high school is required to provide 1 space per student plus 1
space for each 3 classrooms. In Henry Sibley’s case, that would be 228 spaces; the current
508 parking stalls are more than adequate. However, athletic fields have to have 1 space
for each 3 seats and the original design called for 2,760 seats; creating a deficit of over 412
spaces.
The applicant has adjusted their site plan to show the 406 stalls on the north; 72 additional
stalls under an ‘event striping’ within the bus parking area to the north; a re-striping of the
east parking lot from 50 to 43 spaces, plus the 52 stalls in the far southeast corner lot; and
an additional 97 stalls in the area labeled “New Southeast Parking Lot”. This would make
the total number of parking spaces be 670; technically meeting the 667 spaces needed for
the newly planned 2,000 seat bleachers, and a variance may no longer be necessary.
All of these improvements would be contained inside a new 6-foot high chain-linked fence
enclosures.
The proposed accessory structures meet the applicable setback standards from lot lines and
principle building; therefore no variances are needed for setbacks. However, all new (proposed)
buildings either exceed the height, numbers, and allowable areas for any and all accessory building
standards in the R-1 District.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 36
Mr. Benetti shared images of the current property layout, including access points, parking spaces,
building locations, fields, surrounding roadways and homes.
Mr. Benetti noted that lighting is a huge issue for area residents. He understands that the firm hired
to install the lighting is very reputable and a lot of schools and universities use them for that
purpose. Henry Sibley is showing 4 new 80-foot tall light pole standards to light the new athletic
field and track areas for night-time activities; to be situated on the north and south sides of the
home and visitor bleacher areas. The applicants submitted a very detailed lighting and photometric
plan; these plans call for a zero reading at the property and street lines, meeting the widely
acceptable standard of light levels.
Mr. Benetti shared the three questions the applicants need to respond to or address in their
applications for variances requests and noted that school did a fine job defending their applications
and providing for the Commission their analysis.
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification of the variances associated with the lighting. Mr.
Benetti replied that the variance is only for the structure heights as the ordinance says that
accessory structures should be limited to 15 feet; and the lighting structures are proposed to be 80
feet in height. Commissioner Noonan questioned if ‘structures’ included light poles. Mr. Benetti
replied that ‘structures’ is a general term and it fits in this situation as it does not differentiate
between a building or a light pole. This is what the city has done in the past with similar facilities
and this variance request would be consistent.
Commissioner Magnuson noted that there was nothing in the variance requests about a scoreboard.
Mr. Benetti replied that the plan does show a scoreboard on the north side and the ordinance does
allow for a dynamic electronic scoreboard as a permitted accessory use under the R -1 district. He
indicated that staff would ensure that the school works with them to ensure they comply with the
code. He also stated that the scoreboard fits into the overall signage on the campus.
Commissioner Noonan noted that, generally speaking, with this site being in an R-1 category and
being caught in the R-1 zoning provisions; which generally apply to single-family lots of 15,000
or 20,000 square feet – this issue has been wrestled with in the past, where there is a 70 acre site
and to apply a 125 square foot maximum on a 15,000 square foot lot is like about 0.8% coverage.
If looking at the 15,000 applying to 70 acres, it’s about 0.45% coverage. It is a question of size
that makes the practical difficulty is that maybe that the R-1 category is not intended to apply for
a 70 acre site. Mr. Benetti agreed and stated that if this were a single family home on a 70 acre lot
then the rules would apply. This is obviously a very large institutional use. The R-1 standards may
not really apply here. There has been talk about creating an institutional or a specific district for
schools, churches, public facilities; however, the city is not there yet.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the title of this case mentions a possible variance to City Code
Section 12-1D-16F to reduce on-site parking requirements needed for an athletic field. When
reviewing the material provided at the commissioners’ seats – which matched what was presented
– with the addition of 162 stalls on the southeastern corner, the site would have 670 stalls; meeting
the requirement for the stadium of 667. He continued by stating that the city code is silent on time
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 36
of day events and whether parking can shared or not. Technically speaking, there are 225 stalls
short for installing the stadium. However, it is his understanding that no events take place on
campus when there is a football game – which are the big attendance draw. He then asked if it
would be appropriate for the Commission to place a condition of approval that when the stadium
is in use for football, no other event can take place on campus – or would it be more appropriate
for them to come back for a variance for parking standards. Mr. Benetti replied that the commission
could do either or. As long as the condition is based on rational findings he believed that the
commission could do a typical condition or work with the applicant. As far as parking goes, the
variance was advertised as a possibility and if the commission felt a variance was warranted, they
could issue a recommendation on that or send it back for further study. He thought that a favorable
solution for the school would be to do a condition that they could live with. It is up to the school
– like any business – to manage their parking.
Commissioner Toth noted that the parking requirements for 2,000 bleacher seats at 3.1 equates to
670 spaces. He then noted that there would be the players, coaches, faculty members, marching
band; which would take up approximately 125 parking spaces. Now the available parking spaces
for the 2,000 seat bleachers has been reduced. He then asked if that had been taken into
consideration in any of the calculations. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative because the code is in
general terms and standards – it just says one space for every 3 seats on an athletic field use. It
does not differentiate between who the seats are for or what those spaces are to be used for.
Mr. Peter Olson-Skog, Superintendent of ISD #197, 1897 Delaware Avenue, was present
representing Henry Sibley HS. He expressed his excitement at being at this meeting to continue
on this long journey. The task force for this project was formed in 2017 to review the facility and
make recommendation to the school board for needed and desired improvements. What followed
was a large communication effort to inform the community about the proposed improvements
through newsletters, direct mailings, open houses, community presentations, and more. He would
remiss if he did not express his gratitude to the community for their overwhelming support of the
proposed initiatives.
Since the passing of the referendum he could not overstate the excitement felt from students, staff,
and community; with great anticipation in conversations about improving the aging buildings to
match a long-standing tradition of excellence in the district, which would give the students in the
community the facilities they deserve, that are comparable and competitive to those they have
experienced in surrounding schools and districts.
He then described how their requests for variance meets the criteria that the city and the state have
established, which were specific to three areas; height, size and the number of accessory structures.
First, he acknowledged the concern raised by some of the community members: light, sound,
parking, and the general location of the field. He continued by reassured the Commission and the
members of the community that they fully intend to comply with all city codes as they relate to
lights, sounds, traffic, and the location of the field. They are not asking for a variance in regards
to any of those areas. They want to be good neighbors and have already made many modifications
to the plan based on the input received.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 36
Specific to the variances, Mr. Olson-Skog stated:
First criteria is if the property is unique; they believe this to be a very s traightforward
response – as a high school in the R-1 zoning district, they are very unique in that they are
a school and not a single-family home
Second criteria is if the request is reasonable given the way in which the property is unique;
as a high school they believe the test of reasonableness should be whether it is common for
high schools to have similar facilities to those they are request – they believe it is. The
facilities are comparable to those found throughout their conference and the state and they
are comparable to those already approved by the City of Mendota Heights at St. Thomas
Academy. The current field presents many practical difficulties for the school district,
teams require transportation to and from, high school students who want to attend the
games and activities have inadequate access to them as attendance requires transportation.
Furthermore, as observed throughout the area, having homes games at the high school is
by far the most commonly found arrangement.
Third criteria is whether it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He
responded by referring to the City of Mendota Heights vision statement, with which they
wholeheartedly agreed. Schools are parts of the character of this community. Henry Sibley
has been proud to be a positive part of the character of this community since 1971. As a
typical high school, they currently have fields, bleachers, track, lights on top of the
building, and throughout the parking lot. They do not believe that the height, size, or
number of the proposed improvements – many of which are replacements for existing
structures – would alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Statistics shared by Mr. Olson-Skog:
Largest attendance seen at Matson Field in the last few years was 2,000 people. This is the
same number of people that come to and leave the high school every day.
Beyond Warrior Rally and Homecoming, a typical football game drops from that highest
attendance (2,000) to approximately 1,000 in attendance.
In the past, they have seen approximately 10 events in the fall and 10 events in the spring
that have used lights at Matson Field.
They believe that the neighborhood in which Henry Sibley exists is a great neighborhood with a
great high school. When the proposed improvements are made, they will continue to be a great
neighborhood with a great high school with the improved facilities the community has requested
and the students deserve.
Mr. Olson-Skog then introduced Ms. Jenny Tuttle, Architect from LSE Architecture; Mr. Ryan
Hoffman, Construction Consultant from ICS Consulting.
Ms. Tuttle stated that although the proposal this evening it not about the location of the field, they
thought it would be beneficial to share the background about the proposed location. She shared the
visual board that have been used to communicate the plans for the districts bond election, which
was also used prior to the bonds; at many, many community meetings, at school board meetings,
featured in the newspaper, appeared on mailers, and shared with the City Council on multiple
occasions. The overall plan has not changed; however, some of the details in development that
have come from community input have been modified.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 36
In 2014, there was a different location proposed for this stadium – that was the bond that did not
pass. The location was to the south and there were a number of reasons that this location was
believed to be not the best. This was a decision that was made after much deliberation, thought,
and input by the community input process. There was a facility committee before and after the
bond; that committee included a number of participants from the district, from the community, and
neighbors. The items that confirmed that the proposed location now is the correct one are:
Access to parking
Handicap accessibility
Proper orientation of the field
Proximity to neighbors
Significant cost difference - $1.2 million difference
The south location proposal did not include a multi-purpose multi-use design
o The newly proposed design would not fit in the location to the south
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the Commission has received lots and lots of emails with lots
and lots of great comments, questions, and things Ms. Tuttle might be able to help answer. One of
the areas in question was the extreme southeast corner of the campus, at the frontage road and
Delaware. He then asked if that area had been analyzed at all and if so, what were the findings.
Ms. Tuttle replied that this area of the site had even more grade changes. While they do not
anticipate all of the rules that apply to the south field would apply to that location; there are also
major utilities in terms of stormwater and water lines in that location; so the cost might increase in
that location.
Commissioner Toth asked if this would require significant regrading of the existing field. Ms.
Tuttle replied that there would be some regrading; but generally the elevation of the field at the
top remains somewhat similar. It would be improved.
Commissioner Magnuson noted that along Marie Avenue there are a number of large trees between
the street and the walking path. She asked if those trees would survive this project or would the
construction, etc. force a replanting. Ms. Tuttle referred to the plan submitted in the variance
application – their intention is to maintain as many trees as possible and then add to that with
additional landscape buffers.
Mr. Hoffman noted that ICS has worked with LSE and Anderson-Johnson Associates, the civil
engineering firm, on probably over 100 of these facilities in the State of Minnesota for different
school districts. They are used to these processes and used to these types of facilities.
He confirmed that the plan is to maintain as much of the trees and landscaping as possible, the
berming around the existing west and north sides. The plan is to have the stadium tucked into the
existing trees.
As for the lighting, the plan shows four posts. The packet also included some examples from
Mosco Lighting of lighting on fields; however, there was not a rendering of what is proposed for
this field. Mr. Hoffman then shared an image of what could actually happen on a field in this
location; it is very direct. These lights are more focused onto the field and are shielded around to
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 36
take the light where it is supposed to be. Of course, they were not applying for a variance on
lighting as they are keeping within the city ordinance in line with zero foot candles at the property
line.
Commissioner Noonan asked if the image shared by Mr. Hoffman was an actual photo or a
rendering. Mr. Hoffman replied that it was an actual photo he found on the Mosco Lighting
website.
Mr. Hoffman continued by explaining that, along with the berming and design, another issue that
has been of concern is what they are going to do with sound. They will engage a sound engineer
to make sure that the sound system that is designed and installed is done in a way similar to the
light fixtures where it is focused on the field and the visitors on the field itself. Of course sound
travels and they will be cognizant of that. Again, they are not applying for any sort of variance or
delineation away from what the city has as an ordinance of sound levels.
All of the components of the plan, the size and number of structures fit very well with typical
facilities like this throughout the State of Minnesota, within the City of Mendota Heights, and
within the surrounding areas as well.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the bleachers were open or closed. Mr. Hoffman replied that
they are open. She then asked if any consideration had been given to closing the bleachers off and
using the area underneath for storage rather than adding additional accessory structures. Mr.
Hoffman replied in the affirmative and then explained that this is not an easy thing to do. They
also wanted to tuck the home bleachers up against the back berm and the trees, which would restrict
the access to that area on the backside. Moving the bleachers forward to allow access to the
backside could create more of a nuisance as opposed to keeping it as hidden as possible. Ms. Tuttle
also replied that they felt the proposed solution was the most attractive and friendly to the
neighbors.
Chair Field, referencing the gathering area and green space on the south end and the shot-put and
long jump areas on the north end, asked if they couldn’t move a little further south - little further
away from the residents on the north side of Marie Avenue and create a little more of a barrier
with some trees – a greater buffer. Mr. Hoffman replied that this option was pr esented and
discussed among the focus group and sub-committees – what is not seen in that area is the
significant grade change between the parking lot level and where the field level is. If they were to
put those components on that south end there would be a retaining wall between the parking lot
and the facility itself. Being able to maintain the berm and buffer, and possibly adding to what is
already there, on the north side where it is at was preferable. Also, there are no plans for an entrance
on the south side – the entire area would be surrounded by fencing that would prevent foot traffic
from access the site from the south. The only entrance would be the ticket booth area.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if they were far enough along in the design of the PA system to
know where the broadcast speakers would be located. Mr. Hoffman replied that they are not quite
to that point yet; however, the speakers would be focused towards the field and away from property
lines as feasible.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 36
Ms. Tuttle, in reference to the question raised by Chair Field about not submitting the full project
for a variance at this point, shared that in terms of timing, they carefully orchestrated all of the
phasing involved in this project and wanted to bring this forward first so that the school could
begin using this in the fall of 2019. The rest of the project will take a little longer to get to that
point and they would be back to see the Commission about the balance of the building project.
They wanted to get the Junior Class of Henry Sibley HS playing on the field and running on the
tracks.
Commissioner Toth asked if the ‘balance of the building project’ was referring to the swimming
pool and other structures. Ms. Tuttle replied that they will have the pool and signage.
Chair Field asked if the current project parking plans would be associated with the pool and would
accomplish the parking objective. Ms. Tuttle replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Magnuson noted that the rendering shared does not really show the extra tennis
courts; it shows nine tennis court; however, there is actually twelve. She then asked if anyone has
given any thought to using a little bit of that space – take out the three tennis courts that are in bad
shape and using that for parking. Ms. Tuttle replied that in the packet, if they look on the site plan,
at one point during bond planning they had planned to relocate those tennis courts as they are
middle school tennis courts to another site. However, they learned during the design process was
that there was one coach and the high school benefits from all of those courts being on one site.
So they are being replaced in that same location – with pickle ball stripes.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Susan Micevych, 1778 Ridgewood Drive, lives on the street directly across from the west side
of the stadium. She has been a public school teacher for 35 years and cares deeply for her students
and public schools. She also understands how important athletics, band, and all co-curricular are
to her students; and understands how important a stadium is to this school population. She and her
family have lived in their home for 26 years and have consistently voted to support every levy and
referendum; they are very happy that the school is going to get lots and lots of updates from the
latest referendum. They understand that a stadium on campus is important to the community and
they do not oppose a stadium nor have they tried to block the stadium. However, their frustrations
stem from the process and the location decisions that were made about the stadium and the impact
on their neighborhood.
Speaking for approximately 30 of her neighbors, Ms. Micevych continued by stating that although
the district says neighbors to the site were included in discussions about site planning in 2017,
neither her family nor her neighbors knew about it. They found out in March 2018 when they
received the postcard stating that the location of the stadium had changed to the northwest side.
Of course, it was too late for them to object as the location had been decided without their input.
Unlike current ISD 197 families that were notified; they were not since many of them do not have
school aged children or their children are not enrolled in the district. They were told that the
information was posted on the website; however, they just didn’t know and did not get a change
to weigh in on some of the pros and cons of stadium locations that have been sited in their proposals
– like the homeowners on the other sides of the stadium did who have children in the district. They
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 36
visited approximately 50 homes on the north side, none of which knew about nor were they able
to participate in discussions. It was probably not intentional; however, they felt overlooked and it
did not feel good. They believe all residents of Mendota Heights should have been notified by the
school district and by the City of Mendota Heights, about the planning of a structure with such
potential impact.
When their neighbors found out they were shocked and most wondered why the stadium wasn’t
considered by the freeway. Most of the amenities of the city have been developed along the
freeway corridor. In keeping with the city’s development pattern, they thought the stadium should
be built into the southern slope of the property and facing the highway – it would be far less
disruptive to the character of their neighborhoods, far more able to buffer noise, and far more
accommodative to the location of the bleachers, lighting, and traffic. Objectively, it makes sense.
Another concern they have is that they do not believe that the location by Highway 110 was 43
feet from anyone’s property line. They believe that they are closer than anyone would be if the
stadium was built on the south side.
Earlier this summer, Ms. Micevych contacted Mr. Olson-Skog about their concerns and asked that
they be passed on to the facilities team, which he said he did. She left her phone number and email
address; but no one from the facilities team reached out to them. Again, there was no meaningful
engagement with the neighborhood. They attended the open house on September 20 and realized
that very few of their concerns had been addressed. The only way for their neighborhood to have
any effect on the stadium location was to ask the city to deny or table the approval of the variances
until those discussions occur.
Ms. Micevych then addressed the three criteria to approving a variance request:
Maintain the Essential Character of the Neighborhood
The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood – they perceive this
to be a quite mature neighborhood in the rural residential land use category – sometimes
referred to as a super block. Homes in the category are unique in that they have large lots and
many have woodlands, wetlands, and prairies that provide wildlife habitat. A typical day is
quiet except for birds chirping, kids playing, a ball hitting a bat; people run laps at the track
and occasionally the field would host a youth game. However, there is never a large crowd.
Some have lived in the area 40 years or more and all of the ball fields, true to the character of
Mendota Heights, have remained unlit.
The neighborhood has always enjoyed this rural small town character and is the main reason
they chose to live in Mendota Heights. This is why the thought of building the stadium directly
across the street, with only a 43-foot setback from the shot-put structure to the property line,
is disturbing.
When they found out that the district plans to rent this facility to outside groups for revenue
they were disturbed. They believe that the proposed structures would cause public safety risk
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 36
due to increased traffic and parking deficiencies that would send event goers looking for
parking on the community streets.
Due to the topography and proximity of the stadium, significant noise and light would be forced
on them and their neighborhood would never be the same. PA system noise from commentators
at games and constant PA noise from coaches, band leaders, and others wearing wireless
amplification units on the field is a very large concern.
Yes, the approval of the variances would significantly alter the essential character of this quiet
neighborhood.
Uniqueness – the physical character of the subject property and not the personal preferences of the
land owner
The residents believe that no, there is not a wetland or other limiting physical characteristic of
the track and field area that would make it necessary to build any of the structures on the current
site. They chose this location and it is their personal preference to have it here.
The south side would possibly qualify better for this since there is a slope and some wetlands
down there.
Reasonableness – is the stadium proposal reasonable
They believe it is not reasonable to squeeze a huge stadium into a mature residential
neighborhood and push it over as close to the homes on the northern side as possible – 43 feet
from the property line. This is 40 feet closer than the current structure – which has an 80-foot
setback.
The setback from the school side is over 400 feet. So this is definitely not reasonable and most
likely the result of them not being at the table along with neighbors from the other side of the
school. They requested that the district re-examine the setback from the north side with the
possibility of moving the whole structure closer to the school – or turning it east/west next to
the parking lot.
The argument that east/west orientation is better for players is not reasonable when their homes
are at stake. The St. Thomas Academy stadium, which this proposal has been compared to, is
actually much further away from any homes and has an east/west orientation. Most of the other
metro stadiums used for comparison have much larger setbacks on all sides and many are not
near homes. Most of these stadiums have land berms or other landscaping to insulate all sides
of the facility. So it is not reasonable to approve the variance when they have not provided any
buffering on the north side, except for a few deciduous trees. Ms. Micevych qualified that by
noting that there is not a berm on the north side – there are just a couple of trees. The berms
they spoke about are on the west side by Callahan where they plan to plant a bunch of trees.
The north side is very open.
Lastly, the statute says that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical
difficulties. So if it costs more to build a stadium in a different location, costs alone cannot be
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 36
the deciding factor. In this case, the cost to the neighborhood and property values is greater
than the cost of the district.
Although living in a good school district may make a property more attractive to a buyer, living
100 feet away from a high school stadium certainly does not. Many realtors they spoke with
agreed with that statement.
Variances must be consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Our plan cites the
importance of continuing the semi-rule of character of the residential area, and it also cites our
quiet private way of life – unique in the Twin Cities. The land use goals aim to continue to
protect the quiet, secluded feel of the city’s mature neighborhoods. It would be impossible for
the Planning Commission to thoroughly and thoughtfully review and discuss all of the
information that have been received in just the last day or two. They encouraged the Planning
Commission to not rush to a yes vote.
In closing, Ms. Micevych stated that since the neighbors most directly affected by this placement
were not consulted, the variance request should be tabled for further study or denied and the
planning process re-opened. They welcome the chance to sit down with the architects and school
district and come up with some reasonable and mutually agreed upon changes to the current
location, or to be involved with the planning of a facility in a better location.
She reiterated that they are not opposed to a stadium on the campus, they are not trying to block a
stadium, and they just want the location to be a fair placement for all of the neighborhoods. This
is not to pit one neighborhood against any other – they want to factually look at the setbacks and
the facts that have been presented and find an equitable setback for all homes.
Mr. Rob Andersen, 1759 Ridgewood Drive, has been a resident of the city for 15 years. He echoed
the comments made by Ms. Micevych; he is not opposed to the stadium or the campus, he is
opposed to this location. He fundamentally thought that the school has failed to prove that this will
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There are a number of areas where it would
impact the area, including traffic, parking, lights, aesthetics, and noise.
He focused in on noise by stating that, Mr. Benetti has said, there is a code standard inside of
Mendota Heights, City Code 12-1I-2, that reads “Any use producing noise shall be in conformance
with the minimum standards as adopted and enforced by the Minnesota pollution control agency
and shall be conducted in such a way as to avoid constituting a nuisance.” To him, those two
standards have to be applied here. They have to meet with the MNPCA, but they also have to
conduct this in a way that is not a nuisance. Both Mr. Benetti, in the staff report, and the school
district, in their Letter of Intent, have acknowledged that this stadium is going to create noise.
Mr. Andersen provided to the Commission several examples from around the country of similar
circumstances where there are high school stadium that have been installed where they put
amplified noise into the stadium. In each of these cases there are neighbors complaining about the
nuisance of that noise. In fact, some of them are up to one mile away with their windows and doors
closed and they can still hear the announcements of the game or the event inside their home.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 36
He also provided a copy of a simple Google search with an acoustic engineer who claims that
topography, site conditions, and weather all impact noise and how it carries in the community.
When looking at the topography map of the school site in the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan it
shows that the proposed stadium site is one of the highest points in Mendota Heights. Then the
topography funnels downhill from there. He was unsure if this was true or not; however, his
concern was that the noise would follow the topography downhill, into Ridgewood Drive, down
Callahan, down Nature Way, down Hidden Creek, down Marie, and potentially all of the way over
to 35E and Dodd Road. He felt this was a relevant concern since the school has not provided any
documentation so far to counter that statement.
Further, site conditions impact noise. The school itself is a sounding board; it’s a 3-story building
with a brick wall and noise bounces off of that building. This past summer the marching band had
the great opportunity to go to Washington DC and every night – until late at night – the band
practiced in the parking lot. What was heard by the neighbors was not just the drums and the
trumpets, they also heard every single comment the instructor, who had amplification, made to the
band. It bounced off of the school building and came right down into the north side of the
community.
Following is what the school district has offered to mitigate the noise issue:
Committed to put an undefined number of trees in an undefined location
Agreed to engage a sound person at some point in the future to design the system
Comply with the MPCA to ensure the residents do not go deaf
They are going to shut down post-use absence cleaning to ensure that it is not continuing
much past the event itself
They are going to have a district person monitor the noise at the facility
However, this is what they have not done:
Not offered any kind of limitation on the hours; they have only said what their past
experience has been
They are not offering any limit on the number of night events at all
They are not offering to start games early and finish early
They are not offering to limit amplification during practices or other events
There is no estimate of what the noise will be from this facility
They are not offering to eliminate renting the facility
There is no noise impact study
They are asking the Commission to make a recommendation on an incomplete and flawed record.
The Commission does not have enough information to determine the impact of this facility on the
larger community.
He concluded by stating that this motion or this variance request should be denied because they
have not completed their homework or, as an alternative, this should be tabled and the school
district should be asked to go and engage a competent acoustic engineer to investigate the impact
of topography, the site itself, and the siding of the school building, weather, and abatement
strategies and compare/contrast that with other options that the school may have for other
locations.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 36
Ms. Holly Farber, 1701 James Road, has lived at her home for a decade and was a neighbor on
Marie – and she loved living near Henry Sibley. She is the proud parent of three Sibley graduates
who are now in college. She sees this plan and thinks it is great. She was sitting and listening to
the superintendent and to the architect, and she saw the students in the audience and th ought that
the city was so lucky to live in this fabulous community, they are going to have these updated
facilities that the community voted for overwhelmingly, and how respectful have they been to the
entire neighborhood. She believed that the decision of the stadium location was determined by an
extremely thorough process. Also, the Commission is not being asked to vote on a noise variance;
they are being asked to vote on the following:
Variance to allow for an increase in height of the lights without increasing the lumens to
the surrounding neighborhood
For additional structures so they can store their equipment and have the appropriate number
of bathrooms
And a press box
She believed that the narrow issue in front of the Commission shows the extreme t horoughness,
the respect, the commitment to be a good neighbor that Henry Sibley is now and has always been.
It seems to her that the variances they are asking for now are really no -brainers. It is unfortunate
that some neighbors feel that they were left out of the process; but that is not the question in front
of the Commission.
She expressed her full support of the request and encouraged the Commission to support it as well.
Mr. Larry Fischer, 1775 Ridgewood Drive, stated that he was encouraged by the care the
Commission has taken to keep everyone informed on this issue. He and his family have lived in
ISD 197 for the last 42 years; they have four children that have all gone to ISD 197 schools, his
son was the captain of the football team and the captain of the hockey team. His family has always
been supporters of the excellent schools and athletic programs in West St. Paul, Mendota Heights,
and the district.
He stated that he and his family were never directly invited to any meetings regarding the location
or the scale of this project and all of the decisions regarding the stadium when they were made.
They were at a meeting before the election where they requested more information; they were then
invited over to the school. They did see some of the drawings, etc. at that meeting; however, they
are between a rock and a hard place. They did not agree with the scope of this project or the
location; however, they did agree that the school district has to be kept up and ma intained – they
want to be excellent partners with the district. However, they felt they were left out of the process.
In the last week he has spoken directly with approximately 33 of his neighbors on this issue and
all but one felt that this decision of where to place the stadium and to grant these variances – and
they would be perfectly happy with an athletic field – but not on the scale that is being discussed.
They believe the variances should be denied and this project – in its present form – is going to
definitely dramatically change the character of the neighborhood and of Mendota Heights. They
would welcome being invited to the table to have more discussions about mitigation of some of
the issues.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 36
Mr. Fischer then shared a document he received from a neighbor, who had spoken with a lawyer
on the issue – there seems to be some confusion in the plan having to do with the definition of the
word ‘stadium’ and whether or not this is an athletic field or a stadium. He continued by stating
that Merriam-Webster defines a stadium as “a large usually roofless building with tiers of seats for
spectators at sports events”. They are not sure ‘stadium’ is appropriate under current zoning laws;
however, they understand that athletic stadiums shall be 1,000 feet or more from the nearest
residential structure. They requested an investigation into this to determine if this is a stadium or
not.
Ms. Lily Stringer, 1382 Cherry Hill Road, is a senior at Henry Sibley and has played on their
varsity soccer program. She expressed her support of the athletic field and stated that they are not
requesting anything different from their competitors, their conference, and out of conference. Their
current field is very unreliable. The proposed stadium needs the lights, needs the sound system as
it is part of the experience for high school; this is just what everyone else has and is not a big
request at all.
As for noise nuisance, there are only four home football games each year in the fall, they last until
9:30 – 10:00 pm, and are always on a Friday night. Regarding the PA system for the coaches she
stated that no coaches need it as they do speak pretty loud, and it should not be a problem or an
issue.
Ms. Stringer felt that this whole process was ridiculous because they are only asking for what their
competitors already have – an athletic field with bleachers, lights, and a sound system. Clearly
they have a supportive community; she goes to every football game, hockey game, and soccer
games – she just wanted to support her school, her friends, and peers.
Mr. Ben Kirkwood, 372 Betty Lane, is a junior at Henry Sibley HS, is the captain of the swim
team, and involved in band activities. The band would benefit a lot from this stadium as they would
have place to practice. The games are currently held at Matson Field and it would be so much more
convenience instead of having to bus the band to Matson just to be able to walk right outside. He
felt the big thing was the community and the high school having the experience of attending
football games at their high school. Having a central meeting place is important to building the
relationships people develop with each other and with their school spirit. Taking players
somewhere else to play – and calling that their ‘home’ field – just does not make sense. The
decision will have a positive effect on thousands and thousands of students; and this stadium could
possibly last decades.
Mr. Joseph Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road, is a senior at Henry Sibley HS, captain of the soccer team,
and plays hockey and baseball. He is also the president of the student council. The basis of what
is being asked is to feel like everyone else in their conference and have a competitive athletic field.
There are two main problems they face in their current situation:
The location – having to be off-campus makes it so they have to drive across town and be
bussed to games. It leaves the school without an indoor facility to dress and it limits their
ability to have a team meeting prior to the game.
The playability of the field – just this year they lost their home game in soccer. Multiple
games are greatly affected by the conditions of the field at Matson; the muddiness is
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 36
conducive to injury, and it affects the play of the game. It does not give the teams a
competitive field in terms of the rest of the conference.
He is not up-to-speed with the approval process; however, it seems to him that every other school
has this same exact set-up – including St. Thomas in our own community. He believes that this
field is hugely important to the community.
Ms. Rose __________ is a senior at Henry Sibley HS and has been a varsity member of the cross
country and track & field for six years; she has never had a home meet for track & field and will
have her first home meet for cross country next week. Only one outside team has responded to
their invitation because the other schools do not feel that the track is sufficient enough and safe
enough to compete on. When it rains there are big holes and it bubbles – it is unsafe to run on.
Mr. Alan __________, 77 W _______ Avenue, West St. Paul, has been a resident since 1989 and
he understood the concerns about noise that some of the residents have; however, that is one of the
trade-offs of living around a school. It is an anomaly that for 30+ years there has not been a multi-
purpose stadium at Henry Sibley HS. He graduated from Henry Sibley in 1995, his sister graduated
in 2011, his stepson will be graduating this year, and his daughter will graduate in 2035. The reason
places like Eden Prairie are successful at what they are at now is because they invested into the
future of the kids growing up in the district. These kids want to have a competitive balance with
the other schools within their district; it would bring greater pride than having a stadium that is 2
miles away from their high school. This would allow the kids to have more pride for their athletics.
As much as this community of Mendota Heights is proud of St. Thomas Academy and Visitation,
they also need to invest in the public educational school and the district, where a lot of these kids
go. They want to have a competitive balance with their friends – a lot of it is a mindset and a
culture. If these kids feel that they have the same opportunities as kids who have privately funded
stadium facilities and that their community cares about them, then they will care a lot more about
their school. The improvements would be seen in not only the athletics but in the band and other
group activities.
Mr. Greg Munson, 1236 Sylvandale Road, had the privilege of serving on the facilities task force
for the district. He appreciated the concerns raised by the neighbors. He reminded everyone that
this is a permitted use on the site and lighting is permitted. This was not taken lightly by the task
force, they met every other Monday for close to a year. It is always a balancing of interests. It’s
not easy. The architects went through a number of their rationale that led the task force to
concluding the best site. Most significant was the maturity of the existing vegetation, the
topography, on the west and northwest portion of the site. There was a comment made earlier about
proximity being 43 feet; when they were considering the impact to the home versus the pro perty
line, maybe that was the wrong way to approach it, but that is what they thought about. The
question really is are taller lights that result in no need for a performance standard variance relative
to the lights spillage off of the site – is that reasonable. He believes that it is reasonable and the
height is part of what helps accomplish that.
The concern about impervious surface, good drainage, and whether or not they would manage their
stormwater effectively – were other reasons for siting the field at its current location. It is just
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 19 of 36
much tougher at the base of the hill. The task force received opposition when they were discussing
having it on the south side as well. It is a balancing of interests and the Commission has a tough
job to do – but at the end of the day the site can handle the accessory structures that are proposed.
The rest of the use is a permitted use and the height of the lights does not conflict with the
ordinance.
Mr. Stewart Simek, 577 High Ridge Circle, lives directly across from the school. He is in the
business of real estate investment and real estate development; has been involved in a lot of
different projects with development; and has learned a lot about community input, community
engagement, environmental impacts, and traffic studies. He is happy that the high school is finally
getting a stadium, he graduated from there a number of years ago. The stadium is a reality for the
neighborhood and he has expressed this to school board members. He is OK with the stadium, his
neighborhood is OK with it, but most importantly the project needs to be done right as this is going
to be a project that will be around for decades. He did not see the rush to get this done in a short
amount of time. There should be thoughtful consideration; he agreed with the school that there had
been some. The missing people are the ones who are going to be impacted by the stadium and
would be living with it 24/7.
There are currently parking issues along Warrior Drive. Potentially they would be expanding these
parking issues and problems along Callahan and along Marie. He believed there needed to be
thoughtful consideration – for him and others he has spoken with – the missing element is the
traffic study and where is the environmental impact study. As pointed out earlier, this location is
on the highest point. He was in support of the stadium as long as it was done right. He hoped the
Planning Commission and the City Council would ultimately give extra consideration to the
neighbors who would be impacted the most.
It is troubling to him that it is believed that the traffic would need to be figured out after
construction; in his experience poor planning leads to bad outcomes. He encouraged the Planning
Commission to take the time to do this right; bring the neighbors and the school back together –
form a task force as directed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Blake Crisco, a senior at Henry Sibley HS, currently lives outside of the district; however, he
grew up ISD 197 schools and has loved his experiences from the elementary level all of the way
up to now in his final year of high school. He is a member of the varsity baseball team, the choir
program, and is the vice-president of the student council. One thing that Henry Sibley emphasizes
so much is an acronym they have called Warrior Pride. In all of his time at Henry Sibley he has
never seen Warrior Pride as strong as it is currently. The passing of the referendum has raised the
moral of all of the students around him. He has noticed it in every single studen t that he has
interacted with. It would mean a lot to him, to the other students, and the outside community if the
Commission were to vote yes on these simple variances.
Ms. Madeline Smith, 545 Stone Road, is a junior at Henry Sibley HS. She is a proud member of
many Warrior sports, activities, and clubs. She has grown up in ISD 197 and has loved her
experience all through it. As mentioned by the previous speaker, she believes that the Warrior
Pride that they all have and have expressed to the community is one of their biggest points and
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 20 of 36
makes this a great school, a great high school, and a great place to be. She expressed her support
of the simple variance requests.
She respected the comments made by those opposing the requests before the Commission;
however, it should be remembered that these are simple variances and a lot of the issues that have
been brought up were about sound, which is not one of the variances requested at this time. She
also noted that they need to be competitive in order to be proud of their school and build
community support.
Ms. Emily __________ is a senior at Henry Sibley HS and has grown up in the Sibley community
her whole life. She is the captain of the girls’ soccer team; just last week they had their senior night
against Hastings at 5:00 pm at Matson Field. The problem with that is that they had sports going
on – football had practice until 6:00 pm, they had band practice, volleyball practice, and she had
countless people come up to her and ask about the time of the game as they want to come out and
support the team. They were not able to come out and support; however, if they had their own
athletic field at their high school, all of those players would love to come out and support the
various teams. This would help build a community and help bring more people out to support the
teams.
Mr. Tim Odrey, 1791 Ridgewood Drive, stated that like much of the community he supports the
athletic system, he supports the school systems, and is actually an organizer of a community
volleyball league who pay fees to the school system and help raise and donate money to the athletic
department – the league has been running for more than 30 years and he has been running it for
the last four years.
So it is not a question of whether or not the community is supporting the school system. However,
he does not support the speed of at which they are running after putting in the athletic facilities
without doing the traffic study, without doing the environmental impact study, without doing any
of the due diligence to ensure they have the parking and other items. He understood that they have
been working at this for a long time; however, these are very important key pieces that are missing.
Under the City Code 12-1D-17A a traffic study is not an optional item. This reads as follows, “An
applicant for any proposed development or redevelopment project that results in the change or
intensification of the existing or planned land use may be required to conduct or submit a recently
completed traffic study, at the cost of the applicant and prepared by a licensed engineer, analyzing
existing and proposed traffic patterns of the surrounding area for review and comment as part of
any permit application.” This has not happened yet and one of the reasons that they are requesting
these variances not be approved yet is that they are moving too quickly. They do not know the full
impact going forward. They want this to be the right build for the community; they want the
community to be as strong as possible; and they want to show the support for the school. However,
these need to be taken into consideration and done in the right way and with an eye for the future.
Mr. Joe Lawder, 1851 Warrior Drive, has spoken with the school board and been in front of the
city on several issues involving the school. Most recently he was the lone residential member on
the task force for design of the stadium. He thought it important to note that at that point in time,
which was after referendum, the decision had already been made on the location – to rule out the
south side of the school as the location for the stadium. There was one other neighbor that came to
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 21 of 36
one meeting and the remaining 13 or 14 members were comprised of administration, coaches, and
school constituents – which was fine. However, the process that led to the selection of the field on
the far western edge, crammed up into the corner of the trail that was put in a couple of years ago,
was a 15 minute discussion at one meeting. There were three alternatives posed and the discussion
was focused on moving it the preferred placement – the current location. He did not believe there
was an open process in which information was transparent as to the cost of the three alternatives.
Some fields would have to be moved – a baseball field and the open area used for the soccer fields
– and there were costs attributed to that.
Backing up to before the referendum, he was unsure if there was anyone on the task force from
the neighborhood – the school district should disclose if any of the neighbors in the impact zone
were included. If the stadium were to be moved to either of the other two alternatives, there would
still be conflicts within the impact zones. The problem is that there has not been an inclusive effort
for the Ridgewood, Marie, Warrior, or the High Ridge Circle residents. It is also unknown if the
residents across Delaware were included.
Mr. Lawder stated that there is going to be a stadium and he believed that would be good for the
school district. The questions before the Commission currently are very narrow; this is not a
political process or popularity contest. If the Commission were to follow their mandate they need
to determine if the school district has met its burden of proof with respect to these variances and
the practical difficulties tests that need to be applied; one of them being ‘the plight of the landowner
is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner’. There is nothing
about the topography of the land that mandates these variances; the plight of the landowner is
really a product of their desire to use the property in a particular way. The school district wants to
use their property in a particular way that they think is consistent with a school; however, that is
not the test – the test is whether or not there is some unique aspect of the property.
Going back to earlier discussions, is the problem the zoning classification or is it the uniqueness
of the property – should a school district be treated by the same standards as an R-1 Residential
District. If they should not be then the city needs to rezone; or change the performance standards.
The answer is not granting a variance. A no brainer standard is not what the city should be
applying; they should be applying the letter of the statute and determine if the school district has
met its burden of proof.
The granting of the variances this evening would not affect noise and would not affect a lot of
things heard about this evening; however, there are performance standards for a reason and the
Commission is vested with applying those because they have the municipal power to influence
and create the diplomacy and opportunity to bring everyone together so that there can be
discussions about these issues. The power the Commission holds as a body to grant, deny, or table
these variances can affect these other things. He believed that there should not be any rush into a
process that many are dissatisfied with because they have not been included.
He stated that he tried to work with the district to try and get what he thought was good for his
immediate neighbors; however, he thought that was basically an abdication that the fight was over
with respect to the location. The fact that there are requests for variances and that there is
momentum among neighbors that were not included and feel that they are being short-changed on
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 22 of 36
the procedure does open up the opportunity for the discussion to the best location and the best way
to minimize the detriment to all the neighbors that are affected. Leaving anyone out of the process
is unfortunate and the Commission should at least table the matter until a more complete analysis
of the different factors can be obtained.
Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation that regardless of where the stadium goes on the
property, it would require these variances. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Grady Clem, 2045 Delaware Avenue, lives right across the street from Henry Sibley HS. He
is currently a senior and has been on the varsity track team for four years; this would his second
year as captain. Earlier it was said that the track is bad and that there have not been any home
meets; which he believes is an understatement. A person cannot walk further than 10 feet on that
track without finding a hole or a crack. They cannot put blocks down on the track because if they
push off too hard the track literally comes out from underneath. He himself is a high jumper and
in the middle of the high jump pit there are holes forcing them to place the mats in a specific way
just to be able to dodge the holes. The track team has produced multiple Division One athletes of
the years and they will continue to produce them as long as they have a track; however, it gets
tougher each year. They actually ran sprint practices in Hidden Creek because the conditions were
better there.
Ms. Lela Rothsput, a senior at Henry Sibley HS, and Ms. Claire DuPont, a junior at Henry Sibley
HS are both captains of the track and field team. They echoed the comments made by Rose and by
Mr. Clem about the Division level athletes coming from their team; and the current athletes give
100% during training and during the season. However, they still have to adjust for things such as
the condition of the track. They actually had to shovel off the track in order to use it for practice.
The cracks and bubbles in the track are causing sprained ankles; they can physically lift up portions
of the track. They are simply asking for the same facilities that every other team in their conference
have so they can equal abilities to succeed.
Some of the opposing speakers have mentioned that the current situation at the field is nice because
there are only a few events or activities that happen at the field; those are middle school athletes
because they are the only teams willing to come. There is not as much weight put on middle school
sports as on high school; because middle school sports are a way to introduce kids to, and help
them gain a liking for, the sport.
Ms. DuPont is also a part of the band and they have put in a lot of work in preparation for the
upcoming homecoming game and the performance for the half time show. To lay out all of their
marks and practice on the field, it took all of them 15 minutes working as a team. To get to Matson
Field, they have to load percussion equipment and large instruments onto a trailer and bus over
there – it takes a long time. The field has hills, etc. and it is not the best.
Mr. Donny McKenzie, 1450 Cherry Hill Road, is a sophomore at Henry Sibley HS and participates
in multiple sports and in the band. He pointed out the number of students in attendance at this
meeting, along with other speakers. This is the first night of their long weekend and they chose to
be here because this is important to them. This not about having the best track or the best field –
this is about being proud to be a Henry Sibley HS student.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 23 of 36
Mr. Liam Joyce, 2091 Theresa Street, expressed his desire for the Commission to approve the
variances for the buildings.
Mr. Devin McIntyre, 3191 __________ Lane, is one of the two drum majors of the marching band.
He noted that they practice in the parking lot, which is really bumpy and not very easy to practice
on. He expressed is desire for the stadium, not just for marching band, but for every sport and
activity. A stadium is not about costs or lighting – it is about developing and growing.
Ms. Amy Powers is a resident of Eagan but spends most of her days at Henry Sibley HS. In Eagan,
she lives very close to the high school and one of the great joys of her life is hearing the activity
that happens at Eagan HS. When there is activity she knows that youth are doing something that
is productive and constructive; as a community member nothing means more to her. Kids who
participate in activities are kids who have a better chance of growing up to be productive citizens.
She continue by stating that this stadium is about more than any individual; this is about
community. Every community needs an essential gathering place and a stadium would be that
place. There is currently not such a place at Henry Sibley HS and it is needed. There are numerous
logistical issues she could speak on for hours; however, in her opinion they are irrelevant. They
need a lasting structure that will bring the community together and that they can be proud of.
She is also the band director at Henry Sibley HS; in regards to the comments and concerns about
sound she noted that currently she and the coaches are orientated toward the north. However, when
the stadium is built they will be orientated to the east or to the west – that will change the direction
of sound and would probably change some of the acoustical impacts that neighbors are hearing
and experiencing.
Ms. Eddie Drieman, 2356 Swan Drive, lives in one the closest houses to St. Paul and Visitation.
Both he and his wife are graduates of Henry Sibley HS and they wanted to move back to the
community because of the public schools. Both Henry Sibley and St. Thomas were in their minds
and they wondered if they were going to get parking and noise from the schools – as well as
airplane noise. He can attest to the fact that there are repercussions to that; however, absolutely
love it. They get parking but they are v ery cordial. They hear the cannon from St. Thomas when
they get a touchdown. But this is youth athletics and something that is positive. He asked the
residents who were objecting, if the stadium had been there when they moved in – like it should
have been when the school was built in the 1970’s – would they have moved in.
Ms. Laura Zanmiller, 1016 MacArthur Avenue, made the following points in response to some of
the issues raised:
The reason they are moving so quickly is because the school was built in 19 71 and the
stadium should have been built then
The current condition of the field is horrible
Her last child is a junior right now and she would like for her to play soccer on a decent
field
Traffic study does not need to be done; there will be the same amount of traffic as a regular
school day
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 24 of 36
She represents Mendota Heights as the Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor
and she said that an environmental study does not need to be done because it is not like
they have to alter the stormwater management and are not likely to create any source point
of pollution
Mr. Chad Lemmons, 677 Apache Lane, expressed his appreciation to the Commission for the
patience. He read the report issued by Community Development Director Tim Benetti and on page
seven it there is a sentence that reads “The Planning Commission may wish to decide if further
information or study is needed to address this noise issue”. On page nine, there is a sentence that
reads “The Planning Commission may wish to decide if further information or a more complete
traffic study is needed to complete your review; or if the information provided herein by the
Applicant is sufficient to complete your recommendation”.
He stated that what is occurring is approval by piecemeal, which is the incorrect way to handle
this kind of issue. All the issues involving this project, especially noise and traffic, should be
addressed before there is any further consideration by the Planning Commission or the City
Council. The idea of tabling this matter is appropriate.
Mr. Dane McKenzie, 1450 Cherry Hill Road, made two quick points:
In 1994 the Council and the Planning Commission discussed rezoning St. Thomas to align
more with schools versus R-1 Residential zoning. Rezoning 24 years later is only a tactic
now being used to discuss the delay this project. If they decide to rezone, he requested that
this request for variance be approved now and discuss rezoning in the future.
The location of the stadium; being north, south, or on the roof is not up for debate. This is
not what the Commission is tasked with today. They are tasked with deciding the height,
size, and number of structures. He expressed his desire to have these approved.
Ms. Scott Landsman, 1206 Culligan Lane, expressed his appreciation for this process. One of the
things he has learned is that this is a permitted use, it meets the setback requirements; if it were
not for the height and number of accessory uses they would not need the variances. They could
have gotten their building permit and began construction. St. Thomas was also granted variances
in regards to height. This application should be treated in a similar manner. The city cannot hide
behind a different choice of process in order to treat similar projects differently.
The only issue before the Planning Commission is the height, the number of accessory structures
– not the location, not noise, nor light at the lot lines.
He also believed that the district had done a very good job of putting its position forward in regards
to the legal standards to be met; practical difficulty, reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential
character of the neighborhood. Any decisions based on parking, lighting, location, and sound are
arbitrary, capricious, and does not have any rational basis on the decision to be made tonight.
He did not believe that a traffic study was necessary and should not be considered in making a
decision on these variances.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 25 of 36
Mr. Robert Bee, 535 Marie Avenue West, lives right across the street from the ballfield. He knows
that the sound from the band the other day upset his dogs because of the acoustics. He does have
a background in sound and lighting and he knows that the sound, regardless of where the speakers
are placed, is going to affect him and his neighbors. The lighting is going to be over into his yard
and into his house. There is no way to stop that unless they put up a sound fence, which would
have to be a minimum of 15 to 20 feet in height. He did not believe the neighborhood would like
to see that.
As far as the parking on Marie Avenue, kids park there all of the time for events at the school and
they walk through there. In order to stop that they would have to take parking off of that side of
the street; which would eliminate the traffic hazards in the area.
Mr. Joe Barnard, 1660 Gryc Court, is a junior at Henry Sibley HS. He is a member of the band
and knows they are really loud as he can hear it from his house; however, he thinks it is cool. The
band faces towards the school when they play so the sound bounces back into the neighborhood;
however, in the stadium they would be facing differently so the sound would not echo like it does
now. He reminded the Commission that the district said they would talk about the sound issues
later. He expressed his desire for the application for variances be approved.
Ms. Nayana Gurung, 743 Cheyenne Lane and Carolyn Anderson, 2244 High Point Road, are both
sophomores at Henry Sibley HS. They both felt that this meeting was super relevant as the
homecoming game is tomorrow. Ms. Gurung listed the following points:
Pep Band, to her, is the highlight of the football and basketball games
The band kids have really benefited from having these experiences
They have to arrive at the school is 2.5 hours early to load percussions and large
instruments and get to Matson Field on time. Although they like hanging out with their
band friends, it creates an extra commitment on their part
They respect the neighbors that live around Henry Sibley HS and they understand that it is
a lot to have a stadium in the neighborhood; however, there are only a limited number of
large events. Most of the time, they would be having smaller practice events, which would
not be as loud as a large event.
They believe this would also benefit the neighborhood as a whole
Ms. Anderson listed the following points:
She was super excited as an 8th grader to join the track team and looked forward to attending
meets at her high school. She was disappointed to learn that no other teams were willing to
come to their track because of the safety issues and not meeting certain qualifications.
Once the stadium is built she is going to be so excited to have meets at the high school,
better facilities, and the required number of lanes to meet the qualifications.
Ms. Barb Castle, 565 West Marie Avenue, has lived at her home for 43 years. Her home is directly
across the street from the school and the area the district has proposed to build the athletic field.
She is for the athletic field; she is just against where the location is – so close to Marie Avenue.
Her living room and bedrooms face Marie Avenue and the school and would be directly affected
by the stadium lights, the crowds, the traffic, the noise, and the pedestrian traffic. Unlike the 2014
proposal at the south side of the school, the current proposal of this field and its uses are not
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 26 of 36
compatible with single-family residential areas that are in such close proximity to this location.
The plan seems to be that it squeezes a lot of things into a small area that does not accommodate
everything.
This past summer, she experienced the detour traffic from Highway 149 / Dodd Road. There were
times when they couldn’t even get out of their driveway because it was bumper-to-bumper and no
one would let them in or out of the driveway. She believes that this is going to be a big traffic
situation because they are going to park on Marie Avenue and walk down the path because it is
easier. On that north side there is not a berm – there is nothing to protect the residents. There are
some trees; however, they are not directly in her area.
She requested that the Planning Commission deny the variance requests and suggested that the
school district find a location for the stadium that does not negatively impact single-family
residential areas and where it would fit without granting several variances and trying to squeeze
too much into a space that would not accommodate everything. She also suggested that they get
the neighbors involved in where the stadium would be placed.
Mr. Johan Boysen, 1878 Delaware Avenue, has young kids. One day he hopes they have an
opportunity to use the facilities that are being considered today; and he might even run a lap or
two on the track. His main concern is whether or not the Planning Commission has taken into
consideration or done any work around traffic safety, pedestrian safety, etc. Living off of Delaware
Avenue there is very little access to cross the streets aside from down by Marie Avenue or all of
the way down to Highway 110. Crossing the road is dangerous, they love using the path around
the school to walk their dog, etc. He just wants to be assured that the safety issues are addressed.
Ms. Ann Andersen, 1759 Ridgewood Drive, expressed her appreciation for the Commission
listening to all of these comments. She loved hearing from the kids, the students and the alums –
talking about the community investing in their future and how that’s driven an uptick in Warrior
Pride. They are investing in the future, the bond has passed, and the stadium is going to be built –
a much needed upgraded stadium. However, the focus tonight are the variances. Nothing
specifically has been requested in terms of a variance for parking, traffic, or noise – and she
understood that they were not on the table specifically as a variance; however, what she did not
understand is how the city can move forward without the full body of information. How can they
grant a variance for a PA system at a certain height but don’t actually know how that is going to
be used – when, how, what kind, etc. If feels confusing to her how they could even possibly move
forward without any kind of study. Absent of any of those studies, she felt it would be a dangerous
position to put the city in in terms of not knowing, and it doesn’t satisfy the requirements of a
variance because it is impossible to say how it would affect the essential character of the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Ms. April Moody, 577 Valley Lane, has been involved in this particular issue for many, many
years. There has been a group of her neighbors that have been talking about this for eight years
and trying to get it going. What she did not understand why this felt like they were right back to
the beginning. People are claiming that they are not opposing the stadium; however, technically
they are. The bond was passed fair and square and it is time to move on with this. It seems to her
that they are using this platform to try to get out of getting the stadium once again. This has been
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 27 of 36
an exhaustive process and everyone has been working on this for a long time. There have been
mailings, numerous planning committees, discussion groups, and planning sessions – and if
someone were not involved in it – she was sorry because there were ample opportunities.
Ms. Sarah Kirkwood, 372 Betty Lane, in response to the question posed about how she would feel
if there were a stadium being built by her home, stated that she would feel privileged and honored
to have that near her. She has heard so much from so many people from West St. Paul who love
having the stadium there and love that community feeling. She then questioned how many homes
there would be each year and noted that there would not be a game every night. As for the band,
counted 17 nights out of the 90+ summer evenings that she heard the band. Yes, the neighborhood
would change; however, when a person purchases their home near a high school this is to be
expected. Of all of the residents who signed the letter, only three were there before 1971; they
have a right to complain.
She herself lives on the bus line, which is not always pleasant and she does not take the bus.
However, she understands that she lives in a community with other humans and she tries to not let
the noises she hears bother her. She urged the commission to do the voting that they are supposed
to do – stick to the plan. Any delay is just going to cost the tax payers money.
Ms. Andrea Myers, 1050 Overlook Road, stated that a football athletic stadium will definitely
change things. It will be, in addition to a marching band, football practices, Nordic ski meets, on
a high school facility. She is a member of the South Robert Street Business Community and the
question was posed earlier as to why this was moving so quickly. Her question was why this was
moving so slow. She grew up on Mulberry Lane and she saw residents here who built their homes
in the 1970’s – and they were here in red to support the granting of the variances. She was in
marching band in high school, was a substitute teacher in ISD 197, went to Washington DC, was
a color guard with pride, was a cheerleader for the football team, and did powder puff. She knows
and loves the cross country coach, track coach, and the Henry Sibley HS teachers.
The concerns for the southern fields were very carefully thought out:
The cross country fields would be tore up
No one has mentioned the sledding hill they would be losing
There is a wetland are down there
Parking would be disconnected
The handicapped accessibility would be pretty bad
The referendum that passed brought West St. Paul and Mendota Heights together after years of
rivalry; the youth sports has made a concerted effort and the Warrior Pride is very alive and
growing. This city has the highest private school attendance and so public school got the low
priority for a long time. She questioned again why so slow for the public school improvements.
She is a realtor and recently sold a home directly across the street from Matson Field because that
is where they wanted to be. She felt sorry that some of the residents felt left out because it does
not feel good and it is not right; however, she has clients in her back pocket who would be very
willing purchase into the district – and she did not mean to be rude or disrespectful – and happy to
buy on the street near the field.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 28 of 36
She concluded by stating that the proposed improvements do not trigger any state requirements for
any environmental studies and urged the Commission to grant the variances for the great good of
the community because the location was well thought out.
Ms. Mary Galvin, 1280 Ohio Street, has a 10th grader at Henry Sibley HS and two younger children
coming up. She was in support of the variances and suggested that the district has addressed all of
the issues and has met its burden of proof. There has been a long process of hypotheticals and a
parade of horrible ‘what could’ or ‘what might’ happen. The only issues before the Commission
now are the variances on the table. This use is consistent with a school; the district has met its
burden of proof; the kids, the larger community, West St. Paul, and home prices all will benefit.
Strong communities and strong schools go hand-in-hand.
Mr. Gerry Petschen, 1792 Ridgewood Drive, lives across the street from the proposed stadium. He
has been a supporter of Henry Sibley HS for a long time, both of his children went there, and his
son played on the football team that went to State, he coached youth hockey, youth baseball, and
youth football. He heard of lot of things this evening and the biggest thing on hand right now is to
not go too fast. Everyone wants to push this through but it seems to him that more planning needs
to be done; maybe some parking studies. He also did not believe that variances could be granted
without a complete set of drawings.
Mr. Jim Pirkl, 1825 Warrior Drive, lives directly across from the bathrooms – 150 feet from the
open or closed bathroom doors. He questioned if anyone in the room would want their house 150
feet from eight, ten, or fifteen bathroom doors serving approximately 1,000 kids a day at a game
using it. The lights would be on poles 80 feet tall and would shine on his house every time they
have them on.
He did not understand why, when they have all of this room, they wanted to stuff this thing in a
corner next to a couple of their houses. Many people on the south probably complained; however,
the south end is the better place. There are plenty of other spaces. Why hasn’t anyone taken into
account that some people worked their butt off to have a nice place, just to have it virtually
destroyed. He bet he would lose approximately $2M when he goes to sell and that’s just not right.
Ms. Julie Trippe, 1813 Rolling Green Curve, is a parent of two ISD 197 middle school students.
The expressed her frustration at having to be in attendance and asking for support of this
application, after it has been voted on overwhelmingly this past April. She asked that Mendota
Heights, as a city and a community, step up to the plate and vote yes on these variances. Has had
been heard from the students, this is an urgent matter. When her family decided to move to
Mendota Heights they purposely chose not to move next to the high school because they knew that
eventually there would be an athletic field put in. This is not something that is being pushed
through. She asked for the Commission’s support and consideration of the referendum that was
overwhelmingly passed and approve the variances.
Mr. Patrick Watson, 1327 Delaware Avenue, is the parent of two new kids at Henry Sibley HS.
He then read a letter from his wife, Ms. Nicole Watson, who had to leave to take her kids home.
She is a 1997 alumni of Henry Sibley HS and a parent to two Heritage Middle School 8th graders
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 29 of 36
who will be enjoying these improvements. She explained that she and her husband chose to return
to Mendota Heights to raise their family because of its excellent schools and its strong sense of
community. She respectfully asked that the Commission approve the athletic facility variances.
When she voted to support the referendum to improve district facilities, she did so expecting that
they would carry out the upgrades in a way that reflected the excellence of our district, our students,
and our community. This includes making sure that the athletic facility has amenities at least equal
to those of other communities; a press box, a concession stand, bleacher seating, proper lighting,
and adequate parking. This is a cherished opportunity for everyone to do their best for the students
and continue to move this project forward. The design is thoughtful; the architects, engineers,
community, and school have already worked hard to consider all the site options to maintain the
character of the surrounding areas and to address the issues of cost, noise, and lights all while
developing a facility and a site that would truly enhance opportunities for the student athletes and
marching band. She grew up across the street from Henry Sibley HS and has fond memories of
hearing rhythmic steps and music of the marching band, the crack of the baseball bat hitting the
ball, cheers what would exude from fans, the happy laughter of children attending soccer camps –
these were the sounds of her childhood and what became sounds in her home. She encouraged the
neighbors to embrace the sights and sounds of this community and support the variances proposed.
Ms. _____ Whipps, 623 – 11th Avenue North, lives outside of ISD 197. She believes that having
the athletic field would benefit and enhance the sense of community. She asked if the residents
would rather have a place of quiet people who do not interact with each other and don’t have a
community place or would they rather be a community of people who get together and go to the
stadium at the high school and watch games and look at the band. She is in the band and loves
going to games. She would love to be able to walk out and go the field that she can practice on. As
community of people who say they support this then they should encourage the passing of the
variances.
At this point, the commission took a five minute break.
Chair Field invited the applicant back to respond to the testimonies shared.
Mr. Peter Olson-Skog, Superintendent of ISD #197, asked Ms. Carrie Hilger, Director of
Communications, to speak to the comments provided by many that they feel they were left out of
the decision process.
Ms. Hilger stated that when the ballot question failed in 2014 the district took that very seriously
and tried to understand the why behind it; through that process engage with the community to hear
why that stadium was rejected by voters. In Spring 2017, when the district decided to revis it
facilities as a whole, the school board assembled a facilities task force. Information regarding the
task force was sent out to residents in the community newsletter, which was sent to all households
in the district. This newsletter included information on where they could get additional
information. Not only was it sent via regular mail, it was included in the district’s electronic
newsletter, posted on their website, and posted on their social media accounts.
All of the task force meetings, like other school district meetings, were open to the public. The
document and discussion items covered by the task force were shared publicly through the district
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 30 of 36
website after each meeting, and remain accessible even today. The creation of the task force, along
with updates on the group’s progress, were also presented at public school board meetings.
Near the end of the task forces’ work, the district held two open houses to share preliminary work
and gather feedback from the broader community in September and Oct ober 2017. At the open
houses the presentation and building tours described how an athletic field on the Henry Sibley
campus was being considered; that it would be on the north part of the campus where the track is
currently located. Community members were invited to the open house via the mailed newsletter,
the electronic newsletters, and posted on the website and on social media.
In November 2017 the school board approved the task forces’ proposal and voted in December
2017 to place the funding question before voters in the May 8, 2018 election. Community members
were sent a district newsletter in February 2018 providing them with basic information about the
referendum and inviting them to attend three open house events in March and April, or visit the
district’s website for additional details about the election. Advertisements about the open houses
were also placed in local newspapers.
Information about the referendum were distributed to the community through two additional
mailings and within six local newspaper articles in the St. Paul Voice, Southwest Review, and
Villager newspapers. One of the articles in the Villager, from May 2018, specifically included the
site plan for Henry Sibley HS, which clearly showed the location up on the north part of the
campus.
The district is required to send a mailing to community members about the vote so that they know
it would be taking place. An additional mailer towards the end of the referendum with more
information for community members, based on what the district was hearing and questions from
the community.
Ms. Hilger shared images of the mailings and newspaper articles.
Commissioner Petschel asked when Ms. Hilger referred to community member, was she referring
to ISD 197 student parents or all households. Ms. Hilger replied that it was to all households in the
district.
Mr. Olson-Skog stated that they feel that the district did try to engage the entire community in a
number ways and regular invitations. That is how some of the people who spoke this evening
learned about it and came to the district with their concerns and the district sat down and talked
with them. Some of those concerns started as much as a year and a half ago; they talked through
them and a number of their suggestions were incorporated into the plan.
In terms of moving fast, the district did not feel that moved fast. They have spent a long time
inviting the community through the best ways they have – direct mailings into their homes – to
communicate with the public.
Mr. Olson-Skog asked Mr. Ryan Hoffman, Construction Consultant from ICS Consulting to
address another issue that was raised – that being the traffic study. Mr. Hoffman explained that
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 31 of 36
when they had initially applied for what would have been a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) back
in August, it took a couple days but Mr. Benetti called them and explained that they would need
to go through a different process – a variance request rather than a CUP. In that timeframe, which
was right around the beginning of September, he requested a traffic study even though it was not
required. He felt it would be an impact that the community would want to hear about. So the district
engaged a traffic consultant. The problem right now is that, from the beginning of September to
now, there have been no games other the one last Friday at Matson Field. What the consultant
provided just today, which is why it was not in the pre-meeting materials, was a draft report. They
used case studies from across the country to predict what they think is going to happen, and will
confirm once they analyze the actual results from taking traffic numbers and the Friday night game.
In their case studies they are estimating that there is going to be approximately 706 trip generation
additions to the site during a football game. It is assumed that most other events would be less
attended, which is why they requested the consultant focus on football games. Ultimately, the
assumption, based on information presented in the traffic letter, is that the football traffic does not
represent a significant impact to the surrounding roadway system and would not significantly alter
the traffic flow and parking operations in the surrounding community. Mr. Hoffman reiterated that
this is a draft report based upon case studies; however, the district wants to get the actual numbers
from the consultant.
Chair Field noted that this draft was presented to the Commissioners and Mr. Benetti and is part
of the public record.
Mr. Olson-Skog then addressed a concern raised about property values. The district received an
analysis from a real estate agent that was provided to the Commission and Mr. Benetti as well.
The last sentence in this analysis read “However, in general, the data does not depict a long-term
negative influence on residential home market values due to their proximity to high school
stadiums”.
Mr. Olson-Skog concluded by saying that a lot of things were discussed and he wished to express
to the citizens they do care about being good neighbors; they care about the sound, lights, and
traffic impact. He is committed to continuing to work with the neighbors on sound, lights, and
traffic. He personally lives next to a stadium with sounds, lights, etc. So he is empathetic and he
does care and he is committing to sitting down with them on a long-term basis.
However, what he has committed to sitting down and discussing is not what was submitted for the
Commission’s recommendation of approval. They are asking for a variance on the height of the
light poles – not the light they emit; however, they will comply with city code. The same thing
with sound, there are codes that say how many decibels an event can have without causing a
nuisance. This district will live within those codes.
They are asking for a variance on the size and number of structures, which are completely
reasonable for this type of facility given the uniqueness of the property.
While he is committed to continuing conversations, he believed that a delay is not needed. The
school district has taken its due diligence to go through and present this report – and has reached
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 32 of 36
out to the community on multiple occasions; but that is not even a part of what the Commission is
debating.
A delay in this process, as suggested earlier, would most likely increase the costs. It would have
an impact of real students and real families. Delaying this could easily put the district outside the
bid window that would allow them to build in the fall of 2019. This has not been a slow process –
it has been a long process, a careful process, and a diligent process. The community spoke loudly.
As much as he cares about the neighbors and is committed to working with them; the students
deserve this, and the community deserves this. He asked that the Commission limit the
consideration to what the district is asking for – a simple variance on the heights, size, and the
number of accessory structures.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-23, VARIANCE REQUESTS
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The scale and scope of the variances needed to approve the number, sizes and heights of
the proposed accessory structures, including the new bleachers, concession stands, storage
facilities, and over-height light poles on this very large high school campus, are considered
consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan for the
community, and may be approved as presented herein.
2. The City Code’s accessory structure standards for residential districts causes a practical
difficulty for a school use in this district, due to the overall size, scale and historical nature
of the school use at the subject location.
3. The Applicant have proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or reasonableness in this
case for granting of a variance to allow oversized, over height and numbers to allowable
accessory structures, including light poles, in the R-1 One Family Residential District.
4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school
use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District,
and therefore does warrant the approval or granting of these variances.
5. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since
the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community,
and there is a general accepted expectation that this athletic field improvement and its
related accessory structures can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall
benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community; and therefore
the city recommends these variances may be approved.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for each new structure identified herein,
including any fence or electrical permits as necessary.
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 33 of 36
2. The Applicant shall not deviate from the amended site plan under this application review;
nor increase any accessory structure numbers, area (footprint) or height without first
seeking and receiving city approvals, unless City Code provides for certain or allowable
improvements to be made without any special application review process.
3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
AND ADDING CONDITION #4
4. The applicant shall not hold another event onsite at the same time as a varsity football
related event
Before any discussion took place and the vote taken, Chair Field recognized the city attorney as
having something to add, which may or may not be germane to the vote.
City Attorney Andrew Pratt explained that during a discussion had during the public hearing he
wrote down a few things that he believed would be germane to the discussion:
Conditions can be placed on variances; however, they must be directly related to and bear
a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance
o The parking arrangement, to him, means that every space on the campus is needed
to meet the one for every three seat capacity. If there is more than one event taking
place at the same time, then there is an overlapping parking issue.
o In the public hearing notice it was mentioned that parking could potentially be a
part of the deliberations; therefore, so condition #4 would fit squarely within that
and a separate variance request and public hearing would not be needed
There was mention of a scoreboard in the very beginning of the presentation
o Scoreboards have their own performance standards in the code (Section 12-1E-3C)
and the restriction on that if 45 feet. So it is not a part of the general accessory
limitation of 15 feet.
When there is noise, light, and other issues that are not specifically part of the variance
procedure, if those are somehow violated – for example the light bleeds past the property
line, the noise violates some of the MPCA rules – the city is certainly able to use zoning
enforcement action
o That is not an issue with the variance; that can always happen whether or not there
is a variance
For the benefit of the public, Commissioner Mazzitello explained that the City of Mendota Heights
has a parking code in each of their zones that requires X number of stalls depending on land use;
one of those land uses is secondary schools. So there are a number of stalls that need to be provided
for classroom, faculty member, etc. The site at Henry Sibley HS currently, based on their
enrollment and staffing, is over parked. They have 508 parking stalls and by code they are only
required to have 228. Adding the stadium, at 1 stall for every 3 seats, requires an additional 667
stalls; they would need 895 total parking stalls on their site. There is no provision in the code that
says time of day use is different. By including Condition #4 on the variance, during a football
game all of the stall are allocated to the athletic field. There can be no other event taking place on
the campus; there can be no other use to occupy the parking stalls. If on-street parking, overflow
parking, onto Warrior, Callahan, Marie, Ridgewood becomes a problem, the city has a Community
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 34 of 36
Development Director, a Public Works Director, and a Police Department that can identify that
has a problem. If it becomes a problem, the city can have a conversation with the school district
and they can do a parking study to figure out if there is additional parking on campus and this
happened, or if there needs to be on-street restrictions to prevent event parking from flooding into
neighborhoods. There are mechanisms to deal with parking issues. Since that was brought up in
the very title of the case number, Commissioner Mazzitello believed that the additional condition
to the variance is warranted.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification that this then only applies to football games.
Commissioner Mazzitello replied that it only applies to home football games. Commissioner
Magnuson then asked if there shouldn’t be some description of ‘another event’ – for instance, is a
meeting of five people ‘another event’.
Commissioner Noonan suggested the phrase be ‘any activity’.
Chair Field said that the term ‘football’ is limiting and probably more restrictive than they should
be. What would happen if the soccer games became just as, or more, popular than the football
games? Limiting the event to football would mean that another separate event could potentially
take place at the same time as the now super popular soccer game, causing a parking dilemma.
Commissioner Toth asked if it would be wise to restrict it to events regardless of activity.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that he had spoken with the superintendent, the construction
engineer, and the activities director who assured him that, at this point in time, it is tradition –
although not a matter of written policy – but it a tradition that nothing else happens when there is
a varsity football game.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON THIS PARTICULAR
SUBJECT.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Mr. Peter Olson-Skog, Superintendent of ISD #197, replied that what was shared by Commissioner
Mazzitello was correct.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO RECLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Noonan stated that the testimony heard this evening was quite illuminati ng, quite
thoughtful, well-reasoned, and it reflected the deep seated feeling that everyone has for the City of
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 35 of 36
Mendota Heights. The fact that there are still 100 people here at 10:55 pm is testament to how
everybody feels about this.
In terms of considering the very narrow question that was before the Commission – whether the
Commission believes the variances meet the tests of Minnesota Statue in terms of practical
difficulty, reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential character – the testimonies have done just
that.
He heard concerns raised about items that are not necessarily before the Commission, but they
heard assurances – both verbally and in written form – that if noise and light become a problem,
they will be addressed; by the school district or, if necessary, by an enforcement action on the part
of the city.
The overwhelming item that dealt with him was the unique situation the Commission found
themselves in – having to consider variances in a residential zone on a 70 acre site that provides
for ultimate flexibility and ultimate proof that it would not afoul of the tests. The question was
asked by Commissioner Petschel as to whether the stadium goes here, there, or anywhere onsite
the variances would still be required – it is not so much about the location but it was about the
variances.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he was satisfied with the variances and them meeting the tests
of the statute.
Commissioner Magnuson expressed her appreciation to everyone for coming as it was very helpful
to hear all of the information. She also expressed her thanks to all of the students who gave up
their night off to come here beautifully and eloquently expressed their thoughts about their
community and what it really means to them and how important it is to have this facility.
Commissioner Mazzitello echoed Commissioner Magnuson’s comments and expressed his
appreciation for all of the emails, phone calls, knocks on his front door from people who are
passionate about what happens to the future of Henry Sibley HS and to the future of the City of
Mendota Heights. This is the type of engagement needed to be able to draw information from all
perspectives to come to the best conclusion.
Commissioner Toth thanked everyone who attended the meeting and numerous emails received.
He returned to a comment made by the band director – ‘greater good of our community’. Regarding
the outcome of the decision of the Commission and the City Council – they know they are not
going to please everyone. He has learned that this community is strong. The children in Mendota
Heights have the opportunity to go to numerous schools – Henry Sibley, St. Thomas, Cretan, Hills
– what is unique is that they all come back to Mendota Heights for the good of the community.
Chair Field summarized the motion and asked for a final version of Condition #4. Commissioner
Mazzitello stated:
4. The applicant shall not hold another event onsite at the same time as a varsity football
related event
October 4, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 36 of 36
Chair Field then called the vote.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 16, 2018
meeting.
Staff Announcements
Chair Field stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council have a joint workshop
meeting to consider and work further on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan on Monday, October 15,
2018 at 6:00 pm
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on October 23, 2018
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:01 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0