2019-05-28 Planning Comm MinutesMay 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 26
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 28, 2019
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May
28, 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
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of April 23, 2019 Minutes
Commissioner Petschel stated the minutes reflect he was present and absent, and they should
reflect only absent.
Commissioner Corbett also asked to change Page 5 - seventh paragraph down, from
“Commissioner Corbett stated…” to “Commissioner Katz stated....”
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2019 AS AMENDED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2019-10
SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, PROPERTY NEXT TO 2383 PILOT KNOB ROAD
INTERIM USE PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Southview Design was seeking an
Interim Use Permit to allow for the temporary off-site parking of employees vehicles on the
adjacent Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) owned property. The site is
generally located south of the intersection of Highway 13 and Pilot Knob Road, officially
addressed as 2383 Pilot Knob Road.
The public hearing was properly notified with letters being sent out to all property owners within
350 feet of the subject property. No objections or comments have been received.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 26
Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property as it exists today. It is very typical of a railroad
right-of-way; there being no more rails. Mr. Benetti pointed out that although the subject property
is located immediately adjacent to Pilot Knob Road there would be no access from Pilot Knob.
Southview Design is a landscaping company who hires a lot of seasonal employees who, in the
past, have had to park along Enterprise Drive. This has been tolerated but has raised some
concerns and issues.
Southview Design tried to purchase the land from MnDOT; however, it is under a lease agreement
with Dakota County who is considering extending the Big River Regional Trail east to connect
to the new Vikings facility development in Eagan. MnDOT is willing to allow Southview to
continue to lease the right-of-way space until the county makes a decision on their plans.
While MnDOT will not allow the area to be improved with any drainage improvements or any
hard surfaces, they have agreed to allow bark mulch to be placed to control weeds and some run-
off and provide some form of temporary drive-able surface. Temporary access would be provided
down to the lower right-of-way, but no direct access or driveway onto Pilot Knob Road.
Mr. Benetti shared that the City Code Section 12-1D-16 does allow for off-site parking facilities
with written authority filed with the city and as long as said parking facilities are located no more
than 100 feet from the premises at its closest point. Approval of this requested Interim Use Permit
would satisfy the written authority provision. He then explained how the eight standards for
approval for an Interim Use Permit were met in this application.
Commissioner Katz asked for confirmation that Southview Design has a lease with MnDOT. Mr.
Benetti confirmed, prompting Commissioner Noonan to state that Dakota County has a lease with
MnDOT. Mr. Benetti confirmed that was true as well.
Commissioner Toth asked to see the image of the proposed parking area and noted that there was
quite a bit of green space – foliage and trees – and asked how they planned to park their cars in
this space. Mr. Benetti replied that there was approximately 50 feet before the green space so they
would most likely pull their cars up against the boulder wall.
Commissioner Toth also asked for confirmation that there would be no access point to the parking
area from Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Benetti confirmed. All cars would enter the site from the current
access point to the facility and use a temporary access point down to the temporary parking area.
Commissioner Toth noted a yellow marker and asked if that was a gas main running parallel with
Pilot Knob and does not run down the center of the right-of-way. Mr. Benetti replied that he
believed there was a pipeline running down the center; so they would be parking on top of the
pipeline. Commissioner Toth asked if there were any other permit needs to ensure safety to and
from the pipeline. Mr. Benetti replied that MnDOT would be the permitting agency for that – or
allowance. They would be like any other private land owner, if they want to allow people to park
there it is up to them. It was asked if MnDOT was aware of this parking arrangement. Mr. Benetti
replied in the affirmative.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 26
Commissioner Katz asked if there was an estimate as to the number of cars to be parked on this
site. Mr. Benetti did not have a specific number.
Commissioner Noonan stated that a comment had been made that MnDOT would not allow any
improvements on the area to accommodate the parking other than some mulch. He asked if the
city allowed other properties to have parking areas that are not improved and if the city had
standards on how parking areas should be improved. Mr. Benetti answered that most parking
surfaces have to be hard surface – either concrete or bituminous. Commissioner Noonan asked
for a reason. Mr. Benetti replied that it was a requirement of the city code for stormwater
management. However, in this case MnDOT said they would allow the site to be used but it could
not be improved – even with Class 5 surface.
Commissioner Noonan then cited the two examples of Interim Use Permits provided by Mr.
Benetti – the Xcel and the Minnehaha Academy examples – where they met the definition of an
Interim Use because they were here today and gone tomorrow. At the end of December 2020 and
they move into the height of the season in 2021, the parking problem is not going to disappear.
So essentially the city is ‘kicking the can down the road’. Mr. Benetti agreed; however, he
believed the intention here was to match up with what MnDOT was allowing for their lease
agreement. It is a two-year timeframe. The applicants have indicated that their lease with MnDOT
expires in December 2020. If MnDOT were to choose to extend it, they have the ability to return
and ask for another 2-year extension. At that time the city can determine if they provided for a
satisfactory use in that 1.5- or 2-year period and if the extension was warranted.
Commissioner Noonan asked if there were to be a very wet spring, what rights the city would
have to go in and say they needed to address the mud and condition of the property. Mr. Benetti
replied it would most likely be a code complaint if they were tracking mud all over the roads and
not being good stewards of the land. Looking at their facility and their property, he believed them
to be very good stewards and have one of the nicest property’s in the industrial park.
Chair Magnuson said that she believed putting down mulch would some benefit to keeping that
property from being destroyed from tire tracks and heavy vehicles. However, she saw that the
mulch was an allowance but not a requirement. She asked if that was something the Commission
wanted to consider – that they be required to put a certain amount of mulch on the property so as
to protect it from any kind of heavy rain, damage, or erosion. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative
and noted that as he walked the site it was clearly a very heavily compacted base to begin with.
Putting that little bit of mulch in there is a double layer of protection. Chair Magnuson suggested
that a requirement be added that if they do not put down mulch for weed control, it at least has to
be regularly mowed.
Commissioner Toth stated that it was fair to say that since this was a previous railroad bed, they
probably did not disturb the top or the sub-aggregate, it probably drains very well, it has been
compacted, and it is not like they would be driving over green space. That packed material has
been put into place. Mr. Benetti agreed and said when he walked the property it was right after a
heavy rain and he did not see any standing water and it was very well drained.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 26
Commissioner Toth asked if the mulch would be removed and the site returned to its current state
after the Interim Use had ended. Mr. Benetti replied that there is a provision that they have to
restore the site back to the way it was. The city could also ask MnDOT what they defined as an
approved restoration.
Chair Magnuson, referring to the Findings of Fact for Approval, stated that number three reads
“The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty” and asked if the
date of December 31, 2020 shouldn’t be identified there. Mr. Benetti agreed that could be added.
Chair Magnuson then referred to number four under the Findings of Fact for Approval refers to
restoring the property but it does not require it. It also then talks about the possibility of providing
an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost. She suggested there be a condition that requires
that the property would be restored. It was noted that Condition three provided that.
Commissioner Noonan stated that restoration is important; however, maintenance during the
period is important as well. He suggested a condition be added to that affect. Mr. Benetti asked if
‘the property shall be properly maintained during the duration of the Interim Use Permit’ would
be sufficient. Commissioner Noonan like that but also suggested that something be added that
says if the city deems the site is not being adequately maintained, the applicant shall provide the
appropriate maintenance to the satisfaction of the city.
Chair Magnuson asked what amount of Mr. Benetti thinking for the ‘financial surety’ noted in
Condition three. Mr. Benetti replied that was left up to the City Administrator to determine.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the surety would be held by the property owner rather than the
city. Mr. Benetti replied that in this case it would be held by the city because the city was
providing the Interim Use Permit.
Mr. Chris Clifton, President and CEO and Ryan Slipka, Operating Officer / Partner of Southview
Design, were available for questions.
Mr. Clifton stated, in regards to the Flint Hills and the petroleum line servicing MSP, the
engineers came out from Flint Hills and they did compaction tests. They had been on board with
the Class 5 initially so they are very well aware of what Southview is looking to do. Even just
adding mulch they will have to consult with Flint Hills and there would be watch dog meeting –
they would come out and watch every improvement done within 20 feet of the gas line.
As to the number of vehicles, at this point there are 50 to 60 vehicles parked on Enterprise Drive.
This space would allow for these vehicles. It is approximately 60 feet wide and drains from south
to north. There is an approx. 5-foot drainage ditch between Southview and the north neighbor.
Mr. Slipka said they would expect the lease to be renewed without issue. As long as Dakota
County is not planning on using that land for a bike trail, they would expect to be able to keep
leasing it indefinitely. Mr. Clifton stated that Dakota County would have to pull out part of
Highway 13 and tunnel underneath, the way the land is set up now. There is a crosswalk at
Highway 13 for the bike trail. The folks at MnDOT that they have been dealing with said that
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 26
they do not foresee it coming in the near 20 or 30 years. His goal would be to, in the next two
years, during the course of this – and whether there is more direction on the extension of the bike
trail – to be able to do a more permanent compacted Class 5 base. At this point, the mulch they
are talking about doing and the access from their site should ensure that when they hit their
parking lot, let alone Pilot Knob Road, we they do not expect there to be any mess.
Commissioner Noonan asked if they would have any objection to putting a maintenance clause
or condition obligation in the permit. Mr. Clifton said they would have no objections whatsoever.
Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation that they mulch would keep the mud from tracking
onto their parking lot, their facility, and onto Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Clifton confirmed and said
that the mulch they are talking about is more of a wood chip rather than the fine ground-up mulch
typically seen in residential yards. And they are looking at a 5-6 inch depth of that.
Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation they were talking about 50-60 vehicles. Mr. Clifton
confirmed. He then asked, if the business were to expand and grow, if he saw four or five ye ars
from now the need for parking for 50 to 120 vehicles. Mr. Clifton replied that the facility they are
in currently is almost maxed out; from trucks, trailers, and their currently facility to the south (3.1
acres). At this time they are looking for space in the Maple Grove area to start to base some
operations out of there as well.
Commissioner Petschel asked if they were planning to park mostly company vehicles on the site
or parking for the employees. Mr. Clifton replied that it would be parking for personal vehicles.
Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the access point off of the parking lot to the right -of-way
area, noted that it was not part of the right-of-way so they could surface that any way they wanted.
He asked what their intentions were for that area given the concerns for possible creation of mud
and muck. Mr. Clifton replied that they would rather not pave that. Most construction sites have
a construction entrance and they would be looking at a compacted Class 5 base so there is anything
that would catch on that area they could easily blow that off and clean it off.
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
PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-10 INTERIM USE PERMIT
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 26
1. The proposed interim use allowing an unpaved off-site parking facility for Southview
Design will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property
values.
2. The proposed interim parking use conforms [partially] to the general purpose and intent
of the zoning code and comprehensive plan, including some performance standards. The
City however, supports the efforts of Southview Design to provide off-site parking for
their seasonal employees next to their business site; and will be required to keep and
maintain this site in a neat and orderly fashion, and that they shall meet all conditions
during the term of construction.
3. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty [the following
portion of this Findings was added by the Commission] (December 31, 2010).
4. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of
the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety
to cover the cost of restoring the temporary parking site upon expiration or revocation of
the interim use permit.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2020. Any extension of this interim use
permit must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least sixty (60) days prior to
the expiration date, and approved by the City Council.
2. The former railway right-of-way shall be used for the parking of seasonal employee
vehicles only. No commercial or business/work trucks, semi -trailers, storage containers,
dumpsters, refuse or landscaping equipment or materials will be allowed to be stored in
this area.
3. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety in an amount negotiated between Southview
Design and the City Administrator, to ensure the MnDOT owned property will be vacated,
cleaned and restored to its pre-parking state, upon the expiration or revocation of the
interim use permit, either by the City or MnDOT. [The following portion of this condition
was added by the Commission] The applicant shall maintain the Interim Use area in
manner acceptable to the city. Should the city deem the area needs maintenance, the
applicant shall promptly move to maintain the property.
4. Any new or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast,
shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from the adjacent Pilot Knob
Roadway.
5. No direct access to this interim parking facility will be allowed on to Pilot Knob Road.
6. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1:
INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically
reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary,
amended accordingly.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019
meeting.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 26
B) PLANNING CASE 2019-12
CHUCK MASTEL - 1341 CHERRY HILL ROAD
VARIANCE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Chuck Mastel has requested a
Variance to residential fence heights standards for his property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road.
He currently has a rear yard fence at 6-feet in height, which must be relocated due to a county
order. He is now seeking a Variance to rebuild with a high fence.
This item was presented under a public hearing and notices were published; no letters of
objections or notices from the adjacent neighbors were received.
The property is located at the end of the Cherry Hill Road cul-de-sac. Mr. Benetti shared an image
of the property in relation to surround properties and roads. The property is just over a half-acre
in size, contains a 3,468 square foot 2-story home with an in-ground swimming pool.
The applicant’s neighbor to the south had requested to re-fence his backyard and tried to match
into the fence owned by Mr. Mastel; however, the county official discovered this and said they
could not do that because they were well within the county’s right-of-way. They then sent Mr.
Mastel a letter indicating that he needed to move his fence to be outside of their right-of-way as
soon as possible.
Mr. Mastel indicated to staff when they visited the property that moving the 6-foot high fence
would have it sitting in a spot that would be three to four feet lower than its current position.
Therefore, he is requesting a nine-foot fence to keep the screening he has enjoyed for many years.
There are three standards that must be met when considering a Variance request; Mr. Benetti
explained how this application met those standards.
Mr. Chuck Mastel, 1341 Cherry Hill Road, was available for questions. He stated that the fence
had been in its current location for 32 years and he did not have a record of a variance or permit
for the installation. Midwest Fence Company were the ones who installed the original fence;
however, they only keep records for 20 years. Therefore, they were unable to provide evidence
of a variance or permit.
He also stated that if the fence were relocated at the 6-foot height, the top would be level with
Wachtler Road and he would not have any privacy. More importantly, there is the safety issue.
Anyone could put a plank from Wachtler Road to his fence and enter his rear yard; someone could
drown in the pool. He has a $1M umbrella policy but would have let his insurance agent know
the situation.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the portion of the fence he is proposing be nine feet was just
that portion parallel with the Wachtler Road. Mr. Mastel replied in the affirmative. The side yard
fences would remain at six feet.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 26
Chair Magnuson asked how he came up with nine feet. Mr. Mastel replied it is a combination of
the incline and Midwest Fence not recommending a fence higher than nine feet based on the
board-on-board style he has. It would not be as great as it is right now but it would be better than
installing a six-foot fence.
Commissioner Noonan asked what the difference would be from the current six-foot height to the
proposed nine-foot height. Mr. Mastel replied that it would be approximately three feet.
Commissioner Noonan stated that essentially he was doing the nine-foot fence to effectively
reproduce the status quo condition – the separation of approximately six feet. Mr. Mastel replied
that it would not be the same as a six-foot fence from Wachtler, it would be more like a three-foot
fence. However, that is better than being level with Wachtler.
Commissioner Corbett asked if the whole run along Wachtler was 6 feet. Mr. Mastel answered in
the affirmative and noted that it was 150 feet long in the back. This would be the portion of the
fence that would be nine feet in height. The sides that come up to his home would remain at six
feet. The top of the fence portions – from the side yards (6 feet) to the rear yard (9 feet) would
level.
Commissioner Toth asked if his fence would be three feet higher than his neighbor’s fence. Mr.
Mastel replied in the affirmative.
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 NOONAN,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-12 VARIANCE 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 a Variance to allow a residential fence height increase from
6-ft. to 9-ft. along the rear lot line, by the following:
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 26
i. the proposed increased fence height is a reasonable request on the subject property,
due to the need to relocated the fence from an elevated area to a lower level of the
property;
ii. Dakota County has ordered the removal of the fence from its current location next
to the county trail system (and even after 32 years), and thus created a unique
situation for the homeowner to keep and maintain a certain level of privacy and
screening measures from the abutting county roadway and trail system;
iii. due to the grade differences from the current fence location to new, approving the
Variance for an increased fence height does not change the essential character of
the neighborhood, as the subject property abuts residential properties on both
sides, and the residential uses on the opposite side of Wachtler Avenue are situated
far enough away that they will not be impacted by the higher fence; and
iv. the reason for the Variance request is to permit a reasonable request to extend the
privacy fence higher than the 6-ft. height standard in order to retain privacy and
screening from the county roadway, 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.
D. Approval of this Variance is for 1341 Cherry Hill Road 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. 2019-12, dated and presented May 28, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota
Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-40.
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:
i. The proposed higher fence shall require a building permit (instead of zoning
permit) as per Minnesota State Building Codes.
ii. The proposed fence shall not extend more than 9-ft. above the level grade of the
rear yard at the property line parallel with Wachtler Avenue; and must match the
current shadow-box style or design of the existing residential fence on the subject
property.
iii. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a
building permit for construction of the proposed porch/foyer addition.
WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 26
Commissioner Noonan, referencing Finding of Fact B-iv, stated that he was compelled by the
safety consideration that the applicant mentioned; given the fact that a lower fence would
effectively provide the ability to bridge Wachtler in. He proposed a friendly amendment by
requesting that they include safety in that section. Also, there had been no discussion on economic
considerations so he recommended the removal of that phrase as not being relevant.
Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the friendly amendment as stated.
Commissioner Katz asked if this essentially was a 16-foot move from the fence’s currently
location to the new. Mr. Benetti confirmed that it was approximately 15 feet. Commissioner Katz
then stated that, in his mind this would wipe out any safety concerns as he could not see anyone
riding across a plank long enough to enter the rear yard. In his opinion, the emphasis on the safety
concern should be due to the pool, which was probably why the fence was installed in the first
place. This is a safety concern because the county is saying he needs to move the fence; the issue
they are really discussing is whether or not the six-foot versus the nine-foot is the acceptable use
for this now. In his opinion, because of the grade, etc. – yes, the nine-foot still gives him the
privacy he needs, he has to move this fence, and it is still providing the protection for the property
and against the pool that is there.
Mr. Benetti pointed out for the record that, per city code, anything built over seven feet requires
a building permit. So this fence will be inspected and will have to be very well built to withstand
certain wind and snow requirements.
Chair Magnuson commented for the record that there was conversation with staff and the land
owner about the difference in grade being somewhere in the neighborhood of approximately three
feet. Her thinking is that, given that difference in grade, effectively he is putting up roughly a six-
foot fence because it is coming down to the point it might match or even be less than what it
currently there. The fact that the topography of the property exists the way it does makes putting
a six-foot fence in useless. She agreed that no one was going to put a board across a 16-foot span,
but depending on the grade it might be a lot easier to hope over a six -foot fence from an elevated
position than a nine-foot fence from an elevated position.
Commissioner Toth commented that 32 years ago, when this fence was put into place, the resident
has lived there and has had a level of privacy. Now with the changes required by Dakota County,
they would lose that privacy with the six -foot ruling. The privacy needs to be looked at as well
when making their decisions.
Commissioner Petschel noted that if privacy had been the only issue, he would have voted against
this request. They had artificial privacy as a result of having the fence further up the hill than what
would normally be allowed although that is clearly not the homeowners fault. Safety is really the
only concern here.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019
meeting.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 26
C) PLANNING CASE #2019-13
MARK & STACY ROSZKOWSKI, 660 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL
WETLANDS PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mark and Stacy Roszkowski were
seeking a Wetlands Permit to allow for the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool for
their property located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail. This property is located up against an established
Type III wetland, which is a Slightly Susceptible Wetland. Any new construction related
improvements, grading or removals requires a wetlands permit.
This item was heard under a public hearing and notices were sent to all surrounding properties
within 350 feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property in relation to surrounding neighbors and streets.
The wetland was also indicated in the images. The property is currently zoned R-1 and is guided
as LR-Low Density Residential, is 1.25 acres in size with half of it currently encumbered by a
drainage and utility easement on the back side; making for a limited amount of buildable area
there. The property has a 5,356 square foot single family dwelling.
Mr. Benetti then shared a site plan image showing the location of the proposed 14’ x 28’ in -
ground swimming pool, which would replace the current back yard patio. They also plan to install
a concrete patio deck around the perimeter. The edge of the pool structure would be situated
approximately 40 feet from the nearest edge of the creek channel with the decking approximately
36 feet from that same channel. Normally, the city requires no disturbance within 25 feet of an
established wetland.
Mr. Benetti shared the Local Surface Water Management Plan, which provides certain guides and
standards to follow for the city to follow or implement for any new development near natural
water features. This plan recommends a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone
from the wetland edge; the subject property has a very well established and natural vegetative
buffer in place. He then provided statements that met the guides and standards for the Commission
to review and consider in their determination.
Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the schematic drawing, noted that the dimension from the
creek edge to the pool is 40 feet. He then asked what the dimension was from the creek edge to
the silt fence. Mr. Benetti replied that it appeared to be approximately half that distance – say 20
feet. He then asked if it would be amiable to the applicants to move the silt fence to be 25 feet
from the creek edge (per city code). Mr. Benetti agreed this could be done.
Looking at the elevation numbers, Commissioner Toth asked if there would be additional fill
brought in on the back side of the home or would the dirt removed to install the pool be used to
fill. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative; most of the area where the patio currently exists is pretty
much where the new pool deck and in-ground pool would be located. There would not be much
grading or regrading necessary around there.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 26
Commissioner Katz asked where the rest of the fencing would be in terms of relativity to the pool.
Mr. Benetti indicated the location of the fence of the schematics – approximately 14 feet from the
pool itself and approximately 35 feet from the wetland.
Chair Magnuson, referencing Condition 3 that reads, in part, “Draining or back-flushing of water
from the pool shall be directed onto the owner’s property only, and shall not drain directly into
the creek or wetland systems”, asked how that would be enforced, especially with a grade like
this because no matter where they put the water it will flow downhill. Mr. Benetti replied that it
is usually the responsibility of the property owner to make sure they are not flushing chlorinated
water directly into the creek system. The fact remains that if they let chlorinated water drain out
onto an open space of their land, the chlorine would dissipate enough that by the tim e it reached
the natural water body it would be harmless. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that
most pools are going to burn through any chlorine in them within a couple of days. If any
homeowner does not add any chlorine for three to four days, the chlorine levels would be very
low in the pool and can be discharged in the yard.
Commissioner Katz asked for confirmation that there are no plans for an additional drain to
actually put pool discharge water into that then gets treated in some sort of city or storm sewer
system. Mr. Benetti replied the he was unaware of anything like that under this plan but he
Commission could ask that of the applicant if they wished.
Mr. Ruzek noted that the city does not have a lot of heavy restrictions. He did a quick search of
neighboring communities; Eagan basically says that it is up to the homeowners to make sure the
chlorine is evaporated but they can discharge it anywhere in Eagan. Mendota Heights could let it
connect directly to the sanitary sewer; however, most people are not filling their pool in January,
February, or March so that is not getting counted for water that is going down the sewage systems.
Commissioner Katz continued by explaining that his concern is that this is so close to the wetland
and there are other provisions that have to protect it from things like silt. The last thing he would
want to see done, because of convenience sake, when they want to dump the water in the fall or
whenever, there is this natural wetland and the just hook the hose up; no one is enforcing it so
what do they care. To him, that defeated the provisions of protecting wetlands and other things.
The Commission needs to look at something to recommend at least.
Mr. Nick Holly from Performance Pools came forward to address some concerns raised in terms
of drainage. He explained that backwashing is taking a canister of sand (typically), which is
filtering the small particles from the water and essentially pumping that out to clean the filter.
Performance Pools installs cartridge filter pieces – pleated paper cylinders – and when they get
dirty they dismantle the filter and clean out the cartridges so there is no back flushing involved
with the general filtration maintenance.
Also, there is no need to drain pools to winterize any more. They have duck plugs, one-way
valving, there is no water draining every fall. If they needed to drain to the front, they have a 3.5
horsepower pump on that would take care of that.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 26
They also install salt systems on all of their pools, which generally maintains 1 to 3 parts per
million of chlorine. To the best of his knowledge, EPA allows up to 4 parts per million in their
drinking water. They could also reduce the parts per million before any sort of draining. The only
time that would have to happen is if there was a liner replacement – 15 years or so after the initial
install of the pool.
The salt system is taking a sodium chloride blend and associating it so the chlorine can then
sanitize the pool; and does it at a very slow consistent rate versus products and other ways to
apply. As for the salt, it is 2,700 parts per million, it cannot even be tasted.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if there were a need to drain the pool, whether for maintenance
or whatever, it would have to be discharged somewhere. Mr. Holly replied in the affirmative and
stated that as long as they are allowed to drain to the street, which would be the easiest and most
reasonable way to do that.
Chair Magnuson noted that they would be pulling out a significant amount of dirt of the ground
and asked what they planned to do with that. Mr. Holly replied that their proposed pool grid,
relative to three quarters of that pool, is essentially equal or zero. The one corner is getting closer
to two feet out. He would be essentially excavating and hand full loads or dirt and bringing it up
on the deeper end corner and blending off. Based on the conversations he heard, it sounds like
they are untouchable within 25 feet of the creek, including the way the install the silt fence and
potential grading adjustments. He believes and knows that they will do that.
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
PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-13 WETLANDS PERMIT
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed construction activities related to the new pool project and allowed under
this Wetlands Permit meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility
easements will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to
the city and property owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if
needed.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 26
3. No grading or vegetation removal within the 25-foot non-disturbance buffer area will take
place or is anticipated under this project, which will ensure no negative impacts to the
adjacent wetlands feature should occur.
4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction.
5. Any disturbed areas or vegetation removed as part of this pool project will be planted in
the disturbed areas after construction is completed.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building
Regulations Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and
the Minnesota State Building Code regulations.
2. The new swimming pool and related structure work shall comply with all applicable
standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code.
3. Draining or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property
only, and shall not drain directly into the creek or wetland systems. Any drainage onto
public streets or other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate
local city officials.
4. The Owners shall provide and maintain a 25-foot wide no-disturbance/natural vegetative
buffer zone from the creek edge in order to provide an extra level or measure of erosion
and silt protection from said wetland feature.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019
meeting.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 26
D) PLANNING CASE #2019-14
JIM CARLSON, 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE
VARIANCE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Jim Carlson would like to
build a new 29’ x 34’ detached garage in the rear yard of his property at 1562 Wachtler Avenue
and needs a Variance to required setbacks for a new driveway extension to that garage. This item
had originally been noticed as a Variance with a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a larger
detached garage. However, it was determined that the Conditional Use Permit was not necessary
because he meets all of the requirements for a larger detached garage structure under 1,000 square
feet because the lot is large enough.
This item was presented under public hearing and notice was published in the Pioneer Press and
letters were mailed to all owners within 350 feet of the subject property. One letter was received
from the property owner immediately to the north; a copy of which was provided to the
Commissioners and is part of the public record.
The property is zoned R-1 and is guided LR-Low Density Residential, is 1.77 acres in size, and
has a 5,345 square foot single family residential home with a 1,153 square foot 3-car attached
garage. All single family properties are allowed to have up to 1,200 sq. ft. attached garage; and
for larger lots between 1.5 to 2.5 acres in size, one additional detached garage is allowed up 1,000
sq. ft. in size. The proposed garage by the applicant meets this size limit.
Mr. Carlson provided a detailed survey showing the location of the existing driveway where it
sits today at 12.5, 13.9, and 19 feet off the north property line. The proposed site plan showed the
driveway extension coming off of the side of the garage, the new garage in the back corner
meeting the 10-foot setbacks as required by code, and the location of the proposed driveway
extension. At the closest point is an 11 foot 3 inch wide driveway, requiring the 2.5 foot variance
from the side yard setback.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property, noting the possible need for a retaining wall
along the side because of the grade differences. The shed shown in the rear yard would be
removed as part of this project. He also pointed out the grade differences between the proposed
location of the driveway and the other side of the property. In Mr. Carlson’s opinion, it fits better
in the proposed location.
Mr. Carlson indicated to staff that, as far as any alleviating any screening or potential visual
impacts to the neighbor, he would provide for some type of screening measures such as some
evergreens or some pampas grasses or something else of that nature. He is also looking at
providing for some permeable pavers to ensure that this area will handle some of the stormwater
drainage if requested or required.
Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met when considering a Variance request and
explained how this request met those standards.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 26
Commissioner Corbett asked for confirmation that the land the proposed driveway would be on
is graded towards the neighbor’s property. Mr. Benetti confirmed and stated that more than likely,
he would have to provide for some type of grading and a retaining wall along that side to ensure
that the driveway is nice and level.
Chair Magnuson asked who owned the fence along that side. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed
that Mr. Carlson did. He plans on retaining the fence.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if he was reading the new schematic correctly in that there would
be 11’3” between the pavement edge and the property line; and 2.5 feet between the pavement
and the property line. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted in the packet a survey that had been completed in April 2019;
however, he was not seeing any drainage or utility easements around the property lines. He asked
if they existed. Mr. Benetti replied that this is Lot 32 of the Auditors Subdivision No. 3 but he did
not believe there were any utility easements; probably due to the time it was platted.
Without any geographical reference, Commissioner Katz asked if it had been evaluated whether
or not the driveway could be put down Wachtler, in the opposite corner. Mr. Benetti replied that
he possibly could; however, this area has a creek and there is also a considerable grade difference.
Mr. Jim Carlson, 1562 Wachtler Avenue, commented that he does not like leaving things outside.
He believes in a garage as a way of keeping the neighborhood looking nice and preventing his
neighbors from staring at his junk. He would like to store his fishing boat, riding lawn mower
with attachments, snowplow, and other items if he decided to obtain them. He also stated that it
would mostly be used for cold storage in the winter and that he would probably not even plow
that part of the driveway.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he was having a conflict in terms of the usage and the needing
a concrete driveway for it if was not going to be used in the wintertime. His thinking was that in
needing a concrete driveway to go to the shed, why wouldn’t the shed not be part of an expansion
of the existing garage, which already has a driveway to it; or building out from that garage if its
intended use was for garage storage and not as a traditional shed. Mr. Carlson replied this his
existing garage has a stairway going down through the basement in the front of the garage. He
would rather have a garage out in back dedicated where he could put his items in it and not have
to deal with them being in the garage and the house. As for the concrete driveway, he really did
not want to put in a concrete driveway; however, Mr. Benetti had brought it up to him that there
were permeable pavers. He went to a supply company and there are nice pavers that are 2’ x 2’
sections with holes. He could put them down, put dirt back in them and plant grass and he believed
it would blend into the yard pretty well. He is leaning more towards the permeable pavers now
rather than concrete.
Commissioner Petschel asked if there was any reason why he did not consider putting the new
garage in the opposite corner of his lot. Mr. Carlson replied that the creek area is down there, it is
wooded, and can be seen from the street. The proposed location already has a shed, it is screened
and it would look good back there and not take away from the beauty of the property.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 26
Chair Magnuson asked if it would be possible to simply add a section on the back of the current
garage. Mr. Carlson replied that there is a staircase in the garage that starts right in the middle of
the garage and goes down to the basement; so they would not get much out of that. Chair
Magnuson explained her confusion in that he already stores his work vehicle, his vehicle, and his
companions vehicle in the garage; clearly the stairs are not in the way of those items and she
wondered why it would cause a problem with expanding the garage. Mr. Carlson pointed out on
the survey image the location of the staircase. He also stated that he has a nice tree garden on the
rear that would be lost.
Commissioner Toth noted that the dimension of the planned garage is 2 9’ x 34’; he then asked
what the peak of the roof would be. Mr. Carlson replied that he did not know that yet. Mr. Benetti
replied that detached garages could not be more than 15 feet in height.
Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Carlson used the pavers, would they count as impervious
surface. Mr. Benetti replied that the city does not have an impervious surface percentage
calculation requirements. He asked for commentary on the transition between pavers and a
concrete driveway – one that would necessitate a permit and one that would not. Would the move
from a concrete driveway to 2’ x 2’ pavers negate the need for the variance. Mr. Benetti replied
in the negative because a driveway is a driveway, whether it’s concrete or some other material.
Mr. Carlson needs a driveway to access the garage, the city does not want people driving back
and forth across their yards to access their detached garages. Commissioner Petschel then asked
if it was part of their functional definition of a garage is that it has to have a driveway. Mr. Benetti
replied in the affirmative. If it looks like a garage it needs to be permitted as a garage and it has
to have a drivable surface to it.
He had suggested the permeable pavers just because of the impact of that side yard and looking
where the drainage would obviously go. He felt it would be a better solution to maintaining the
drainage pond as much as possible.
Commissioner Corbett asked how many of the trees along the fence line would be removed; it
appears that every tree along that fence line that may be blanketing the garage from the neighbors
view would have to be removed. Mr. Carlson replied that he did not believe that many would be
removed. He estimated at least two or three of the ten located there. It is a beautiful site an d he
has no desire to remove very many trees at all. If he did have to remove any he hoped to plant
some back in again afterwards.
Commissioner Toth asked what materials the proposed garage would be made of. Mr. Carlson
replied that he had no plans at the moment; but he had thought about vinyl siding that would
match the house or maybe stucco. He would not want white but possibly a sand color to match
the brick on the house. Steel shingles like on the house are pretty expensive and he probably could
not do that; however, he would try to make it fit into the motif.
When asked, Mr. Benetti replied that the garage has to match architecturally the principal
building. The city does allow for color matching if the house is brick or stucco and they want to
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 26
match it with vinyl, lapboard, or wood siding. The city would like for the roofing material to
match as close as possible.
When asked if he would consider building off of the front of the current garage, Mr. Carlson
replied that it would not look good and would take away from the beauty of the neighborhood
and the property. His neighbors would kick him out.
Chair Magnuson asked if he had considered a smaller driveway. Mr. Carlson replied that his
fishing boat is an 18’ Lund and it requires a truck to back it into the garage. He questioned if he
could accomplish that with a narrower driveway.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Trojack, 786 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that he did realize until this evening that there
was no need for a Conditional Use Permit for the garage building. He assumed the reason it was
accepted is because of the size of the lot. The reason that would be the case was that it was not
expected that the building would be built right on top or close to a neighbor’s property with that
size of a lot. One would think that there could be a building a ways away.
He and his wife have been living on his property since 1988; 30 or more years. They moved from
Macalester-Groveland where they had alleys up and down behind the buildings. This driveway is
as close to an alley as he has ever experienced. One of the reasons they moved to Mendota Heights
was because they liked the open space. The property behind him had a great stand of trees and
the previous owner, before he died, took very good care of the place. They would hate to see what
they would consider an alley put in right behind their property and then have this large building,
which has to be served by the driveway. They do not see why it could not be moved away from
their property and the driveway put in a different direction.
Mr. Carlson currently has a driveway apron on the other side of his home where two cars are
normally parked. If the property was so problematic that he could not have a building on that
same side, why would he consider it level enough for a nice concrete apron. Mr. Trojack did not
believe it was reasonable, considering the size of the lot, to do what is proposed. He did not
believe it serve the neighborhood to have this kind of a precedence set where they could put an
alley driveway right behind someone else’s property.
This plan is also detrimental to Mr. Trojack’s property values, as indicated in his letter. He spoke
to his appraiser and was told that this would definitely decrease the value of his home. Also, there
is a good stand of trees behind the fence on Mr. Carlson’s property and Mr. Trojack did believe
that most of them would be standing afterwards.
In summary, Mr. Trojack stated that this would be very damaging to the neighborhood, there is a
good alternative on the other side of the property that should be considered, and he believed they
should not have this place next to their property.
Mr. Chris Shepard, 792 Upper Colonial Drive, said that initially when Mr. Carlson came by and
proposed this his reaction was OK because it was his property. He did not know to what extent
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 26
this would affect his own property. He was concerned about the drainage and asked that the
Commission make recommendations to prevent snow buildup and then runoff and water runoff
under any wet weather event. He understands that impervious pavers is probably better than
concrete and he was happy to hear that was in play.
The other concern were the sight lines; he pointed out the trees on the shared image. If they were
to build a driveway there, they were hoping to have some sort of privacy fence be included or
something that would account for the shrubs, etc. that are in place now.
As to Mr. Trojack’s idea of placing the garage on the other side of the house, he would be in favor
of that position.
Mr. Carlson returned and stated that as of right now, there they are talking about water runoff.
There is a grade right now that when it rains the water is running into Mr. Shepard’s yard. He
wants to put a retaining wall in there to raise it up because it is hard to mow and dirt is washing
away. Also, what Mr. Trojack pointed out on the south side of the house is not level . There is a
steep bank going down into the driveway and then when you hit the yard there is a great big hill
on the side. It would be hard to be tearing up all of the landscaping to put a garage in there. A
person would have to haul in a lot of dirt and fill to get the grades. It would be pretty tough; it is
not flat like he claimed.
Chair Magnuson asked what the plans were for the chain link fence. Mr. Carlson replied that he
did not want to take the chain link fence out because of the open sight lines and he likes seeing
his neighbors.
Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
TABLE PLANNING CASE 2019-14 VARIANCE REQUEST AND DIRECT STAFF TO
EXTEND THE APPLICATION REVIEW PERIOD.
Commissioner Noonan provided his reasons as follows:
There have been questions asked and answers not given
There has been considerable discussion about the possibility of building on the other side
of the house
There is anecdotal information provided without any materials to show what the elevation
is, etc.
There are questions with respect to what is the appearance of the garage going to be like;
this is important given that one of the tests the Commission has to find is that it would not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 26
o An ugly building can be erected and it would fundamentally alter the character of
the neighborhood
o Vegetation could be stripped away and it would fundamentally alter the character
of the neighborhood
He did not feel comfortable with the information to be had to make an informed decision
Commissioner Toth provided his reasons as well:
He felt he could not make a decision as this time as he wanted to look at the property
There are too many unanswered questions, the same as mentioned by Commissioner
Noonan
Councilmember Petschel asked under what circumstances the Commission would approve this.
What is the pass/fail criteria with which to approve this?
Commissioner Katz noted that they do not have enough information to approve this. The other
points and the seconded of the motion is that the Commission wants more information before
making a decision.
Commissioner Noonan stated that one of the findings they need to make is does it fundamentally
alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He did not have enough information to make
that determination.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised that this matter would be tabled until June 25, 2019.
As a point of order, Commissioner Mazzitello reminded the Commission that they were
considering a side-yard setback Variance for a driveway. The garage has nothing to do with the
question they were being asked to consider.
Commissioner Noonan replied that but for the garage, the driveway would not be necessary.
Commissioner Mazzitello agreed and stated that the garage could be discussed; however, it could
not be considered as part of the Commission’s decision on the driveway. Commissioner Noonan
stated that if the garage was not proposed the driveway would not be either, so they are connected.
Chair Magnuson agreed.
Commissioner Corbett suggested to the owner, since the third bay in the current garage was not
blocked by the stairwell to the basement, he could put in a second garage door on the backside
and extend a drive through garage from the current garage. Mr. Carlson replied that he had thought
about that but he would end up knocking down more trees, ruining the appearance of the nice tree
garden out there right now. He pointed out on the photographs why it would not feasible.
Further discussion occurred on alternatives and the Commission suggested that they be brought
back for due consideration.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 26
E) PLANNING CASE #2019-15
NONA MOSVICK, 1133 ORCHARD PLACE
LOT SPLIT - SUBDIVISION
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Nona M. Mosvick was
requesting approval to subdivide her property located at 1133 Orchard Place. A subdivision
request must obtain city approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by
Dakota County.
This item was presented under a public hearing with notice being printed in the Pioneer Press and
letters being sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the affected parcels. No objections or
indications of support were received.
The subject site is a square shaped 1.04 acre parcel of land located in the mid-block between
Lexington Avenue and Orchard Circle and has an existing 1.5 story split level single family home
with 4,404 square feet of finished floor space. The home has a dual access U-shaped driveway
off Orchard Place with a large open space area on the western edge. The proposed split would
create a new parcel in this west area, which Ms. Mosvick’s son plans to develop for a new single-
family home.
Parcel A, the proposed new parcel, would have 100 feet of roadway frontage and 214.5 feet of lot
depth, creating a 21,451 square foot (0.49 acre) parcel. Parcel B, containing the current single-
family dwelling, would have 111 feet of frontage and the same 214.5 feet of depth, creating a
23,810 square foot (0.55 acre) parcel. Once the 30-foot easement is taken into consideration,
Parcel A would be 18,451 square feet or 0.42 acres in size and Parcel B would be 20,480 square
feet or 0.47 acres in size. Both parcels would meet the 100-foot frontage requirement, as well as
the minimum lot size. Their surveyor is working on adding the new perimeter drainage and utility
easements required along the front, sides, and rear lot lines of each parcel.
In terms of the average setback rule, the average setback between 1133 and 1139 is approximately
57 feet. Staff has requested that any house built on the new lot has to match or maintain that
average setback rule.
Chair Magnuson noted that the property slopes down; therefore, a fair amount of work will need
to be done to deal with drainage issues, access issues, etc. She asked if anyone knew the plans for
that. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not know what those plans were; however, that would
typically be handled during the building permit process.
Commissioner Toth asked Mr. Benetti if he had walked this lot. Mr. Benetti replied that he walked
it from the road. Commissioner Toth then asked for confirmation that the new lot is a buildable
lot. Mr. Benetti replied that it would be buildable assuming it was approved with the 100’ x 215’
size. Commissioner Toth then asked if it would impact drainage to the residents to the west. Mr.
Benetti replied that all of that would be reviewed and reconciled during the building permit
process.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 26
Mr. Matt Mosvick, the son of Ms. Nona Mosvick, stated that they were looking to do the lot split
and then he would build a house next to her to allow her to stay in her home as long as possible.
As far as any of the grading, he has had several builders out there and he knows they are going to
have to fill a lot in the front and then come down level to the house to the west. The front would
be filled and then they are looking at a walkout to the back.
A few trees will have to be removed; however, the majority are black walnuts that the neighbor
will be happy to see go. Also, a maple tree in the middle will need to be removed, which will
make Xcel Energy happy.
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: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-15 LOT SPLIT
– SUBDIVISION REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed lot split request meet the overall spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code
and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any
negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard
setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along
Orchard Place.
3. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are
comparable in size and frontage to other lots in the neighborhood.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. As part of any new building permit application on Parcel A, the Applicant/Contractor shall
submit full grading and utility plans subject to review and approval by the City; all work
and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
document; and all erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction,
and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on each parcel site
until each have been properly restored.
2. Front-yard setback for any new dwelling structure from Stratford Road shall be a min. of
57-feet.
3. The applicant shall dedicate new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the
certificate of survey prepared by Johnson & Scofield Inc., dated 04/30/2019; or by
recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County.
4. Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before
the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 26
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Mr. Mosvick asked about the Park Dedication Fee. Mr. Benetti replied that this is a standard fee
that the city adopted into the fee schedule for a long period of time. State law allows cities to
either require developers, whenever they are platting out multiple lots, to either have to dedicate
out a certain percentage of land for parks, open space, drainage area. In Mendota Heights case,
whenever they create a new buildable lot or a new potential residential unit, there is a $4,000 cash
in lieu of payment for that. Mr. Mosvick stated that he could understand that fee for a developer
putting in multiple lots; however, for splitting one lot that is a pretty excessive amount of money.
Chair Magnuson replied that there was nothing the Commission could do about that as it is written
in the code.
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019
meeting.
F) PLANNING CASE #2019-16
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – FENCE STANDARDS
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that staff had a zoning code
amendment for the Commission to consider. Part of the reason for bringing this forward was that
a few weeks ago he was approached by a lot of fence companies and residents wanting to put up
solid screen fencing. One of them did a lot of phone calling and political reach-out so City
Administrator Mark McNeill asked him to bring this to the Commission to see what they would
have to say.
He noted that whenever anyone builds a fence in the city they are required to have a certain
percentage of openness; 30% in Mendota Heights. Historically, the city has allowed for the
alternating board or shadowbox design. In the city’s definition, this meets the 30% openness
requirement. The city also has a lot of individuals or residents who have fenced off their front
yards that have said that three feet is not enough to contain a good size Labrador or very energetic
two or three year old child who wants to play in the front yard. They are asking for a 42 inch or
four foot high fence.
Referencing Section 12-1D-6: Subpart C.2 that reads, “Conditional Use Permit Required for
Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6’) in height and with a security arm for barbed wire shall
require a conditional use permit”, expressed his desire to change the wording to ‘and/or’ or just
‘or’.
Staff also recommended changes under the Permitted Encroachments onto Public Ways section.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of what the city currently permits, a nice fence with a lot of openness
but not a lot of privacy. He then shard images of what a lot of residents are asking for – the solid
screening fence.
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 26
He understood the reason for the openness rule, which was to allow for wind and airflow so that
plants on the other side would not get burned out. When speaking with fence companies they
claimed they never heard of that rule or need.
In summary, staff requested:
Section 12-1D-6: A. Fences in All Districts, under Subpart 3. Construction And Repair
o Removing the 30% opacity rule and moving the provisions for fences on
industrially zoned property (next to residential uses) to another section
Section 12-1D-6: B. Fences in Residential Districts: Height, Style and Location
o Allowing for a maximum height of four feet rather than the previous 36 inches for
front yard fences
o Fences in front yards shall consist only of chain-linked, or a decorative style fence
such as picket, wrought iron, alternating board or shadowbox style fence
o Rear yard: if the rear lot line is common with the side lot line of an abutting lot . .
. may be fenced to a height of four feet (rather than the previous 36 inches)
Section 12-1D-6: C. Fences in Business And Industrial Districts
o Fences may be erected along the property line and to a height of six feet
o Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned
property shall be erected along the property line and shall be one hundred percent
(100%) opaque and at least six feet (6’) in height
o Fences over six feet (6’) in height [or] [and/or] with a security arm for barbed wire
shall require a conditional use permit.
Section 12-1D-6: D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways
o Fences greater than four feet (4’) in height (as opposed to the previous 36 inches)
but no greater than six feet (6’) in height – striking the 30% open phrase – may be
allowed to encroach . . . through administrative approval by the Public Works
Director and Community Development Director (or their assigns) – rather than
approval by the engineering department
The Commissioners had length discussions around chain-link fencing, the location of certain
types of fencing on the property line or set inside the property line for maintenance, the reason
for the 36” height limitation (which no one knew why), the definition of ‘decorative fence’ having
an openness factor assigned to it, the requirement that business and industrial zoned properties
abutting residentially zoned property must have a fence and that fence shall be erected along the
property line and shall be 100% opaque, and what the current ordinance required versus what was
being suggested.
In regards to residentially zoned properties, consensus of the Commissioners was that 6-foot,
100% opaque fences in the rear and side yards; 4 -foot open-type fencing in the front yard were
permissible.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Mr. Matt Mosvick, 1133 Orchard Place, since he was planning on putting in a fence himself was
curious and that was why he stayed after his planning case had been heard. He noted the case
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 26
heard earlier this evening where a nine foot fence was being installed and would meet up with a
six foot fence. He commended that if he were the six foot fence owner he would not like that. He
suggested they think about making a gradual decline from the nine foot fence to the six foot fence
to it would not be so stark; it would be more aesthetically pleasing.
He also commented that he has had a fence for 30 years with the staggered board. When looking
at it straight on it appears to be a solid fence. However, when looking from the side it can be seen
through. He suggested they consider safety with a solid fence due to the wind factor. Even with
his staggered fence, he has had a few sections get blown down in the past.
Ms. Debbie Smith, 1088 William Court, stated that she and her husband, Dewey, tried to get a
solid panel polyethylene privacy fence because they have a tremendous amount of cars going by
and it is very noisy. Mr. Smith stated that he is 68 years old and he is tired of maintaining an old
fence. He would like to install a fence that is maintainable, looks nice, maintains their privacy,
and prevents the car lights from shining into their yard. They are also concerned about safety in
that they have had burglars try to scale their fence and if they had a solid fence they would not be
able to get a foothold. Luckily the police have scared these burglars before they got inside.
Mr. Dan Larson, 1961 Walsh Lane, has worked for Midwest Fence for the last 23 years. He
explained that when the code was written many years ago, the standard privacy fence was a
stockade style, white cedar, manufactured panel. The pickets were rough and thin and they were
fastened with small nails or staples. The rails were 2 x 3, not 2 x 4 as used today. They were sold
at retail outlets and design to be a do-it-yourself (DYI) product. These panels typically failed
quickly. Panel failure would lead to property damage and/or unsightly residential yards.
Today, these panels are not manufactured. Over the last 30 years, the fence industry has evolved
to make huge advancements in product performance and longevity. For example, composite and
PVC privacy manufacturers make styles that withstand wind loads between 90 and 130 miles per
hour. They are windblown tested at Miami Dade County. They do not decay or require staining,
painting and come in a variety of styles and colors, from light white, neutral, and dark and wood
grain texture. Cedar privacy fences today are typically installed with concrete set posts on by six
dimension boards, galvanized rain shanks, stainless or similar nail, and 2 x 4 rails.
The residents of Mendota Heights, under the current code, have an extremely limited selection of
privacy styles to choose from and are usually surprised when they are advised of the city
requirements. With the exception of a handful of cities within the metro area, Mendota Heights
has an antiquated code, that if amended would allow residents to privatize their back yards with
products that are dressier, unique, and long lasting.
Commissioner Corbett asked if he could build a shadowbox fence with PVC material. Mr. Larson
replied that there is one manufacturer that makes one. It is extremely costly.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 2019-16 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – FENCE
STANDARDS UNDER THE DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 542
May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 26
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised that this matter would be tabled until June 25, 2019.
It was also noted that the public hearing was still open as it had not been closed.
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Developer Director Tim Benetti informed the Commission that the 2040
Comprehensive Plan would be presented to the City Council on Tuesday, June 4, 2019. He also
provided highlights and recommendations that came out of the workshop meeting.
The City Council did agree to allow a storage facility through a Conditional Use Permit with a
quarter-mile separation factor rather than the 300-foot separation factor recommended by staff.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:47 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0