Loading...
2019-04-23 Planning Comm MinutesApril 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 13 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 23, 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, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Michael Toth and Brian Petschel Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of March 26, 2019 Regular Meeting Minutes and April 15, 2019 Workshop Meeting Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26, 2019 REGULAR MEETING AND THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 15, 2019 WORKSHOP MEETING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-08 ISPIRI, LLC ON BEHALF OF BREANNA ZARMBINSKI & PAUL SHREWSBURY, 916 ADELINE COURT VARIANCE REQUEST Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Ispiri, LLC on behalf of Breanna Zarmbinski and Paul Shrewsbury; a request for Variance to encroach 8.8 feet into the 30-foot front yard setback to build a front-entry/foyer addition. The property is zoned R- 1 Single-Family Residential and is located at 916 Adeline Court. The subject property is a trapezoidal shaped parcel approximately 0.36 acres in size and contains a 4,62 8 square foot one- story walk out rambler home. This item was heard under public hearing and notice was published in the local newspaper and letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received an email voicing support of this application, which has been made part of the public record. April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 13 Mr. Benetti shared images of the property in its current state and a rendering of what the property would look like should this application be approved. He also explained the variables the Commission must consider when deciding on a variance: 1. Practical Difficulties i.) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance ii.) The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner iii.) The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood iv.) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties 2. Impact to the Community i.) Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community ii.) Existing and anticipated traffic conditions iii.) Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety iv.) Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan v.) Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty The staff report included the applicants’ and staffs’ responses to the above listed variables. Staff recommended approval of this request. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that the 22.2 feet from the front property line included the front porch. Mr. Benetti replied that it did not include the front porch. Commissioner Corbett noted that Condition F.v. claims that within one year of approval the applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition and asked what proposed garage. Mr. Benetti replied that it should have read front entry/foyer addition. Commissioner Noonan stated that he was wrestling with the justification and asked Mr. Benetti his thoughts on what the practical difficulty actually is. Mr. Benetti replied that he believes the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Circumstances unique to the property is somewhat suggestive; however, the curvature of the front lot line is unusual. Also, the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood and there are no economic considerations. Ms. Breanna Zarmbinski, 916 Adeline Court and Mr. Adam Bender with Ispiri, LLC were available for comments and questions. Ms. Zarmbinski explained that this is the home she grew up in and she and her husband have purchased it from her parents. They are updating the property and making it their home. Chair Magnuson asked, if the porch was not part of their plans, how much impact would that have on the whole concept of their remodel, or if it was something that could be modified or work around to come into closer compliance with the setback requirements. Mr. Zarmbinski replied that one of the functionalities is that the home currently has a very large great room with a small closet April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 13 area, but not a lot of space for people to sit and remove their shoes or winter gear. They are trying to create a more functional area and that is the reason for the foyer. The idea of the porch was to continue the curb appeal of the home similar to the neighboring properties. 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 NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-08 VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 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 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 matching and small-scale addition to the existing home is a reasonable use of the property; ii.) the curvature of the front property line of the subject property creates a unique situation for the owners to add on to the home on the front area of the house; iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this residential area will not be affected by the approval of the Variance; and iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable addition to the front-yard space of the property, and for this reason the request is not 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. April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 13 D. Approval of this Variance is for 916 Adeline Court 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. 2019-08, dated and presented April 23, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this 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: i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 8.8-feet into the required 30-foot front-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (per Planning Case File No. 2019-08). ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling. iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. iv.) 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. v.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition. Commissioner Noonan stated that he was having a hard time seeing the practical difficulties. The staff report talks about the reason for the variance was to accommodate an expansion that provides greater convenience on the inside of the house. The granting of the variance should not be a convenience to the application. Saying that the nature of the house on the inside provides a rationale does not rise to meeting the practical difficulty test. He questioned how far the Commission should go to protect the zoning and the setbacks, which are established for certain reasons. He believed that this would make the granting of variances rather trite. Commissioner Mazzitello explained that the reason he chose to move this application for approval, and he partially agreed with Commissioner Noonan, was that, although the practical difficulty definition was weak but he could see the rationale behind it. The existing floor plan of the house really has no foyer space whatsoever. The front door opens into and covers the closet and empties right into the family room. What they are proposing is to have a foyer space, which is relatively common throughout the city, in the front entranceway of the home. Because the initial construction of the building, the shape of the lot, the curvature of the lot line – constructing that foyer space inside the existing frame of the house is not practical. It is difficult to be practical. Because of what has already been built and plumbed within that house – stairwell, bathroom – are things that do not get moved in renovations. He could see where there was a difficulty in obtaining that foyer space within the existing building footprint and abiding by the setback. April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 13 Commissioner Noonan said, with that argument, one could say that an existing floor plan of an existing house could meet the test of practical difficulty if someone wished to create something significantly at odds with the original. Commissioner Mazzitello understood what Commissioner Noonan was saying; however, each Variance request stands on its own merit. In this particular instance, although he agrees that the practical difficulty test is weak, he could see where there is a difficulty in updating and renovating this home to current standards. Chair Magnuson agreed that if the Commission were to continue granting variances based solely on reasonableness without a strong showing of practical difficulty they undermine the zoning ordinance. She commented that she would be interested in seeing if the front porch could be smaller so the encroachment becomes de minimis. Commissioner Katz shared his opinion that if one were to make this amount of remodeling to the house, it makes a lot of sense to change structurally the interior of the house and that it, in many ways, meets the definition of practical difficulty. He would support the motion on the floor. Chair Magnuson stated that all she has heard is that the shape of the property could possibl y contribute to the practical difficulty, the home is not really susceptible to be creating a foyer internally given the layout of the current home, and there are older people in the family who need to sit down to remove their shoes. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the property to the east has a very similar front porch; although it sits back further from the property line because of the curve of the cul-de-sac. So meeting the character of the neighborhood is met. Commissioner Katz stated that the granting of this variance would be in line with what is going on in the Comprehensive Plan with the encouragement of remodeling of homes so that multiple generations can use and stay in the home. Making these adaptations of things like this is helpful. Again, approving the Variance would be in line with that type of effort. It was noted that the new Comprehensive Plan has not yet been approved. Chair Magnuson called for the vote. AYES: 3 (Mazzitello, Corbett, Katz) NAYS: 2 (Noonan, Magnuson) ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 7, 2019 meeting. April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 13 B) PLANNING CASE #2019-09 PHILIP & MARGARET JOHNSON, 2458 BRIDGEVIEW COURT WETLAND PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Philip and Margaret Johnson; a request for Wetlands Permit to remove an existing deck and construct a new 685 square foot deck off the back of the home. The property, located at 2458 Bridgeview Court, is situated next to a fresh water pond. This item was heard under public hearing and notice was published in the local newspaper and letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received one phone call from a neighboring property owner who had no objections or concerns and voice their support of the project. Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property in its current state and a rendering of the proposed deck. He then shared the 23 standards and conditions of a Wetlands Permit, as listed in Title 12-2-7. He noted that all major construction related to the building of the new deck should have little, if any, effect upon the adjacent wetland and that the existing rear yard buffer would remain virtually the same. The Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) recommends a 25-foot no- disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge, which this property and neighboring properties appear to have and would not be affected by this work. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the new deck surface would be impervious. Mr. Benetti deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Noonan asked for the size of the old deck. Mr. Benetti did not measure but he believed it to be a little bit smaller than the new. Commissioner Noonan noted that the old deck was on stilts and asked for the relationship of the new deck to the ground. Mr. Benetti replied that it would be the same elevation with stilts. Mr. Mark King from Infinite Decks, contractor, came forward on behalf of the owners who could not be in attendance. In response to the questions asked by the Commission, he noted that the new deck would be on the same level (approximately 9 feet off the ground) as the old and would be using the majority of the existing footings. Any new footings installed would be of helical piles, which will be driven in; no concrete and no soil removal. The surface will be permeable. Commissioner Noonan asked how much larger the new deck would be from the old. Mr. King replied that it is approximately 40 square feet larger. 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. April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 13 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-09 WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The planned development of the new deck is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed deck meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the City Code Title 12 Zoning for the R-1 One Family District and City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems. 3. The proposed deck structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code. 4. The proposed new deck project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive areas of the adjacent wetlands, due to the unaltered shoreland area, and the proximity and separation of the structure from the wetland. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The new deck structure shall comply with all standards and rules under State Building Code regulations and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code. 2. The new deck structure work shall comply with or exceed the applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. Any new excavating, grading and/or 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. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 4. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the deck project is completed. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 7, 2019 meeting. April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 13 Unfinished Business A) MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Chair Magnuson explained that this was a continuation of the public hearing on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. There have been a number of public hearings over the course of the last year or more with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. She expressed her appreciation to staff for all of their hard work on this project and, in particular, she expressed appreciation to the residents who worked so hard and volunteered so much time and effort to review the various drafts and bring the Commission such thoughtful and insightful comments; many of which were incorporated into the final product. Public Comments Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that he agreed with Commission Noonan and Chair Magnuson regarding Variances. The legislature eliminated the hardship rule about seven or eight years ago in favor of practical difficulty. By doing so, they threw the ability to make good decisions about Variances in the absolute chaos. The Chair expressed an appropriate concern about that this evening because it is easy to find ‘practical difficulty’. In regards to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Friel stated that after watching the video of the March 26th meeting he had further comments and questions to add to the email he sent to the Commissioners in response to Mr. Benetti’s list of 30 proposals [Draft 04-23-2019, Pages 2-14 to 2-17] in the draft. Although he represented a number of members of the community, he promised not to use up the 27 minutes used by Mr. Ostrosky and his entourage in addressing a matter not on the agenda at the last meeting. Mr. Friel has lived in the city for two-thirds of his nearly 90 years and has watched its careful development from a township to a village to a city; plan to preserve open spaces and wooded areas; and to control density and the traffic it produces. The city is a well located community, convenient to both cities and the airport. The city is virtually fully developed and the quality city has benefited from a long history of good leadership and careful planning. He was concerned that many of the 2040 land use proposals have much to do with pleasing the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and little to do with serving the people of the community and maintaining the development philosophy that has made it such a desirable place to live and raise a family. The development philosophy that has served the city well has been with the land use categories described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He has not heard any good reason to change any of them. It would be unconscionable to increase the densities of any of the land use categories and they should remain at their current levels. Mr. Friel then addressed the following areas under “Land Use Changes from 2030 to 2040 Comprehensive Plans”: April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 13 1) 340 – D Street. He questioned the site’s current use [Manufacturing] and asked what was manufactured there. He then wanted to know if the owners had asked for the designation to be changed to Industrial. Mr. Benetti replied that staff did not know what was being manufactured at the site and the owners did not request the change; however, they have been informed and have made no response to the city. Mr. Friel shared the information he had found on the ownership and use of the site; that being the owners are deceased, the property is delinquent in taxes, and appears to be vacant. Mr. Friel then moved onto a discussion of Figure 2-3 “Lots Sizes for 2030 Planned Single Family Land Use Map” and noted that this map was not included in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and questioned where it came from. Mr. Benetti replied that this map was prepared by Stantec as a reference to general lot sizes throughout the community as it currently exists. Mr. Friel noted his understanding that this map showed ‘proposed lot sizes’ rather than actual. Discussion incurred and Mr. Friel was made to understand that the map indeed showed current actual lot sizes. To prevent any further or additional confusion, Commissioner Noonan suggested that the title be changed to “Existing Lot Sizes for 2030 Planned Single Family Land Use Map”. 5) Augusta Shores / Lemay Shores Townhomes. He questioned why these developments, which were guided Low Density Residential, were proposed to be guided Medium Density Residential. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that these are a zero lot line development that are not allowed in the R-1 zone or Low Density Residential guidance. Even though these were approved through a Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, the Medium Density Residential designation is more appropriate for their current use. In response to his concerns about the properties being re-developed in the future to a higher density than they are currently, Chair Magnuson pointed out Policy 2.2.7 that reads “Redevelopment of existing MR-Medium Density Residential and HR-High Density Residential properties are to be limited to no greater density than currently exists”. Mr. Friel suggested that this Policy Statement is inconsistent with the primary and controlling provisions of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which guide medium and high density use, and is also inconsistent with the zoning ordinance which will implement the 2040 Plan. Policy Statements never trump either the primary land use guides or the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Friel then asked what specifically was meant by the term “current use”. It is difficult to look at the list of Land Use Changes from 2030 to 2040 without noticing that the basis given for the change, in 24 of the 30 items, is to reflect the current or existing use. He questioned the need for professional planning to make that decision if all that is being done is adopting the existing use. In closing, Mr. Friel expressed his hope that the City Council would reject these recommended Land Use Changes just as quickly as it rejected this Planning Commission’s recommendations to sell two parcels of Wentworth Park land worth $40,000 to $50,000 without an appraisal for $1,000. Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, took a broader perspective on the Land Use section of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Since the founding of this city generations of city fathers have adopted an approach to careful and prudent development that has resulted in a city that holds a special place in all of the suburbs of the Twin Cities. His first claim is that the provisions of the April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 13 Land Use section of the 2040 Plan under consideration jeopardizes that record. He then read a letter, titled “Density in Minneapolis”, that appeared in today’s Star Tribune that underscored his point. The author points out that the City of Minneapolis has denied the need for any study of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and its likely cumulative effects. The Plan will intensify land use in virtually every square inch of the city. This has relevance to Mendota Heights is that the comprehensive plans under consideration in Mendota Heights and Minneapolis – and probably other cities in the area as well – are copies in many major respects to the THRIVE 2040 Plan that the Met Council is considering. The last time Mr. Smith appeared before the Planning Commission he pointed o ut that in considering the 30 land use changes to individual properties by lumping them all together is denying due process to the individual owners. At that time, the Chair took umbrage with this statement and said that the Commission has been transparent in dealing with this issue. Mr. Smith pointed out two things: 1. The notification to the land owners of these properties did not specify that if they wanted to change the land use provisions of their property, these changes would have to be approved by the Met Council. 2. These land owners were not notified that the professional who presented the Draft 2040 Plan to the city is identified on the Met Council website as a Comprehensive Plan Professional that any city might consider calling upon. He asked the Commis sion to consider the question of whether a professional that this city has hired to guide the comprehensive plan process and who is also identified on the Met Council website constitutes a conflict of interest. Mr. Smith continued by saying that the Land Use section of the plan currently under consideration does not address the interests of the city or its residents. It clearly addresses primarily the agenda of the Met Council. Consulting Planner Phil Carlson of Stantec clearly, on the record, serves the interests of the Met Council. In Mr. Smith’s opinion, the Land Use provisions of the plan under consideration is a discredit to the city and to its residents. He found it very interesting that the most detailed and critical analysis of the flaws in the Lan d Use provision proposals, approximately two-thirds of the properties that are specified in the current version of the comprehensive plan – the Land Use section – that analysis, which was submitted to the Commission by email, has come from a private citizen and raises the question of why this body did not carry out a comparable, critical, and careful analysis of the flaws in those Land Use provisions. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, has lived in Mendota Heights for almost 50 years. He was very puzzled in reading the draft comprehensive plans for the city; he has seen a lot of changes being made from the old plan. He questioned why this was since, from what he has known for a long time, everyone is pretty happy with how they live in Mendota Heights. He was on the City Council for almost 12 years and during those years they did a comprehensive plan in 1979. They struggled hard on this plan, they had a consultant, and they had some tough times with the Met Council from them wanting to influence the city on how the city has density. The consultant went to work for the city and they fought hard for the density that is had now. If the Met Council had won the city would not have minimum 15,000 square foot lots. He raised the concern of how the April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 13 city got to where it is. The consultant for this update is Stantec Consultants. Stantec is very close to the Met Council; to the point they have Stantec writing expert articles for comprehensive plan practices on the Met Council website. He asked how one expert writing for the Met Council could also represent Mendota Heights. Mr. Carlson, working for both parties, has a conflict of interest. He is a good man but he cannot be loyal to two conditions at the same time. In regards to Chapter 7 NATURAL RESOURCES and Chapter 8 RESILIENCE, Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, read a letter on behalf of many community members. The letter expressed their appreciation to the Planning Commission for working with community members to craft two new chapters for the Comprehensive Plan. Natural Resources and Resilience are exceptionally important to include in the plan as the city looks to the challenges and opportunities facing the community over the next 20 years. A copy of the letter will be provided to each of the Commissioners. Ms. Cindy Johnson, 1755 Victoria Road South, spoke in reference to Chapter 7 NATURAL RESOURCES by saying that having participated in this process and having learned much from it, she thanked the Commission, as well as former Chair Litton Field, for their earnest work, attention to detail, and their willingness to not only listen to residents but also to address the residents’ concerns. She also thanked the Commission for their carefully and well thought out decisions in crafting this plan and challenging the work of the consultants and making those changes in this plan. She appreciated the time, the effort, the work, and the standards to which the entire Commission followed throughout this process; she believed this has become a much better plan for it. Ms. Sue Light, 2270 Wagon Wheel Court, noted that at the Workshop Meeting last week Chair Magnuson said that she really listened to what the citizens had to say; Ms. Light believed it because of the changes made and the considerations shown to the residents. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Chair Magnuson asked the Commissioners if they had any additional comments, changes, or corrections. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that he had eight, seven of which were more grammatical and punctuation in nature. He was willing to give those seven to Mr. Benetti to be incorporated into the draft to go to the City Council. Referring to the edited red-line version of the draft Comprehensive Plan that was on the city’s website and emailed to the Commissioners, Commissioner Mazzitello suggested the following: 1. Page 2-8: there is a comment under Medium Density Residential that the number of units would be decided by the Planning Commission upon completion of the public hearing. He proposed that this number remain at 8 units per acre; he then provided his rationale as to why. April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 13 2. Page 6-3, Goal 6.4: they went through Chapter 10 IMPLEMENTATION and edited the tables for the verbiage in the Implementation Goals – the same edits need to be made in Chapter 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Goal 6.4 should read ‘developed and redeveloped community, commercial areas’. 3. Page 6-4, Goal 6.5: should read ‘Business and Industrial Park areas’ 4. Page 7-2, Goal 7-1, Policy 7.1.2: at the workshop the Commission talked about the difference between a Commission and a Committee for crafting the Natural Resource Management Plan and establishing the Commission. What is currently written as the addition from staff is “This Commission may begin as a Committee, and can remain so, until such time that it is incorporated into the city code with bylaws.” He believed that they heard in a vast quantity of public testimony as the desire for a Commission. He proposed that this second sentence read “This Commission may begin as a Task Force, whose charge would include the establishment of the bylaws and city code necessary to establish the Commission”. Items 5, 6, 7, and 8 were all grammatical in nature. Commissioner Noonan said he would support Commissioner Mazzitello’s recommendation with respect to the 8 units per acre. In terms of what is reasonable for medium density and what has been the experience with two medium density developments – he believed that 8 units per acre is reasonable and could be advanced with good type housing that is compatible with the neighborhood and provides for that diversity in housing opportunities. Chair Magnuson raised her concerns about the 8 units per acre as it is a big jump from 4.35 as in the past. However, in looking at the materials that Mr. Benetti provided with respect to the comparisons of a number of surrounding communities, 8 tends to fall in the low end. In light of the conversation about the need to try to make Mendota Heights affordable for people and to have a diversity of housing, if the Commission was too restrictive the only option then becomes doing these projects by ignoring the density requirements. That would not be good either. She wanted to stick to her comment that if the city is going to have standards, then they need to stick to the standards; and do not make them unrealistic so they cannot be met. She did not like the 8 units per acre but she understood the reasoning. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE DRAFT MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH EDITS DISCUSSED THIS EVENING TO BE MADE BY STAFF BEFORE THE COPIES ARE FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL, DATED APRIL 23, 2019 Discussion Commissioner Mazzitello stated that for the last year the Commission has heard comments, received emails, received letters, been visited in their front yards about how the Commission is trying to fundamentally change the City of Mendota Heights. He commented that this has already been done. All the Commission is doing is reflecting what has been done for the past 60 years of development. There are high density residential developments, none of which meet the old April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 13 standards for high density residential development; there are medium densities developed at 8 units per acre when the standard was just over 4; and there are twin homes being developed in a single family zone. The Commission is just trying to reflect what the city has on the ground. They are not trying to fundamentally change the city. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) Chair Magnuson expressed her appreciation to all of the residents who took the time to read this document, time after time after time, as difficult as it was to follow draft by draft. Please know that the Commission really appreciated everything they did. The Commission took to heart all of the comments they received, whether they agreed with them or not; there has been spirited discussions; and the Commission has tried to be as open and as engaged in the process as possible with all of the citizens who wanted to participate. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided the following verbal updates: Planning Case 2019-05 Nick and Liz Banovetz, 1751 James Road Variance to Encroach into the Side-yard Setback Did not go to Council as the applicant was out-of-town. This has been delayed to the May 7, 2019 City Council meeting. Planning Case 2019-06 Charlie Co. Design, acting on behalf of John and Theresa Cosgriff, 1875 Hunter Lane Critical Area Permit and Variance Approved by the City Council The application made by Metro Storage on the self-storage uses code amendment went to the City Council; however, they desired a tour of one of their facilities. The intent is to bring this back to the May 7, 2019 City Council meeting. Adjournment COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:31 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel) April 23, 2019 To: Commissioners Michael Toth, Patrick Corbett, Brian Petschel, Mary Magnuson, John Mazzitello, Michael Noonan and Andrew Katz: As residents of Mendota Heights, we would like to express our thanks to the Planning Commission for working with community members to craft two new chapters for our city's Comprehensive Plan. We believe that both Chapters 7, Natural Resources, and Chapter 8, Resilience, are exceptionally important to include in our city's Comprehensive Plan as we look to the challenges and opportunities facing our community over the next 20 years. We appreciate the Commission's willingness to listen to community input not as an exercise, but as an authentic effort to understand and weigh the merits of this input and to integrate it into this very important forward-looking document. Best Regards, Alexis Ludwig-Vogen, 1580 Boardwalk Ct. Angela Gallant, 1008 James Court Beth Pearlman, 1773 Diane Road Boyd Ratchye, 2270 Wagon Wheel Court Brian Aukema, 707 Evergreen Knolls Carla Breunig, 656 Sibley Memorial Hwy Donna Gies, 1926 Twin Circle Drive Elizabeth Dunham, 2153 Aztec Lane Gail Lewellan, 656 Sibley Memorial Hwy Garry George, 1773 Diane Road Ingrid Mattson, 2005 Victoria Road South Janet Favorite, 2098 Patricia St. Jill Rukavina, 1724 Vicki Lane Jonathan Zagel, 2230 Copperfield Drive Jerry Hoffman, 836 Monet Court Judy Hoffman, 836 Monet Court Julie Weisbecker, 1862 Walsh Lane Julie Woolsey, 2316 Lemay Lake Road Kelley Stoneburner, 1665 James Road Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane Lisa Lane, 1806 Rolling Green Curve Ned Rukavina, 1704 Vicki Lane Nissa Tupper, 1696 James Road Patty Krause, 1440 Cherry Hill Road Rachel Quick, 554 Junction Lane Rosemary Husbands, 659 Callahan Place Seth Tupper, 1696 James Road Sue Light, 2270 Wagon Wheel Court Tamara Will,788 Hokah Ave Thomas (Tad) Dunham, 2153 Aztec Lane Tim Gallant, 1008 James Court Tom Stoneburner, 1665 James Road