Loading...
2019-02-26 Planning Comm MinutesFebruary 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 23 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on February 26, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None As the newest member of the Planning Commission, Andrew Katz introduced himself and provided a brief background. Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2019 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO APPOINT MARY MAGNUSON AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO APPOINT JOHN MAZZITELLO AS VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of January 22, 2019 Minutes Commissioner Toth requested two changes to the January 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: • Page 7 of 18; Chair Field was who asked what particular land use the speaker referred to, not Commissioner Toth as the minutes stated • Page 7 of 18; One of the Commissioners noted that the proposed changes along Victoria and Highway 13 are not currently listed on the map, not Commissioner Toth as the minutes stated COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2019, AS AMENDED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 23 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-01 METRO STORAGE LLC ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TITLE 12-1G-1 Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti reminded the Commission that this was a zoning code amendment from Metro Storage LLC who were seeking a new ordinance to the industrial category in the Industrial District to allow for personal self-storage facility. Currently, personal self-storage facilities are considered on a list of prohibited uses in the Industrial zone. Metro Storage was seeking the opportunity to place a new 80,000 square foot indoor only self-storage facility in the community. This item was presented at the January 22, 2019 meeting. With the public hearing, this item was tabled for more information, this is now a continuation of that public hearing. The City Code does not identify any allowances for self-storage facilities in either the Business or the Industrial zone. Under Code 12-1G-2-2, there is a list of prohibited uses and within that list is enclosed personal self-storage facilities. During the January 22, 2019 the Commission asked how that had become a part of the prohibited list. During their research, staff discovered and presented the following: • January 4, 2016 – City Council discussed at a workshop meeting the final implementation strategies of the city’s Industrial District Redevelopment Plan and instructed staff to proceed with exploring potential revision and additions to the uses. • January 26, 2016 – Draft Ordinance 491 was presented to the Planning Commission with certain uses added, revised, or struck from the Zoning Code. This matter was tabled in order for staff to gather additional information. • February 23, 2016 – Follow-up report was presented to the Planning Commission with two different options for them to choose from. Option 1 did not include a list of prohibited uses; however, Option 2 did – including ‘personal self-storage facility’. No explanation for that decision was evident in the minutes. • March 3, 2016 – City Council took up the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopted Ordinance 491, which officially amended Article G, Industrial District zoning standards and provided the current list of prohibited uses found under Title 12-1G-2-2 Mr. Benetti continued by stating that he spoke with the former city planner and he did not recall any discernible comments, objections, or support for the list of prohibited uses. He also noted that recorded evidence of the meetings have been destroyed, based on the city’s one-year retention policy. Mr. Benetti presented draft Ordinance 538 for the Commission’s review. This draft ordinance provided language for allowing personal self-storage uses in the Industrial District, but only as a conditional use with specific certain site standards. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development at Metro Storage, LLC 13528 W. Bolton Blvd., Lake Forest, IL make himself available should the Commission have questions. Chair Magnuson re-opened the public hearing. Ms. Belina Reisman, a resident of Mendota Heights, asked if this was to open up the zoning or the ordinance to this type of business. Chair Magnuson explained that this would be an amendment to Title 12-1G-2 of the City Code. This amendment would do two things: February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 23 1. Delete ‘personal storage facilities’ from the prohibited use provisions 2. It would permit these ‘personal storage facilities’ as a conditional use within the Industrial Zone only, subject to the criteria that were formally listed Chair Magnuson continued by noting that the Commission currently does not have a proposal in front of them for a storage unit and they are not looking at any particular storage unit at this time. The applicant would like to place a storage unit in the Industrial District, but tonight the Commission is looking only at the possibility of amending the ordinance to permit that type of personal storage unit to be located within the Industrial Zone. Mr. Thomas Smith, Hampshire Drive, expressed his opposition to the idea of providing a conditional use for the storage facility based the provisions as he understood them; basically a three-story unit. Chair Magnuson replied that there is not a specific proposal under consideration. The Commission has seen some schematics provided in terms of the type of facility that they are hoping to propose, with approximately 800 particular storage units within there; however, that is something that has not yet been discussed or proposed, and the Commission does not have anything like that in front of them. Mr. Smith stated that if the design ultimately is put before the Commission advocates a three story facility, he would speak out against it. The current buildings in the Industrial Park are all two story. A three story facility would be out of character and inappropriate. Chair Magnuson 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 MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-01 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 538 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE for the following reasons: 1. He believed it to be fundamentally at odds with provisions within the Comprehensive Plan, which speaks of encouraging employment generating uses. The testimony had at the last January 22, 2019 was very clear that the number of employees who would be associated with this use are minimal. 2. He has not heard anything to convince him that there is a rationale or reasons to alter the list which was presented and adopted by the City Council establishing the prohibited uses. COUNCILMEMBER CORBETT SECONDED THE MOTION Commissioner Mazzitello reminded the Commission that he brought up at the previous meeting where this was heard of how some of the past actions Commission and the Council have taken to amend zoning code with respect to allowed and permitted and conditional uses where they have tailored conditions within the code specifically to address one site so that the permitted or conditional nature of the use would not be an prevalent through the entire zoning district. There is not a specific proposal at this time; however, the applicant has informed the Commission in their narrative letter where they are thinking of developing this facility. It is a vacant lot on the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Trunk Highway 55. This site has been vacant since the inception of the Industrial Park (approximately 40 years) and has not been developed. If there were an employment generating use consistent with the desire of the Comprehensive Plan and the Industrial Park, that lot would have been built by now. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 23 One of the reasons it has not been developed is access. An employment generating business, use, or activity is going to have employees/customers/truck traffic challenged to get into and out of the site. Commissioner Petschel asked for a map view of the area being discussed. He also noted that the Commission should be very specific and should not consider an individual location. The Commission should not distract anyone with the notion that they are only considering it on this particular location. Commissioner Mazzitello concluded that if the Commission were to consider this application in the same spirit in which they have considered other use changes in the past; such as beekeeping, dog training, vehicles sales, trampoline park, indoor athletic facilities – the Commission could consider this ordinance with additional conditions for that in order for a self-storage unit to be eligible for a Conditional Use Permit it must be abutting a State Trunk Highway and within 1,500 feet of an Interstate. Then there would be only one site within the Industrial Zone eligible for that Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Noonan asked this wouldn’t be spot zoning, to which Commissioner Mazzitello replied that it would still be in the Industrial Zone. It would be an Industrial use surrounded by other Industrial uses – it has been done before. Commissioner Noonan expressed his disagreement and stated that the way the Commission treated other zoning applications were on the basis of the merits and the fact in support of the policy. In this case, there were some fairly substantial hurdles to clear: 1. Contrary policy in the Comprehensive Plan 2. There is a prohibition, which he has not heard a reason why there is merit in terms of eliminating the prohibition, other than it is a matter of convenience. There was extensive discussion and the decision made in 2016 was well-reasoned and supported by Council. He did not want to get caught up in thinking about a location and thinking about the difficulty of this particular location. If it is difficult for employees and clients, it sure will be difficult for the public pulling stuff in to provide for storage. Commissioner Petschel stated that he is sympathetic and cheers argument; he also appreciates and would like to support the property owners in the Industrial District to maximize the value for their property; if it is an empty lot that could be best served as a storage facility – great. But then again, he is extremely sympathetic to the notion that it’s not that lot that he is worried about – it’s when other businesses or other facilities that do employ people are then converted into storage facilities. He does see them being converted back into places of greater employment. He is also against the Commission referring where certain businesses go; no matter that this was a brilliant proposal on how to potentially legally do it. It did not know if that was a wise venture. The whole prohibited businesses list is problematic because there are some very clear prohibitions – such as an asphalt production facility. It still speaks for itself. Chair Magnuson called for the vote. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Mazzitello) Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 23 B) PLANNING CASE #2019-02 ISD #197 VARIANCE TO EXCEED BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARDS IN THE R-1 DISTRICT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from ISD 197 on behalf of Friendly Hills Middle School, requesting a Variance for a new gymnasium/performance facility. Friendly Hills School is located in R-1 District and guided as S-School under the Institutional Use of the current Comprehensive Plan. Public and Parochial schools are considered a permitted use under the R-1 zone. Mr. Benetti shared images of the school layout and noted that the property is approximately 30 acres in total size with approximately 90,000 square feet of educational facilities. There are two access points off of Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Benetti explained that they are proposing to shut down one of the access points from Mendota Heights Road and create a singular access across from the residential roadway to the south (Lockwood), which would provide access to the delivery area and leads back to the main outdoor surface parking lot for staff, visitors, and parent drop-offs. The item before the Commission is their desire to construct a 64’ x 126’, 8,064 square foot addition on the back side of the gymnasium. The plan also includes a new hard-surface play and soft-play area, a vehicle turn-around area, and new striping for some outdoor courts. The elevation plans as provided by the school’s architects indicate the new building would match the existing gymnasium, with a flat-top roof, slightly lower than the 35’ height of the existing school facility. The R-1 Zone requires all structures not to exceed 25-feet in height. Even though it is not part of this application, staff noted all driveway openings are typically reviewed and analyzed by the Public Works Director and City Council may be called into be consulted or asked to decide any new changes. Mr. Benetti reviewed the criteria that must be considered when reviewing a variance request and then explained how this project meets those criteria. Staff recommended approval of this Variance request. Commissioner Noonan noted that there was a lot of information on the site plan, even though that was not under consideration. He asked why the site plan did not come forward with the Variance request. It would have been nice to consider the full package. Mr. Benetti replied that the Commission normally would not consider a site plan for permitted uses. It is a staff function that would get approved by Council. He included the site plan to ensure the Commission had an indication of where the new addition was going on the backside of the building. Commissioner Noonan stated that he found this odd as there would be significant changes to the traffic flow in the area; a fundamental planning consideration. He would have thought that would have been brought to the Commission for discussion and to enter an opinion. However, if that is not the process then so be it. Mr. Benetti replied that in his experience, a site plan would be a nice tool for the Commission to review and the Council to approve. Had this been a Conditional Use Permit or an amended Conditional Use Permit, a site plan would have gone with that Conditional Use Permit and then the Commission would have been able to do a full review. However, as this is a permitted use it is not under any purview of the Commission. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the school district has been requested by the city to perform a traffic study related to the proposed traffic changes. However, the results of that study would not be February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 23 available for approximately 4-5 weeks. The City Council will see the results of that study before they make a decision on any access points. Mr. Peter Olson-Skog, ISD 197 Superintendent was available for questions. Commissioner Noonan noted that this has been presented as a stand-alone application for a gymnasium addition and a performance area. He asked, if the district’s plans to alter the access to the site are not approved by City Council, would this expansion go forward. Mr. Olson-Skog replied that yes, the expansion of the gymnasium would go forward regardless of the Council’s decision. Commissioner Petschel asked for more details on what the addition would be used for. Mr. Olson-Skog replied that they are describing it as a multi-purpose facility. There would be choir concerts, band concerts, athletic competitions/activities, and the proposal is to equip it in such a way that it would be a highly usable space for many different purposes. Commissioner Toth, noting that the proposed addition elevation is at 31.5’ and would meet the existing elevation of the gymnasium that is already on the school property, he asked if there were any plans for mechanical structures on top of the building. Ms. Jenny Tuttle with LSE Architects replied that the mechanical structures would be located on a lower roof area and would not exceed the 31.5’ building elevation. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that she had no objection to the Variance for this facility. However, she voiced concerns about the potential changes to the site plan and the new access point. If it should become difficult to access this site, or if access limitations occur in the future; she felt that this would be somewhat of a piece-meal approach to the whole thing. If this approved now without looking at the full site plan, that the city could be put in a position of having to approve a change to the traffic flow within the site. Commissioner Noonan made note of the response made by the Planner that the only jurisdiction that the Commission had was to deal with the Variance request. The Commission would not have the opportunity to be presented the site plan and opine as to the appropriateness of the site plan. Ms. Smith asked if it would be possible for the Commission to defer the decision until they have further information about the entire site. Commissioner Noonan replied that the site plan would not be returning to the Commission; there is no site plan review process by the Planning Commission on permitted uses, it goes directly to the City Council. Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that he bicycles west on Mendota Heights Road very often in the mornings, before school starts. At the present time, it is not unusual to see cars wishing to enter the existing access on Mendota Heights Road backed up all of the way to Huber. He understood that they Commission could not make any decisions on that, but he felt they should be aware that there are some access issues presently. Transcriptionist notes here that there was one email received from Mr. Jim Dietz expressing his opposition to this application. That email has been made a part of the public record. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 23 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-02 VARIANCE REQUEST, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The scale and scope of the variance needed to justify and approve the extended height of the proposed gym addition structure are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and may be approved as presented. 2. The Applicant have proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or reasonableness in this case for granting of a variance to allow an the gym addition structure to exceed the normal maximum height of single family residential structures in the underlying R-1 Zone; and it should be noted the new gym height will match the existing gym height, and be less than the overall height of the principal (main) school facility. 3. 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 said variance. 4. 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 gym addition improvement can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permit for the new structure identified herein, including any fences or electrical permits as necessary. 2. 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. Commissioner Noonan commented that this is another incident on an institutional use in the R-1 zone and asked that the work plan include development of distinctive institutional zoning so the Commission would not have to deal with institutional variances and applying residential standards to it. Commissioner Mazzitello expressed his agreement to that statement. Chair Magnuson suggested that Findings of Fact 2 be edited to read ”The Applicant have proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or and reasonableness in this case for granting of a variance to allow an the gym addition structure to exceed the normal maximum height of single family residential structures in the underlying R-1 Zone; and it should be noted the new gym height will match the existing gym height, and be less than the overall height of the principal (main) school facility” where a strike-through is a deletion and an underscore is an addition. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed to these amendments to his motion. Commissioner Toth, as the seconder, agreed as well. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 23 C) PLANNING CASE #2019-03 JULIE WEISBECKER, 1840 HUNTER LANE LOT ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Julia Weisbecker, 1840 Hunter Lane, was seeking a Lot Line Adjustment and Variance for one of two parcels that she owns. This item was presented under a public hearing, all people within 350 feet of the subject property were mailed notices and no comments or objections have been received. The west parcel is 127’ x 171’ or approximately 22,390 square feet. The east parcel is 130’ x 171’ or approximately 25,783 square feet. The east lot contains a 3,745 square foot dwelling, which has a single- lane bituminous driveway from Hunter Lane. These are two legal parcels of record. The packet of information received by the Commission included four surveys. The first survey deals with a quiet title action because there is a 3.5’ gap between the 1840 parcels and the 1850 parcel to the south. The quiet title action is to work on the agreement between property owners when there is a discrepancy or dispute between property lines. This was discovered when the new surveys were called for on this property. Eventually, the east parcel will contain the 3,700 square foot home. There is a driveway that comes off the rear of the parcel from Hunter and slightly veers off into the 1850 property as well. The west parcel is designed for a future home pad; however, one has not been approved on that site. They are filling in the site as approved as part of the separate grading permit by Ms. Weisbecker from the City Council. The lot line adjustment was simply asking to adjust the south line by approximately 24 feet. The reason is that the new homeowner of 1840 Hunter wanted to make sure that, in order to avoid any easement rights or disputes in the future, he requested that he be able to have a fee title strip that would be affixed to the back parcel for the driveway or access easement. They also need to provide for a little additional easement to make sure that the encroaching driveway will be taken care of in the future. It is only an approximately 5’ easement on the south side; if this driveway ever has to be fixed, repaired, or reconstructed staff has asked for a condition that it has to be put back into the easement area. Once they affix the 24’ foot strip, it would create a flag-lot, which is something the city no longer allows. City Code requires that all single-family parcels have at least 100-feet along a public roadway frontage. To accommodate the new owner’s request for a permanent access/driveway strip, Ms. Weisbecker seeks a variance to the 100-foot wide standard as part of this lot line adjustment. Mr. Benetti reviewed the criteria that must be considered when reviewing a variance request and responses were provided by the applicant to assist the Commission in determining if a Variance is warranted in this case. Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions. Commissioner Noonan noted that staff reported that the city does not allow flag-lots and asked if that was outright prohibition in ordinance. Mr. Benetti replied that by default it is because every new developable lot created has to have at least 100-feet of frontage on a city street. By affixing this parcel to the back of the lot, it would not meet the 100-foot frontage requirement. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 23 Commissioner Noonan noted that the lot at 1840 Hunter has the required frontage. Mr. Benetti replied that it does not have the required frontage. It does not have any frontage. They are trying to fix their land-locked situation by adding this strip. Eventually, they would be dedicating the 14-feet of the westerly area to the city as part of the additional Hunter Lane right-of-way. Commissioner Noonan then asked why the current flag-lot configuration considered a non-conforming use. Mr. Benetti replied that it is a legal lot of record and he was not sure if it could be called a legal non-conforming lot. It is a legal non-conforming, but not a legal non-conforming use. Commissioner Petschel asked for confirmation that staff was unable to find any records that allowed for this split. Mr. Benetti replied that he went back and was able to find previous owner names, but was unable to find anything. He believed this could have been corrected had the former owners joined in with the plats to the north or to the south. Unfortunately, they never did. By the city’s code and definitions, these are considered legal lots of record and they can be developed per the city’s code. Commissioner Corbett asked if they intended to develop the western lot, thus creating the hardship. Mr. Benetti replied that there is no hardship because Ms. Weisbecker wanted to leave things the way they are. There is a reasonable requirement to developing the lot. Any correction would be adjoining the lots and combining them into one; that would make it conforming. The new buyer of 1840 Hunter is simply asking for their own fee title strip because they recognize that access easements can get flakey over time. He would prefer to have his own fee title strip. Commissioner Petschel asked if someone came to the Commission with an elongated lot with a house in the back, would the Commission allow them to split their lot like this. The reply was a resounding negative. Commissioner Petschel continued by saying that the only enabling condition that allows this even be considered is the fact that it is already split. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then commented that the owner of the front lot could come in and ask for a building permit and get it as of right now. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was true. Commissioner Noonan continued by stating that the only reason there is an application now is for the desire to have fee title to a driveway, rather than doing a real estate transaction whereby the front gives an easement to the back. Mr. Benetti confirmed. As of right now, Ms. Weisbecker owns both lots. Pretty soon there will be two different ownerships involved. The new owner of the back parcel, 1840 Hunter, has a personal and legal desire to secure their own rights to that driveway and not subject to any easement rights. Chair Magnuson asked for confirmation that there is currently an easement of record there. Mr. Benetti confirmed. She continued by noting that the driveway does not follow the easement of record, but it does exist – so there is an access point. If that easement were simply continued or widened through another easement of record, there would not be any land lock issue; this is a preference for the new owner but not something that is necessary absolutely in order to create access to Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Corbett noted that starting at 1850 Hunter and heading closer towards Highway 62, all of those lots are basically the same size. He asked this there was any way that those lots could be split up in the same way. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative, unless they had at least a minimum of 100 feet of frontage; however, splitting them like this would probably be next to impossible because every newly created lot has to have at least 100 feet of frontage onto Hunter or the next road. However, per Commissioner Mazzitello, they could ask for a variance and split off the front portion of their lots and this could take place down Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti confirmed. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 23 Commissioner Noonan stated that approving this request could provide a precedence to guide future actions, potentially. Commissioner Petschel stated that he thought this was predicated as a fact that the lot was already split and that no one could come forward and try to do a front/back split and get approval. He asked if this was setting a precedence or just recognizing a unique situation. Commissioner Katz raised the concern of there is going to be a cul-de-sac coming in through the backside of the lot the house is on and some of the lots on that side are still for sale. He then asked, in theory, if someone could ask for a variance to connect Hunter Lane to whatever that new cul-de-sac is going to be called, and then there would be a new road between them. Then there would be two houses where there is currently just one and then may be another road that goes back through to this cul-de-sac and dividing that neighborhood even more into more segmented lots and connects them all. Mr. Benetti replied that, in theory, this could occur; however, he does not foresee that ever happening. Chair Magnuson stated that she was unsure how these properties ended up how they were; however, this is not the only property like this on Hunter Lane. Across the street is another home that has two lots back-to- back. Conceivably, the Commission would be setting precedence. Mr. Benetti echoed Commissioner Petschel’s comments about not being too worried about setting a precedence because Variances have to stand on their own merit and their own test as they are presented. The Commission would have the choice to say yes or no and make recommendations. Commissioner Toth, referring to the term flag-lot, noted that they were allowed in Mendota Heights in the past, but no longer. He asked why the city make the decision to not allow flag-lots within the city. Mr. Benetti replied that he was unsure, but believed that it was more of a preferred choice not to have homes set behind homes and set behind homes; a decision made 15+ years ago. Ms. Julie Weisbecker expressed her appreciation to the Commission for considering her application. She shared a non-legal document that she received from the previous owner stating that this split occurred sometime around 1967. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Mr. Charles Campion, 1836 Hunter Lane, has lived in the area for approximately 23 years and does not remember this lot being split. He understood that they are two lots of record; however, they were always presented to him as one lot. He remembered going through the process of having the buggy trail removed between his lot and this before he could build. This whole two lot discussion has hit him by surprise. He woke up one day and they were digging dirt on the lot. He called the city right away and they came and put a stop to it. This does not comply with the rest of the lots in the neighborhood. There are other lots in the area that there are houses behind it, but they are larger lots than this. By moving and giving this Variance, he believed would set a precedence in the neighborhood to do this more. There has never been any conversation on how they are going to fill in between the houses. A developer bought some lots down the road and he is also involved in this one. He started bringing the dirt over from down the street and dumping onto this lot. This has been a sore spot for them since the beginning and he does not agree with it. Mr. Paul Dorn, 1129 Orchard Circle, was the agent of record when this lot was purchased by the Weisbecker’s approximately 10 years ago. He is working with Ms. Weisbecker now through this process. He noted that there would be a house built on the vacant no matter what the decision is on the Variance. In February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 23 his experience, if this were reversed and the house was sitting in front and they were trying to gain access to something behind, that would be different. However, they are already have a house of record, have a legal platted lot in front that has the frontage and meets the requirements. From the standpoint of the fee simple versus the easement, the benefit of the fee simple is, especially for mortgage companies, etc., it creates a much cleaner ability for title and to be able to get a mortgage on the property. This is the cleanest way for the city to be able to grant something that is a very unique and is not setting a precedence. During this process, they have discovered that the properties to the north and to the south have drainage easements running through this property. They worked with Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek on making sure that they now grant, behind were the proposed house would be on the front lot, a drainage easement also to make sure that the drainage is going to be beneficial and not create another problem that way. The homeowner has been willing to make sure they work with that as well as granting that right-of-way easement in front. Upon request, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek shared the locations of the drainage easements as well as other easements. Commissioner Toth, noting that he drove by the property and noticed quite a bit of fill, expressed his concerns about drainage from there. He asked how that would be managed due to the increase in elevation due to the fill. Mr. Dorn replied that they have been working with the public works department on this for a number of months and they have tried to adhere to everything the engineer has requested. Commissioner Petschel asked for an explanation of how this Variance request due to a practical difficulty. Mr. Dorn replied that the Variance would create a cleaner title for the future property owner and for the property owners to the south. Leaving the easement as is would create a huge lift potentially as far they are going to support this, and could potentially hamper any future mortgage negotiations. Chair Magnuson asked rather than overcomplicating this with another easement for the people on the south, why weren’t they taking this opportunity to clean up that encroachment and move the driveway into the property line and make it then complying rather than having the owners to the south have to grant an easement for some indeterminate period of time. This would be a good opportunity to fix that encroachment. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson asked for confirmation that if the Commission denied the Variance request, they would not be creating a landlocked parcel because there is access to the lot via an easement already in place. Granting the Variance would just be creating a different mode of accessing Hunter Lane. Mr. Benetti confirmed. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-03 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE Commissioner Mazzitello noted that this is a unique situation had with these lots. He agreed with the testimony heard that fee simple ownership does make for a cleaner title; however, the practical difficulty in this situation is one that the burden of proof has not been met. If a fee simple is cleaner, then fee simple a February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 23 100 feet of frontage and be done with it; then a Variance is not needed. Better yet, combine the two lots and then there is no Variance needed. He believed the impudence for this application is one of economics, which they are not supposed to consider anyway. Commissioner Petschel agreed with these comments. He agreed with Mr. Dorn and the applicant that this would be a superior solution if it were allowed. However, he did not understand how they could grant a Variance for this and not for any other applicant that came in with a non-conforming lot, saying that their lot does not apply. Commissioner Mazzitello provided the following Finding of Fact for Disapproval: 1. The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite practical difficulties in order to justify that the Variance; and 2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty As the second on the motion, Commissioner Katz accepted the Finding of Fact for Disapproval. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE #2019-04 MARK MORIN, 963 CHIPPEWA AVENUE LOT SPLIT (AND LOT COMBINATION) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mark and Kris Morin are the owners of the property adjacent to the subject parcel (530 Simard Street). The subject property, located at 963 Chippewa Avenue, was formerly owned by Mr. Morin’s late mother and is now in estate proceedings and is to be sold off separately by the Morin’s. This item was presented as a Public Hearing and notices were mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. No comments or objections have been received. The subject parcel was located at the southwest corner of Chippewa and Simard, is located in the R-1 Residential District. This lot originally consisted of two platted lots; Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Guadalupe Heights Addition. The lots were combined many years ago and have been considered as one parcel since. There is 205 feet of frontage along Chippewa and 120 feet along Simard. The lot area is just over 26,000 square feet. The subject parcel has a 1,925 square foot single-story rambler with a 3-car attached garage. The request is to split the property into two parcels, with Parcel B retaining the existing Morin family estate homes. This Parcel B would be 119’ x 133.4/150.26’, or approximately 0.35 acres of land; making it compliant with the R-1 standards. However, Parcel A would be 86’ x 120’, or approximately 0.25 acres; making this Parcel A non-compliant with the R-1 Residential District standards. Parcel A would be a corner lot and would require 100 feet of frontage on both sides. Mr. Moran is simply asking that in separating this, he would sell off Parcel B as its own lot and then he would retain Parcel A and combine it with his current property (530 Simard Street) as additional yard space. Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions. Commissioner Noonan asked if the combination of the lots would have the County create a separate PID or would it be one PID combining the adjoining properties. Mr. Benetti replied that typically, since there February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 23 are two different PID’s now, once a piece of property is added to another, they usually assigned a new PID number with it to save on confusion in the future. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he did not see any statistics dimensionally or square footage-wise for 530 Simard in the staff report. He asked if the addition of Parcel A to 530 Simard, which would now have over 300 feet of frontage, create as splittable lot that currently does not exist. Mr. Benetti replied that it would not. Commissioner Mazzitello then asked if the corner lot provision would still be in play. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Mr. Mark Morin, 530 Simard Street, was available for questions. He noted that he would not be looking to develop the lots but would leave them just as they are. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. There being no one coming forward, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-04 LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) & COMBINATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot split meets the spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split will keep a single-family development intact; while the new non-conforming lot to be created by this split will be combined with the neighboring property only, thereby eliminating the need for a variance for a reduced lot size or lot width standard for properties located in the R-1 District. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The newly created parcel identified and described as “Parcel A” on the attached survey map prepared by Frank A. Cardarelle (dated Jan. 29, 2019) shall be combined with the property identified as 530 Simard Street (PID No. 27-31300-02-042). 2. The applicant shall dedicate, by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County, a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the north and east property lines of Parcel A; a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the west and east property lines, and a 5-foot wide easement along the south property line of Parcel B; and a 5-foot wide easement on each side (10-ft. total) of the shared line between Parcels A and B. 3. Approval of this lot split does not in any way provide a special or unique circumstance, or hardship for the Applicant or future owners of Parcel A in claiming a right to develop a new single-family dwelling development on said Parcel A. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 5, 2019 meeting. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 23 Unfinished Business A) MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that currently on the city’s website there is the latest version of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan dated 2-26-19. Three chapters were provided in the Commission Packet as they were the ones that had additions or revisions. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that the intent this evening would be to schedule another work session to have a final discussion on the form of the Comprehensive Plan; to allow the Commission to reflect upon the testimony to be had this evening; to make any revisions; and then ultimately put it together in a nice neat package and bring it forward to March’s Planning Commission meeting for ratification. Mr. Benetti recommended that, since they missed their last workshop meeting, this would be the opportunity for the Commission to go over some of the changes that have been added, in particular the narratives and some of the focus areas that were added in. Staff would like to provide a good and thoughtful explanation to the Commission and the public of why they did what they did. Staff would also like to know if there would be anything that the Commission would like have edited or removed from the list and the mapping. They just want to make sure that everything is buttoned up pretty good before, hopefully one last time, to the last public hearing before the Planning Commission and ultimately carry that recommendation to the City Council. A workshop session is where they can get that good thoughtful ideas back and forth with each other. However, tonight there is a continuation of the public hearing and they want to make sure they hear from the public. Mr. Benetti did note that on page 2-15 of the draft Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the narrative is missing a number. The number 19 narrative should have been identified as Mendota Meadows with the recommendation by staff that this area be revised from its current MR-PUD to a Public Open Space. The next item, which should be labeled number 20, is Mendota Woods, and all of the following narrative numbers should be adjusted up by one. This has been corrected in the version on the city’s website. Mr. Benetti explained that even though they have added more focus areas, they are not advocating for any land use changes or rezoning changes on those parcels. They are simply placeholders, like was done in the 2030 plan, which were identified for some potential opportunity for development or redevelopment areas or infill sites. At this point, they are simply leaving 2040 land use as the guide for all of those sites right now. Chair Magnuson proposed that if Mr. Benetti has any other matters to be brought to the Commission’s or the public’s attention that may be important to point out in the documents that have been disseminated he should do that. The Commission would then take testimony from the public and then the Commission would have conversation about scheduling a workshop meeting sometime in early March 2019. She personally has a number of relatively minor comments, which she believed would be conducive to a workshop but not something they would want to spend a lot of time laboring over in this setting. Chair Magnuson explained that this was a continuation of the public hearing that was had on January 22, 2019. She assured everyone that if they testified at that hearing, the Commission paid very close attention and they remember. She encouraged everyone to not repeat things that the Commission has already heard as all of their comments have been taken into consideration, whenever they have been made. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 23 Mr. Robert Bonine, a 50 year resident of Mendota Heights, explained that he represented a group of people – The Mendota Heights Community Resource Association – and had a document to read (a copy was provided to the Commission): • They reviewed and compared three land use maps included in the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan; Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4; this was the only way they could determine what land use amendments were being proposed • There were no narratives describing these proposed amendments; no rationale for motivating these amendments; no reasons indicating their necessity or facts supporting any perceiveness of them; therefore, citizens have no idea if these amendments should be supported or opposed • Without this information, a public hearing is nothing more than a sham and theatre providing no real opportunity for the public to speak knowledgeably about them. Comprehensive Plan amendments without rationale are, by definition, arbitrary and capricious • Comprehensive Plan amendments, once approved by the City Council and the Metropolitan Council (Met Council), require that the city amend its zoning ordinance to conform. Therefore, a Comprehensive Plan amendment is really a defacto amendment of the city’s zoning ordinance and requires a hearing; when the city undertakes required rezoning it is an empty gesture for its outcome is mandated by the state statute • The map comparisons before the January 22, 2019 meeting showed four amendments already approved, each at one time in a separate hearing from the others. The eight proposed in this new version are all to be heard together and included in the proposed 2040 Plan. However, it became clear that some of the existing uses shown on the existing uses map, were erroneous – acknowledged by staff and some Commission members. If the existing land use is unknown, how can any changes be rationalized • Because of the lack of supporting information, they are unable to determine whether the proposed changes should be supported or opposed • Until each of these amendments is considered at a separate proceeding with a separate public hearing, they speak in opposition to each of them. Without supporting information available, they believe the Commission may be in violation of the Open Meeting Law in respect to these eight proposed amendments • The only proposed amendment with a narrative; that being the proposed amendment from LR to MR of the parcel at Lexington and Highway 13; this proposal has already been considered and rejected by the Council 18 months ago. Therefore, there is no justification for amending the Comprehensive Plan for this parcel unless there is a determination supported by evidence that the original land use designation was erroneous For these reasons, they asked that the Commission eliminate from their recommendations to the Council all of the land uses contained in the city’s proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. If there are good reasons to consider these amendments, those reasons should be articulated separately for each site and that separate public hearings be held on each so the public can make informed and intelligent judgments on whether to support or oppose them. (Note: Mr. Bonine’s written comments are appended to these minutes – per the request of the commission). Commissioner Noonan asked when this group put together these comments, did they have the opportunity to review the details contained on pages 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, and 2-16 – the summary of the land use changes from 2030 to 2040. When asked, Mr. Benetti indicated that this comparison had been available on the city’s website since last week and is still available. Mr. Bonine replied that he did not see those. Mr. Bonine reiterated that his group believes that each of the proposed changes deserves a public hearing rather than being clustered together in one package of 6 or 8. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 23 Commissioner Corbett asked if the Commission were proposing a change for something that is already existing on the ground, would they object to those types of changes. Mr. Bonine replied that it is understood that if the Commission makes these changes, then they have to be adopted because they are part of the plan. They are really requesting carefulness and have public hearings as appropriate. Any criticism would come up when they are considered individually. Mr. Chris Galler, 2306 Lemay Shores Drive, expressed his concern about land between his property and the Augusta development – there is an isthmus in there and at one time there had been discussion that this would potentially be looked at for future high density residential. The cliffs are pretty high in that area and it is pretty steep. Of larger concern is the area near Bourne Lane; it is owned by the city currently. When they first moved in it was designated as city-owned or public land. Now on the Comprehensive Plan they see that it is proposed to be sold to a business of some type. They have noticed that there is not any green space dedicated, other than green space owned by the development. There is no public infrastructure, no parks, or anything like that. They questioned whether or not that should be rezoned. He suggested that the city at least provide a buffer zone for the residents who back up to this property. Clarification would also be helpful to the residents living in the area. Mr. Steve Treichel, 2174 Lemay Lake Drive, had a script but threw it away yesterday because he knew that there was a new 2040 Comprehensive Plan on the website. He was very pleased with what he saw. He then referenced Figure 2-5 and noted that #5 on the map is attributed to Augusta Shores. Augusta Shores does have two outlots that are properly indicated at the north end of Lemay Lake. That should be identified as #5 and where the current #5 is should be a new #6 – Lemay Shores. Lemay Shores owns that property as Outlot B. However, he was very pleased to see all of the green space indicated in that area. Mr. Benetti replied that the two outlots on the north end of Lemay Lake were originally guided as LR, as was the entire Augusta Shores. They revised that to Medium Density, which is reflected. They took out the LR category and made it to Park Open Space because they are currently under a conservation easement. They did the same thing with the isthmus area for Lemay. What they could do is keep #5 as is and point out that it is in relatively the same area. Mr. Treichel noted that when looking at the land use changes, virtually all of it stays with existing use; so there are very few changes. Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, explained that she was following up on a request from the last meeting. When she attended the January 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting and addressed the issues regarding proposed land use changes in the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan, she was asked if there were any changes that would be acceptable without full review. She confirmed that she would send a response to the Planning Commission on this topic and has done so. She summarized her response for the record as: • Her previously stated premise was that any land use changes should receive the opportunity for full city and community input and justification before being enacted • She noted that there were some proposed changes that could more easily be made to conform to existing use and development • However, any changes in land use should not be made through the Comprehensive Plan process but acted upon individually with a more typical individual review process o There could be a potential change in use through redevelopment and perhaps it would be premature to make a change now February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 23 • Mendota Heights has limited opportunities for development that meets the needs of the community o Changing generic land uses could lead to proposals that do not fall within the city’s priorities • Other specific considerations for not changing land uses through the Comprehensive Plan are: o The city retains greater control over future acceptable uses and proposals without granting blanket rights to all options within the land use category o Method of individual land use and zoning changes for specific proposals allows for providing full information to the city and community regarding how these proposals conform to city goals and development standards She expressed her appreciation for the Commission’s consideration of these points; that land use changes through the Comprehensive Plan. She urged the Commission to eliminate these changes in the text and on the maps in the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan. (Note: Ms. Smith’s written comments are appended to these minutes – per the request of the commission). Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that what she is saying is that any land use changes that were to be proposed in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan should be removed from the plan and the city should go back to what is contained in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Smith confirmed. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the comments made by the previous two speakers, noted that there was discussion about Lemay Shores and Augusta Shores about changing the land use designations, not only of the residential portion, but also the piece between the two subdivisions. The piece between the two subdivisions is currently guided Low Density Residential. The proposal is to bring it to Park. He then asked her if she was suggesting that this should be stripped out and that a formal hearing take place to consider that re-guiding. Ms. Smith replied that this is exactly what she was saying. She believed that making changes through the Comprehensive Plan process could cause problems in the future. Commissioner Noonan then asked her what her position would be on changing guidance to reflect what is currently on the ground. For instance, Lemay Shores and Augusta Shores are guided as low density residential. However, when looking at what is actually there, it is medium density. So then would she have any problems changing what is really on the ground to what it should be? Mr. Smith replied that, as she mentioned before, there are certain instances where it would be very easy to go through the process of changing these. However, for a number of reasons, she believed that it would be better to go through the individual processes. It would be a more equitable process to go through the regular channels. Mr. James Eland, 2363 Lemay Shores Drive, expressed his support for what Mr. Galler said and what he heard about the isthmus being turned into a park. Like Mr. Galler he was very concerned about this Mt. Everest of dirt that has been moved in at the end of the development. He questioned what that was going to be; he raised concerns about the type of business going in there, the lights, the noise, the buildings, the parking, the traffic – all concerns of residents who live in Lemay Shores. In addition, he used to live on Rogers Court and his kids had access to Rogers Lake, Mendakota Park, and parks down on Decorah and Friendly Hills; however, the area bounded by Lexington and Highway 55 and Highway 62, from Lexington all of the way to the river – there is not a public green space, picnic table, tennis court – nothing. He hoped that the Planning Commission would consider a green space in that part of the city. Commissioner Noonan asked if he agreed with the recommendation that is being advanced in the Plan to change the isthmus from Low Density Residential to Parks and Open Space. Mr. Eland replied that he would totally support that. Commissioner Noonan then asked if he saw any reason why the Commission should not take action on that as opposed to considering it at some time in the future. Mr. Eland replied that he saw no reason for waiting. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 23 Mr. Tom Hanson, Lemay Lake Drive, stated that he liked what he has seen and expressed his appreciation. He also stated that whoever had the brilliant idea of the Dog Park, they should consider making it permanent. Mr. Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, returned to the map labeled Figure 2-5. He noticed on the new table that there is a new #32 at the northwest end of town that does not show up in the key to the map. It also looked like, just from reading the table itself, that the site that is listed on the map as #29 City Parcel, Highway 13 at Ivy Falls looks like that should be at or on #30 for accurate positioning. Mr. Lazarus continued by drawing attention to the site that is listed as #10, that Mr. Bonine was referring to, the Lexington & Highway 13 site, which is now back for the second bit of the apple for this owner. Some of the Commissioners were part of the process in June 2017, when the application for this kind of re- guiding into the medium density was first brought to the Commission. As it was noted it was subsequently turned down by the City Council. The best that can be said of this right now is the only merit that is really there is just exactly what is quoted here; the owners want this designation. That does not even go into the relevant merits that to be considered for this kind of thing. Just a little bit further in the updated part of the plan, if one were to look at the Figure 2-6 Focus Properties Map, where this property takes its third bite at the apple. It is listed on page 2-19, unlike the heading of this section of the Plan that reads, “The City is not recommend ding any land use or rezoning changes on these sites at this time or as part of this plan”; however, it was just read in the previous section that they are recommending this change – even though it had been turned out previously. He asked again that this rotten apple be stricken from the Plan and let these kind of things go as an application for a zoning change. This is not an infill property, it is not a vacant lot, it is not a distressed property; this has been the LR 15 property since that zoning category first came into the ordinances decades ago. The best that this property has ever been able to say about why it should have medium density is that the neighboring properties across the highway and up the hill at Outlook (in Lilydale) are that way He stated that the changes in the Comprehensive Plan from 2030 to 2040 look like they – every one – conforms consistent with the current use or the current activity on the property. In terms of Appendix A, Mr. Lazarus noted that there was a 2016 report and it is to help out and support the thinking of the Commission. Since the Appendix had not been updated and does not seem to fit the current exact shape of the Plan or even support it, Mr. Lazarus suggested that it be stricken from the plan because it just becomes a footnote that becomes chafe but is part of a very popular document if it is left in and it shouldn’t be. Ms. Rina McManus, 1026 Victoria Court, read prepared comments highlighted as follows: • High level vision and focus of the Comprehensive Plan • Understands the need to plan for the future using regional goals and guidelines o Feels that this could accomplished without compromising the vision and mission • Not all of the suburbs need to be citified • Making plans for more high density and medium density development would alter the character of the community and negate the stated intent in the land use chapter to protect the quiet suburban feel of the neighborhoods • She appreciated the recent addition of the Focus Areas • It was imperative that no changes occur without notification and involvement of the residents that would be impacted February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 23 • The comment in the Focus Areas first paragraph assures residents that there would not be blanket changes with an expectation that any proposal for future changes be considered on an individual basis • In the Land Use and Transportation chapters, it is noted that the city is experiencing an increase in traffic volume in and through the community • Air traffic volume and patterns has been identified as a major concern • Motor vehicle traffic has more substantial negative impact on the public health and safety of the residents o Increased traffic adds congestion, increased driving times, affects air quality, adds noise, impacts the environment, reduces property values, takes up community space, and generally compromises the quiet residential feel o The Land Use, Transportation, and Natural Resources chapters all have a stake in this issue • She recommended the addition of another goal in the Land Use chapter to reduce or mitigate the impact of motor vehicle traffic within the community o Work in partnership with state agencies and Dakota County to identify the areas most affected o Advocate for appropriate barriers to mitigate noise and pollution Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, asked if the isthmus mentioned earlier was private land. If it is, then it is not really green space that residents could readily partake of. She continued by referring to page 1-9 and noted a loaded statement contained therein with a footnote. The statement reads as follows: • Orderly and Efficient Land Use o Plan for new growth at overall average densities of 5 units per acre The footnote reads “The Met Council policy only applies to new residential development in the City and does not affect existing development or neighborhoods.”. She then asked the Commission to ensure that this footnote is spotless because it qualifies that very strong statement of density to five units per acre. She questioned the definition of neighborhood and suggested this be really specified to prevent gray areas; define neighborhood so it is not an open question. Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, corrected Commissioner Noonan by sharing a map from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows the isthmus between Lake Lemay and Lake Augusta as Park Space. He shared the map with the Commissioners, who then shared the map they were using. It was suggested that these two maps be reconciled. Mr. Smith, referring to comments made by Mr. Bonine regarding giving land owners for each of the changes that are enumerated a separate hearing, commented that if the Commission has discussed these changes without having land owners involved, there may be violations of Open Meeting Law. If the Commission has not discussed these changes among themselves, then the changes can be considered arbitrary and capricious. He assumed they were submitted to Stantec and that the Plan on the website dated February 26, 2019 came from Mr. Carlson. His point was that in either case, the land owners affected by these changes presumably have not been consulted. There are a lot of changes enumerated and questioned if each of them require a hearing. He suggested the Commission think about that; they owe it to each land owner affected by the change to figure out if they would have any concerns. He strongly encouraged the Commission to correct the many errors in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to ensure a good quality report is given to the Council and to the Metropolitan Council. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 23 Chair Magnuson ensured everyone that the Commission has not had any meetings outside of the public. They have been extraordinarily transparent in this process; they have had community meetings, workshops, and has been dealing with this plan countless times at the Planning Commission and the public has had the opportunity to both come, have always been welcomed to testify, the plans have been posted on the website for the city and they are available to the community for those who are interested. The Commission has been very, very open to comments, they have made changes based on those comments, and they will continue to do so. Please do not suggest to the Commission that they have been violating the law or that they have some sort of an agenda here that has not been transparent and open because it would be very, very wrong. Mr. Steve Treichel, 2174 Lemay Lake Drive, returned and suggested that what would really help everyone, since the Commission has put out so many different iterations, is that they put out a document control software to prevent shuffling of papers. Everyone in the community would have the same information that the Commission has. The problem that everyone has is that they are not on the same page and they have the wrong data. Wrong data = wrong conclusions. Ms. Julie Shell, Lemay Shores Drive, is a 25 year resident of Mendota Heights. It was her and her neighbors understanding was that the isthmus, between Lemay Shores and Augusta Shores, is owned by the Lemay Shores Association. When it was heard that the city was planning on putting eight homes on that land, they were freaking out. Their builder had assured them that the city would be installing a paved trail to connect the two neighborhoods. She assumed that was one of the mistakes on the map. She also shared their concerns about the south building project; when they were dumping dirt there all last summer – nobody knew about it, what was going in there – it felt like they did not know what was happening and felt like it was not transparent; why was it being done. It was not their land, it belongs to the city, but they felt very out of control about this. They flattened it out and removed the trees; now they can really see Highway 55 clearly from their hill. Then the one of the Councilors had it in an email that this land was going to be a field of flowers; the Mayor told another resident that this was going to be a soccer field. This made them very unsure who to trust and believe. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, in an effort to alleviate the confusion, explained that the Outlots that are owned by both Lemay Shores and Augusta Shores, are privately owned Outlots. They are covered under a conservation easement and the city does have drainage and utility easements covering all of the Outlots. The peninsula now has a gravel trail which will be paved by the developer this spring. The trail that connects the two developments is a public trail. The city owned site south of the development, it is undetermined what the future of that site will be. Until that is determined, the site will be seeded with a prairie mix so there may be a field of flowers there. It is zoned business and they are not looking at changing that zoning; however, it could be anywhere from a business, residential, park land, open space – there is zero indications at this time. In developing the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the consultant changed the guidance of the properties from low density residential to the actual use of medium residential. When he did that, he also changed the guidance of the outlots. Staff then requested that he specifically separate the Outlots from the house lots. Commissioner Mazzitello, addressing the question about the isthmus, stated that she was the third person who came up and stated that they were told that there would be development on the isthmus. The first person said high density residential, the second person said an extension of the twin homes, and then she said it was going to be an 8-house development. None of those were ever going to be. There are people in the city who spread bad information. He advised the public that the three gentlemen sitting to the left of the Commissioners would be the ones to ask if they hear any type of a rumor or innuendo about the city or what may or what could happen. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 23 Mr. Don Selg, 867 Bluebill Drive, testified last fall and went through a lot of detail regarding resiliency. He made the following points that he came across since then: • The World Health Organization sees the global situation as in the risk of going into a thermal runaway condition, and what is seen outside now is part of that o Colder than normal with higher snow fall amounts • He came across information in regards to what is the greatest cause of premature death in the entire world o That is the annulation of polluted air o Worse than all of the cancers, heart trouble, etc. This is a bipartisan issue that affects everyone. It is here and it is now. He emphasized the important of all of this and asked that when the Commission is making their decisions, take into consideration not only how it affects everyone now, but the future generations. Ms. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, made the following notes of corrections: • Page 2-7 references six categories of residential uses; there are only four • Page 2-15 the numbering and the map are out of sync • Page 3-12, given the amount of traffic they are anticipating, especially on Delaware, the city should state pretty strongly that Mendota Heights will fight for the Argenta Interchange to be built at the location that is 1,500 feet east of the existing overpass, keeping those levels acceptable in Mendota Heights. She hoped that the city could put a goal in there that would say “protect the Mendota Heights traffic levels from the encroaching development in the adjoining communities, keeping the increased traffic in the newly developed areas”. • Figure 3-5 the 2030 Preferred Alternative Noise Contour – it appears that they are vastly expanding the area of the noise area; widening the corridor. She asked for an explanation. The 2030 Preferred Alternative route is much wider than the 2014 lines. Mr. Benetti noted that staff met this morning with Councilor Liz Petschel, who is part of the Airport Relation Committee and the resident expert on airport issues and realized that this map appears to have been based on 2014 data. According to Councilor Petschel, the airport provides updated information every year. The map in the system right now is incorrect and will be updated. • Page 4-7, she believed at the last meeting that Commissioner Noonan talked about taking the formula out for the standard park space per population; it is still there • Increasing the tree canopy (8.1.4) and modifying the ordinances to protect the access to direct sunlight from all rooftops of all principle structures (8.5.1) • 8.7.3 Consider housing options along transit corridors • Page 8-10 is a lot of baloney (Resilient Food Systems) • Page 10-15 refers to Reviewing existing City ordinances with respect to fire and personal gas- powered equipment to promote healthy air quality; in the past that gas-powered equipment statement was removed from 8.3.4 so it should not be here either and from the Implementation Table on page 10-16 • Also on page 10-16, the tree canopy versus direct sunlight should be removed • Supplemental Information Appendix A – about half way through the footer the changes to read “Cottage Grove 2040 Comprehensive Plan” and is dated August, 2016 The Commission asked that she provide Mr. Benetti with a written list (appended to these minutes). Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, returned to clarify something regarding transparency. She realized that the city has done a lot to make this transparent. However, she also believed that many people, as smart as they are in the community, do not understand the land use process because they have never been exposed to it before. They do not understand the implications of what is in the Comprehensive Plan for the future. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 23 The Comprehensive Plan sets the goals and, in this case, land use for the next 20 years. In the metropolitan area, when something like that is changed in the Comprehensive Plan, the city is required to change the zoning. It used to be that what could be done in planning for the future was come up with a plan for what was thought might happen in the future. It is not that way anymore. Right now, if it is in the Comprehensive Plan the zoning needs to be changed. She wanted to explain that she was not chastising the Planning Commission or the city for what the community does not know. She was simply saying that just because the city has been talking about the Comprehensive Plan for a while, many people do not understand its role in city planning. Ms. Cindy Johnson expressed her appreciation for the effort and work that has been put into the Comprehensive Plan by staff and consultants. After reviewing the Comprehensive Plan that was posted online on Thursday, February 21, 2019 there are numerous edits and additions that were requested by the Commissioners at the last public hearing that have not been included in that online document. Rather than her trying to list them off herself, she hoped that the Commissioners have their notes and would follow-up to ensure those items would be added or corrected as stated from the previous public hearing. However, there are some items that she believed had not been covered yet: • Figure 2-2, the Victoria property that is orange on the map is not medium density but it is low density residential; therefore, should be yellow • Pages 2-13 through 2-16 and Figure 2-5, the descriptions do not match up and the numbers are wrong (32 numbers but only 31 descriptions) • She echoed that she was pleased that the isthmus was designated as Park Open Space, but she would also ask that it stay or be preserved or added to natural areas in order to protect the water quality and enhance the water quality of Lake Lemay and Lake Augusta. • Page 2-18 and 2-10, Titled Focus Areas, #10 Victoria Road lots – she thought those areas were stricken at the last public hearing and confirmed by Mr. Benetti; now they are back o From previous public hearings prior to the last one, various residents and property owners expressed leaving these as low density due to the underground stream in the area o States the desire to ‘develop more intensely’ and is inconsistent with other language within the Plan • Figure 4-1, the map seems to be incorrect. The proposed NERT trail shown in the key is shown as going down Highway 62 which is incorrect because it was built that on the Sibley High School property and it is different; it also no longer called the NERT trail but is called the River-to-River Greenway. She was happy to see the correct version of the Natural Resources chapter 7 in this version and so only has a few items for this section: • Page 7-7, the paragraph that begins with “Protect, Connect, and Purpose . . .” and the second paragraph that begins with “Purpose . . .” would make more send if they were right before the list of goals • Page 7-16, the last sentence says “below is a list and brief summary of the major water resources in the City”, but then it is a blank space and then goes onto vegetation next. It appeared to her that pages 7-10 through 7-15 should go after page 7-16 • Page 7-21, Urban Wildlife paragraph quotes “to see the pollinator-friendly resolution in the Appendix” but it was not in appendix A or B. • Chapter 9, recalled Ms. Pilgrim making a comment and handing materials to Mr. Benetti about the picnic island view shed. February 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 23 Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, whatever the Commission and the residents can come up with that everyone can support and continue to say that the Mendota Heights is nice, spacious, and gracious. This needs to be a rock solid document. (Note: Mr. Losleben’s written comments are appended to these minutes – per the request of the commission). COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO HOLD THIS PUBLIC HEARING AS OPEN AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Petschel noted that Mr. Lazarus is correct in that the Commission is piling through on this language and taking a second bite at the apple. And he agreed with what is in the Comprehensive Plan. He remembered the public hearings vividly and there were no Mendota Heights residents, besides from the applicant, there. It matches all of the surrounding territory and is enveloped by Lilydale. It is a map making error more than anything else. However, he did not believe they should create a second fight in the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested this be removed. Commissioner Mazzitello suggested keeping the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 26, 2019 and schedule the workshop meeting next week, if possible, on March 6th or 7th. Whatever comes out of the workshop meeting should be posted on the website as the DRAFT – FINAL. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:22 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0