2019-03-26 Planning Comm MinutesMarch 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 20
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 26, 2019
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March
26, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John
Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz.
Those absent: None
Commissioner Katz publically expressed his appreciation to Community Development Director
Tim Benetti who conducted his orientation before he began his term on the Planning Commission.
The time spent with him, especially on where the city is with the Comprehensive Plan, was greatly
appreciated.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of February 26, 2019 Minutes
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2019.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2019-05
NICK AND LIZ BANOVETZ, 1751 JAMES ROAD
VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE-YARD SETBACK
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Nick and Liz Banovetz had
requested a Variance to the side yard setback for their property located at 1751 James Road. The
property is located at the centered part of what is known as the James and Douglas Road split. It
is a 0.34 acre parcel with a two-story 3,594 square foot single family residence built in 1958.
Mr. and Mrs. Banovetz are requesting to build an 11.5’ x 14.5’ addition off of the east side of their
home. This would be a single story addition to accommodate a new living room. The current
dwelling sits 35.4 feet off of the front lot line, 37.8 feet from the west lot line, 52 feet from the rear
line, and 19.2 feet from the east line. The addition to the east side would encroach 2.13 feet into
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 20
the 10-foot side-yard setback. Mr. Benetti shared images of the property relative to its locati on
within the neighborhood, images of the property itself, and the location of the proposed addition.
Mr. Benetti explained that the reason for the proposed addition to not be on the rear of the home
was due to an existing canopy patio and open patio space in the already limited back yard.
Mr. Benetti continued by explaining the test questions that must be answered to provide
justification for any variance request:
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise
permitted by the zoning ordinance
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created
by the property owner
3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties
He then provided the answers to those questions from the applicants and from staff.
Other variables the city could consider when grant or denying a variance are as follows:
Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community
Existing and anticipated traffic conditions
Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety
Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan
Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a
practical difficulty
Nick and Liz Banovetz, 1751 James Road, were available for questions. Mr. Banovetz clarified
that the request was for a dining room addition. When they purchased the property it was pretty
much in disrepair. However, they fixed it up and fell in love with Mendota Heights. They would
like to make this their permanent home for years to come.
They received nine letters of support from neighbors, one of whom is a real estate appraiser. They
also had two emails from real estate agents confirming that this addition would be an enhancement
for the neighborhood and positively affect property values.
Commissioner Noonan noted that one of the criteria to be met to approve a variance was that the
request was not a convenience, but would meet a practical difficulty. In looking at the shape and
dimensions of the proposed addition, he asked for an explanation of the practical difficulties
associated with the request. Mr. Banovetz replied that there were several practical difficulties:
They are working with an award winning architect in the Twin Cities and have gone
through many reiterations of trying to plan out the main living space. The common areas
of the house only amount to 559 square feet. While the total square footage is high, most
of it focused on bedrooms or living space that is below grade.
They would like to fit a dining table and buffet into the new dining room. If they cannot
have the variance it would affect where they could put windows, and they may end up not
putting any windows on the street facing side of the addition if that is where they have to
put the buffet.
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 20
There is currently 34 feet between their home and the neighbor’s garage; the placement of
the addition would narrow that space down to 20 feet. If each property owner complied
strictly with the 10-foot side-yard setback, it would result in a 20-foot separation between
homes.
The topography of the land and the shallowness of the backyard also creates a practical
difficulty in placing the addition at the rear of the property.
Commissioner Noonan stated that it appears as if the architect had advanced various alternatives
that would respect the side-yard setback; and the decision to go with the alternative presented today
is just a matter of what is more suited to this family’s desire. Mr. Banovetz replied that the architect
has not provided any alternatives and not believe that anything else would work. All other
reiterations of the architectural design would still encroach the setback by 2 feet.
Commissioner Corbett remarked that he appreciated all of the letters of support that were shared,
and he believed one was from the neighbor to the opposite side. He then asked if there was a letter
of support from the neighbor on the east, whose property would be encroached upon. Mr. Banovetz
replied that it was included in the packet.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that they feel that the dining room expansion
could not be made 9’ 2” inches. Mr. Banovetz replied in the negative, he did not feel that the
expansion could be made smaller. He then asked if they had installed the patio or was it already
there when they moved in. Mr. Banovetz replied that it was a little bit of both; there w as a patio
there and they fixed it up.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, 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, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-05 VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO
THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE
APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS IN
GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED HEREIN, NOTED AS FOLLOWS:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the
strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical
difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical
difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is
due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 20
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic
considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties”
in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed addition is
not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the
addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard, and is therefore not considered
a reasonable use of the property, especially if the owner were to reduce the addition size,
thereby eliminating the need for the variance.
C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the
property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs
of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the
neighborhood).
Commissioner Toth explained that he agreed with Commissioner Noonan statements due to the
10.5 feet; the Commission has not been given a reason why they need that 10.5 feet as a practical
difficulty. They have not heard why a shorter distance of 8 feet would not work. He would like to
see something, if it could be worked out, like 8.5 feet or 9.5 feet by 16.5 feet, or similar.
Commissioner Mazzitello said, realizing that every variance request stands on its own and that
actions of the Commission or the Council with respect to these applications do not set precedence,
there was a case similar to this where someone’s addition was going to go into the side-yard
setback and one of the findings of fact used for the Council’s ultimate approval of the request, was
that the structure itself was not placed properly on the lot. Similar to this case, there is over 39 feet
from the corner on the other side of the house. He would never advocate for someone to build a
dining room on the other side of a garage so they have to pass through the garage to get to the
dining room. However, that finding of fact was used. To throw all of the information on the table
for the Commissions consideration, this very similar type of variance has been approved by the
City Council in the past, against the Commission’s recommendation.
Commissioner Petschel asked if Commissioner Mazzitello was proposing to use the center of mass
relative to the center of the lot line as an indicator to the variance. Commissioner Mazzitello replied
that the only thing he was saying was that the indicator was used once in the past; not saying that
it should be a standard.
Commissioner Noonan that this argument, if there were no alternatives for the placement or the
size of the addition; the addition could be spread out to give the square footage as well. There are
alternatives which provide for what the property owners want. He heard justifications for
convenience sake as opposed to a practical difficulty. There are alternatives that exist that would
allow the property owners to get the addition. It may not be what they ultimately desire, but it
would still respect the setbacks – which are important. If setbacks were not important, then they
would not be there.
Commissioner Petschel stated that he would be for a mitigating circumstance. For example, if this
were a non-conforming lot size where the rules were written for a 15,000 square foot lots and
someone walks in with 9,000 or 10,000 square foot lot and the house is already practically violating
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 20
the setback rules. Commissioner Noonan agreed that this would be a good example. However, in
this case there is not a non-conforming use.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 2, 2019
meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE #2019-06
CHARLIE CO. DESIGN (JOHN & THERESA COSGRIFF)
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND VARIANCE - 1875 HUNTER LANE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Charlie and Co. Design, on behalf
of John and Theresa Cosgriff, were requesting a Critical Area Permit to remove an existing
dwelling and rebuild on the site. The property is located at 1875 Hunter Lane, just within the
Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area. For any new improvements, demolition, or heavy
removals or grading projects a Critical Area Permit is required. The request also includes a
Variance to the average bluff line setbacks as required under the critical area ordinance.
Notices were published in the local newspaper and notices were mailed out. The Cosgriff’s have
received a number of letters expressing support of this project. Notices and application materials
were also sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR), who acknowledged
receipt of the materials. They provided no follow-up comments or objections to the Critical Area
permit and Variance applications.
The subject property is located in the mid-block of Hunter lane, is approximately 1.5 acres in size,
and there is currently a 4,322 square foot home on the lot with a backyard swimming pool and
garden area. The home was originally built in 1948.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property with the current footprint of the dwelling, and a
highlighted overlay of the proposed new structure. Essentially, the footprint would remain the
same except for the addition of a three-car garage on the north side of the home. This new home
would be an approximately 6,500 square foot, four bedroom, six bath home. The pool, instead of
being at an angle, would be parallel to the back of the house.
Critical Area Permit
The purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to:
Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national
resource
Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and
public areas;
Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an
essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 20
The standards to be met for a Critical Area Permit, as described by Mr. Benetti and noted under
Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District, are:
Site Planning Requirements
Development Standards
Structure Setbacks (the Variance request relates to this standard)
Height Limits
Retaining Walls
Standards for Grading/Filling
Standards for Vegetation Management
Surface Water Runoff Management
Variance Request
Mr. Benetti explained that whenever someone is building in a new lot or tear down b etween two
other houses, the setback is averaged for the new home equal to their neighbors. For a Critical
Area Property, this string-line rule comes into play on the backside with the bluff line. Mr. Benetti
shared an image of the property that included a line of the where the average setback would be
between the houses to the north and the house to the south. If this setback were adhered to, the
new home would be located behind the line and closer to the bluff line.
Mr. Benetti continued by explaining the test questions that must be answered to provide
justification for any variance request:
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise
permitted by the zoning ordinance
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created
by the property owner
3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties
He then provided the answers to those questions from the applicants and from staff.
Other variables the city could consider when grant or denying a variance are as follows:
Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community
Existing and anticipated traffic conditions
Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety
Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan
Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to all eviate a
practical difficulty
Commissioner Petschel asked if the ordinance, in respect to the string rule, only consider the
adjoining two houses. Mr. Benetti replied that the ordinance states ‘the immediately adjacent
properties’. He then asked if that couldn’t include the next houses over, and the reason for his
question is he was looking at the aerial photo of the three properties adjacent – and it’s a mess.
They homes are all over the place. If the rule were applied, the house next to the adjacent property
would not be conforming either. Mr. Benetti agreed; however, the rule applies when building a
new house and then only to the adjacent properties.
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 20
Commissioner Petschel noted that the ordinance does not say anything about the curvature or land
features. He then provided a hypothetical example of his concern – let’s say there is a cul-de-sac
and someone had the deepest lot in the cul-de-sac, clearly the string rule is not going to work
because the house at the top is going to have a further setback than the two adjoining lots.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if these should be heard as two separate motions or could they be
motioned together. Mr. Benetti suggested they be motioned together as they are integral to each
other.
Mr. Colby Mattson, Principal/Designer with Charlie & Co. made a few additional points:
They had the neighbors over from the surrounding community to present the project and
to make sure they were clear on what the clients were intending to do. They had very good
support and letters were provided in the packet.
The Cosgriff’s purchased this lot and property with the idea of potentially remodeling it.
The lower level has 7-foot ceilings. After working with a contractor it was determined that
the best course of action to get the home they were looking for ways to go to the new home
concept.
If they were to abide by the string rule, it would push the new home location back
approximately 47.5 feet. With that, significant excavation and retaining walls would be
necessary. They plan was to minimize the impact to the lot and change no conditions for
the neighbors (site lines and proximity).
Commissioner Petschel asked if it would be physically possible to build a house that would
conform to the rear string rule and also conform to the adjoining property’s front yard setbacks.
Mr. Mattson replied that it would be a very small home. He and Mr. Benetti looked at that early
on. Looking at the bluff line and looking at the era in which a lot of the homes were built, some of
them are very close to the bluff line and do not necessarily abide by the rule. When looking at the
feasibility of the properties, if they were to pull the home back behind the string rule line, the house
to the north – based on the location of the house to their north – would have to move back
approximately 20 feet, creating a trickle down affect.
Chair Magnuson asked how far forward towards the road the home would have to come in order
to abide by the string rule. Mr. Mattson replied that it would have to come back approximately 20
feet. The house two properties north is even further back due to the curvature of the bluff line. That
house would end up having to be pulled back if it was every rebuilt as well.
Mr. Mattson continued by explaining that the idea the clients were asking for – they did not want
to ask for more than what is currently there. They are trying to improve upon every aspect based
on the site conditions.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that this was not built has a walk-out in 1948, it was actually
created to be a walk-out approximately 20 years ago by two previous owners. She asked, given
what has been done in the past with the excavation, if they were forced to move this house up to
47 feet and do further excavation, what kind of issue would that create in terms of dealing with
what was previously excavated and try to conform that in and would that be possible to do without
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 20
creating some adverse effects close to the bluff line. Mr. Mattson replied that part of it would that,
as they move further away from the bluff line, the house would presumably want to be climbing
up the hill that is there. Based on one of the ordinances saying that they cannot take the first floor
any higher than 12 inches above the existing first floor, would put a lot of pressure on to the lower
level. In their opinion it would not be possible to be a walk-out based on the grading; or having to
use significantly tall retaining walls, which are also not allowed.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if they were planning on using the current foundation or hole of
the existing house. Mr. Mattson replied that the idea was that when the house was demolished
there would be a little disturbance to the surrounding area as possible. They were not planning on
using the existing foundation itself. It is not in great shape. The idea was to use the west face of
the property as a benchmark. Generally speaking there would be a small amount of excavation just
to get the proper soils for footings and everything else. The majority of the existing basement hold
would be used.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, made a general comment about the critical area by pointing
out that some native species are not beloved – cottonwood, box elder, sumac – but they are native
and belong in the critical area. When the Commission is considering these generic comments –
removal of invasive species – they should be more specific about what is meant by invasive
species.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked Ms. Pilgrim if they were to reword that condition, what verbiage
would she recommend. She replied that the MnDNR would have the official list of what is
considered invasive. She would say that anything that is native is not by definition invasive.
Commissioner Katz noted that the staff report and the narrative from the applicants says that they
are not planning on removing any of trees and would be protective of the existing trees. They are
planning on planting at least 50 new trees and some shrubs on the site. They also have a very good
runoff management plan, including a rain garden right near the critical bluff line.
John and Theresa Cosgriff, 1837 Summit Lane, reinforced that they have been very mindful of the
critical area rules in designing both the house and the landscaping; the runoff controls that they
have been very mindful of the intent of that rule. They hoped that what they were trying to do
would be an improvement to the neighborhood.
Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 20
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-06 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
AND RELATED VARIANCE FOR SETBACK STANDARDS REQUEST, BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in
carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists
of a three –part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do
not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in
order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by:
i. the proposed new single-family home is a reasonable use of the property;
ii. the subject property was pre-developed with an existing home closer to the bluff
line than what the neighboring (adjacent) properties have today; and the Applicants
are matching closely the location of the new home with the old home.
iii. approving this Variance does not change the essential character of the
neighborhood, as this residential area and bluff lines will not be affected by th e
approval of the Variance; and
iv. the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable new home
on the subject property and well beyond the required minimum setbacks established
in the Critical Area Overlay District standards, and as such, keeps the rear yard
space open and intact a it was prior to e new development. The variance is also
determined to not be solely based on economic considerations.
C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code,
including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare
of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on
the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the
surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will
not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in
general.
D. Approval of the Variance is for 1875 Hunter Lane only, and does not apply or give
precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants
must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance
requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the
requirements of the City Code.
E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No.
2019-06, dated and presented March 26, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota
Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution.
F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his
Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the
impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows:
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 20
i. Building and grading permits shall be approved by city staff prior to any demolition
or removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of the new
dwelling.
ii. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed new
dwelling within one (1) year form date of city council approval.
iii. 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.
iv. All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by
the Public Works Director.
v. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable
vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm.
vi. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during
grading and construction work activities
vii. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
Weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends.
G. The effort made by the applicant to respect the Critical Area and to implement
enhancements to the Critical Area
Commissioner Petschel asked if they would have a front yard string rule evaluation as well. Mr.
Benetti replied that he only looked at the back line. Commissioner Petschel asked, in general if
someone came to do new construction on a lot, they would have a front yard string rule evaluation.
Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Petschel then asked if there weren’t
competing rules in this case. Mr. Benetti again replied in the affirmative because in the critical
area, this rule is applicable to the bluff.
Commissioner Petschel commented that to further the discussion of uniqueness that seems to be
plaguing the Commission, the nature of the setback of the surrounding properties is erratic and
creates a fairly clear burden on the property owner.
Commissioner Noonan commented that he was coming to the same thing; the practical difficulties
are the competing setbacks, string rules, and where the property is located. If they layered the rear
string rule and the front string rule, they would be creating a non-developable lot. Even a
manufactured house would not fit.
Also, the applicant is not really changing the nature of the home; the footprint, as was pursued by
Commissioner Magnuson’s question, was the same except for the garage addition. They are
improving the situation, enhancing, and respecting the bluff areas. This is a testament to the
applicant and to their professionals.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 2, 2019
meeting.
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 20
Unfinished Business
A) MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Chair Magnuson explained that the plan this evening was to hold, what they hoped would be, the
final Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan at the Planning Commission level. Once the
Comprehensive Plan moves from the Commission, it would go to the City Council and they may
choose to hear additional comments on it.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti would review the draft Comprehensive Plan
chapter by chapter, allowing the Commissioners to make any comments they have or any changes
they would want to propose. At the close of each chapter, the Commission would ask if there were
any public testimony on that particular chapter. If anyone wished to testify, they were asked to
keep their comments to a particular item in the chapter that was being discussed.
1) INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience
2) LAND USE
Commissioner Mazzitello, in light of a case they just heard, asked if the Commission would
consider adding Goal 2.2, Policy 2.2.8 Low density residential development or redevelopment
should avoid the creation of new flag lots, where the flag lot has less than the standard 100 feet of
frontage.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the workshop meeting identified a trail that was missing on
the Community Facilities & Features Map (Figure 2-1); the trail gap that was close to Highway
13, between the Summit and Lilydale Road. He requested that staff ensure that trail was added to
the map.
Commissioner Noonan, referencing Table 2-1: 2017 Existing Land Use, stated that at the
workshop he had requested that some language be added to explain how they go from Gross Acres
to Net Acres. He again requested a modest explanation be included; this would apply to Table 2-
2: 2040 Future Land Use as well.
Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that she had previously spoken to the Commission
about the 32 blanket changes to land uses proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Tonight she only
wished to speak to one aspect of these changes. At the previous meetings and workshop a number
of residents from Augusta Shores, Lemay Shores, and Victoria Highlands spoke against changing
the land use from LR – Low Residential to MR – Medium Residential. A large part of the
discussion at the workshop speculated that the net density in Augusta Shores was over the 2.9 units
per acre allowed in LR. She subsequently learned that County records show that the lots in Augusta
Shores have a collective net density of 2.7 units per acre. Another part of the rationale for the
change to MR focused on Twin Homes not being allowed in LR. Changing the land use to a higher
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 20
density than what is already there and originally approved, because of the Twin Home issue, is but
one solution to addressing this discrepancy. Another possible, and likely more acceptable, solution
is to amend the R-1 zoning to accommodate Twin Homes with a Conditional Use and remove
these areas from the blanket changes. This would preserve the single-family character of these
neighborhoods but by accommodating one shared wall between the homes.
They were not aware of the rationales for initially approving these developments in LR and R-1
with Twin Homes; the answer is likely in the City minutes of these approval processes. However,
she urged the Commission to consider this or other more appropriate solutions for these
neighborhoods; as well as other potentially less drastic changes to land uses for other properties.
Ms. Smith continued by stating that the proposed changes in density – MR from 4 units per acres
to 8 units per acre, and High Density Residential from 8 units per acre to 25 units per acre – is an
even more drastic change and without the transparent notification and rationale to all affected
residents.
These potential changes in land uses could dramatically change the character of neighborhoods
and ultimately the city. She requested the Commission to consider the implications and seek a less
drastic solution.
Commissioner Petschel asked where the change to High Density was located. Ms. Smith replied
that the change was in the general classification of HR going from 8 units per acres to 25 units per
acre.
Chair Magnuson asked for clarification that what she was requesting was for the Commission to
allow Twin Homes in a low density residential area by a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Smith
confirmed.
Ms. Pat Diedrich, 2178 Lemay Lake Drive, has comments very similar to Ms. Smith’s. She is
concerned about the land use change in Augusta Shores from Low Density to Medium Density.
When she first moved there several years ago they understood that it was zoned R-1 Low Density.
She just recently discovered that, according to the ordinances, that Twin Homes must be zoned as
Medium Density. She did not understand why the zoning was not changed when the development
was first built. She assumed there was a Conditional Use Permit that allowed for that in the Low
Density. She looked at each individual property on line, on the Dakota County records, calculated
the gross square footage minus the wet land square footage, to determine what the overall square
footage was. She came up with an average of approximately 2.7 units per acre. This did not include
the outlots. In her mind, this is low density. Her concern was that in the future those houses could
become almost double or triple the number of units that are in there today.
Her second concern was the change in the definition of Medium Density and High Density; the
Medium Density going from 4.35 units per acres and almost doubling to 8 units per acre, and then
High Density almost tripling from 8.54 units per acre to 25 units per acre. She could not find any
rationale or any explanation why that was being recommended and how it would fit into the
character of the city.
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 20
Mr. Keith Ostrosky, 1680 Lexington Avenue South, was confused as to why the city has been
asking for open transparency and ascribed for that, but his project had gone from a 6-0 vote in
favor to 6-0 against in 24 hours. Commissioner Noonan replied that this was not true. Mr. Ostrosky
requested an explanation of where he is on his project. Commissioner Noonan asked if Mr.
Ostrosky had filed an application for a development. Mr. Ostrosky replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Noonan noted that the only thing the Commission was considering was the land
use designation. Currently, Mr. Ostrosky’s property is Low Density Single-Family. There had been
discussion amongst the Commission to alter that to Medium Density. The discussion that took
place at the workshop posed the question as to whether or not they wanted to continue to advance
the recommendations that had been talked about before or to go back to the status quo. By a divided
vote, the recommendation was to take it back to the status quo and have Mr. Ostrosky come
forward with a specific application. Mr. Ostrosky stated that he would like to stay in the 20-year
Comprehensive Plan because that was what, he believed, the Metropolitan Council (Met Council)
had asked for; to correct all of these issues, Variances, and re-zonings so they would not have to
hear about them anymore. Commissioner Noonan replied that he did not believe that the Met
Council has anything to say whether or not it’s Low Density, Medium Density, or High Density.
In Mr. Ostrosky’s particular case, he is zoned for Low Density. There are no problems that
Commissioner Noonan was aware of other than that the Low Density designation does not allow
him to advance a Medium Density development. Mr. Ostrosky noted that he is a single-family
home surrounded by Medium and High Density buildings. He thought one of the goals was to
make properties conform into the neighborhood and to fit in. His single family home does not fit
into his neighborhood of 408 condominiums.
Ms. Talaia Bowen, 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway, has been working with Mr. Ostrosky and they
submitted their application together since they are both on the same page. The process was put to
them that if they participated in the Comprehensive Plan it would help to avoid these individual
approaches and applicants and have a true sincere goal; to re-guide their own properties. That is
why she and Mr. Ostrosky took the approach to really considering joining the Comprehensive
Plan. If there is now a different direction they should be taking or a suggestion for them to do
individual applications, they are not really getting a lot of information. The letter they received
says things like ‘considered for re-guiding under the overall Comprehensive Plan’. This is totally
different than what Commissioner Noonan just shared.
They really need to know the next steps if they are not going to be included in the Comprehensive
Plan, they need that information in writing. They placed an application in writing and paid their
dues and fees to be considered a part of the Comprehensive Plan and requested the Commission
provide that response or direction to them.
Commissioner Petschel asked when the 6-0 vote in favor of his project took place. Mr. Ostrosky
replied that it was in the summer of 2017. Commissioner Petschel continued by stating that he was
not at the workshop and could not speak to what happened. His own personal feedback was, while
he agreed with the project and what he was trying to do given the scope of the surround ing
properties, it would be inappropriate to try to re-litigate with the City Council through the
Comprehensive Plan on this particular property. As an individual property, he would like to see it
back before the Commission and he would like to see Mr. Ostrosky be able to do what he wants
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 20
to do. Commissioner Petschel was unaware of any money being provided or an application with
respect to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Benetti clarified that Mr. Ostrosky and Ms. Bowen made an application in early 2017 via th e
Comprehensive Plan. That is the only application that the city has received. It was a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment only. That was prior to starting the official work on the 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update. At this point, staff cannot accept an application for a new individual
Comprehensive Plan Amendment until the new plan is adopted. The Met Council will not consider
any individual Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications until the city officially adopts the
Final 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Bowen explained that this type of circular discussion is the main issue that she and Mr.
Ostrosky were in attendance. Mr. Ostrosky has been doing this for over 2 years and she has been
in it for a year. It is tiresome for them to keep spinning their wheels and jumping through hoops.
Commissioner Corbett asked for clarification of when Mr. Ostrosky originally applied for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and was denied. The reply was it was at least 2 years ago.
Commissioner Corbett continued by stating that he believed this was given the due process 2 years
ago, and that it was denied such that revisiting this under the scope of the Comprehensive Plan
does not give it the attention it deserves or the people who denied it the chance to say why they
would now approve it – if it were approved. That should be required; doing anything through the
Comprehensive Plan would just cloud up the transparency of why it was denied and now approved,
or denied and denied again.
Ms. Bowen explained that what they are requesting is something in writing, distinct detailed
information they are not getting, so they can understand what remedies they should provide.
Chair Magnuson, in an attempt at clarify, explained that Mr. Ostrosky brought forth an application
two years ago to the Planning Commission. The Commission voted in favor of his application at
that time. However, it went to the City Council and they denied the application. There was a
considerable amount of opposition voiced by many of the non-Mendota Heights neighbors. Now,
there was an opportunity to try to reguide the property through the Comprehensive Plan Update
and the Commission included it initially in the draft Comprehensive Plan for reguiding. Again,
there was a lot of opposition raised with respect to that inclusion in the plan. Given the fact that
there was opposition, given the fact that the City Council previously denied it, at the workshop the
Commission concluded that this proposal probably should get an independent review. That does
not preclude Mr. Ostrosky from coming forward at a later date with an application for an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, once it has been completed, and the Commission could
consider it on its own merits and fully discuss the issues before them once again.
The Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council and they have no idea what
the City Council will do with it. However, the Commission did not think it appropriate to try to
sort of shove this through in the Comprehensive Plan when they knew that the City Council had
previously denied it.
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 20
Mr. Bob Janecek, 1665 Lexington Avenue, is a 35-year resident, lives directly across the street
from Mr. Ostrosky, and fully supports what he is trying to do. He explained that what we have is
a bunch of deteriorating woods that look terrible. This last winter storm has caused it to deteriorate
even more. In the past two years he has spent $12,000 in taking out dead trees on the back of his
lots. Mr. Ostrosky has the same problem. They are the only area that is not developed on those
corners. He understands all of the people in Lilydale who oppose anything being done. In the future
he is going to stop maintaining the properties beyond his; he has been maintaining it for 30 years
and all they tell him is that they do not have the money. For instance, one year he had a $900 water
bill watering the grass on their property. Basically, he approves any kind of development in this
area. He is now too old to properly maintain his own property and that is why he is going to do the
same thing Mr. Ostrosky is. He is going to try to redevelop his property.
Ms. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, voiced her opposition to allowing Twin Homes on single-
family lots.
Mr. Carol Crockett, 4890 Cook Drive, White Bear Lake was in attendance to speak on behalf of
her personal opinion. Seven years ago she drove up into the driveway of 1680 Lexington Avenue,
Mr. Ostrosky’s property, and wondered why he was there surrounded by condominiums as it did
not fit the characteristic of the neighborhood. Speaking as a non-resident, they are not looking at
taking away from the unique gem, they are looking at preserving the beautiful surroundings and
allowing other to have the opportunity to live there; possibly has a condominium or town home,
enjoying the unique gem. The city is lacking affordable housing to transition from a single family
to a multi-leveled dwelling. Some families that have lived in Mendota and other communities, like
herself, find a comfort knowing that they can stay in their neighborhood and community and
possibly enjoy city living on an acreage setting.
She has sat in on other meetings and several Lilydale residents have come in opposition of the
property becoming medium density. Yet they live with High Density being within a couple
hundred feet of this unique gem. If one were to do an aerial view of the residence, it is one house
sitting with a condominium next to it with a huge driveway that someone could walk down and
practically touch his. They are not looking to blocking the views, they are just l ooking at fitting
into the characteristic of the neighborhood.
Ms. Cindy Johnson, 1755 Victoria Road South, stated that she is not for allowing twin homes in
Low Density residential. She also lives near an area that is being re-guided from Low Density to
Medium Density and is concerned about the increased density in the Medium and High Density
areas. She reiterated comments she has made before; changing and updating the densities and
having the designations she has no problem with. However, she asked for a different solution,
something like different levels of Medium and High Density so that it is capped out to what is
currently on the ground.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked Ms. Johnson if she had a chance to review Policy 2.2.7 under
Goal 2.2. She replied in the affirmative and stated that she believed it came about at the workshop.
Commissioner Mazzitello read Policy 2.2.7 “Redevelopment of exis ting MR-Medium Density
Residential and HR-High Density Residential properties are to be limited to no greater density
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 20
than currently exists.” Ms. Johnson stated that as long as this is legally binding in the
Comprehensive Plan and City Code that is satisfactory.
3) TRANSPORTATION
For the sake of expediting the meeting, Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he had no comments
on the Comprehensive Plan until Chapter 10.
There were no other comments from the Commissioners or from the audience
4) PARKS AND TRAILS
Ms. Cindy Johnson returned and explained that she had sent an email to the Commission and staff
indicating that some of the things in Chapter 4 had not been corrected. Table 4-1: there are no trails
at Marie Park; there is a pond on park property at Victoria Highland Park.
She was also confused by a comment on page 4-8 that reads “Mendota Heights analyzed 2.8 miles
of the corridor between Delaware Avenue and Marie Avenue and between Wagon Wheel Trail
and Mendota Heights Road” – Delaware Avenue and Marie Avenue are perpendicular or are they
saying from that corner to Wagon Wheel Trail and Mendota Heights Road – when those two roads
do not intersect. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that he had done some investigation when she
questioned him about this: Delaware and Dodd do meet all of the way up on the north end of the
city – Delaware, all of the way south on Dodd, to Marie is what that is referring to. During the
Highway 149 reconstruction design phase, there was a lot of talk about pedestrian facilities along
that corridor.
Mr. Jonathan Ehrlich, 1044 Douglas Road, referenced figure 4-2 Bicycle Facilities and Plan Map,
noted that there is a green line indicating an existing paved trail along Highway 13, between
Victoria and Lexington. Most of this trail has signs along it saying that bicycles are prohibited.
5) HOUSING
There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 20
6) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jonathan Ehrlich returned to make a general comment about the Comprehensive Plan in
regards to Economic Development. He stated that Economic Development of the city really is, in
some ways, dependent on the ability of people to be able to afford living in the city and to be able
to expand the number of people living here. He has heard people commenting that they want more
restaurants, grocery stores, etc. in the city and he wanted to point out that these types of
developments cannot happen without population.
Has lived in Mendota Heights for 19 years, for which he is grateful because he knows that, despite
for the fact that his income has increased substantially over that time, he could never afford a home
in Mendota Heights any more. The value of land has increased in part because of the incredible
restrictions on density and development in the city. The resistance towards multi-family
development, the resistance towards lot splits, the resistance towards any increase in density in the
city overall is hamstringing the quality of life within the city, hamstringing the ability for the city
to develop on the public amenities that residents actually want; and locking people out of the ability
to afford homes in the city. He hoped the Commission would keep these under consideration as
they develop the Comprehensive Plan.
7) NATURAL RESOURCES
There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience
8) RESILIENCE
There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience
9) CRITICAL AREA
Commissioner Noonan made the observation that staff did a good job in terms of picking up the
discussions had at the workshop and many of the items that they spent 3-hours talking about at the
workshop were picked up and incorporated into the first nine chapters.
10) IMPLEMENTATION
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the Implementation chapter is divided into sections based on
the preceding chapters. So each chapter in the Comprehensive Plan has its own two page write-up
in the Implementation chapter. He noted that the write-ups for Chapters 2-7, the Implementation
goals do not match the goals that are in the individual chapters. The Implementation summaries
for chapters 8 and 9 do match the goals that are in those respective chapters. He suggested that Mr.
Benetti simply copy the chapters into the tables and go from there. Mr. Benetti replied that he
could do that very easily.
Mr. Benetti asked if they had any comments about the priority levels or the timeframes in any of
the tables. Commissioner Noonan noted that some of the actions listed to not relate to the goals;
for example, 2.1 narrowly talks about updating the zoning code.
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 20
Commissioner Mazzitello pointed out that Goal 2.1 in the Implementation chapter should read
“The land use plan will serve as the foundation for land use decisions in Mendota Heights”;
however, it currently reads “The City will update the zoning code to conform to the land use plan.”
To talk about a timeframe or a priority level for one of the policies that supports that goal is not
serving the goal properly. He suggested that the Council meets one more time – close the public
hearing, have one more workshop to update these tables, and move it on to the City Council. Or
they could leave the public hearing open if they wanted to take public testimony on priorities.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti and City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that
with one Councilor being out of state, the Commission has time to have another workshop meeting
to nail down everything, to make sure all of the maps are clear and cut to where they need to be,
all of the tables are set up, and add the narrative language that Commissioner Noonan requested.
Staff would like to make sure that the recommendation settled and to the Council as soon as
possible. Mr. Benetti suggested a workshop meeting sometime around May 1, 2019 when the
Councilor returns.
Chair Magnuson clarified that what she was hearing was that the Commission could do a
workshop, discuss the priorities and the goals and the implementation plan; take this up one last
time at their April 2019 meeting; possibly take public testimony on Chapter 1 0 only; and then
move it on to the City Council. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Mr. Benetti stated that if the Commission had any other additions or changes they wanted to make,
they could still make those later on, at the workshop, or at the following public hearing (if they
continue it over) – yes, it could be done easily.
Commissioner Katz expressed his agreement; as he was reviewing the tables he was counting up
how many of the priority levels were actually on each table and what type of timeframe was given.
Given the fact that the Commission is going to move some of the goals and update those with the
action items that it would be a good idea to actually evaluate all the tables together.
Commissioner Noonan, looking at the Transportation Implementation Table, noted that there was
a real disconnect between the Action Item and the Goals.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE APRIL 23, 2019 MEETING, AND BETWEEN
NOW AND THE APRIL 23, 2019 MEETING THE COMMISSION MEET IN A WORKSHOP
SESSION TO DISCUSSION CHAPTER 10 AND HAVE CHAPTER 10 PUBLISHED ON THE
WEBSITE IN SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.
Ms. Kate Christensen returned and asked that the public have more time to look through these
updates to that the Commission can get good clear input from the public. She also noted that the
Implementation Plan should be actionable. For instance, the Chapter 8 Implementation Table is a
one-for-one Goal, to Implementation, to Action and she was unsure that was what the public meant
– it should not be the exact same copy from goal implementation goal action. Mr. Benetti
replied that under the chapter statements, one of the goals has the policy statement which kind of
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 20
give the actions of what they plan to do. The Implementation table is more of an implementation
for staff, Commission, and Council to enact on or rely upon. It is more of a high level work plan.
It is not supposed to be specific, the Comprehensive Policies provide specifics.
For example, in the Natural Resources Chapter one of the recommendations is to ‘recommend the
establishment of a commission’. The work of the commission would be to prepare the Natural
Resources Plan. It would be premature and inappropriate for the Commission to dictate what that
Natural Resources Plan should be, since that is the charge being given to them.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Staff Announcements / Update on Developments
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided the following verbal review:
Planning Case 2019-01
Metro Storage LLC
Zoning Code Amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1
The Planning Commission recommended denial of this request
City Council elected to table with the idea that they would have a tour of a facility so they
could go and look at
Planning Case 2019-02
ISD #197
Variance to exceed building height standards in the R-1 district
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request
City Council also approved this request with a secondary recommendation by the Council
to send the site plan back to the Planning Commission to discuss or give a recommendation
on the access point onto Huber Drive
Planning Case 2091-03
Julie Weisbecker, 1840 Hunter lane
Lot Adjustment and Variance
The Planning Commission recommended denial of this request
City Council reversed this decision and approved the request
Mr. Bruce Bobbitt, 2455 Hampshire Court, asked what kind of traffic study the school was doing
for their access point onto Huber Drive. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that cameras
have been set up to collect data about the existing traffic movements. Then from there they will
move the passenger vehicles over to Huber Drive, show whether they would go north or south,
and projecting all of the turning movements at the intersection of Huber and Mendota Heights
Road, as well as the entrances in and out of the school.
March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 20
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:54 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0