Loading...
2019-06-25 Planning Comm MinutesJune 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 26 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 25, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 25, 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 May 28, 2019 Minutes The following edits to the minutes were noted:  Page 9; Findings of Fact E) the resolution number needs to be completed  Page 14; Condition 3 should read “. . . and shall not drain directly . . .”  Page 18; middle paragraph should read “. . . moved from Macalester-Groveland . . .” COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2019, AS AMENDED AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-17 EDWARD SWEENEY, 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request from Mr. Ed Sweeney to replat his personal property into three separate lots. The property is located on the northeast corner of Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue and addressed as 777 Wentworth Avenue. This item was presented under a public hearing and notices were published in the local paper and notices were mailed to everyone within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received no written comments or objections to this application. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the subject property and noted that it is 3.22 acres, with 0.7 acres considered as County Road #8 right-of-way. There is an existing 2,108 square foot single-family June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 26 dwelling with a two-car tuck-under garage, a detached garage, and shed, and another accessory shed/structure. If approved, all three lots would meet the applicable R-1 District standards. Lot 2, with the existing dwelling, could potentially be split in the future into two conforming residential lots under a separate lot split request and consideration. The proposed lot 3 has an existing creek channel and no new development, surfaces, or structures would be permitted to impact that area. This area would be subject to a Wetlands Permit. The trail along Wentworth Avenue encroaches over what would be considered the new property line for Lot 2. Unless the County requires this right-of-way line to be readjusted, the city will request the Applicant provide a separate trail easement along the southerly borders of Lots 1 and 2, which can be the same 10-foot width as the new drainage and utility easements in this area. Dakota County is scheduled to review this preliminary plat at their next meeting of July 8, 2019. Should the county determine that they would require a 50-foot dedication, the lots would still be compliant for size and area, widths and setbacks in the R-1 zoning district. Commissioner Noonan asked if the County recommended the 50-foot right-of-way would the city have the discretion to adopt or not to adopt the recommendation. Mr. Benetti replied that since it is a Dakota County right-of-way they have the right to ask for or require whatever dedication they desire. He then asked if they were intending to, sometime in the future, make that roadway a four- lane road instead of the current two-lane road. Mr. Benetti was unable to provide an answer. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that the County standard right-of-way is 100 feet so they would be asking for half of the right-of-way. He was unaware of any plans by the County to urbanize Wentworth and Wachtler. Commissioner Petschel, referring to the recommendations in the Findings of Fact #4, asked if Lot 3 refers to the current Lot 3 (future Lot 4). Mr. Benetti replied that it only refers to the current Lot 3. There is no proposed Lot 4 at this point. The concept drawing with the four lots was only a rendering of potential future plat locations. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that Dakota County has standards for access distances from intersections and asked if, in discussion with them, if they made any comments about a minimum distance requirement from Wachtler. Mr. Benetti replied that when staff meet with Mr. Sweeney and his representative they wanted to ensure that, before they provided any type of driveway entrances on the Wentworth side, they worked those out with the County. The concept renderings shows the driveway coming out as far away as they could from the intersection. However, the County has the final say and can locate the driveway where they want it to be. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that, based on the grading on the site, there would probably not be access available onto Wachtler. Mr. Benetti agreed. Commissioner Mazzitello then noted, just for information for the public, the city ordinance does allow for lot splits when the parent property is owned by the same person. He then asked for an explanation of why this is a plat versus a lot split. Mr. Benetti replied that it is because there are three lots being created. The ordinance says one can only split one parcel into two. Initially the June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 26 discussion was for a four-lot subdivision. Staff directed them to prepare a preliminary and final plat. By the time they submitted the application they came up with this three-lot design because Mr. Sweeney decided he wanted to stay in his home for now. Chair Magnuson noted that in the recommendations there is a reference to what Dakota County does with respects to the right-of-way; however, there is not contingency for possibility that an easement might be required if they remain at the 30-feet rather than 50-feet. She then asked if they needed to do that or if it could be dealt with in the final plat. Mr. Benetti replied that trail easements are done by separate document – they cannot be shown on the plat. He believed that to be a county rule. If the city determines that this right-of-way line would remain as is, he and Mr. Ruzek would recommend the city create a new trail easement across Lot 2. That would eliminate the encroachment issue. If that is known after the County meeting, staff could come back under the Final Plat and make that as part of the conditions of approval. Staff recommended approval of this application. Mr. Edward Sweeney, 777 Wentworth Avenue and Mr. John Sonnek (5417 Centerville Dr., Minnetonka) of Charles Cudd Co. were available for questions. Mr. Sweeney noted that he would give the easement. They had no additions to the staff report. 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 NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-17 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SWEENEY ADDITION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code 2. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. 4. A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 3 will require compliance with applicable land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are o negative impacts to the surrounding water body and natural environment. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $8,000.00 (for each new lot) and in lieu of land dedication, is collected after City Council approval and before the final plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 26 2. The Applicant shall dedicate necessary right-of-way along Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue, per the direction of the Dakota County Plat Commission and/or County Surveyor; and reflect those dedications on the final plat. 3. The concept plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building layouts or setbacks. Final layouts and setbacks must meet R-1 Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 4. No development, grading or construction activity on Lot 3 will occur on slopes over 33% as shown in the hatched area of the preliminary plat. 5. All new construction and grading activities on Lots 1 and 3 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. 6. The existing (and non-conforming) 16’ x 30’ accessory shed/structure on the back corner of Lot 1 must be removed within 6-months after final plat approval and prior to the city allowing any new single-family dwelling building permit to occur on said lot. 7. A wetlands permit must be obtained prior to any proposed development activities or new home permit activities on Lot 3. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2019 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2019-18 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #197 – HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request, from Independent School District #197, was for a number of variances for construction of a new aquatics (pool) center, gymnasium, and entry to the Henry Sibley High School located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. This item was presented under a public hearing and notices were published in the local paper and notices were mailed to everyone within 700 feet of the subject property. Staff received one letter of objection, a copy of which was provided to the commissioners. The Henry Sibley High School facility is located in the R -1/R-1A District and is guided as School/Institutional in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It will eventually become a Public-Semi- public site under the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Public schools are considered a permitted use in the R-1 zones. Background and New Requests In May 2018, the voters approved a $117M bonding bill for the school improvements, including some of the improvements under consideration at this meeting. In October 2018, the school district presented plans to reconstruct the football/track field area, along with other athletic fields in the June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 26 north campus, which were requested under variances to certain height standards. The City Council approved this request under Resolution 2018-78 and that work is now in progress. The proposed new aquatic center would be 110 feet by 190 feet along the east side of the main school building and would house a new Olympic sized swimming pool with locker/changing rooms and visitor viewing stands. The aquatic center is proposed to be 35 feet 8 inches in height. The proposed new gymnasium addition would be 135 feet by 180 feet along the south side of where the existing gymnasium is located. The projected maximum height of this new gym is 50 feet 5 inches measured at the east and south elevations. They also plan to have a loading/storage area underneath the gym with loading doors facing out towards Delaware Avenue. This proposal included a small extension and addition to the front school entryway with an overall height of 31 feet 2 inches. City Code Section 12-1E-3.D says that any structure or building in the R-1 District must not exceed two stories, or twenty-five feet, in height; thus the need for these variance requests. Flat roof structures are measured at the edges; items such as solar panels or mechanicals are exempt. Lastly, this proposal included a new one-story administration addition to the west side of the school facility, but at 16 feet 4 inches in height it is not included in the structure height variances requested under this application. Parking As indicated in the October 2019 meeting, high schools require one parking space per seven students plus one for three classrooms. Based on the current student and room count, they only need approximately 228 spaces. They currently have 573 parking spaces and plan to install 97 new spaces under the aquatic center. They also plan to restripe the central parking area between the school and the aquatic center, from 50 spaces to 36 spaces. The combined parking would be 133 spaces. Utilizing the same space configuration required for Athletic Fields (1 space for each 3 seats), the aquatic center alone would require 139 spaces. The Planning Commission was tasked with determine if these 133 available spaces, plus the ‘regular school’ parking spaces, would be adequate and sufficient to handle the parking needs of the aquatic center if full capacity is ever reached. Considering this Athletic Field calculation requirement, the October report indicated the new football field would have a seating capacity of 2,000 seats, so 667 spaces were needed; the current number of 573 plus the new spaces under the aquatic center would equate to 670 spaces; meeting the zoning requirement. School representatives have indicated that they would not double-book or schedule same day/night extra-curricular and athletic events; thereby avoiding any possible over-parking of the campus. This was also made as a condition in Resolution 2018-78 “The Applicant shall not hold another event on the site at the same time as a varsity football home game.” June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 26 Traffic As part of the October 2018 Athletic Field improvement request, the district provided a traffic report from Spack Consulting, which essentially found that the ‘proposed multi-use stadium, and associated football game traffic, does not represent a significant transportation impact to the surrounding roadway system and will not significantly alter traffic flow or parking operations in the surrounding community.’ Variance Considerations Mr. Benetti explained the practical difficulties tests that must be met in order to approve a Variance request:  The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance.  The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner.  The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The staff report included responses from the applicant and staff to these tests. Other variables the city can consider when granting or denying a Variance are as follows:  Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community  Existing and anticipated traffic conditions  Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety  Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan  Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty Staff recommended approval of this application. Chair Magnuson noted that the recommendations for approval or denial, as listed by staff, were in block; not variance by variance. However, they really are considering three difference variance requests; one for the aquatic center, one for the gymnasium, and one for the entryway. Mr. Benetti confirmed and noted that the Commission could either approve all three together under one motion or they could separate them out into three motions. Chair Magnuson stated that she did not understand why the traffic report was included in this application since it is not really dealt with in the recommendations. Mr. Benetti replied that this was provided to address the ‘effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community’ and ‘existing and anticipated traffic conditions’ as listed under Other Variables. It was m ore for assurance. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for confirmation or clarification on the following three points:  The traffic considerations and the parking requirements were for the site as a whole  The parking requirements for the aquatic center are not limited to what is being added June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 26  There is an access point off of the main parking lot into the school where people could use the pedestrian breezeway to get to the aquatic center Mr. Benetti confirmed all three points were true. Commissioner Mazzitello then noted signage on both the gymnasium addition and the aquatic addition. He asked if the approval/denial this evening would predicate the need to apply for a sign permit for the new signage on campus. After brief discussion, it was determined that the curr ent building sign had been approved under a Variance. Commissioner Mazzitello, in an effort to ensure all bases were covered, asked that Condition #1 be amended to read “The Applicant shall obtain a building permit and/or sign permits for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein.” Mr. Benetti agreed. Commissioner Toth, referencing the Friendly Hills Middle School gymnasium addition, noted that at the time Mr. Benetti explained that the height of the new had to be equal with the existing. However, in this application is says that the new gymnasium would exceed the current gym building height by just over five feet. Mr. Benetti replied that this was the way Friendly Hills designed their new addition; however, if they had desired to go higher by 15-20 feet they could have. Commissioner Toth then asked if the solar panels, mechanical, and equipment for the building was included in that five foot additional height. Mr. Benetti was unable to answer as the building height included an upper parapet wall. There is not a parapet wall on the aquatic center so the solar panels will be seen and are not part of the building height variance. Commissioner Noonan noted a discrepancy in the height of the aquatic center; page 7 says 34 feet 8 inches and the drawing on page 5 says 35 feet 8 inches. Mr. Benetti confirmed that the height is 35 feet 8 inches. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the three changes being proposed, asked if a variance was not requested they would be able to do this as a right. Mr. Benetti replied that if they could build in the 25-foot height restriction, then yes they could. Ms. Jennifer Anderson-Tuttle with LSE Architects provided the following clarifications:  The height of the existing building is actually 65 feet  There are parapets within the elevation of the aquatics and those are shown in the walls themselves – the 35 feet 8 inch height includes the parapet  There was a question regarding the functionality and the heights and if it could be accommodated at a lower elevation – the heights that they have proposed have all been driven based on function. In order to achieve the 25 foot clear structural height within the gymnasium that is required for high school basketball, the depth of the structure required, the roof thickness and the parapet that is required – that is why the 35 feet 8 inches. Chair Magnuson asked the question that was included in the letter of opposition – if there was going to be an in-ground pool, why the building had to be 35 feet; why couldn’t it be lower and closer to the 25-foot level. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied by referencing the section drawings. The June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 26 site changes in grade along that edge. On one side they are actually closer to being 20 feet in height; it is the other side that is at 35 feet. They are trying to balance the soils and the structure within that angle. The pool is in-ground and then some of the height is dictated by the functionality – spectator seating, one-meter boards, three-meter board – all having required NCAA clearances. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Ms. Adrienne Meyers, 491 Deer Run Trail, West St. Paul, lives directly across Delaware Avenue from the proposed aquatic center. She was reluctant to comment as she supports an aquatic center for the school, she voted for it, and as a community member she hopes to be able to use it. She would much rather have engaged in the dialogue with the school district about the proposed height variance and the effects on their locality than to hear about it for the first time in a letter from the city a mere 10 days ago. They would have like to share with the district their concerns about the traffic noise bouncing off of a 35-foot wall that is 190 feet long, blocks sunlight to her property, light pollution from signage, and loss of privacy and reached a consensus on some mitigation efforts. That did not happen so here she is – reluctantly. The tests for approving a variance is the practical difficulties test. The district has the burden to establish there are practical difficulties in complying with the 25 foot height restriction. It has not met its burden. First and foremost, the variance would fundamentally alter the essential character of their locality. The proposed 35 foot height of the aquatic center must be considered in the context of its proposed length – more than 190 feet long; and setback – the minimum of 30 feet from the property line. Delaware is a residential street from Cherokee Park to Argenta Trail. Please picture in your mind the tree-lined avenue of established homes, a country club, and parks. By contrast, picture a massive 3.5 story concrete paneled wall looming over Delaware for almost 200 feet, two- thirds the length of a football field. There is no question that the scale of the wall is extensive and would be far out of scale with the other building along Delaware. The districts asks the Commission to only consider only the Sibley Campus as the relevant locality; not the adjacent neighborhood. The district says there are other buildings on the Sibley Campus that exceed the height restriction; however, those buildings are located on the interior of a 67-acre campus hundreds of feet from the property line. Thereby mitigating the effect of the height of those buildings on the locality. Those buildings are buffered by great exp anses of hills, earthen berms, landscaping, and trees. There is presently no building on the Sibley Campus of any height near the setback line. On the plans submitted by the district, there is no room for earthen berms and little room for trees or landscaping, all of which surround Sibley on its western and northern borders. The height of the wall would also alter the essential character of their locality by causing a direct and substantial loss of sunlight and a reverberation of traffic noise into the nei ghborhood. She requested the Commission consider the precedence they would bet setting – to allow buildings built on a setback line to exceed the height restriction by 10 feet. The second factor of the practical difficulties test is reasonableness. The district has not established that its request for the height variance is reasonable. The district has not satisfactorily explained by a building for an underground pool and a 3-meter board needs to exceed 25 feet in height. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 26 Third, there are no circumstances unique to the property weighing in favor of the variance. To the contrary, the relatively high elevation of Delaware and the Delaware sites compared to the other elevations on this 67-acre campus, is a unique circumstance that weighs against the requested variance. For these reasons, the district has not met its burden to obtain the variances and she asked the Commission to recommend denial of the request. As she mentioned earlier, they have had little opportunity to talk to the district about the variances and their effects. They would welcome the opportunity to speak with them, whether the variance is approved or not. She spoke with Mr. Mark Fortman, Director of Operations last week in response to an email she sent to Superintendent Peter Olson-Skog. Mr. Fortman asked her to email him their concerns and ideas, which she did last Thursday [June 20]. She has not received a response. So while she believes the district has not met its burden to obtain the variance, if the Commission is inclined to approve it she asked that they table it to next month so they could have a meaningful dialogue with the district. She also asked that they impose conditions on the variance that relate directly to, and are directly proportional to the effects that would be created by a 35-foot high 190-foot long wall:  Move the aquatic center further away from Delaware to mitigate the loss of sunlight, allow for earthen berms, trees, and landscaping and provide for sound buffering and visual screening.  Require building materials and design modifications to provide acoustic mitigation from traffic noise echoing off of the wall  Prohibit lights and signage on the wall facing Delaware to enhance the aesthetics of a wall that would be facing a residential neighborhood and prevent light pollution  Prohibit windows on the wall from which spectators or other users brought by the aquatic center to peer down into their yards and windows Mr. Pete McCall, 460 Nature View Court, lives directly across from Sibley High School. He supported what was said by Ms. Meyers. However, he had a few questions also. The traffic study referenced earlier only dealt with traffic from the football stadium and stated that it would not represent a significant transportation impact. He asked if they also included or should they have included, or should the Commission request an updated study to combine the aquatic center together with the multi-use. Commissioner Noonan replied that there is a condition that the stadium use would not be at the same time as the aquatic use. The multi-purpose stadium represents the worst case traffic condition. Mr. McCall asked about the creation of pedestrian crossings. Now there is significantly more traffic with three entry points to the campus off of Delaware. He understood that none of those were being changed. If one were to look at the two entry points to the north, there are no pedestrian crossings lines. This was brought up earlier by residents of his community and they were rejected. He asked the Commission to have a dialogue about this. He is concerned about pedestrian access June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 26 from their neighborhood to the pathways in Mendota Heights. He asked what considerations have been given to help pedestrians. The third point he wished to make was the public use of the pool. It was represented by the school district that – and he wanted assurances that the availability of the pool would be open to the public at certain hours of the week. He would like to have a condition put on that would mandate public use at some reasonable hours and times. Chair Magnuson, with respect to the crosswalks, she has been informed that Delaware is a State Aid Highway; therefore, the city has no jurisdiction. They can ask the county to consider some pedestrian crosswalks but they cannot mandate it or impose it as a condition. If they request was in conjunction with the school district request it might have more impact. Mr. John Meyers, 491 Deer Run Trail, West St. Paul, is proud Henry Sibley High School graduate. He too voted for the bonding bill and supports a new pool. He was on the pool committee where they discussed this three times approximately eight months ago. The pool they discussed in those meetings sort of resembles this pool; however, many changes have been incorporated. Specifically, where the pool is located. He provided hand-outs for the Commission and shared them on the screen. He stated that the location for the pool addition, as it is called on the map created by the district, is what the stakeholders of ISD 197 voted for. An addition adjacent to the existing gym, with plenty of green space buffering the building from Delaware Avenue. An addition rising from the elevation of the existing building and grounds parking lot – not from the elevation of Delaware Avenue. Referring to Planning Report 2019-18 sent out by Mr. Benetti, specifically the applicant’s response to the third practical difficulties test that reads “The heights of the proposed HSHS additions are all less than the current height of the existing high school. New addition buildings finishes and colors are similar to those of the existing HSHS.” He believes this is comparing apples to oranges. There is a building in the center of practically 70 acres of land and now they are talking about a new building that is set 30 feet or 10 yards from Delaware Avenue. This does not make sense to him. Sibley does not have a single structure, not a dugout, not a shed, anywhere near this close to any roads surrounding the property. And now they are talking about putting this massive structure right there. Sibley proposes pushing a 36-foot high 190-foot long structure as close to Delaware as possible; and they equate that to the school which is 100 yards away from Delaware Avenue. He asked the Commissioners to consider if a 36-foot high 190-foot long structure directly across the street from their home would alter the essential character of their neighborhood. None of the residents living along Delaware Avenue have any structures – or even fences – as close to the road as the school is proposing. In fact, as you drive closer to Sibley the homes are sit so far back into the woods they cannot be seen. So this is really not in keeping with the character of any neighborhood on Delaware Avenue, let alone the one right across the street. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 26 He also asked the Commission to consider the traffic noise that would bounce off of that wall. The increase in noise and traffic, unlike the noise from the football stadium, would be constant and would clearly change the character of the neighborhood. He suggested that the pool be pushed back away from Delaware Avenue and towards the school another 10 yards it would allow for noise reducing berms and foliage. Having the aquatic center moved closer to the school and built into the berm that is already there – it would be a good thing because that is what the pool committee agreed to months ago and this is what people voted on. He requested the Commission also keep in mind the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which states “protect the quiet secluded feel of the city’s neighborhoods,” and vote to deny this request. Commissioner Katz asked for clarification that Mr. Meyers was really requesting that the building be moved back 10 yards. Mr. Meyers replied that he was not asking that it be put way down on the far corner by Warrior Drive. He is just requesting that the district work with the community and help them out a little bit. Commissioner Katz asked if that was in the email sent to the district that has not been responded to yet; as mentioned by Ms. Adrienne Meyers earlier. Mr. Meyers replied in the affirmative. Mr. Pat O’Reilly, 467 Deer Run Trail, West St. Paul, asked if there was anything wrong with having the pool where it was originally planned at the height it was originally planned. If it was built as originally indicated, the people living on Deer Run Trail would probably not see it. If it is built where the plans now indicate, everyone will see it coming and going from Deer Run Trail. He also supported the bonding bill and supports the school. He just wanted to know why it cannot be built the way it was originally supposed to be. Mr. Daniel Tkach, 492 Deer Run Trail, supported the comments made by Mr. and Mrs. Meyers as the points they brought out were very important. He added that the solar panels planned for the aquatic center would really stand out and look very commercial and he would agree with the aesthetic concerns of that. His other point, and what brought him to the area, was the really nice parcels of land and are set back from the road. Having this building so close would certainly detract from the community feel of the neighborhood. Chair Magnuson invited Ms. Jennifer Anderson-Tuttle with LSE Architects to return and address some of the concerns raised. She also asked Ms. Anderson-Tuttle to explain why the location of the aquatic center had changed. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that the diagram shown earlier was done approximately two years ago and was prior to them having a survey or design of the space. It was really a graphic representation. It did not have the full build-out of square footage determined and they hadn’t yet run the models for how that existing loading dock would operate. One of the criteria that has been used to locate the addition was maintaining that existing loading dock access. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 26 She also stated that the current location is really not that much different than the original. Right now they are showing a 30-foot setback from the property line; in addition to that there is an approximate 20-foot distance from the property line to the curb edge – so it is approximately 50 feet to the curb, which they feel is more than an adequate amount of green space to include some additional berming and landscaping. The district has spoken with some of the residents who have spoken about willingness to work with them to develop a denser landscaping plan that would address some of the cosmetic, scale, and acoustic issues that they have suggested. Commissioner Noonan stated that this would have been a useful document to have because it is obviously a major concern of the neighbors. For the Commission to address their concerns they are not really seeing the full picture based upon what she said. It would have been nice to have the full package brought to them. Commissioner Corbett asked for more detail about how the loading dock is inoperable. He could not understand why the aquatic center could not abut the existing gymnasium and eliminate the walkway up the side and switch the parking lot. He could not see how that would prohibit any usage in the dock. Mr. Mark Fortman, Director of Operations replied that early on that was looked at in the design process but there are some utilities that come into the building there (fiber optics and allocation) and there is not quite enough space with where the bus drop off is to get to where the hill drops off – they would end up with a gigantic retaining wall. It was decided to re-site the aquatic center due to cost considerations. Also, that is the central district receiving for the entire district – food comes in and out of there – and they need that turn space for the semi-trucks. Mr. Fortman also stated that he had a real nice conversation with some of the people, one of them being here tonight and had some comments, the district has always intended to be good neighbors at all of their sites in all of the cities they are in. They would continue to work with residents to be good neighbors. Commissioner Noonan asked what the timing was for the undertaking of these projects. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that right now they are working on finalizing a shell packet, which his intended to go out within the next week or so for the pre-cast panels. Construction would start in September 2019. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that when they were considering the football stadium there were neighborhoods meetings. Mr. Fortman confirmed. Commissioner Noonan referenced the suggestion to table this application for one month to allow face-to-face discussions between the district and the neighbors and asked if that would be fatal to their schedule. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that it would not be as fatal as a denial of the request. Commissioner Toth asked what the other options were for putting the aquatic center somewhere else. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that they looked at a number of locations; some of the drivers of this particular location were existing parking being able to support to that space, secured access for entrance into the site, also trying to create some separation between community access and use and the security of the students within the building by not sharing access points, maintaining all existing athletic fields as they are in high demand, and utility locations. All of the other locations reviewed were in this same general area; it was a matter of where it landed within this side of the June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 26 building. It was really because of the grade changes and a desire to have the access not conflict bus traffic and drop off and that service drive. Commissioner Petschel asked why it could not be part of the new addition to the gym. Mr. Fortman replied that area on the south side is used as hockey training and football training; accessibility from people’s parking – it’s a parking access thing. Commissioner Petschel, in reference to the loading dock, asked if there was another loading dock over by where the new level two additions are. Mr. Fortman replied that there is only one loading dock at Sibley. Commissioner Toth asked for clarification that the far east side of the aquatic center would be located approximately 50 feet off of the curb line; 30 feet from the property line. Looking at the distance between the aquatic center and the loading dock, there is approximately a distance of 140 feet – he asked if there was a way to squeeze additional footage to move the aquatic center closer to the loading dock. Mr. Fortman did not know the turning radius exactly. As far as the berm, which is not part of the design currently, that is what he offered to work with the residents, the civil engineer, and the architect. Commissioner Katz brought up the concern raised by a resident that the windows of the aquatic center would be allowing people in the aquatic center to looking down into residents’ yards or homes and asked if there were alternatives. Mr. Fortman replied that the bleacher seating is on the opposite side of the building and they would not be able to look down out of any of the windows; all of the windows are higher than what seating would be at. There is no possibility to look down. They are only to let in natural light. In talks with some residents they understood that they did not want a blank wall, they wanted some windows or something to break the line of the wall. Also, the wall will have some patterning to it so it would not be a plain wall; there would be some scale and relief and design into the wall itself. Discussions also included the fact that placing the aquatic center in this location would screen the view of the loading dock. Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation that the windows would be on the Delaware side of the building; so if he lived on Deer Run Trail and it is 10:00 p.m., how are they going to mitigate light and glare coming from those windows. Mr. Fortman replied that, as they are doing in all of their parking lots in the district, they are switching over to LED lighting. As they have talked about with the multi-purpose athletic field, they are required to have zero foot-candles at the property line. In their buildings they will have LED lighting that are hung. Currently, at night they run with dark lights inside and motion sensors that come on when coming through the entry points – only emergency lights. He did not foresee them having a lot of activities late at night unless they have something like a community swim night or something along those lines. Also, they would not light purposefully away from the pool, the pool wants to be lit down. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle also noted that landscaping and trees would be a great filter for any lighting from those windows as well. Chair Magnuson asked if they would be willing to work with the neighbors in developing their landscaping plan so that they have some input into the size of the berm and the types of plantings June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 26 that would go in there. Mr. Fortman replied that they would welcome discussions and working with the neighbors. Commissioner Katz wondered if they had actually spoken with anyone from the Police Department about their suggestions or patterns that they have noticed. He has been to several Neighborhood Watch meetings and have talked to police officers who do patrol the city at night and they have brought up the activity that occurs at Sibley at night and what transpires in the parking lot. Mr. Fortman replied that they speak with Officer Mario Reyes, former detective of Mendota Heights, as their hired safety consultant. He is involved in their crisis planning during every step of the planning process. They also have Mr. Steve Meyers from the Mendota Heights Police Department as part of their district crisis team. Commissioner Noonan asked how available would the aquatic center be for the community. Mr. Fortman replied that their intent would be to have this as a community building; so much so that they are going to house the Community Ed Department in that building so they can operate their programming for the community during the day and be able to manage what is happening in there. Currently, with the Heritage School Facility, where they do not have any ability to control that during the daytime, the community uses are limited after-school or before-school. This way they could enhance that activity or enhance that access. Commissioner Corbett asked if there was any way to recess the building or the pool more by making the pool lower by 10 feet and then lowering the roof line by 10 feet; or if they have considered having a sloped roof. Mr. Fortman replied that the building is back into the hill to the high point is at the southwest corner of the building; so it is closer to 25 feet on the northeast corner of the building. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle noted that a few other things that has been challenging with setting that elevation has been accessibility and balancing soils. Trying to move dirt from the north end to the south end to try to keep it balanced so the district is not exporting a lot of additional soils. It would be cost prohibitive. Pointing to the elevation site plan. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle explained that on the one edge the height is closer to 20 feet because of the grades; it slopes. However, there is not any reason why, within that 50 foot setback, they couldn’t screen some additional building edge with both berms and landscaping. Mr. Fortman also pointed out the screening on the top of the building for the mechanical equipment. Commissioner Mazzitello pointed out that this has been a lot to digest and they have spoken a little bit about their schedule. He believed it to be critical that this Commission see a landscape plan for the area between the aquatic center and Delaware Avenue, after meeting with area residents and coming up with a proposed plan that they can live with. He would even be willing to hold a special meeting rather than waiting until next month. He asked if they would be willing to bring that back to the Commission as a way of communicating with the neighbors to address their concerns, including a description of the acoustic buffering on the outside of the building. This would enable them to speak with residents and still be on course with the start of construction in September 2019. Mr. Fortman replied that he would be willing. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 26 Ms. Anderson-Tuttle asked if the Commission would consider recommending approval pending the negotiations to take place on the landscaping design; just to keep this moving forward to the Council meeting next week and having a landscape plan for City Council. Commissioner Petschel noted that they Commission could recommend denial and they could still go to the City Council meeting next week with their landscape plan. The only difference is if the Council votes to deny, they would have to wait a year before they could apply again. Commissioner Corbett asked if both Ms. Anderson-Tuttle and Mr. Fortman were on the pool committee; which they replied that they both were and attended every meeting. They denied agreeing with the comments made that the plans had changed since that time. If they put the diagram up next to the plan they would see that it is located in the same spot. While they would be willing to send out an informational packet to all of the 200+ residents who have had input on the planning, although as they have seen the hardship for the district is some of the existing conditions, the height, that is required for the function of the space, which they inherit being an educational facility and height requirements for diving that are such as they are. So short of changing the design, which is not part of the variance application, they would like to work on things like the landscaping, the buffering, sharing some of those exterior materials and do that while they move forward, if possible. Commissioner Petschel noted that they would encounter significant additional costs if they did a re-site or redesign. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle absolutely agreed. Mr. Benetti interjected, looking at calendars, noted that if the Commissioner were to consider a special meeting the week of July 8 – the next Council meeting would be July 16. Theoretically, if they held a special meeting on July 8, 9, 10, or 11 they could probably easily turn that around and provide that recommendation back to the City Council on July 16. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if that would give them enough time to meet with the residents and decide on a landscaping plan for the outside of this structure. Ms. Joann Mansur, 1700 Lilac Lane, is the chair of the school board and stated that the district really has in good faith worked with the neighbors to the north with regards to the stadium. She wanted to assure the Commission that is absolutely something they would do and would have done it prior to this conversation anyway. She has had communication with residents on Delaware who have requested trees and buffering and believes that is something the district should do. She believes the building is going to be beautiful and not look like a huge industrial anything. They will do whatever they can from a landscaping plan to ensure that the residents and the Council feel comfortable. Commissioner Noonan stated that the direction is for Ms. Anderson-Tuttle and Mr. Fortman to continue to engage with the neighbors and bring a landscaping, screening, and buffering plan, along with exterior materials and texturing for sound abatement purposes for their examination at their meeting yet to be scheduled during the week of July 8, 2019. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 26 Ms. Anderson-Tuttle asked if they would be willing to approve the variance requests for the gymnasium and the entryway and only table the aquatic center portion of the application. The Commission was willing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE GYMNASIUM AND ENTRYWAY PORTIONS OF PLANNING CASE 2019-18. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR THE GYMNASIUM HEIGHT AND THE ENTRYWAY HEIGHT AT HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL AS PART OF PLANNING CASE 2019-18 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, REMOVING ANY REFERENCE TO THE AQUATIC CENTER AND ADDING TO CONDITION F1: The Applicant shall obtain a building and sign permit for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein. 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 the proposed aquatics building to exceed the 25-ft. height limits in the R-1/R-1A One Family Residential District to 35-ft.-8-in., the proposed gymnasium addition to 50-ft.-5-in., and the entryway addition to 31-ft.-2-in. by the following: i. the proposed structure height increases are considered a reasonable request, based on the overall scope, scale and use of the subject property as a high school campus facility, and fits with the current design and layout of the existing school building on the property; and are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore warrants the approval or granting of such variances in this particular case; iii. the excess heights of the new aquatics center, gymnasium addition and entryway addition are all under or equal to what exists today; so there impacts will not be noticeable when compared to other (pre-existing) structures on the campus site; and iv. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that school facility June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 26 improvements, such as this aquatics center, gym addition and entryway addition, can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. 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 Variances 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 Varianc es will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of these Variances are for ISD-#197 (Henry Sibley High School) 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. 2019-18, dated and presented June 25, 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: 1. The Applicant shall obtain a building and sign permit for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein. 2. The Applicant shall not deviate or increase the heights of structures as approved or presented under this application. Any changes must be reconsidered under a new application before the planning commission and approved by the city council. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. “The Applicant shall not schedule or conduct a swim meet or any other spectator event inside the aquatic center at the same time as a varsity football home game.” CHAIR MAGNUSON MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BY STRIKING THE AQUATIC CENTER PORTIONS OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS (as stricken by the transcriber). THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE MOTION MAKER AND THE SECOND. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2019 meeting. The public hearing for the Aquatic Center has not been closed. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 26 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO TABLE THE AQUATIC CENTER PORTION OF PLANNING CASE 2019-18 VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A STRUCTURE IN THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT UNTIL THE MEETING YET TO BE SCHEDULED DURING THE WEEK OF JULY 8, 2019; THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO MEET WITH AREA RESIDENTS AND DEVELOP A LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PLAN FOR THE EAST SIDE OF THE AQUATICS CENTER, AS WELL AS TO BRING BACK DETAILS ON THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS FOR MITIGATION OF NOISE Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 C) PLANNING CASE #2019-14 JIM CARLSON, 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at the Commissions meeting on May 28, 2019. This involves a variance to allow a reduced setback for a proposed driveway for the property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue. Mr. Benetti provided a brief background on the application as was heard at the May 28, 2019 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. This item was presented under a fully noticed public hearing at that time, and after hearing comments from the Applicant and neighboring owners, the Commission tabled the matter. The reasons for tabling included:  There were questions asked and answers not given  Discuss 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 was 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 o An ugly building would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood o Vegetation could be stripped away and it would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek and Community Development Director Tim Benetti visited the site since the last Commission meeting and later met with the applicant to discuss options. Staff determined that a small, block retaining wall – built up to or near the side property line along the length of the attached garage, is feasible and possible. This new wall would help retain and provide a suitable drive surface, also utilizing part of the concrete walkway and permeable pavers. Staff suggested and would like to see permeable pavers and crushed rock with a perforated drain tile system underneath so that any stormwater that would hit that driveway would not wash off but penetrate in and carried out. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 26 Staff also looked at the grades on the opposite side of the house and determined that they are too severe and would require a lot of fill material to be brought in to provide a suitable, buildable structure and would definitely alter the look and feel of the natural grades in these areas. As was suggested at the last Commission meeting, they looked at creating an opening in the rear of the third stall garage, which would lead to a drive-through garage and provide access to the back detached garage. The applicant rejected this idea as he felt it would drastically alter the architecture and character of the existing home. It would also be prohibitive in costs and design as the driveway leading out from the back of the garage would destroy the stand of mature trees and gardens located directly behind. As for the appearance of the new garage structure, the 928 square foot detached garage proposed is a permitted use by right since the property is more than 1.5 and less than 2.5 acres in size and the City Code allows an additional detached garage up to 1,000 square feet in size. Also, City Code stipulates that detached private garages must be architecturally compatible with the principal structure, including exterior design, materials and colors. The applicant has stated that he would construct the new garage with matching colors and tones as the existing home, but with materials more suited for a garage. Chair Magnuson asked what the approximately distance was from the back end of the current garage (the third stall) into where there would be any kind of dramatic impact of the tree and garden area. Mr. Benetti replied that it is approximately 10-12 feet off the back edge of the garage; possibly a little more. Commissioner Toth noted that he met with the homeowners at 792 and 786 and stated that off of the corner of the current garage, it drastically slopes down. There is a small block wall in that corner which would have to come down and then be rebuilt with some type of block grid or geo- grid because as they continue to drive that soil condition is going to change and would continue to slope. He then asked what type of plan would be implemented to provide a stable surface so it would not slough off. Mr. Benetti replied that the builder of the wall would know what they are doing and it should be done right and meet construction standards. Chair Magnuson noted that the Commission was considering a variance from the five foot setback requirement. Without suggesting that she is in favor of this necessarily; she stated that it seemed to her that there is a small area where there could be the need for the variance. But as they get back closer to the proposed garage she asked where it moved to five feet. Mr. Benetti was unable to provide a definitive answer but provided a guestimate. Mr. Benetti noted that staff received another letter of support from a neighbor and some valuation information from a real estate appraiser on behalf of a neighbor to the north. All of this information has been made a part of the public record. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to reopen the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION NOONAN, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 26 Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Mr. Jim Carlson had nothing to add to the staff report. Mr. Allen Weslander, 798 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that the back of his property runs along Mr. Carlson’s property. He has lived there for 25 years and has made a lot of improvements; however, they are pretty fussy. Mr. Carlson, in the years that he has lived there, everything that he has done that they have seen has been top notch. He does a quality job with whatever he does. It makes sense that Mr. Carlson needs to get back behind his house someway and it just makes sense to put that driveway where they want. It does butt up against his property and he does not have a problem with that because he knows Mr. Carlson will do a quality job. Mr. John Trojack, 786 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that his opposition to this request has not changed. He does not believe there is a practical difficulty since this driveway can be placed on the right of his house. Mr. Carlson was nice enough to allow him to come over and look at his property. Mr. Trojack shared an image of the drive next to the right side of the home with two automobiles. This is a relatively level area that the driveway could access for a garage. There is no reason why there would have to be a driveway all of the way around to the present location. The small shed that is currently on the right side would have to come down no matter which way the driveway went. There is access that goes right up there and could come around. He has walked that property and does not see why it could not be placed on the right side without the need for a variance of any kind. Mr. Trojack continued by explaining that the grade seems to be all right because he has already put a driveway there; it would have to be widened probably and then come around to the level piece of property. He did not see any reason why that could not be done; this would not require a variance and would not require running a driveway across the entire length of the back yard. Mr. Trojack spoke to Mr. Carlson about the stand of three very large trees on the way to the proposed garage and he indicated that they would all come down. Mr. Trojack believed that would change the nature of that entire area and diminish the rural atmosphere they have come to enjoy since moving to Mendota Heights. There is not circumstance unique to the property requiring the granting of a driveway variance. The need for a larger garage is created by the owner and is not unique to the property. The need for the driveway on the side proposed is unique to the owner; he wants it there. He wants it there because he believes that putting it on the right side of his property would not be aesthetically pleasing. That should not be a reason for granting the variance. The building and the driveway running across his own rear yard would not be aesthetically pleasing to him; and neither is the potential problems of long-term maintenance for that driveway along the back side of his property. The old building will be torn down in any event, the placement of the new building is strictly the owner’s choice and not a unique situation, and the removal of the trees would change the character of the neighborhood. There are no special conditions existing topographically; in fact, the fact that June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 26 the driveway has already been put up the right side of the property indicates that there is the ability to go up that topography and maybe he would have to put in some fill, but it would almost be the same level of work required to install the retaining walls and adjustments on his side of the property. He believed the essential character of the neighborhood would be changed and they did not expect to have an alley put down the back of their property, something very common in urban cities. He did not believe there was any property in Cherry Hill with a driveway immediately adjacent to their rear property. He emphasized the fact that this would be a permanent change; not something that can be reversed later on when different neighbors move in. The applicant, Mr. Jim Carlson, 1562 Wachtler Avenue, came forward to address the concerns raised. He shared an image taken by Mr. Trojack from his back yard and indicated the shed, which could hardly been seen. Also, the new garage could not be put down by the house where Mr. Trojack suggested. The proposed location is a good spot and there is an existing shed there now – it just would take a bigger footprint. As for driving back there all of the time, no he would not be. This garage would be more of a storage shed for his boat, his riding lawn mower, his attachments, and probably his brother’s car over the winter. Since Mr. Trojack’s property is lower, he will not be able to see the driveway or the permeable pavers installed. Chair Magnuson pointed out a fence on the image and asked if the fence belonged to Mr. Carlson and if he intended to leave it up. Mr. Carlson replied that he is the owner of the fence and that he plans to leave it up. When asked how that would work with the retaining wall, Mr. Carlson replied that they would either have to put the fence on top of the retaining wall or put the landscaping blocks on the other side of the fence. It’s workable, it just needs to get planned out. Additional discussions occurred on the placement of the retaining wall relative to the fence, the height of the fence, the tight pinch in the driveway, and the tight pitch of the slope. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 26 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-14 VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for a reduced driveway setback. The proposed driveway is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives or locations for placing the driveway on the property due to its large size; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). Commissioner Corbett explained that his reason for recommending denial was because he believes there are alternatives and after viewing the property he did not believe it to be a requirement. As little as he says he is going to use it, it would be no inconvenience to have to pull his car out and drive through the back to that garage. He also did not know if the cost would be any different than putting in the retaining wall and the other work that would need to be done to install the driveway where he is requesting. Commissioner Katz also raised concerns about the location of the driveway as proposed and the neighbors there. He understands and probably would agree with the comments about Mr. Carlson maintaining his property very well; however, he did have concerns for Mr. Trojack and what the effects would be on his property as well as what would happen when there other people who would move in or out of those homes around this area that would be affected by the variance request. He believed there were alternatives that could enable Mr. Carlson to erect a structure to store his things and not require a variance. Commissioner Toth stated that he had the opportunity to meet with the residents at 782 Upper Colonial Drive and 786 Upper Colonial Drive. When looking back at the practical difficulties tests, it says if the variance were granted it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This would have an impact on the neighborhood. From 782 and 786, presently standing in their backyards and looking to where this garage would be situated it would be partially covered with the foliage that is there. However, in the fall and winter months when the trees lose their leaves, that garage structure would be more visible to the neighbors. Also, on the fence line that cuts the Carlson property and the other residents’ properties, there is a power line. Sooner or later, no matter who owns the power line, they are going to come in and clear cut that; they are going to top the June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 26 trees, remove the shrubs, or remove other foliage because they do not want trees to grow into their power lines. Many times when they do that the foliage dies. He reiterated his opinion that this driveway and garage would alter the characteristics of the neighborhood. Chair Magnuson cautioned the Commission in that they are being asked to look at a variance from the setback requirements for a driveway. They are not in a position to necessarily offer any opinion or decision on the garage itself. He can build the garage whether he has a driveway to it or not. She continued to say that her issue was the lack of practical difficulties. She understands what Mr. Carlson wants to do and understands all of the reasons why he wants to do it and they are all good and reasonable. However, the granting of the variance is a convenience to the applicant. It is not necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty of the property. She did not want to get into the position of granting variances because people prefer to have a driveway in one location of they prefer to have a 10-foot dining room versus an 8-foot dining room and the 10-foot dining room is going to encroach but they do not want an 8-foot dining room. They get lost in the possibility of going down that slippery slope of granting variances because it becomes a matter of personal convenience to the homeowner rather than the actual practical difficulty of the property. Her concern here was that there has not been a necessary demonstration of that there is a practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to the property, not caused by the property owner himself. Commissioner Petschel took a contrary view since they are not considering the garage whatsoever. He cited other times the Commission has approved variance, although not necessarily unanimously, and he understood that there is no such thing as precedence per discussions had earlier and previously. To him this request was not that much different. Commissioner Noonan agreed with Chair Magnuson when she said that the Commission should not take their jurisdictional responsibilities lightly by simply granting variances because it is a matter of convenience. The Commission has to be challenged to find the practical difficulties and he is not seeing it in this case. They have heard that this is what the homeowner desires to do and there are other alternatives; just because the homeowner does not want to do those other alternatives does not rise the threshold of meeting the practical difficulties test. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if he had an approximate number for what the vertical drop is from the sidewalk to the base of the fence. Mr. Benetti replied that he would defer to the homeowner but assumed it was 2.5 to 3 feet. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the staff report says they would leave a setback of 2.5 feet because the driveway would be 11.5 feet wide. One cannot drive on top of a retaining wall so the retaining wall would have to be on the outside of that 11.5 feet. Mr. Benetti agreed. Commissioner Mazzitello continued by saying that if they installed a small block retaining wall that are eight inches per block, set back inches per block, three feet in depth they would need at least six courses. So now you are talking 24 inches off of that 11.5 foot, the toll of that retaining wall is going to come within inches of that property line. So they are not leaving a setback of 2.5 June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 26 feet; they are eliminating the entire setback because the retaining wall would have to be included as part of the driveway. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that the installation of the retaining wall could be right on the property line, and small retaining walls can be constructed vertically. They do not need to be stepped back. Commissioner Mazzitello’s point was that the retaining wall eats more into the setback than the 11.5 foot driveway as presented. There being no more discussion, Chair Magnuson called for the vote AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Petschel) Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2019 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE #2019-16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – FENCE STANDARDS Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Commission was reconsidering the amendments discussed at the May 28, 2019 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to Title 12-1D-6 Fences of the City Code. This item was presented under public hearing and tabled at that meeting. The Commission was asked to undertake a follow-up review of the changes added from the May 28, 2019 Draft Ordinance No. 542. Mr. Benetti then briefly reviewed those additions, as well as other alterations. After discussion, the Commission determined that Section 12-1D-6: C. Fences in Business and Industrial Districts: Subpart 2 should be as follows: 2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected up to, but not on, the property line and at a measurable distance from the property line, not to exceed six inches (6”), shall be one hundred percent (100%) opaque, and at least six feet (6’) in height. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 26 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-16 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – FENCE STANDARDS VIA ORDINANCE NO. 542 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN FENCE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2019 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: Planning Case #2019-10 Southview Design, Property next to 2383 Pilot Knob Road Interim Use Permit Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case #2019-12 Check Mastel, 1341 Cherry Hill Road Variance Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case #2019-13 Mark & Stacy Roszkowski, 660 Hidden Creek Trail Wetlands Permit Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case #2019-15 Nona Mosvick, 1133 Orchard Place Lot Split – Subdivision Approved by City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Upcoming in July: Metro Storage, Conditional Use Permit and Variance 1175 Orchard Place, Wetlands Permit June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 26 2319 Swan Drive, Conditional Use Permit and Variance 1133 Orchard Place, Critical Area Permit July 11, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. – Special Meeting re: the HSHS Aquatic Center Variance Joint Workshop Meeting with City Council is to be scheduled The Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by City Council with minor adjustments and is currently under the six month review period with the adjacent and affected jurisdictions. Three reviews have been received currently. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:58 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0