2020-05-26 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketAuxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours
is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice.
Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
May 26, 2020 – 7:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
MN Stat. 13D.021 - Meeting by telephone or other electronic means: Conditions - MN stat. 13D.021 provides that a
meeting of a public body may be conducted via telephone or other electronic means if meeting in a public location
is not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or declared emergency.
The Mendota Heights City Council has declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a part of this
action and until further notice, all City Council and city commission meetings will be held by telephone or through
other electronic means, with social distancing measures to remain in place. All public meetings will continue to
follow the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
Individuals wishing to submit a comment related to the planning request item noticed herein, must mail them
directly to City of Mendota Heights, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118, Attn: Tim Benetti; or email
to CD Director Tim Benetti at timb@mendota-heights.com. Comments must be received by no later than 6:00 p.m.
CDT on the day of the meeting, April 28, 2020. All comments received in a timely manner will be read into the public
record at the appropriate point in the meeting.
Please note, to comply fully with the Governor’s Executive Order No. 20-20 and stay-at-home guidelines, the Council
Chambers will not be open to the public during the planning commission meeting. Interested individuals may access
the meeting in real time or later by viewing the meeting replay from Town Square Television
(www.townsquare.tv\webstreaming) or the City’s website, or by using the join-by-phone dial-in number below.
If the dial-in option is used, the line will be muted, so no outside comments or noise will be recorded. Note that
long-distance telephone charges may apply. Because of technological limitations, the number of participants using
dial-in cannot exceed 100 callers. As a result, web-stream participation is strongly encouraged.
Dial-In / Join by Phone Number: 1-312-535-8110
Access Code: 282 237 287 (followed by #)
_________________________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. Adopt Agenda
3. Approve the April 28, 2020 regular meeting minutes
4. Public Hearings
a. Case No. 2020-09: Variance to allow a new addition to encroach 3-ft. into the 30-ft. Front
Yard Setback in the R-1 One Family Residential District, located at 791 Emerson Avenue.
[John & Paula Grosenick – Owners/Applicants]
5. Adjourn Meeting
April 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 7
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 28, 2020
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April
28, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Acting Chair John Mazzitello, Commissioners Litton
Field, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Chair Mary Magnuson,
Commissioner Patrick Corbett.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of March 24, 2020 Minutes
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2020.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED:
COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE
COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE
COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2020-06
ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOC. INC (ON BEHALF OF ISD #197), 701
MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD – VARIANCE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that ISD #197 is seeking to widen its
main entrance driveway access off Mendota Heights Road, from its current width of approximately
28 feet to a proposed 38-foot width.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website).
April 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 7
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Field asked if this change would surcharge or impact the concerns that have been
heard over the years with traffic in the neighborhood.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that this separation will help with the flow of traffic
in the school parking lot and will better align with the Lockwood intersection. He noted that the
City will also review possible striping changes on Mendota Heights Road to increase pedestrian
safety.
Commissioner Field stated that it does not then appear that this change would increase the issues
of traffic safety.
Commissioner Toth stated that there are more parents dropping children off and picking them up
on a daily basis. He asked if there has been a study to determine if a traffic light would be needed.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the School District completed multiple studies
during the design of the middle school and a traffic signal, or other intersection improvements,
were not warranted.
Commissioner Toth asked if approval of this variance would exclude the option for another
entrance/exit onto another roadway in the future.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that at this time there are no plans for
another access location onto a different roadway.
Acting Chair Mazzitello asked if the applicant was present, and would they like to add anything to
the presentation or discussion.
ISD #197 Superintendent Peter Olson-Skog spoke on behalf of the applicant, and replied that he
has nothing to add but is present to address any questions.
Acting Chair Mazzitello opened the public hearing.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti read aloud two emails one from the resident at
2530 Wilshire Court in opposition of the request and one from the residents at 2542 Concord Way
in support of the request. Both emails were entered into the record.
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED:
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE
COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE
April 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 7
COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE
COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE WIDER 38 FOOT
DRIVEWAY ACCESS ON TO MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD, WITH FINDINGS OF FACT TO
SUPPORT THIS RECOMMENDATION, ALONG WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED
HEREIN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED:
COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE
COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE
COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE
Acting Chair Mazzitello advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 5,
2020 meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE 2020-07
MATT GUSTAFSON, 1865 AND 1883 DODD ROAD – LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Matt Gustafson is requesting
consideration of a lot line adjustment between two properties located at 1865 and 1883 Dodd Road.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website).
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Field asked when the combination of the proposed third lot was completed.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he was unable to determine that. He
replied that a structure was never built and perhaps the middle lot was split between the two
properties when the homes were constructed in the 1950’s.
Matt Gustafson, applicant, stated that he was present to address any questions.
Acting Chair Mazzitello opened the public hearing.
April 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 7
Community Development Director Tim Benetti read aloud two emails received in opposition of
the request from to residents living at 1887 Dodd Road.
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED:
COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE
COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE
COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BASED ON THE FINDINGS
OF FACT SUPPORTING THE REQUEST WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED AS FOLLOWS:
1. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECORDING WITH DAKOTA
COUNTY ANY CITY RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL AND ANY AND ALL
NECESSARY TRANSFER OR DEED DOCUMENTS WHICH CONVEY THE
PORTION OF LANDS UNDER THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT REQUESTED
HEREIN.
2. APPLICANT SHALL EITHER SAW-CUT AND REMOVE THAT PART OF THE
DRIVEWAY/APRON THAT ENCROACHES OVER THE SHARED LOT LINE
BETWEEN LOTS 35 AND 36 TO MEET THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED
FOR DRIVEWAY; OR MUST PREPARE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT THAT
ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS THE DRIVEWAY ENCROACHMENT ISSUE
BETWEEN BOTH PROPERTIES, AND SUCH AGREEMENT SHALL BE
RECORDED WITH DAKOTA COUNTY.
3. THE APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE THE PRIVACY FENCE FOR 1883 DODD ROAD
AND RELOCATE/REINSTALL ALONG THE SHARED LOT LINE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN LOTS 35 AND 36.
4. NO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING GRADING/FILLING WORK,
LANDSCAPING, TREE REMOVALS, RETAINING WALLS, FENCING, STAIRWAY
OR WALKWAYS, OR ANY STRUCTURE REQUIRING A ZONING AND/OR
BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE ALLOWED UNLESS AUTHORIZED UNDER A
SEPARATE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICATION.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER FIELD STATED THAT HE FINDS THE
ORIGINAL PLATTING OF THE LAND TO BE OF INTEREST. HE STATED THAT THIS
ACTION WOULD CREATE THREE LEGAL CONFORMING LOTS AND THEREFORE
SHOULD BE APPROVED. HE ACKNOWLEDGED THE CONCERN FROM THE RESIDENT
ABOUT THE WATER/WETLAND BUT NOTED THAT WOULD BE THE PROBLEM OF
THE APPLICANT TO SOLVE.
April 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 7
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RYAN RUZEK STATED THAT THE WATER RETENTION
AREA WAS DISCUSSED IN THE PAST. HE STATED THAT IT WAS HIS
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WATER STORAGE WAS CREATED BY A PREVIOUS
HOMEOWNER AND MAY HAVE A LINER. HE NOTED THAT IF THE AREA IS
DETERMINED TO NOT BE A WETLAND, IT COULD BE FILLED.
COMMISSIONER FIELD NOTED THAT THE COMMISSION IS SIMPLY APPROVING THE
LOT SPLIT AND NOT GUARANTEEING WHAT WOULD OCCUR ON THAT NEW LOT.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF IT IS KNOWN WHAT WILL OCCUR ON THE
NEW LOT.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BENETTI REPLIED THAT MR. GUSTAFSON
INTENDS TO BUILD A NEW HOME FOR HE AND HIS WIFE ON THE NEW LOT. HE
PROVIDED ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON THE CONDITION RELATED TO THE
DRIVEWAY.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED:
COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE
COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE
COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE
Acting Chair Mazzitello advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 5,
2020 meeting.
C) PLANNING CASE 2020-08
ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOC. (ON BEHALF OF ST. THOMAS ACADEMY),
949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD – VARIANCE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc.,
acting on behalf of Saint Thomas Academy (STA) is requesting certain variance approvals in order
to construct new baseball field improvements at STA’s campus, located at 949 Mendota Heights
Road. The variances would allow a new multi-purpose press box/covered bleacher structure to
exceed the maximum height standard and have reduced setbacks needed for accessory structures;
and allow for new light towers to exceed maximum height standards for structures in the R-1 One
Family Residential District.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 1,200 to 2,250-ft. of the site;
and no comments or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website).
April 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 7
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Petschel asked if there was an issue with malplacement of the field originally.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that a lot line adjustment was
completed between the applicant and neighboring property owner to eliminate encroachments that
came about with the installation of the field and fencing. He stated that the lot line adjustment
corrected the issue.
Acting Chair Mazzitello stated that the Commission is being asked to consider option one. He
noted that the applicant has stated that if fundraising is not successful, they will proceed with
option two, which would fall within the footprint of option one. He asked if some of the existing
variances would no longer be necessary if the City were to develop institutional standards in the
future.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that to be true. He agreed that it would
be beneficial to have an institutional zone for schools, churches and similar uses.
Jay Pomeroy with AJA, Inc., representing the applicant, stated that he is present to address any
questions the Commission may have.
Commissioner Katz asked if there is an indication of the amount of light that would be used and
how that could impact the park or residents along the lake.
Mr. Pomeroy replied that the intent of the high light poles is to focus the light directly down, so
that there is very little spill outside of the perimeter.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that staff did not receive any written
comments related to this item.
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED:
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE
COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE
COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE
COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES, WITH FINDING OF FACT TO
April 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 7
SUPPORT THIS RECOMMENDATION, ALONG WITH THE CONDITIONS AS NOTED
HEREIN.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER FIELD COMMENTED THAT IT COULD BE
WISE TO STATE THAT THE CITY IS ANTICIPATING OPTION ONE, BUT THE SMALLER
OPTION WOULD ALSO BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL IF THE APPLICANT CANNOT
MOVE FORWARD WITH OPTION ONE.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI NOTED THAT THE
APPLICANT INTENDS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OPTION ONE, BUT IF OPTION TWO
MOVES FORWARD, THAT WOULD FIT UNDER THE VARIANCES APPROVED. HE
CONFIRMED THAT LANGUAGE COULD BE ADDED THAT THE APPROVAL OF
OPTIO N ONE WOULD INCLUDE THE APPROVAL OF OPTION TWO.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED:
COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE
COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE
COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE
Acting Chair Mazzitello advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 5,
2020 meeting.
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Director Tim Benetti had nothing further to report.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:58 P.M.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED:
COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE
COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE
COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE
From:Mary & Jim Dietz
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:IDS #197
Date:Thursday, April 23, 2020 1:05:34 PM
Regarding the request for variance to exceed the maximum access width.
We are NOT in favor of allowing that drive to be made bigger as the traffic out of there is
always a problem in the afternoon. By adding a left turn lane it will most likely cause
accidents and then the next thing will be a round about! Please consider making it a right
turn only IN and OUT of that driveway. It would be for the safety of the children.
Jim and Mary Dietz
2530 Wilshire Ct
MH, MN 55120
From:Mary Kietzmann
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Friendly Hill Variance
Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:30:53 PM
I'm in favor of this school widening its access.
Thanks,
Mary Kietzmann
2542 Concord Way
Mendota Hts, MN 55120
From:maxzweber
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Dispute Tues April 28, 2020 public hearing
Date:Monday, April 27, 2020 3:58:56 PM
My name is Max Zweber and I own the residence at 1887 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN
55118.
I am disputing the plan to "re-establish" 3 "original" platter lots in the R-1 one family
residential district, located at 1865 and 1883 Dodd Road.
That is already a narrow lot. I would like to keep the house's in one row, not having a house
set back. Right there is a natural water collection, pond, that fills in at different depths every
year. The water has already flooded up to where a wooden fence was installed which is the
same area a house would be built.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
From:Andrea Sonju
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Tues April 28, 2020 public hearing dispute
Date:Monday, April 27, 2020 3:54:24 PM
My name is Andrea Sonju and I reside at 1887 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118.
I am disputing the plan to "re-establish" 3 "original" platter lots in the R-1 one family
residential district, located at 1865 and 1883 Dodd Road.
That is already a narrow lot. I would like to keep the house's in one row, not having a house
set back. Right there is a natural water collection, pond, that fills in at different depths every
year. The water has already flooded up to where a wooden fence was installed which is the
same area a house would be built.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: May 26, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-09
VARIANCE
APPLICANT: John and Paula Grosenick
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 791 Emerson Avenue
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: July 7, 2020 (60-Day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
John and Paula Grosenick, owners of 791 Emerson Avenue, are requesting consideration of a variance of
3-feet from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement, to accommodate an addition to their home.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed
to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city received one letter of
objection from the immediate neighbor to the east, which is appended on the end of this report. As of the
finalization of this report, no other comments or objections were received.
BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located east
of the intersection of Wachtler
Avenue and Emerson Avenue. The
lot is triangular in shape; 22,765-sf.
(0.52 ac.) in size; and is located
along a double curved section of
Emerson Avenue (visible in the GIS
aerial image - right).
This uniquely shaped lot was
created by the original platting of the
Cherry Hill Addition in 1960.
The property contains a 2,164-sf.,
split-level single-family dwelling,
built in 1964, with a two-car tuck-
under garage (see images - below).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Report- Case No. 2020-09 Page 2 of 8
View of Dwelling/Garage – 791 Emerson Ave.
The Applicant are seeking to add a new 54.5’ x 28’ addition on the south side of the home, which will
include an extension of the residential living space above a new 3-car attached garage (see image – below).
The new garage is 1,198-sf. in area, which just meets the 1,200-sf. area for permitted attached garages. Full
site and elevation plans are appended to the end of this report.
According to the Applicant’s site plan, the existing dwelling sits approx. 45-feet from the front line along
Emerson Avenue, and approx. 25-ft. from the side (easterly) lot line. The new addition is proposed to be
set at an angle, which lines up being parallel with the easterly lot line.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Report- Case No. 2020-09 Page 3 of 8
The resulting setbacks for the addition will be 17-feet from the easterly line (min. 12.5-ft. setback required)
and a front yard setback ranging in lengths between 30.2’ / 27.0’ /38.8’ along the curvilinear right-of-way
edge along Emerson Avenue. Minimum front yard setback in the R-1 Zone is 30-feet.
City Code defines SETBACK as: “The minimum horizontal distance between the line of a structure and
the nearest specified property line.” With the corner of the new addition/garage set at 27-feet, a variance
is needed to allow the reduced setback of 3-feet.
ANALYSIS
Variance Process
City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when
recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties;
and (ii) impact to the community.
The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in
a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner
is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a
variance, noted 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 undue
hardship or difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have
been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City
Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has
not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a
recommendation of denial must be determined.
As with most variances, when homeowners inquire to the city about applying for a variance, staff will make
every attempt to offer suggestions or provide recommendations on how to reduce or eliminate the need of
a variance. In this case, staff asked the Applicant to consider reducing the footprint or pull-back the length
of the addition; or angle the addition a bit more to the east, thereby (and possibly) eliminating the variance.
The Applicants consulted with their architects, and provided the following statements supporting their
request of this variance (per email from John Grosenick, 05/06/2020):
“We spoke with Jeremy, our architect, late this afternoon regarding the conversation the two of
you had about the garage and the set back. Changing the garage design to comply with the 1200
sf. maximum is not a problem, we didn’t realize the limitations and will adjust the plans to comply.
The larger issue is the 30’ set back. We spent a great deal of time discussing design modifications
as we would need to modify the size of the garage at the furthest point by 4’ to comply with the
30’ requirement at the shortest point. “
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Report- Case No. 2020-09 Page 4 of 8
Because we have an irregular lot and given the placement of the house when it was built, creates
more complexity then we thought. The garage at the furthest point meets the requirement when
measured at 2 different perpendicular angles but due to the curve, it is not consistent with the
requirement at the shortest point using a 30’ radius (included view).
The original placement of the house on the lot, the irregular lot and the desire to keep a consistent
design of the roof line of the addition to match the 1964 build to meet our desire to add a 3 car
garage has added complexity.
As a result, we would like to request a variance for our current design as the functionality of the
garage would change considerably if we had to reduce the plan by 4’ (reducing clearance between
each garage door) or the design and functionality would change considerably if we had to reduce
to a 2 car garage door and a 1 car garage door.”
As part of any variance requests, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and
findings to the Three-Part Variance test questions, whereby demonstrating or justifying the need of the
variance. In this report, the applicant’s responses are noted below (in italic text), followed by staff
responses:
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the zoning ordinance.
Applicant’s Response: My wife was raised in Mendota Heights. We moved back to the raise our family.
We bought our home with the goal to add on to meet the needs of our family as our boys grow. The
current location of the home guided us to the only practical plan to add on both loving space and
garage space we are seeking. Our plan is to remain in Mendota Heights as our boys grow, participate
in MHAA baseball, soccer and hockey and eventually graduate from Sibley.”
Staff’s Response: The subject property as it exists today is a typical 1960’s split-level style dwelling
with tuck-under garage. As evident by the Applicant’s plans, they intend to provide a substantial
upgrade and overall remodeling improvements to this somewhat dated and functionally obsolete
dwelling. The new garage will provide added vehicle and storage space, as opposed to the current and
much smaller two-car tuck under space located in the lower level of the home. The addition creates
considerable amounts of new and increased living space for the family, both above the new garage area
and in the old garage space on the lower level.
The city must now give careful consideration of whether or not the use of the property as altered by the
variance, is reasonable or will remain reasonable after requested improvements are made.
The proposed garage space is shown as 1,198-sq. ft. in area, which meets the maximum 1,200 sf.
permitted for attached garages in residential zones. The added footprint or area of new living space
appears reasonable, especially when considering the overall size and area of yard space that will remain
after the addition is completed. The addition or proposed improvement would not appear to be out of
character with other homes in this neighborhood.
The Applicants specifically designed this “angled” look to the addition in order to minimize the impacts
to the easterly neighboring property, including having the new garage doors face directly out towards
Emerson Avenue instead of towards the next-door neighbor’s residence or windows (as they do today).
Staff finds the overall use and enjoyment of the home and property does not change; and the Applicant’s
desire to construct this addition/garage feature to the existing house, even one that requires this
variance, can be considered a reasonable request and use of the property.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Report- Case No. 2020-09 Page 5 of 8
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: The nature of the curve in the road is such that our plan to expand and the
design created have the closest point of the planned garage/living area to be just inside of the 30’
setback. Measurements to either side of the closest point exceed the 30’ setback. The distant to the
neighboring property is over 16’ (more than the required 12-1/2’).
Staff’s Response: There may be some unique circumstances to this property, particularly with the
curvilinear shape of the front ROW/property line along Emerson Avenue. As noted previously, the
home’s current setback of 45-ft. (measured from the front wall face) is well above the minimum 30-ft.
setback standard for this R-1 zoned property; and the angled design of the addition, resulting in the 17-
ft. setback from the side yard, also meets and exceeds the 12.5-ft. setback required in this zone. As a
result of this addition to the side (or front) edge of the existing home, the closest point results in varying
degrees or measurements caused by this curved property line segment.
The two measurements taken perpendicular to the outer walls of the addition show the addition at
approx. 36-ft. and 30-ft. (+/-) respectively, with the closest direct measurement from the corner to the
lot line equals 27-ft. The city may want to give added weight or consideration to the 36-ft. setback
coming straight off the front face of the new garage, as this is where the driveway is being realigned to
work directly with the garage door openings on this side, and lends support to the arguments for
considering this front face of the garage as the “true” or identifiable front yard setback to be concerned
with under this variance case.
Staff believes that due to the curved roadway/lot line segments along this property, there may be some
unique circumstances that are present on this site, which circumstances were not created by the current
owners, and therefore lend some weight to supporting this setback variance.
3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response: The plan/design we created would fit well with the current homes in our
neighborhood; makes the addition look like the home was designed that way as opposed to the 1964
built home with a 2020 addition.
Staff’s Response: The neighborhood is all but residential in character. The new addition represents a
considerable investment by the Applicants to bring their existing 1960’s style dwelling into a nicer,
more up-to-date home for their own use. Staff believes the Applicant has demonstrated through their
architectural/construction design plans, that the new addition and attached garage features will not look
out of place or character for the neighborhood, or detract from the overall design and feel of the existing
neighboring properties or overall neighborhood. Staff believes the essential character of the
neighborhood would not be altered by granting the variance.
4. Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations
into account alone should not be the reason for either denying or approving variances. In this case,
the property owners are requesting to provide a nice and substantial addition to their home, which
will provide added living space, with an added bonus of extra-large space for vehicles and
household equipment. This new addition/garage requires a small corner encroachment (3-ft.),
which does not impact much in the front yard or reduces the remaining “useable” yard space
throughout the property.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Report- Case No. 2020-09 Page 6 of 8
Although one may conclude this new attached garage/addition will provide some economic value
to the owner by increasing the property value of the home and/or marketability (future sale), the
Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and some reasonable
explanations for requesting this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may
affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting
this variance.
b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family
Residence district, as this proposed addition with attached garage are all consistent and allowed as
a permitted use in the underlying zoning. The city is not allowed to permit a variance on any use
not allowed in the district where the property is located (i.e. “use variance”); and this variance is
not requesting such use. The R-1 districts are most predominant throughout the community; and
the zoning standards are intended to maintain proper spacing between structures and roadway, and
sustain the general character of this and other neighborhoods.
The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030
Comprehensive Plan, and the same is called for proposed 2040 Plan. Certain land use goals and
policies are noted below:
• LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and
character of the community.
• LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level
in community development and building.
• LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic
level in community development and building.
The guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and
enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the
residential character of the neighborhood and would provide a substantial investment in a property
to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner.
The proposed garage/addition poses no threat or any effect on light and air, as well as the danger
of fire and the risk to public safety. This new addition and request for variance can be viewed or
considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the
current and proposed land use plans for the community.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the variance to allow a reduced setback of 27-feet for the property
located at 791 Emerson Avenue, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting
of the variance requested herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Report- Case No. 2020-09 Page 7 of 8
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to
justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setback, by:
i.) the proposed dwelling addition and attached garage to the existing home is consistent with
other homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use
and enjoyment of the home and property does not change even with the allowance of the
variance, and therefore the requested variance can be considered a reasonable request.
ii.) the subject property was originally platted in 1960, creating a uniquely shaped lot with a very
curvilinear front lot line configuration, which in turn generates some unique circumstances
or difficulties for the Applicant to properly site the new addition along a front lot line (most
of which are typically flat or parallel with a street edge), except by means of this variance.
iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the
neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area will not be affected by the approval
of this variance; and
iv.) This new addition and request for variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose
of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for 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 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 needed for this addition will not affect or
pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
D. Approval of the Variance is for 791 Emerson Avenue 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. 2020-
09, dated and presented May 26, 2020 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully
incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-____. (final number to be assigned later)
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 encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than three feet (3’) into
the required 30-foot front-yard setback, as illustrated on the site plan included in the
application submittal, on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2020-09.
ii.) The proposed garage addition and all other proposed improvements shall be constructed in
compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards.
iii.) The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or
construction of the new garage addition.
iv.) The new driveway must not exceed 25-feet in even width from the curb line of the street to
the front lot line/ROW edge. The Public Works Director shall approve the final design and
location of any new driveway entry.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Report- Case No. 2020-09 Page 8 of 8
v.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of
the existing residential dwelling.
vi.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
vii.) 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.
viii.) Residential construction hours are 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00
PM on weekends. These work hours shall be strictly adhered to by the Applicant/Owner and
all contractors working on the property.
ix.) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and
corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall
obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one-year from said
approval date.
2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the
Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested
herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order
to justify the granting of a Variance for the reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential
to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a
variance to a normal setback standard is not considered a reasonable use of the property, especially
if the Applicant were to reduce the addition size or realign the addition to fit on the lot, thereby
eliminating the need for this variance.
C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is
not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique
circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood).
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days,
in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of
the variance with findings of facts to support the granting of said variance, with the conditions noted therein.
Attachments
1. Aerial/Site Location Map
2. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative)
3. Site & Elevation Plans
WACHTLER AVEEMERSON AVE
MEDORA RDSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYFARMDALE RDKNOLLWOOD LNC
H
E
R
R
Y
H
IL
L
R
D
1ST AVE
IVY LNCLEMENT ST3 R D A V E
M E D O R A C T
KNOL
L
WOOD
L
N791 EMERSON AVENUEJohn & Paula Grosenick(General Location Map)
City ofMendotaHeights0390
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
5/22/2020
781
791
1380
1390
777
790 784
1330
1373
1322
WACHTLER AVEEMERSON AVE791 EMERSON AVENUEJohn & Paula GrosenickProperty Map)
City ofMendotaHeights060
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
5/22/2020